What are your thoughts on self-publishing? I’ve noticed more and more established writers (including some NYT bestselling authors) going this route, even when they don’t necessarily need to.
It's highly contextual. In many genres--such as romance--it seems to be normal and accepted to start off self-published, and then maybe seek out a traditional publisher (or be courted by them, if you're doing well enough). Many genre-specific audiences seem attuned to self-publishing and take it completely in stride. And then you have huge authorial brands, such as Brandon Sanderson, deciding to publish their own books because they believe they can market them as well or better as anyone else, and reap more of the profits.
That all seems well and good. But in the world I'm in--literary fiction--self-publishing remains essentially taboo. I think this is largely a mistake. If the point is that someone needs to sign off on your work, that's fine, but there are other ways to achieve it that don't give commercial entities a type of power they may or may not have earned. You could, for instance, find half a dozen writers who are willing to sign off on your book and blurb it, and then say you've been legitimated by the peers you aspire to have. Or we could form some kind of conclave that does this more formally, or something.
The upshot is that I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to assume that a publisher--someone who, even if they're a non-profit, still needs to try to recoup money from whatever they print and distribute--is indispensable in proving the artistic legitimacy of. a book. We do need to fix that particular problem. Maybe I'll work on that myself, or at least write more about it.
What are your thoughts on self-publishing? I’ve noticed more and more established writers (including some NYT bestselling authors) going this route, even when they don’t necessarily need to.
It's highly contextual. In many genres--such as romance--it seems to be normal and accepted to start off self-published, and then maybe seek out a traditional publisher (or be courted by them, if you're doing well enough). Many genre-specific audiences seem attuned to self-publishing and take it completely in stride. And then you have huge authorial brands, such as Brandon Sanderson, deciding to publish their own books because they believe they can market them as well or better as anyone else, and reap more of the profits.
That all seems well and good. But in the world I'm in--literary fiction--self-publishing remains essentially taboo. I think this is largely a mistake. If the point is that someone needs to sign off on your work, that's fine, but there are other ways to achieve it that don't give commercial entities a type of power they may or may not have earned. You could, for instance, find half a dozen writers who are willing to sign off on your book and blurb it, and then say you've been legitimated by the peers you aspire to have. Or we could form some kind of conclave that does this more formally, or something.
The upshot is that I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to assume that a publisher--someone who, even if they're a non-profit, still needs to try to recoup money from whatever they print and distribute--is indispensable in proving the artistic legitimacy of. a book. We do need to fix that particular problem. Maybe I'll work on that myself, or at least write more about it.
Good luck on the book publishing effort!
Thanks! It'll find some kind of home. Just been an interesting journey