This is the new "respectable" title for self-publishing. People are doing it more and more now - we had a talk on it a few months ago at a Society of Authors meeting. I am not convinced by it, because I still feel a great deal of this writing "isn't very good". There is plenty of stuff that is published that "isn't very good" but this suggests that the self-published stuff is probably worse. The two people I know who are thinking about it are OK writers, but don't write the sort of stuff I'd like to read.
I remember years ago I got paid for editing someone's book: it was a novel based on the experiences of a jobbing actress. It had a number of interesting anecdotes - but not enough, and the rest of it felt a bit thin. You can disguise thin material if you write beautifully - but if you don't it's just thin, and people can see it. Had the author felt strongly enough about it, she would have self-published, nowadays she might well take the digital route. The Guardian published a whole feature on this phenomenon last week. Would I self-publish? No, because I feel my writing is better than a lot of stuff that gets published, and ought to be published and will eventually be published. Also, I want to write - not spend all my time marketing my books.
As a result of my months on the Authonomy website I have read an enormous amount of bad writing - it's not "bad writing" in the sense that it's appalling - it's just that it's not very good. The people who would enjoy this sort of writing are probably not the book-buying public - hence the reason publishers don't publish it - since schools and libraries are unlikely to want to stock it either. So I am pinning my faith on the usual process, and not punting on becoming a digital publishing millionaire.
I remember years ago I got paid for editing someone's book: it was a novel based on the experiences of a jobbing actress. It had a number of interesting anecdotes - but not enough, and the rest of it felt a bit thin. You can disguise thin material if you write beautifully - but if you don't it's just thin, and people can see it. Had the author felt strongly enough about it, she would have self-published, nowadays she might well take the digital route. The Guardian published a whole feature on this phenomenon last week. Would I self-publish? No, because I feel my writing is better than a lot of stuff that gets published, and ought to be published and will eventually be published. Also, I want to write - not spend all my time marketing my books.
As a result of my months on the Authonomy website I have read an enormous amount of bad writing - it's not "bad writing" in the sense that it's appalling - it's just that it's not very good. The people who would enjoy this sort of writing are probably not the book-buying public - hence the reason publishers don't publish it - since schools and libraries are unlikely to want to stock it either. So I am pinning my faith on the usual process, and not punting on becoming a digital publishing millionaire.
No comments:
Post a Comment