The "Shame" of Self-Publishing?

Time for me to sound off about something that's been bothering me quite a bit lately. Due to the advances of publishing and the internet in recent years, doors have opened recently to authors who might have never seen their stories published otherwise. I'm talking, of course, about self-publishing.

Several years ago, published writers were few and far between. While you could find a few here and there, for the most part the only moneymakers were the big name writers. As a result, only the brave and strong tried their hand at writing (and for the most part got rejected). Then POD (or "Print On Demand") publishers entered the game. Now anyone with a story could see it in print for a price (and sometimes even for free!). Suddenly there were thousands of people calling themselves "authors", where the title had been reserved for only a few before.

Did this cheapen the title? Possibly. But it also allowed stories to be read that we might never have seen before. It allowed us to see worlds and meet characters we'd have never seen otherwise. Some "traditionally-published" authors (those supported by a publishing house) began to get upset, even going so far as to say the self-published writers weren't really authors at all since they had to pay to get their story out there.

I say...what a bunch of garbage.

If you've written a novel-length story (65,000 words or more), you're a writer. If you've written a novella or a short story, you're a writer. Published or not, if you've sunk the hours and months necessary into seeing a story come to life, you are definitely a writer. And if you've paid your own money to see your book published, you're still a writer.

If I go see a band and like their music, I'll usually buy their cd. I don't grab it and see who produced it, or what company put it out. I like the music, I want to hear more of it, so I buy it. It's amazing to me how folks will salute a band who sinks their own money into making an "independent album" (meaning in effect they "self-pubished" the album), but will belittle those authors who believe so much in their own work that they'll pay to have it put out there for others to read. An artist who sells their paintings on a sidewalk is still an artist. An actor who only does community theater is still an actor. And to that group I'd like to add, "An author who publishes their own novel is still an author."

I am a traditionally-published author. I write novels and short stories. And I'm proud to say I self-published my first novel. While I will continue to "traditionally-publish" most of my work, there will probably be a few projects in the future I'll self-publish. I have one idea in particular that I believe will sell, though I doubt any publisher would be willing to sink thousands of dollars of their publishing budget into. Nevertheless, I believe in the story and the concept, and I want to get it into the hands of the readers, so when the time comes I'll happily and unashamedly self-publish it.

If you've taken the time to write a story and can't find a publisher interested in buying it, don't throw it away. Most publishers only put out a handfull of novels a year, so the vast majority of writers will never see their manuscripts bought. But if you believe in your story and want to share it with others, don't be ashamed to self-publish it. And if some insecure traditionally-published author says you're not a real writer, what do they know? It's just their opinion. What would you rather do: have a story languishing in a top drawer somewhere that you feel is good, or have a story that published and out there for others to enjoy?

Share your story with the rest of us! There's no shame in self-publishing!

Powered by Qumana