An Argument for Traditional Publishing
on Dec 13 in Uncategorized by johnhornorOn Sunday night, I wrote a big long blathering blog in praise of traditional publishing – not knocking self-publishing, just focusing on why traditional publishing still has relevance. It loosely related to the short film I made – and it talked about money, the awesomeness of Simon & Schuster’s editing and revision process and why that process is ensuring that the end product will be something I’ll be proud of. And I wrote all this other stuff blostering up my arguments and whatnot. But I’m not much of an essayist and when I saw this post by Chuck Wending and this post by Dan O’Shea, I thought, “Shit, they said it better than I ever could.”
However, I spent too much time on the “essay” not to get a blog post out of the deal and so I present you now with its only salvageable points. I think. Probably also made elsewhere, but they seemed new to me. Here they be:
Traditional publishing is better for fledgling writers.
Yeah, it’s harder to get in. Yeah, it’s a higher bar. You’ve got to “land” and agent and then that agent has to sell your book. Both are harder than hell to achieve. So what? I’m gonna tell you what your daddy should’ve – the only worthwhile things in life are hard to achieve.
If it’s easy, it’s common.
And that’s it. I digressed into some sports analogies and military references. But the gist of the argument is right there and I think it bears repeating:
If it’s easy, it’s common.
That is all.
So Random
Get Some Books, Y’all
-
There are no comments yet, add one below.