|
If a rejection letter means that the book isn't good enough that implies that the publisher is infallible. Otherwise, all that can be said is that the publisher didn't think the book was good enough. And even that is assuming that the publisher gave detailed reasons for rejecting the book. Without it, all that you know is that the publisher didn't accept it.
Yes, there are a lot of bad self-published books. But I don't pick out books at random, whether they traditionally published or self-published. By all means, if you don't want to read self-published books, fell free not to read them. I've read and enjoyed a number of self-published books. The publishers can and do make mistakes. Why should I be deprived of good books just because the publisher made a mistake?
|