This question comes up a lot so here's what I think. Feel free to add or subtract.
Agents and small presses rejecting a book because it's poorly written is obviously not a good reason to self-publish it. Of course the writer is often the last one to realize that it's poorly written. However, one clue would be if no other eyes have been on it but the writer's or if the critiques have been "social" level only, such as friends and family. Another clue is if it's the first draft. :/
On the other hand, I don't think the pat answer "Always start with agents, then small presses" always makes much sense either. I'd consider each book individually. Sometimes it makes sense to not spend a lot of (or any) time and energy pursuing agent after agent or the same with the larger small presses.
Clues would be if it's a narrow or regional topic or one that otherwise has a small audience. You can often get a good idea of this by searching Amazon for similar books. If they're all self-published (or published by micro-presses, which often amounts to about the same thing), then that tells you something. I'd include here nonfiction topics that are on the big publishers' lists but only from authors with either advanced credentials or huge followings (celebrities can probably write about anything they want and have it snapped up, I guess). If you don't have either of those but still believe you have something to say (after researching what else is out there, naturally) then it might make sense to self-publish.
It doesn't hurt to try the agents and larger small presses when in doubt. Advances, marketing budgets and giant established distribution channels are hard to argue with. But when every indication is that it's not likely, I might not bother with it.
That's my two cents. Anything else?
Agents and small presses rejecting a book because it's poorly written is obviously not a good reason to self-publish it. Of course the writer is often the last one to realize that it's poorly written. However, one clue would be if no other eyes have been on it but the writer's or if the critiques have been "social" level only, such as friends and family. Another clue is if it's the first draft. :/
On the other hand, I don't think the pat answer "Always start with agents, then small presses" always makes much sense either. I'd consider each book individually. Sometimes it makes sense to not spend a lot of (or any) time and energy pursuing agent after agent or the same with the larger small presses.
Clues would be if it's a narrow or regional topic or one that otherwise has a small audience. You can often get a good idea of this by searching Amazon for similar books. If they're all self-published (or published by micro-presses, which often amounts to about the same thing), then that tells you something. I'd include here nonfiction topics that are on the big publishers' lists but only from authors with either advanced credentials or huge followings (celebrities can probably write about anything they want and have it snapped up, I guess). If you don't have either of those but still believe you have something to say (after researching what else is out there, naturally) then it might make sense to self-publish.
It doesn't hurt to try the agents and larger small presses when in doubt. Advances, marketing budgets and giant established distribution channels are hard to argue with. But when every indication is that it's not likely, I might not bother with it.
That's my two cents. Anything else?
Last edited:
