Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/18493
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I agree with most of the points made in other answers here. But I would add this, having come from a conference where numerous, published authors shared their thoughts on this question.

First, you need to examine one big assumption: "If I have a decent product..." I won't say you don't, however, it was pointed out, human nature being what it is:

- 1) For the vast majority of aspiring authors, the first novel (and second, and third) aren't really that good. It takes a lot of writing to be able to write well.

- 2) Human beings are very bad at judging their own recent work (and your friends and relatives are not likely to give you the frank opinions as you might need).

Thus, the risk for new authors who self-publish is that their first novel is mediocre (or worse) and now their name is attached to that. Even if they vastly improve with later books, it is too late, **their name is tainted**.

That being said, if you go through the traditional publishing route, numerous sets of eyes will review & edit your stuff. If you can get past that gauntlet, you can be assured you have probably not given birth to a giant turd.

Of course, if you go the traditional publisher route, you have to be prepared for a LOT of rejection (Harry Potter books were rejected by numerous publishers).

Full disclosure: I am not a published author, I am just repeating what several published authors said in a large conference (and some of them self-publish too). Just more stuff to think about. If I self-published, I'd probably still consider engaging an editor, to get that non-biased feedback.

Original score: 7