In discussions and forums, I have noticed that many people carry a low opinion of self-publishing authors. Why is that?

I am not suggesting that there are not some terrible self-published books out there. There are many very poor attempts that would have benefited from a professional editor. There are some that arguably should never have seen the light of day. However, the same is true of traditionally published works. I’ve seen New York Times best-selling authors who are painfully bad.

Why though, does self-publishing get the bad reputation?

Setting aside those authors who have no idea what they are doing, the world of self-publishing produces comparable – if not better – material than the traditional press.

Here are my wild, stab-in-the-dark, guesses as to why self-publishing is seen in such a poor light.

Out of date notions about publishers

I went through a lot of different titles for this guess. Eventually, I realized that what I was looking at was ideas that no longer hold any water.

Traditional publishing held the monopoly for so long because they sold us the idea that only a book accepted by a publishing house was worth reading. They convinced us that they were the gatekeepers holding back the tide of sub-par badly written works. They made us believe that a publishers imprint was a mark of excellence when all it really can be is a marketing brand.

For as long as the big publishing houses could convince us that they were the only measure of excellence in writing, they owned us. The publishers would not need to advertise or promote because we needed them to arduously seek out good authors.

Modern technology has shown that this message is utter bunk.

We do not need the publishers. The publishers need us. Without readers enslaved to the notion that they alone can provide quality authors, all they are is a company of old editors in dire need of a marketing department.

The jealousy of less disciplined writers

I do not know if this is a significant reason why people express a low opinion of self-publishing authors. It might be part of it. I have noticed writers who are yet to finish a novel are quick to dismiss others. Especially authors who have finished but then self-published.

Why would that be the case if not jealousy?

I suspect that these writers still dreaming of a big payday. As such their fragile egos cannot reconcile their fantasy with the hard graft of going it alone.

Maybe the sight of authors foregoing traditional publishing threatens their miss-informed dreams of being “discovered” and “making it big”. The truth that they are hiding from is that writing and being published are hard work. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. No one is waiting to write them a blank cheque. There is only hard work and then more hard work.

Half-finished works going to print too soon

Before a book is ready to be published it needs beta-readers, proofreaders, editors, copy-editors, and on, and on… There is a lot of work polishing a finished manuscript. I should know, I’ve been polishing mine for years. It is not good enough to show anyone else yet.

In a world where it takes only a few strokes of a keyboard to put something into print, some people will rush an unfinished product out of the door. That was always bound to happen. If your first and only self-published read was one of the rushed ones, you could be forgiven for thinking little of self-publishing. Yet you would be wrong.

Yes, modern technology has allowed everyone with an unfinished draft to try and see if it will sell. The only difference between the way publishing used to work and how self-publishing works now is that those terrible drafts happen in public.

Every good book that you love went though the same process. The only difference is, authors and publishers used to keep that part a secret.

Failing in public is the new black

In the time it takes a publisher to get one book to print, a self-published writer can have put ten or twenty attempts into the public space. Sure, most might have been duds but the writer has the time and the space to try, fail, and try again until they figure out what their readers are looking for. Meanwhile, the publishers stick to what they know and what they know is not all that much.

Failing used to be something that was so expensive, authors did it in private under the guidance of an experienced editor. Now though, it is faster and easier to do that in front of your readers and with their feedback.

The dinosaurs of publishing – the great and slow-moving ancient publishing houses will only be too pleased to point to bad examples of self-published works and say, “see, they are all bad. You need us.”

Just because they say it does not make it true. What they fail to mention are the books they too have rushed out of the door without due care and attention. Books to them are not art, they are a commodity. Stack them high, sell them cheap.

Self-published authors threaten the out-of-touch giants

Authors that care about their craft and who self-publish almost universally invest in editors, test readers, professional proofreaders, and so forth. Then, when the book is truly ready, they release it with whatever marketing skills they might have.

What these self-published authors will tell you, if you’d listen, is that they can make more money from fewer sales than if they had been traditionally published. Furthermore, many of them do a better job at marketing their books than the publishers do.

Old and dusty publishers don’t even understand how to make the most of book bloggers, yet. The last thing the big publishers want you to learn is that for self-disciplined writers, we do don’t need them. Few do.

The press has been suckling at the teet of publishers for far too long

National newspapers, like the Times and the Guardian, enjoy a cosy relationship with the big publishing houses. The newspapers lend credibility to the publishers claims of relevance and the publishers hand the press a list of easy to review authors to build biased top-ten lists out of.

Meanwhile, many authors have been quietly getting on with writing and selling books without either the newspapers or the publishing houses.

Both newspapers and publishing houses have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that traditionally published somehow equates to quality. But it is just that – a myth. Nothing more.

Why the low opinion of self-publishing authors?

I think the low opinion is because it suits certain groups of people to look down on self-publishing because the truth is too painful. The old ways are dead or next-door to dead and, a flood of rushed examples aside, self-publishing might be the future.

If it is not the future then it is certainly part of it. Along with smaller – lighter and more nimble – enlightened niche publishers.

The cost of publishing has diminished to almost zero. The barriers to entry have long ago evaporated and the big publishing houses are – sooner or later – going to have to answer the question: What exactly do you do for authors, then?