Why are we fighting?

The
self-publishing versus traditional publishing war is as retarded as it is emotionally-charged.
I’ve allowed myself to be carried by the horde, arguing for this or that, and I
still stand by what I feel is right for me. But who the hell am I to tell
someone else that’s right for them? That's none of my business.






Nathan
Bransford  (highly recommend following his blog) wrote an article
this week regarding the traditional versus self-publishing battle, that is
really reasonable and intelligent. He discussed the existence of this invisible
battle, and essentially asked why we’re fighting a battle that shouldn’t exist.
He felt it boiled down to making the right decision for your book, not the
right way versus the wrong way to publish. And I agree with him, mostly.



One
commenter respectfully disagreed with him right away. The argument was sound:
Self-publishing is extremely risky for new authors. Traditionally published
authors have a reader base, so they can roll the dice without worrying about
sabotaging their career.



I agree
with this guy (or gal) too.



There is no
“right” way for everyone anymore. I don’t think there ever was. The difference
now is that there are too many options available to everyone—even those who
shouldn’t have an option at all. But I think the message of Nathan’s article
may have been lost to the commenters. Why are we fighting amongst ourselves? He’s
right. We are writers. We produce content. We sell/give that content to
readers. We entertain, enlighten, and try to touch readers in some way. That is
our goal, and nothing else. Who cares if Joe Nobody self-published his book? Is
it good? Then, why focus on how he got it out there? Who cares if Jane Somebody
traditionally published? Is she any better than Joe? Worse? Then don’t buy her
book. Quit bitching about them. We’re tired of hearing it.



We need to
stop moaning that this person or that person shouldn’t be published. There will
always be someone on the bookstore
shelves who shouldn’t be published. It’s how this industry plays the game. I
don’t like it, and I used to be one of those moaners, but time and careful
evaluation of what my goals and such really are have mellowed me somewhat. Why
should I care if readers read shit? It’s not my business. My business is giving
them something worth reading, thus showing them the difference between a writer
who works hard at what she does, and one that shovels shit without a care to
whether it’s worth paying for. If said reader can’t make the distinction, it’s
not the shit writer’s fault, is it? What is being gained by insulting or
demeaning someone else’s work no matter how awful you think it is?



In terms of
whether we have the same amount of options between traditional and
self-published authors, I must disagree with Nathan. We don’t. New authors
should try the traditional route, if only by sending out a few queries. Just
try it. On the other hand, at some point in the query process, said authors
need to take a step back and admit to themselves that traditional publishing is
not the be-all and end-all to becoming a successful author.



Traditionally
published authors who’ve turned to self-publishing need to stop trying to
convince new authors they should skip the query process entirely. This is irresponsible
and really not fair. New authors are entering a maze filled with conflicting
advice and they really look up to those who have “made it.” If you’ve
published, even with a small publisher, and opted out of the traditional game,
consider where you were prior to publishing and what you learned by
experiencing both routes. It’s something everyone needs to experience, good or
bad. And give a gal a chance to build a reader base. Jesus, you did it, so why
not encourage others to exhaust every option just like you did. Everyone gets
different results because we make different choices and write different stories.
In telling a newb that traditional publishing is bullshit, you may have
encouraged her to toss away her shot at something big. Maybe her book will be
different than yours. Alternatively, you may have saved her a lot of heartache
too. But you can’t know what her experience will be. Writing should be hard. Publishing should be hard. You busted your ass and
got a stab at both methods so that you could then make an informed decision for
you. Get your head out of your ass
and let someone else make the same informed decision. Encourage others to
experience it regardless of how things worked for you.



Previously
published authors have a much better chance at succeeding with self-publishing
than new authors. I don’t care if they didn’t make the bestseller list, they
still have readers that most unpublished authors do not. This makes the choice
different for them. There’s not as much risk involved and not as many unknown
variables to consider. If you’re going to open your mouth to give advice, make
sure you haven’t biased that advice and made it useless.


But writers
in both camps should not be at odds. There shouldn’t even be separate camps. We
are writers. That’s it.






People love
drama. We like to feel part of a team. Otherwise the Team Eric/Team Bill (I’m
team Eric), Team Jacob/Team Edward (I’m team neither), etc. marketing ploys
would never work. But they do work, and they do it extremely well. The problem
is that we tend to pick fights where fights shouldn’t exist. Write your damn
book. Shut up about who is better. No one is “better.” There’s shit on the
traditional shelves and there’s shit on the self-published shelves. Who has
more shit or worse shit isn’t important. Your focus should be on NOT writing
shit. That’s all you should concern yourself with. Then, whatever shelf you
choose to put your book on has one less pile of shit than it did yesterday.