|Photo credit: Emily Carlin on Flickr|
You see, you have a good manuscript in your hands; one that you're pretty certain will sell. If you accept the agent's offer of representation, you will enter the ranks with other traditionally published writers. If not, you can take the title of self- published writer.
So let me ask you, my fellow readers: would you publish traditionally if given the chance?
It's a bit of a weird question, I know, and five years ago if you asked any writer, the answer would be a resounding: well, DUH. But nowadays the answer of how to publish isn't so cut and dry. More stories surface every day about writers who, when faced with the decision, choose self- publishing rather than going traditional. There are the Amanda Hockings and J.R. Konraths of the world who have made bundles through independent publishing and more than a handful of writers who have been able to make a living off self- publishing.
And yet, traditional publishing is still a very viable option, because while to some writers the how of getting published doesn't matter, to others it does. Then there's also the matter of all the work that goes into publishing that writers have to tackle largely by themselves when they choose to self- publish, that others would rather let a traditional publishing house take care of.
Some believe that there's more money to be made through self- publishing and others through traditional publishing—and still others don't care about the money either way: they want to see their book on the shelves (or in the case of self- publishing, they just want to be published one way or another).
When it comes to how to publish, I truthfully don't believe there's a blanket right or wrong answer— it most certainly depends on your goals as a writer (more about that in this post).
So I'm curious. If the aforementioned hypothetical situation happened to you, what would you choose? Would you accept representation or choose to brave the waters of self- publishing?