Self-publishing: is more choice always a good thing?

Much has been written about the increase in choice bought about by self-publishing: more choice for authors, and more choice for readers. On the whole this is undoubtedly a good thing. Allowing authors to write and publish the books that they want to write and publish rather than what the publishing industry thinks they should publish is good for everyone involved. It gives writers more freedom and readers a greater range of books to choose from.

But there is also another side to this, one that poses a couple of challenges for writers and readers alike. For writers, self-publishing might have made it easier to get books published, but it has also increased competition. It is hard to get noticed and, for readers, the increase in choice can lead to a dilemma: how can you tell which books are actually good?

This can make it harder for self-published authors to get noticed, especially if some readers react by sticking to what they know, looking out for authors they already read and rarely taking risks on other books. It’s also why trial and error still plays such a part for both writers and readers. For readers, the increased choice is great but there’s no guarantee that every book they pick up will be their cup of tea. For writers, there is still a significant amount of luck involved in success.

However, we shouldn’t be disheartened. Despite the challenges it poses, self-publishing is a good thing. The extra choice is better than less choice and, from the perspective of both writers and readers, you never know when you are going to strike gold. That potential on its own is more than reason enough to celebrate the benefits of the choice provided by self-publishing.