Sunday, November 29, 2015


I was reading a blog post the other day, when something stood out.  The writer, Carla Douglas, said, "Editors also know that readers don’t care whether a book is traditionally published or self-published."  This got me wondering how true this really was.

I think a decade or more ago, this statement would've been rubbish.  Prior to the revolution in how indie books are in terms of comparative quality, as well as the ebook explosion, indie publishing really was the last resort of those who couldn't get published any other way.  The quality was low, and there was almost no way to get your work to the audience.

However, strange things started happening.  Independent outlets to publish through, like Lightning Source and Create Space, started pushing out work that looked and felt just traditionally published books.  And when distribution became a problem, Amazon came along and made indie books virtually indistinguishable from traditionally published books in digital markets.  Suddenly any schmoe with a computer and access to the internet could put his or her work out there.  So the only real question that remains is how much the origin of the book matters in the mind of the audience.

It doesn't seem to be as big a deal as it used to be.  Nowadays, many readers don't even seem to know that they've picked up an indie book versus a traditional one.  Sure, some may turn their nose up at an indie book if they know that's what it is, but there's almost an allure of some kind for the indie market today.

Regardless of the elitism of whether you like indie books or don't like indie books, I think most folks simply want to read a good story.  And since there's little distinction between the two markets these days, I'm not sure that origin matters, but I could be wrong.  What do you think?  Does the audience give a shit if a book was traditionally published or indie published?

No comments:

Post a Comment