And the big debate continues about traditional legacy publishing versus the new way.
Good post from Joe Konrath, on the side of authors:
But some silly people seem to think that traditional legacy publishing is the only legitimate way to be a writer, that nothing but good flows from it, and nothing but bad comes of self-publishing:
And another commentary:
Some of the commenters on these postings are priceless. One author who left traditional legacy publishing had suffered at one point when the "know what they're doing professionals" put a picture of a dog on the cover of one of her books.
She asked, “Why is there a dog on the cover? There’s no dog in the book!”
Her answer from the pros: “People like dogs.”
And there are still morons who insist that authors must submit to idiots like these!
Tim Greaton had a great comment:
"As a guy who spent four years at the feet of the gatekeepers with two well-known NY agents, a legacy publisher offer that fell through when a board disagreed with an editor, and a movie supposedly in the stable for two years before it dissipated, I can tell you I much prefer the alternate track. One agent’s exact words to me were “I hope you’re loyal, because I’m going to make you rich.” Well, I was…and I’m not. I like my chances better in the new world!"
--Me, too, Tim. I spent years going through the damn gatekeepers, remaining unpublished and unread, while seeing mountains of crap get professionally published and sold the traditional way. Now I have a quality novel out, and am getting 5-star reviews from professionals, and comments from readers on how much they liked it and how good it is. I like this world better.