A casual reading of the self-POD blogs suggests that they tend to be started by self-published authors. After all, that is the main way people become involved in this side of the industry. Now, I have occasionally thought about self-publishing a book. I did, many years ago, produce home made zines. Two issues, to be exact. Then I discovered that it really is far more effort than you'd think. I have a similar feeling about self publishing. Sure, I have some stories where I have sold only the e-publishing rights--and some others that would not be easily publishable elsewhere due to style and content... and some poetry. But I also have a healthy suspicion that I simply couldn't devote enough time to self-publishing them to produce a product I would be proud of (let alone one that would sell).
But is this laziness on my part entirely a bad thing? For a start my failure to self-publish makes me a relatively impartial commentator. I have evidence that I am relatively impartial in that I get regularly accused of being both a nay-sayer and a cheerleader. My reply to these criticisms is: Look, Bub. Just what do you think is in it for me? I do not have a self-published book to sell. I have no stakes in this game... except as a reader. This is not to suggest I do not write, I do. I write erotica and romance books with occasional stories in print anthologies and a small press novel coming out in October. But my only interest in self-publishing is as a reader.
And it was as a reader that I discovered self-published books were often pretty bad, sometimes rather good and occasionally magnificent. This was something I wanted other readers to know. The only thing I wanted other writers to appreciate was that self-publishing has its place. It isn't on a pedestal or hidden down in the basement. Self-published books should be able to find a place on our bookshelves according to their merits. That was the only reason that I first started this blog and the associated website--out of a respect for good writing and a realisation that good self-published writing starts out at a distribution disadvantage because readers have to learn about it, they have to actively seek it out. And good self-published writers, who are considerably less lazy then me, deserve a little recognition.
But is this laziness on my part entirely a bad thing? For a start my failure to self-publish makes me a relatively impartial commentator. I have evidence that I am relatively impartial in that I get regularly accused of being both a nay-sayer and a cheerleader. My reply to these criticisms is: Look, Bub. Just what do you think is in it for me? I do not have a self-published book to sell. I have no stakes in this game... except as a reader. This is not to suggest I do not write, I do. I write erotica and romance books with occasional stories in print anthologies and a small press novel coming out in October. But my only interest in self-publishing is as a reader.
And it was as a reader that I discovered self-published books were often pretty bad, sometimes rather good and occasionally magnificent. This was something I wanted other readers to know. The only thing I wanted other writers to appreciate was that self-publishing has its place. It isn't on a pedestal or hidden down in the basement. Self-published books should be able to find a place on our bookshelves according to their merits. That was the only reason that I first started this blog and the associated website--out of a respect for good writing and a realisation that good self-published writing starts out at a distribution disadvantage because readers have to learn about it, they have to actively seek it out. And good self-published writers, who are considerably less lazy then me, deserve a little recognition.
Comments
So I say: the heck with them. I think you are providing a much needed service, keep up the good work.