I'm not knocking myself out for six months writing a book just to have some publisher reject my work. Screw that. I'll give it away for free and that's exactly what I've done. May not make me a dime, but at least I'm read. Typo's and all.
Does the number of readers matter at all? I'm asking because you'll most likely have a larger audience using traditional publishing.
I'll have 0 readers if I get rejected. So far I have 2250 free downloads on one book. That's more than 0
You'll never know for sure unless you submit. Also, are you planning on charging for your next book? I know there are many authors who give away their first books for free and then charge for every subsequent book.
The fact that you choose not to do it doesn't mean that it's pointless. I'm startled at the idea of being thwarted by six months and one rejection. If I ever get published, I assume that I'll likely spend years writing the book, quite possibly years polishing it, and will see dozens upon dozens of rejections before the thing gets published. If I want to publish without passing anyone's quality check, I'll do that on my blog--and I do exactly that, several times a month. I like having readers, but being my own vanity publisher and being read by a few dozen people isn't the same as being published.
The fact that you mention a publisher rejection and no agent ones suggests you may not have all the facts. Most published books get far more than one rejection. And if typos was the reasoning, you obviously didn't do all you could do to give yourself a shot.
Re. your first sentence - you seem sure that your work is going to be rejected, I wonder if that is a confidence thing or if you are not prepared to put in the work necessary to bring your work up to standard. Speaking for myself, I want to improve my writing/English grammar, therefore I do not want to read books with 'Typo's and all' (I don't want to pick up someone else's errors and bad habits) that is why I steer-clear of self-published works. There is a lot to be said for; being positive and believing in ones-self.
I don't care for the standard, "write forever, polish forever, rejected 26 times" model. That is a waste of time. I will let the public decide if my work is good enough for them. With the age of the internet, authors are no longer slaves to agents and publishers. I've gone straight to the consumer, the reason I write in the first place, and take the "middle man" out of the equation. If "Self-vanity" publishing is some sort of mark of a crappy writer then so be it. At least my work won't sit on my hard drive till the end of time.
We all make our own decisions based on our own judgments. When we look back later, some we rue and some we celebrate. I hope yours works out to your satisfaction. What I find interesting, though, is that while lots of people choose to self-publish, most who do so (at least the ones who discuss it on this site) still try to attain commercial success. Apparently, you don't want to risk consumer rejection, either.
Whatever makes you happy. Each writer needs to decide for himself why he writes, and how he wants to reach his intended audience. If you're happy doing it this way, good for you and more power to you.
I don't think you realize that you are the millionth person we've heard make these same statements. I am not against self-publishing, but you don't seem to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The language you use is both ignorant and disrespectful to those who choose to take the traditional route, and also those who work in the publishing industry. It's not self-publishing (which is different from vanity publishing) that marks a writer as anything. It's the approach and the attitude that you take towards it. I hope things work out for you, and I hope you become more informed about publishing in all of its forms.
I sympathize with the OP's frustrations and I can't even really cast stones at him for his approach. If he is content with the 2K readers who have downloaded his book for free, and is content to not make money on them (which you likely wouldn't make much of anyway), then who am I to criticize that? If an author is content with their chosen lot, then so be it. Lecturing him on the benefits and/or perils of this decision or that decision seems fruitless. He seems aware of what his decision means. So I say good for the author. Being content with your results is something I know I'm still chasing.
Your choice. To me it just sounds like another impatient, ill-informed, and, quite frankly, lazy writer who jumps on the self-publishing bandwagon simply because it can be done without much effort. But perhaps I'm wrong...
Lazy?...while you are sending your book back after your 27th rejection, mine will have been downloaded 10,000 times and read. Maybe your hard drive will enjoy your book, I'd rather have mine in somebody's ebook reader enjoying it. If you want to see my book, I'll send you a link. I don't think I'm allowed to post it here.
How do you know it is also getting read? I have downloaded several free books on my kindle that are still unread.
You got me, I guess I don't know for sure if they are being read. But I know they are closer to being read than stuck on my hard drive.
Hi, I don't have a problem with self-publishing, but I think you are making huge assumptions. Just because your book is downloaded, doesn't mean it is being read. And certainly doesn't mean it is being enjoyed. Unless you have feedback, other than the number of downloads, on your book how can you claim it is being read and enjoyed. This comes from someone who has downloaded loads of free ebooks from Amazon but hasn't yet read a single one.
I'm thinking about selling Tshirts or something, but its not like my website suffer by hundreds of unique visitors every day. Lets see after a while which way the business goes, but still I will not stop to send my books to publishers. As well as I will not stop to give them away for free if there's still no chance. It is not like chick will reject you and you feel like shit. Publishers aren't girlfriends, but a money makers.
There are a couple of assumptions there which others have noted (ie, read, enjoyed). But lazy to me means the authors who stubbornly refuse to edit/revise because that's "not important" and if trade publishers are too dumb to recognize the author's genius despite the lack of effort to correct those typos, they'll just pop it up on the internet and prove how wonderful it is. And people wonder why self-publishing has this stigma attached to it...
I download free e-books and read them... I enjoyed Moby Dick a great deal, and I'm thinking of reading Ivanhoe or The Black Arrow next.
I can understand your frustration...but I don't get the point of this post. Is it just to get others to validate your opinion? You seem to get a bit hostile when someone disagrees with you. If your goal to have your work read, regardless of compensation, publishing will do that for you; you probably won't make much, but, by being published, your book has been approved and recommended for public consumption. That means more people will feel like it's actually worth reading. At least, that's how I look at it. BTW, you could PM me the link to your book if you'd like. First of all, LOTR is the best thing that ever happened to literature and cinema. Second of all, how on earth could you have liked Moby Dick?! It was horrible...it started out great, but turned into some damn whale encyclopedia! Although it did have a few awesome lines ("I would strike the sun if it insulted me!" or something like that). Also, am I the only one that dislikes e-books? I guess it's just a matter of preference, but I'd rather hold a physical book.
