Why Are Self-Published Books Bad?

[Peg Herring]

Trick question. They're not, or at least they don't have to be. Some people I know have self-published, AFTER they thought about it for a long time. They paid an editor to find the errors they missed. They paid an artist to do a classy cover. They even paid a computer geek to make sure the formatting is clean, correct, and friendly to whatever e-reader would be used. Then and only then did they self-publish. Yay for them.

On the other hand, there are people who are too anxious, too egotistical, or too clueless to make their books the best they can be. I heard a (supposed) author say not too long ago, "I never edit. I just put it out there." Yeah, I'll bet that's what it is: out there.

The industry is changing--has changed. Authors can make their work available for sale to the public without waiting for an agent, an editor, or a publisher to deem it suitable. But that's a double-edged sword. Yes, it makes for variety, avoiding the "this is what sold well last time" mentality that many publishers exhibit. But unless a person is open to help and advice, quality suffers. Somebody has to tell an author when it isn't working. Somebody has to correct his or her mistakes in plotting, in syntax, and in spelling.

If you're going to be a self-published author, the responsibility falls on you. You have to do what a "real" publisher would do and submit your work to lots of people for criticism and suggestions. Don't want to put out a bad book? Then don't let your love affair with your own creative genius blind you to the possibility that without help from others, your book might be, indeed, really bad.

[Benjamin Sobieck]

I often wonder about the author who puts out work without a solid edit. Were you hoping the reader would do it for you? Writing and editing are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.