I couldn’t agree with this more.
The major publishing houses are not great boon, but neither is self-publishing and vice versa. To the reader, the matter comes down to: a great book.
That said, there is the question of distribution. Unquestionably your book will be in more physical stores traditionally published than not. For those writing the applicable genres there’re things like the Scholastic Book Fairs to consider, where only select agents or select publishing houses are allowed entry — self-published is barred.
Still, self-published could compensate for that lack of visibility with a lower price … possibly.
It all comes down to luck and talent in proper alchemical proportions, I suppose.
- The Madness of the Value of Books (amberskyeforbes.wordpress.com)
- Word counts – Can they be forgotten like the traditional publishing houses? (jamsnroses.wordpress.com)
- Self-publishing a book: 25 things you need to know (reviews.cnet.com)
- The Future of Short Fiction is Looking Good (pageturnerblog.wordpress.com)
- Author Solutions’ dances into the DIY e-book market with Booktango (reviews.cnet.com)
The merits of self-publishing vs. traditional-publishing has been discussed at great length in various blogs from the point of view of authors. Never, or very rarely has this been discussed from the point of view of readers; the people that ultimately buy the books. This is my attempt to correct that.
This blog is inspired by The Trials of Self-Publishing: Why I Consider It a Last Resort and Eisler on Digital Denial.
When I buy a book, I don’t consider the publisher at all. Whoever published the book doesn’t matter. This also means I don’t care if it’s been self-published. Not one bit. It does matter how well it’s written and edited — and that there aren’t so glaring grammatical errors I’m not sure what’s being said.
To dispel a myth, traditional publishers offer little protection from any of those points. True, I can be reasonably sure…
View original post 1,608 more words