Ros Barber Waxes Blithe on Self-Publishing in The Guardian
I think a lot of traditionally published authors, or would-be traditionally published authors, want Barber’s points to be true in order to justify their own fear of change. But the fact is, none of what she says is true–as this post points out. Rather, she offers a fanciful justification of why no author should have to consider any changes to the publishing industry occurring later than 1925.
Novelist Ros Barber wrote a piece for The Guardian’s Books blog last week that tacitly pans self-publishing in favor of traditional publication.* Entitled “For me, traditional publishing means poverty. But self-publish? No way,” the article is a list of points explaining why Ms. Barber won’t self-publish, and why you shouldn’t either. Here’s my point by point rebuttal.
“You have to forget writing for a living.”
“If you self-publish your book, you are not going to be writing for a living. You are going to be marketing for a living. Self-published authors should expect to spend only 10% of their time writing and 90% of their time marketing.”
Barber’s first assertion, like all those that follow, is anecdotal at best and a blind assertion without any evidentiary support at worst. The only explanation for the 90/10 percent ratio she cites is that a single self-published author who commented on her…
View original post 2,129 more words
