Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

As authors and readers, do you feel that in the current market the quality of a traditionally published books is always superior to the quality of a self published book?



Thanks.
Gamal

I feel that in most cases a self published work is indeed inferior to one published traditionally (though not always) because of the following reasons:
1. Even if it'd trashy no editor slams it because ad long as you are ready to pay it'll get published.
2. The book is usually not professionally proofread, or edited making the presence of factual, grammatical and sequential errors greater.
3. The reader before buying the book cannot usually get any quality. assurance. Usually people can judge by the publishing house what the average standard of the book shall be. But here its not so, making the reader wary of buying it.
4. It is immensely difficult for the author to market his book on his own single handedly. He has to become extra pudgy, which can at times be a bad thing for his reputation.

I just went through your article and I must say you have managed to convince me. There can be exceptions. Actually I am open to good writing at the end of the day, no matter who published it.

Thank you Ms. Dyuti

How much do you think self published authors would benefit by having their own team of professionals in place the same way publishers do? Does it make sense for independent authors like me to see themselves as publishers who oversee the entire process of book production instead of just as authors?

Thanks again for the feedback.

Have fun.
G

I think absolutes about almost nothing. There are plenty of manuscripts in sock drawers better than many trad pub books.

A team of pros is almost always better. A whole team comprises ten or more people. Pretty hard to be excellent at each of their jobs as well as writing good books. Plus the time involved in doing all those specialized jobs.

There are good and bad ones both in the traditionally published and self published ones. Just because a book is self published does not make it a bad one. Just like getting published by a traditional publisher does not guarantee the book is great. Or becoming a NYT best seller does not guarantee that the book is worth reading. Or just because an author wrote one fantastic book does not mean they won't get stuck to their own style for the later books... think of how many really popular authors that sell a lot have you ever tried and you were not impressed with the book you tried.

And I agree with James with the team of pros.
Much easier when you have the support and the finances of a whole team and publishing house. But there are always exceptions. The first one that comes to mind is Lady Justice series http://www.goodreads.com/series/53947... - it started (and I think still is) self published. A long time dream to become an author, and quite successful I think (lots of people love his books and they make the readers happier for a while, isn't that what every writer wants?).
But especially if going with the e-publishing route, it can be quite good for an author (just like for a game maker, or musician). If you get your books in iBooks store for instance, you get 70 % of what your book sells for. Now, of course it'll sell much better if it'll go for 99 cents or $1,99 than if it was $19,99 or $25 like the hard covers. Or free in the beginning to get some good feedbacks and to just see how people like them (at least for shorter stories, or for some specials). At least I'm thinking that the 99 cent story will sell a lot better than a $9,99 story. Or maybe if the first part of the book is free just to get the reader hooked, then they can buy the rest (like in so many trade paperbacks when you get the first 1-2 chapters of the next book by the same author as a teaser).