A great post David; thanks for taking this debate from Twitter onto your blog. As always, you make some excellent points. There are some I disagree with.

As you know, I’m self-published. By choice. This isn’t because I reject the ‘old publishing model’ – far from it: I have no issue at all working with a publisher, agent or both. For me, self-publish allows me to find my feet; test the waters. It’s an interesting route to market – one which enables me to build an audience without first finding a publisher.

So, the points I don’t agree with. “What happens when the materials runs out.” Why would this happen? New writers start writing every day. New writers are born every day. I can’t see a valid reason for indie authors to evaporate – in the same way I can’t see a reason for traditionally published authors to evaporate. I wrote The Well from scratch. I’m working on my next novel from scratch along with a collection of short stories. I agree that the market does contain people revisiting rejected stuff, but so what? How many times was Harry Potter rejected? Rejected does not have to mean it’s rubbish: it just means it’s rejected. 

You make an excellent point about having the energy to continue if the money is just a trickle. My fiction-writing does not provide my income, no doubt about it. Sales are ‘OK’ but reviews are excellent – 4/5 stars. I’m building an audience, slowly. Yes, I’d prefer it with a publisher – but I prefer doing it on my own to not doing it at all. My answer is that I will continue to write – around my day job, of course. If reviews were terrible across the board, that would be a better reason to throw in the towel.

I agree, Amanda Hockling is atypical.  It’s a good press story. But having a traditional publishing deal doesn’t mean you’re selling millions. Many, many authors fail to sell their initial runs. I don’t believe I’m fated to be a Hockling-like success, but that’s OK. If I can get my income, or part of it, from writing, I’m cool with that. But again, I don’t see that indie/traditional is a determining factor in success, though I’d say that the chips fall down in the side of traditional because of publishers’ marketing power, review contacts, expertise, experience and many more things. Being serious about writing and being indie is damned hard – I know it, I had to pay for my own editor, proofreader, illustrator, you name it. I’m now directing the (rather ambitious) trailer for The Well. 

And too true, why shouldn’t Hockling take a traditional publishing deal? It means that she can concentrate on writing (mainly) and not the million other things that an agent or publisher would handle for you. As I said: I self-published for pragmatic reasons not ideological ones. I’d work with a publisher who believed in me, no problem.

I’m not sure I agree on saturation, though I think inevitably that there is a flood of unrestricted material hitting the virtual shelves. Since it’s actually pretty hard to write a novel, or more than one, I can’t see people keep throwing themselves at writing if they don’t get anywhere. I think that the market will decide who’s good and not – and those who don’t sell will give up. But perhaps for every 100 (or 1000) people who publish something turgid, a writer who is a real gem will be found – someone who perhaps will have pounded the streets for years being turned down by publishers.

Standards is an issue. I agree: it’s Kindle’s day. As an indie, it’s frighteningly hard to prepare manuscripts for different channels. That’s why I’ve stuck with Amazon, Lulu and the iBookstore. I’m pragmatic. And short on time.

Visibility. Spot on. It’s hard for self-publishers to access the same forums as traditional authors since there’s no value in it to anyone else involved.

What concerns me is that some people still judge the self-published as a mass, without considering the work of individual authors – as if my writing is less real or valid simply by virtue of not having the affirmation of a publisher. No publisher has rejected my work – because I’ve not approached one.  My first novel is getting 4/5-star ratings and excellent reviews from the people that matter. (And these don’t mainly comprise, as Nicola Morgan said, other unpublished writers.) I just love the prejudice in that terminology: unpublished. I’m not unpublished: I’m self-published.

It also concerns me that there is some really unhelpful polarisation in this debate. Self-publishing is just a route to market. Nothing more.  Being traditionally published is not, in itself, any assurance of quality; being self-published is not, in itself, any proof that the work is of less quality or worth.

The bottom line – your bottom line – is that you need a damn good publisher. Need is a strong word. But actually, I agree – so you can concentrate on your craft and maximise the time writing. I suspect I can only go so far as an indie. 

So, if I publisher snaps me up tomorrow, is The Well suddenly a ‘real’ book? 

Wonderful post David – and I mean that. You’re a great, sharing writer, I love your blog.