Do I have the right to say “that book should never have been published”?
According to a participant in a discussion on self-publishing I’ve been involved in, I do not. After all, if I didn’t like the book, others might have.
But I don’t mean the divisive books of the world – the books I didn’t like, but others did, the Twilights and Eragons of the literary landscape. Nor do I mean the self-published books that were submitted to traditional publishers and rejected because they were “not right for us at this time” or “not marketable in the current market”, which authors decided they would go it alone with.
Continue reading “That book should never have been published.”
I see myself as much a reader as a writer here, if not more so. I do intend, when the time comes, to self-publish what I write; I like the advantages it offers in terms of control, royalties and swiftness of reimbursement. As such, I want to see the self-publishing industry succeed, not just for my own prospects, but because it offers a variety to readers which traditional publishing does not – it contains books which might not be “marketable” or might be “too risky” to the traditional publisher, but which actually are very good, very enjoyable books.
The problem is that self-publishing’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: its inclusivity. It means that anyone can publish – good or bad. Finished or unfinished. And that’s what I want to address today.
Continue reading Self-publishing Quality