https://www.theguardian.com/books/b ooksblog/2016/mar/21/for

>>8461349

Can't say I understand.

>"Real authors can't compete with the prices of self-published works"
How is it self-publishers' fault if people buy their trash instead of proper publications? It's the consumers' freedom to do so. If limiting options to professional-only is the only way to make people buy professional authors' works, then doesn't that just mean said works are not really that good or appealing either? "The goal of art isn't to appeal", maybe. But that does that mean people should be forced to pay for culture?

>"Real authors lose visibility"
Yet the writer goes on to bash self-publishers for poor marketing? Self-publishers don't do promotional tours, they aren't interviewed on TV, radio, or magazines, yet they somehow completely overshadow pros by being annoying online? Doesn't make much sense to me.

>>8462131
it just comes down to old ladies ranting about not understanding the internet.
that's my guess.

Traditional publishing destroyed itself by turning into a mill for garbage half a century ago and getting even worse with each passing decade. What they failed to realize is that once you start selling people trash it's only a matter of time before they decide to get their fix faster and cheaper.

>>8461349
>https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2016/mar/21/for-me-traditional-publishing-means-poverty-but-self-publish-no-way

>If you self-publish your book, you are not going to be writing for a living. You are going to be marketing for a living.
Professionals aren't somehow exempt from this these days. Lots of book contracts expect you to sell yourself and be actively part of your book's marketing. A pretty weird line coming from a professional writer! The number of authors able to write for a living is extremely small in any case. She just said she made nothing herself.

>Self-publishing can make you behave like a fool
Nah, a fool will behave like a fool, regardless of what they do. I know this is shocking, but you don't have to follow people you don't like on social media.

>Gatekeepers are saving you from your own ego
The writer somehow implies bad literature never gets professionally published. Yeah, you can get bashed for writing shit online. Most of the time though, nobody gives a fuck. That should get the message through just as easily as being ignored by a publisher. On the other hand, you can have a work no publisher would want but which still finds a big following through self-publishing. Is it wrong?

>Good writers become good because they undertake an apprenticeship. Serving your apprenticeship is important
First impressions matter. Who knew? Is that why a lot of professional authors can only disappoint after their big breakthrough?

>You can forget Hay festival and the Booker
So you write for prices and perks? So much for high art.

>You risk looking like an amateur
Probably because they mostly ARE and never pretended otherwise. This is getting too stupid to go on.

>>8462193
>The writer somehow implies bad literature never gets professionally published.
does not
>Yeah, you can get bashed for writing shit online. Most of the time though, nobody gives a fuck. That should get the message through just as easily as being ignored by a publisher.
it really doesn't. I'm not sure how to explain this to you. Someone from outside in a position of authority can just shake up your whole mind

>Probably because they mostly ARE and never pretended otherwise. This is getting too stupid to go on.
what's the problem? If you don't want to be an amateur or look like an amateur maybe don't hang around a space that's mostly occupied by amateurs. solid advice.

honestly you seem pretty triggered and not very intelligent, no offense