Self-Publishing - Yay or Nay?

I recently came across an article about children and self-publishing in the New York Times, and I'm curious to see what people think about this whole issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/yo ... .html?_r=2

In my opinion, I think that the regular way of publishing, going through real developed publishing companies is much better in the long run. Sure, self-publishing is faster, and that's why it's so popular in this society of instant gratification.

BUT, this also could have a negative impact on the children being published. I know that this is not true for every situation, but the message that these parents seem to be sending to their children is that anyone can be a writer, and you don't have to work at it. (Which is absolutely not true. There are very few - if any - professional writers who were actually as talented as they are now when they were children, much less had finished work that would be considered good writing. Everyone is bad at the start, that's why we're on sites like this one. To improve!)

Please keep in mind that this is just my opinion.

I'm curious to see what other people here think about all this though. Is self-publishing a good thing? Will it become the future of publishing as some seem to think? Do you agree or disagree with my opinion above?

Discuss!

Sorry, but it's a nay for me.

Even though going through a publisher is going to cost you a hell of a lot of money, in the long run it has to be better, right? Surely there's a much slimmer chance of getting your novel popularised if you self publish? One example of this which springs to mind is Eragon.

I think people like the idea of self publishing because they don't want to face the denial from publishers. But denial is all part of being a writer, it's how you improve - if you self publish, will you ever truly get the feedback from your work that will help improve your skills? In my opinion, no.

Publishing through a proper publishing house never costs you any money. They get their pay when people start buying your book, not when you start giving them money that real publishing houses don't ask for.

Traditional publishing is significantly harder to break into, and can be an awfully long process. However it has proven results, and you've got the whole publishing house behind your book with their marketing tools and their name to carry you a long way through the publicity process. You've also got editors to make sure your writing doesn't, you know, suck.

Self publishing is a lot easier to get into, and is quicker to see a "final product". However you have to do everything on your own. You alone are responsible for editing, and responsible for all backlash if your writing still sucks. You're responsible for all marketing and publicity (which is a lot of long, hard work) and getting your name out there in a respectable, desirable way.

Either way, we've seen success stories. All in all, it's much less work on your own part to go traditionally and you're much better set up for success.

Also, you should never, ever have to pay a publishing house to publish your book. With self publishing, you do have to front the costs yourself. But with anyone who claims they're a publishing house and wants you to pay them to publish your book is what we call a vanity publisher. Stay very far away from these people. You shouldn't have to pay someone to publish your book for you.

I have looked at self-publishing, but in the long run I like the thrill i get if i am able to be published by a publisher i have admired from my favourite books.

Hmmm... I'd have to say it's a mix. I do definitely agree with the idea of "it's bad because it gets instant gratification when it's not deserved." And, again with that idea, sometimes there's a reason the book is declined, like the writing is terrible, but the theme/idea is good, so improve on it then come back; publishers act as a nice filter or critic. But, self publishing has it's purpose. It shouldn't be for spoiled kids whose parents will go through all the work to put out a truthfully terrible book because "oh, it's beautiful [for a five year old, and because you're my son/daughter whom I love]." However, some books may be controversial, and a publisher's just gonna "NO." you. Like, say... your books is the "YWS Manifesto" talking about a new form of government where we kill babies. Obviously that's gonna get a lot of hate, and we can all (hopefully) say that's bad... but, if you're the writer, then I hope you agree with what your book puts forward, therefore, you'd want a way to put out your idea. Obviously there's both communists and capitalists who both hate the other idea. It had to start somehow, right? So, to sum it up, the self publishing options for that; when the publisher hate's your idea, but there's someone who's gonna like what you've put out.

YAY, long post for simple point . And, confusing as always! Thus, I can leave knowing of done my shadowknight-ly duties (confusing people)!

A discussion in which everyone agrees is not much of a discussion. Devil's advocate ftw.

You can sell your book to a publishing house, and they can sit on it for as long as they want, or until they feel the market is right for your book. For some people, this means a couple years, for others, it means their book never reaches the shelves. Because you've essentially sold the publishers the rights to your book, you can't just take your book elsewhere to another publisher.

If they do publish it right off the bat, you get 5% on average, 15% if you're an established author who's really good. One could argue that the rest of the money goes to cover the cost of printing, binding, and shipping, but in the case of ebooks, those are no longer factors. And yet authors still receive only a tiny percentage of their work's profits.

Publicity: nowadays the job of advertising largely falls into the author's hands. That means that you, not your publisher, is in charge of getting the word out about your books. You contact the book stores, you make arrangements for author signings, you blog and facebook and tweet like crazy, you send out the ad campaigns and google adwords, you coordinate events, etc. Part of the appeal of traditional publishing is (or used to be, now that more hopeful authors are discovering the new shift) that you imagine your publisher will help you get the word of your book out further. And granted, they still do help some with that. As far as advertising goes, though, it largely falls onto the author's shoulders. If you don't contact such and such book store about your book, they probably won't hear about it. If you don't take the initiative and organize a book signing, it won't happen. This is part of why most writers who actually make it out into the world and become best sellers and become what we define as successful, they get personal assistants. The assistant contacts the stores and libraries and organizes signings and advertising and events such as writing conventions. The reason is, if the author continued to do all that, they'd have no time left to write more stories.

With self publishing, you see a bigger profit, with only a little bit more work. If you need an editor, find an editor. As for instant gratification, if your book sucks, it won't do well. If it rocks, it will do well, and if it does rock, you're probably someone who should be publishing. If JK Rowling were writing the Harry Potter books today, she'd probably self publish after the umpteenth rejection from the umpteenth publisher. As it is, she's richer than the queen of England. Had she self published, she'd be even richer.

Plus, you get to keep the rights to your work.

*Now* we can have a discussion. Enjoy.

Lowkey, I disagree. Most publishers would be willing to negotiate your contract, and real (not vanity or scam) publishers wouldn't set up a contract with no intention of publishing your book within the year the contract was made.
Also, real publishers take care of marketing and advertising. The statement that marketing and advertising mainly falls on the author is false. Only scam and vanity publishers would put all that stuff on the author.
Self publishing doesn't necessarily get you more profit. For one, a lot of book stores would not be willing to sell your book as thy have no formal contacts that they can trust with business dealings, also marketing and advertisement costs more than you may think and not everyone has the funds to do that. I traditional publishing you would get on average 3 dollars per book sold whereas with self-publishing all the overheads would bring you down to 1 dollar a book roughly. For one, publishing houses get things cheaper because they bulk buy, for 2, they take care of all the overheads by taking a cut from book publishing. All big ad well established publishing houses give you a 10% (not 5) when you're staring out, with more established authors getting 20% and higher.
As a personal preference, I would only ever buy a self-published book if most of the English speaking, my aged, reading population had a least heard of that writer. When buying a book from a well-known publishing house, you're almost 100% guaranteed to be buying a piece of writing worth reading.
Also, Lowkey, do you work in the publishing industry?