When I decided to actually do this whole writing-a-book-thing, the big push to actually DO it came from a session at the annual Teachers' Convention about self-publishing.
Though I had wanted to write a book since before I can remember, I always thought it would involve an agent, and finding a publisher, and a contract or something...
I knew that self-publishing existed. I even had worked with someone once who said he had self-published a children's book. But I had almost no idea about anything beyond that. Why would someone self-publish? And how the hell would I ever do something like that?
No idea.
Zero. Zip. Zilch. (And other alliterative expressions.)
The session was a great introduction. It was a crash-course in self-publishing, geared for school projects and such. I got a lot of information.
And then I started researching. And I am still researching.
I will revisit the whole idea of how to self-publish when I get closer to actually going through the process itself.
But today, I want to focus on the difference between self- and traditional publishing, and exactly why I decided to go the self-publishing route.
First Things First: Some Explanations
These terms are actually pretty self-explanatory. Traditional publishing is the way that books have been published for generations. An author writes a book, and tries to find a publishing house that is interested in it. Sometimes said author will work with an agent, sometimes they will decide to go it alone. The author has to find publishing companies that seem to publish books similar to the one she has just written, then submit queries and wait to see if the company will publish it or reject it. Typically, once a company decided to publish a book, they will buy the rights from the writer, finish the book in terms of design, do some marketing, and distribute the book.
Self-publishing is exactly what it sounds like: the author basically does it all herself. Once the manuscript is ready and edited, she works on format and design (or hires someone to do it), publishes the book through one of the businesses available to do so, and takes care of distribution and marketing, all on her own.
Considering the Differences
There are a few things to consider when deciding which path to take here. Think of it as those two roads that make Robert Frost "sorry that [he] could not travel both". Though sometimes a company will pick up a self-published book after it has become successful (The Martian did it, and Fifty Shades of Grey, but I don't like to talk about that one), it is pretty uncommon, I understand.
So how to make the right choice?
Here are some questions to hopefully help make the decision a little easier:
1. When do you want your book?
Traditional publishing can take years. Self-publishing is as fast or as slow as you make it happen.
This is a big reason that I want to self-publish. I like to do something and get it done, and then go from there. I already have more ideas for stories; I do not want to spend six months at very best waiting to even here from a publisher before it even goes into production.
2. How much money and time are you willing to spend?
Marketing takes time and money. If you are good at it or interested in it, then self-publishing may be the way to go. Traditional publishing theoretically handles the marketing for you.
I have read, however, through my research, that emerging authors are expected to do a lot more of their own marketing, even when working with a publishing company. Generally, though, since you are usually paid an advance when traditional publishing, that marketing is not so much out-of-pocket. On the other sand, self-publishing allows you control over how that money and time is being spent towards marketing.
Marketing is a stumbling block for me because I am definitely a bit of an introvert. However, I am willing to work through that and learn how to do the whole marketing thing.
3. Why are you writing a book?
If part of the reason that you want to publish is to become a world-famous author, you are probably going to have to go the traditional route. The widespread market is basically only accessible to traditional distribution, and that means traditional publishing. I'm not saying the door to fame and renown is closed to self-published authors; I am just saying that the door is only open a crack.
If you dream of winning numerous literary prizes, or seeing your book in a wide variety of bookstores, or even becoming a household name, the odds are already against you, but they are even more against you if you are intending on self-publishing.
On the other hand, self-publishing often has a stereotype of being sub-par. Sometimes that is fair; there is a lot of bad self-published stuff out there. But you know what? There is a pretty large amount of bad traditionally-published stuff, too. (Like the one book I read as part of a book club where the author used the wrong "it's/its" and frequently mixed up character names. I'm serious.)
Me? I do not particularly care about that. In fact, I think I would rather avoid fame, thank you very much. (It's that introvert thing I just mentioned.) I just wanted to have a book, hold it up, and say, "This book is mine." That's enough prestige for me.
4. How much control do you want?
Traditionally-published authors get to work with a an established group of professionals, and there is rarely an up-front cost for it. The upside to that is obvious - built-in experts. The downside to that is you basically lose creative control. If you don't agree with the editor or the marketing that the company has come up with, there is not much you can do.
I think I would have a hard time slaving over something for months or years (only months for me, I promise!) only to have it completely change. I don't know though, as I also tend to trust most advice when I am first learning something.
The adage is, "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." I am not sure if I actually believe that, but if you do, then self-publishing is likely for you.
5. What can you take?
This is a tough one to explain, so I am going to use myself as an example.
When you are trying to be published, you need to develop a thick skin pretty quickly. There is going to be a lot of criticism coming, and it is not going to be done once your book is released.
The criticisms are there regardless, but there is also the rejections from houses when you are trying to find a traditional publisher. This can be good - it can help form you into a stronger writer, or narrow your search field more appropriately. Stephen King, for example, famously kept a suitcase full of rejection letters.
But I know me. I know that if I have to hear, for years maybe, that my book is not right for a company, and then wait even more years to go through the process once I actually find a company willing to publish it... That seems daunting. And I am not 100% sure what the payoff for that would be, instead of just doing it myself.
6. What genre are you writing?
Self-publishing tends to be very popular for certain types of genre-fiction. I see a lot of fantasy and science fiction, for example. Most pieces seem to be plot-driven and exciting.
This is definitely going to be a problem for me. My book is more character-driven. It is closer to literary fiction, though it could be classified as women's fiction. Regardless, though, it is definitely not as typical as most self-published books, and I do think this is going to make it considerably trickier to market.
So there you have it: Some of the reasons to choose either traditional publishing, or self-publishing. There is a myriad of other or in-between options, but these are the two "biggies" now. While I am currently choosing to self-publish, there is no rule that says that is the only thing I ever do. Who knows what can happen down that path.
Which publishing route do you think has more positives? If you are an author, which path did you take? Why? I would love to read your comments, below. And don't forget to subscribe to my website! I am so excited about the next newsletter, coming soon!