Reasons Not to Not Self Publish: A Rebuttal (4 of 8)

Last month, Edan Lepucki posted an article on The Millions called "Reasons Not to Self Publish in 2011-2012: A List." I disagree and would like, over the next several blog postings, to offer my own point-by-point rebuttal.

4.

Edan: "Self-Publishing is Better for the Already-Published"
Elly: "Publishing is Better for the Already-Published"

In this point, Lepucki makes an argument converse to many I’ve seen — the argument being that a successful indie pubbed book can attract agents and trad pubbers. Lepucki says the opposite: self-pubbing is better for those already published traditionally. I really think the short of it is that sophomores are more successful than freshmen, period. Lepucki says “It’s much harder to create a readership out of nothing.” Yes, it is. But I reiterate my earlier points that whether you go trad or indie, much of the onus of marketing goes to the author. The sweat of the author—in making the book great, then selling the book greatly—is what determines success. The second book will ALWAYS be a tiny bit easier.

What bugs me most about this section, however, is Lepucki’s comment, “I don’t need an intermediary to tell me about these writers because their previously published books speak for them.” She is going back to the argument that she trusts publishers to tell her what’s good. That is trust I just can’t get behind. Besides, I think if you’re a writer worth your salt—or, for that matter, a reader worth your salt—you should be able to sniff out a good book just by reading the first paragraph. With so many traditional AND independent publishers putting out free samples of their work (such as “Look Inside the Book” on Amazon, or a free 15% on Smashwords), you should be independent enough to make your own judgments. Or at the very least, ask a trusted friend what to read next. Please just stop feeding the machine.