After reading, and enjoying, Konrath's post, I thought it made sense to look for something on the other side, so I thought I'd add this
defense of traditional publishing link.
Like Konrath's post, this series of defense articles by Steve Laube has some serious holes (when looked at from a writer's perspective). Part five, infrastructure, speaks of the publishers need to report to the IRS etc - as if authors didn't also need to report their own incomes, however derived. The legal/technical aspects of part five are interesting and of potential significance. The whole of part two, curation, is really about the position of the publisher (and agents I would remind him) as a gatekeeper - this may be okay
for readers, if/when it works, but doesn't serve the writer (keep in mind that rejected manuscripts only get form-responses, nothing useful that would help a writer to improve their work). The editorial and design aspects make sense, but then even Konrath acknowledges the need for an author to take care of these.
Does Konrath go over the top? Sure, but then being controversial is how you get people to link to your blog (and by extension, get to know who you are and possibly even buy one or your books
). However I do think that he makes some very good points (on the OP link, and on the related "are you dense" article).
Has Konrath changed my mind about looking for more traditional publishing options? I'm not sure yet, but it's definitely food for thought.