This past week, Jane Friedman posted an article on Writer Unboxed about the benefits of traditional publishing. Her article focuses on some of the primary concerns of many commentators on this blog, namely the higher quality (or perceived higher quality) of traditionally published novels. She concludes that some writers are simply better off with the professional assistance associated with traditional publishing.
On the other side of the battlefield, Joe Konrath, commenting on a guest post by Barry Eilser, makes another argument in favor of indie publishing. Among other things, Joe argues that both indie publishing and traditional publishing require "luck" for a book to sell, and he concludes that “legacy publishing requires a lot more luck than going solo.” He also notes that “[w]hen you throw in poor royalty rates, dwindling paper distribution, returns, and non-existent marketing budgets, it is almost astronomical that any new author ever makes money” in traditional publishing.
Now that my novel is finished, I’ll remain focused on this debate. But let me know what you think – which side is winning this battle?
|Who represents the English and who represents the French?|