Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
But it is lazy to publish a book that is not ready for publishing.
|
Bad editing cannot be totally construed as lazy. Perhaps more like being far too keen to publish
Quote:
|
I still do not get it. And from what I have heard she is right. If you write good enough you will find a publisher.
|
Not true at all. Some of the best authors I have read have self published. I doubt they would ever have been traditionally published by the BPH's, who pick and chose those authors they expect to get massive returns from.
These days being spoiled for choice for good reads is a great place to be, rather than struggling through reams of BPH published works sold for exorbitant prices.
Quote:
One of the standard lines from people like Sue is that the self-publishing success stories are the exception. No shit. The same goes for the traditionally published success stories. 99% of all manuscripts submitted to the traditional machine never even land an agent. 99% of those that do, even if published, end up lost in the shelves with their spines out and nobody looking for them. After a few months, the books are returned. Those same books go out of print, and their authors continue working their day jobs and writing, writing, writing.
Sue thinks being one of the 1% of the 1% is the way to go. I say, if you’re going to win the lottery, why not do it in the state of Self-Pub where you keep 70% of the take instead of 15%? And really, who cares about the outliers? I’m more concerned with the midlisters.
Here as well, I’d rather be self-pubbed. The midlister on the traditional trajectory is the one with a $5,000 advance, a spine-out book in a brick and mortar store that fewer and fewer people frequent, and then an out of print book they can’t get the rights back to. No thanks.
|
Sums it up really.