I'm always interested in hearing from people who want full control over the publishing of their books.
I've heard the arguments that with trade publishing you give up creative control over your books, but it's just not true (and I don't think cwbrowning was suggesting that, so I won't go into lecture mode now). What many self publishers refer to, I think, is keeping creative control over their own publication, which is different and very important.
It's not something I'd necessarily relish: I've seen how much work it takes to just edit one book properly, and am overwhelmed by the idea of doing that while also doing all the other publishing stuff too, all while continuing to write other books; and I've worked as a packager, hiring in all the various people required to publish books well, and it was a very demanding job. It was also a very expensive process, albeit I was working with books which were very different to most of the ones I see talked about here (they were mostly non-fiction, highly illustrated, lavishly designed print editions).
You have my admiration. Good luck!
I also admire people who make a go of self-publishing, because the odds are so heavy against them. Every single one of the tasks the self-publisher takes on is a profession in itself; and to excel in each of those professions takes years of work and experience. Of course there are freelancers available, but you get what you pay for.
Take editing, which I know most about. I'll start with the premise that an unedited book is not worth reading. Tons of writers, published, self-published, or unpublished, call themselves editors and offer their services. Anyone can do that; there's no professional test or certification. I have several former students who unfortunately did not succeed with their own writing but are now freelance editors. Why would a writer pay for help from someone who was not able to break through to publication? Because they're cheap. When I edit a book (which I do very rarely), I might charge four times as much as they do...which makes me too expensive for most writers. And this is true of most of the real professionals ; their fees are commensurate with their experience.
If you expand this to include all the other professions that go into publishing a book--design, art, marketing, publicity, copy-editing, proofreading, subsidiary rights, advertising, etc.---it's clear that self-publishers face a difficult choice. They can truly do it all themselves, which usually results in an amateurish book -- or they can pay more than is reasonable for services. It takes a true entrepreneurial spirit with a lot of skills to succeed in this field, so hats off to those who do.
S
The problem comes when it's claimed that trade publishers take over creative control from writers by forcing changes onto their stories, or by editing their voice out of the work: that sort of thing; it's just not true that this happens. At least, not at good publishers (and we wouldn't work with bad ones, would we?). Publishers acquire books because they love them: they try to make them even better through editing and so on, but if an author and an editor disagree with regard to the editing of a book, the author almost always gets the final say over how it's done.
...it's true that very few authors have any right of veto over the jacket designs their publishers propose. But jacket design is a complex and specific skill-set, which few authors have; and if an author really hates their jacket, there are things they can do ...
Having driven so many books through the production process I know about that sense of responsibility, and the huge amount of work it requires. I am not entirely sure I'd have done so well had I been working alone; nor do I think I'd have been able to do it with a minimal budget, which I've seen many self publishers cope with. I did love the work, but it was hard.
Just want to say Yes to all this. I've never had or heard of editing changes being forced down a writer's throat, for just the reasons Old Hack cites--the editor already loves the book or he/she wouldn't have acquired it. Jackets are part of the marketing phase of publishing, which is why publishers usually have the final say; but most agented writers have the right to be consulted and have input into the cover. If the editor and writer have very different ideas about the positioning of a book, this is where that disparity is likely to emerge. I once wrote what I considered to be literary or possibly political fiction; the publisher regarded it as women's fiction, a concept that emerged only when I saw the first draft of the cover, which was pink with a rose on it. [gag]. I lost that fight, in which the jacket was just one proxy battle--the real dispute was over how the book was to be marketed, and that's definitely within the purview of the publisher.
I love it that self-publishing is now a viable option for writers. I think it has so many excellent applications that it makes me crazy when its proponents feel the need to advocate for it by denigrating trade publishing with wild stories about books and writers being tortured into a particular mold. There are plenty of valid criticisms of trade publishing, but they're not nearly as sexy as that particular bit of viral nonsense.
