Quality is Key in Writing
Quality is the key factor in prolonging the preference for traditionally published over self published efforts. I'm referring to the quality of writing, editing, production, distribution and policy. This came to mind as I read the first book I knew was self-published, and by BookSurge no less. I was especially interested in the quality of the physical object and the appearance of the printed pages. The book proved a pleasant surprise. Nice layout, decent paper, great cover. From the quirky font used for page numbers and the plethora of illustrations, I suspect it was printed from .PDF files, probably prepared by the author.
All too often, self-published books look like they were printed on paper recycled from public toilets. Other problems include spacing issues between lines, letters, words and text on the pages (margins). Blah covers predominated the ones I've seen. Writing difficulties suggest a lack of professional editing. In fact, a lack of professionalism in most aspects marks self-publishing efforts, and this is what traditional publishing usually brings to the effort. Or maybe I should say, the professional touches used to be apparent. This winter I received a book for review from a Random House imprint. I had to check to see if they used "green" paper, but no such notice appeared. The paper was grey!
Self-publishing authors cannot be expected to be experts in the intricacies of sales to bookstores and distribution of products, as well as commandeering advertising and marketing campaigns. A focus on producing high quality writing is enough for a one career. Publishing books is a complex industry that interfaces with and spawns other types of employment, e.g., printing being the most apparent. The traditional book industry's business model may be flawed, but the dinosaur lumbers on. Selling books to the public is yet another specialized type of work.
It is the lack of quality in all aspects, beginning with missing gatekeepers, that continues the bias against representing, reviewing, listing, and carrying self-published material. Many DIYers wind up becoming small publishers after learning all the elements involved with a first book (and often making many mistakes). When the inequity in quality reaches a balance (no matter how achieved), the disparity and disdain will automatically disappear. But no one person can do it all and well.
All too often, self-published books look like they were printed on paper recycled from public toilets. Other problems include spacing issues between lines, letters, words and text on the pages (margins). Blah covers predominated the ones I've seen. Writing difficulties suggest a lack of professional editing. In fact, a lack of professionalism in most aspects marks self-publishing efforts, and this is what traditional publishing usually brings to the effort. Or maybe I should say, the professional touches used to be apparent. This winter I received a book for review from a Random House imprint. I had to check to see if they used "green" paper, but no such notice appeared. The paper was grey!
Self-publishing authors cannot be expected to be experts in the intricacies of sales to bookstores and distribution of products, as well as commandeering advertising and marketing campaigns. A focus on producing high quality writing is enough for a one career. Publishing books is a complex industry that interfaces with and spawns other types of employment, e.g., printing being the most apparent. The traditional book industry's business model may be flawed, but the dinosaur lumbers on. Selling books to the public is yet another specialized type of work.It is the lack of quality in all aspects, beginning with missing gatekeepers, that continues the bias against representing, reviewing, listing, and carrying self-published material. Many DIYers wind up becoming small publishers after learning all the elements involved with a first book (and often making many mistakes). When the inequity in quality reaches a balance (no matter how achieved), the disparity and disdain will automatically disappear. But no one person can do it all and well.
posted by Georganna Hancock M.S. | 7:35 AM
1 Comments:
You note that "a lack of professionalism in most aspects marks self-publishing efforts, and this is what traditional publishing usually brings to the effort." Although you provide the caveat that traditional publishing does not always reflect the professionalism that one should expect from it, I think you do self-published authors a disservice by tossing them in the trash. The technology for print on demand books is improving every day and more writers are becoming savvy to the pros and cons of self-publishing. The Writing Show with Paula B. has interviewed a number of POD authors who enjoy at least a modest success, and websites that review POD books are sprouting up (see, for example, POD Books and More), providing some gatekeeping for the discriminating reader.
Any author who wants to see her work in print and not be embarrassed by it should study closely the wealth of information on self-publishing in general and PODs in particular (for a start, she could visit my blog at www.1writeway.wordpress.com). At a minimum, she should retain an editor who can apply the necessary objective eye to her writing. Although chain bookstores usually refuse to place a POD book, small independent bookstores often fill that gap. With some effort (along with fortitude and an obsessive persistence), a self-published author might develop a fan base within her own community. It's possible and it's worth the effort of any writer who wants to see her writing in print but who has grown weary and disillusioned by the seemingly never-ending rejections from traditional gatekeepers. Should a dedicated writer never see her words in print just because traditional publishers shoo her away? What if John Irving had given up on The World According to Gorp?
What bothers me most about the argument against self-publishing is the assumption that the gatekeepers of traditional publishing know what's best for readers. They will ensure that we have access to only the best (in their opinion) writing. Unfortunately, what I often see while I stroll through the aisles at my local Borders is the same old, lowest-common-denominator fodder, whether in fiction or non-fiction.
Some of our greatest authors were self-published (Virginia Woolf, Walt Whitman, to name a couple). Would our traditional gatekeepers publish them today? What would American or English literature be like today if Walt Whitman or Virginia Woolf had not had the toughness of ego to publish their writing? For sure, Michael Cunningham would have had no subject for his novel, The Hours.
But thank you for sharing your thoughts, Georganna. Self- vs. traditional publishing is an interesting debate and one that will likely go on for much longer.
Ciao,
Marie
Post a Comment
<< Home