Hi Jeff What are your views on self vs traditional publishing?

Jeff Kalac Thank you for the question, Prakash.

In some respects, I think of self-publishing and traditional publishing in much the same light. Several authors form their own imprint, much like the major publishers do. Indies promote their titles, and a large amount of that is also found in being traditionally published. It's very possible to match the quality of product that traditional publishers offer, and it's also possible to match market availability... but, alas, see the next paragraph.

With self-publishing, it's all on the shoulders of the author. Everything from the novel's content to its appearance to its availability in the market. This can be wonderful and empowering... or humbling.

While it's true that traditional publishers often require authors to be active during promotional campaigns, there's a lot of help along the way--something that is not true at all in the case of the indie publisher. As an indie, you're the one making the phone calls. You're the one buying ads. You're the one setting up a social media presence (as well as managing said presence). You're the one fighting for reviews. That sword--however bloody--is in your hands, and it's up to you to swing it.

It's true that an indie can produce work which is equal in quality to whatever Random House is stamping their name upon. However, as an indie, it's your editor. It's your proofreader. Those are your beta readers. Very few gatekeepers exist, since it's also up to you what you accept from the feedback of others. An indie can publish trash just as easily as she can publish treasure. Most readers have seen examples of both, and are often very justified in their unwillingness to try an indie author; this is especially true if the reader has never heard of that particular author. For those willing to take the plunge into your pool, it's up to you to win them over. I hope the pool's clean and the water's the right temperature.

As an indie, you have the same reach as a traditional publisher. That is, depending on how much money and time you're willing (or able) to invest. Purchasing ISBNs, gaining LCCNs, choosing your distributors, and ensuring the quality of the finished product... that's all on you. A traditional publisher would have you covered in these areas.

Both self-pubbing and going through a traditional channel serve the same idea, and that is to get your work into the hands of readers. It's really all in the difference of approach, as well as the consequences of each decision. Traditional publishers tend to make more experienced decisions, hence suffer less fallout.

While it doesn't sound like I'm painting all that great of a picture of self-publishing, there are many good reasons why a person would choose to do it. Myself, I'm the type of person who likes control over what I create. My goals as an author are simple and direct: I want to write the material I wish to write, and I would like to add entertainment and enjoyment into the lives of my readers. I don't desire fame or best-seller status, and I also don't want to run myself into the ground with ceaseless marketing. So for me, self-publishing is perfect! As an indie, it is what you want it to be. You can certainly go for the throat... or you can enjoy the ride, smell some flowers, and enjoy the experience. There's no all-or-nothing about it. You get out what you put in, and can level off at any time. It's all up to you.

flag