There’s been quite a fuss about self-publishing on internet channels recently. Brit author Ros Barber swore in The Guardian that she’d never self-publish her fiction, which prompted a lot of us to reassert why we did. This post by me appears to join the general howl, but in fact it was commissioned several months ago.
It’s at the blog of Helena Halme (and in case you’re counting the nationalities, she’s Finnish). Topical or not, I wanted to make the case for self-publishing as a serious option for authors of independent mind and spirit, who can be their own creative directors. Do come over. It’s just a click. You don’t have to go all the way to Finland.
Nail Your Novel 
#1 by Nicole Evelina on March 29, 2016 - 6:52 pm
Go Roz! I refuse to comment on the Guardian piece (I’m a self pubbed author, nuff said), but I understand the fracas. Your article is perfectly timed. I love this quote: “If I’d had a traditional publishing contract that would have continued, and my name would have been on books that weren’t truthfully me.” I wasn’t sure if you were talking about your ghostwriting continuing or talking about the in-house editing, but either way, that’s always been a fear of mine. One thing I love about self-publishing is that I can write what I want. And yes, I pay to have it professionally edited, but it’s only made better, not turned into something its not to please a market or an agenda.
#2 by Roz Morris @Roz_Morris on March 29, 2016 - 7:26 pm
Hi Nicole! Aha, I meant the in-house editing. If I ghostwrite, I’m happy that I’m serving another person’s vision and interests. But if I stick my name on a book, it’s got to be me.
And you raise a good point about editing. Self-publishing doesn’t mean we think we can do without it. And it doesn’t mean we don’t want our manuscripts given a rigorous workout. But we don’t want to be made to fit our square pegs into round holes.