We all seemed to be in agreement that self-published books are not viewed with the same level of respect as traditionally published books, even if the writing is of the same or better caliber. Writer’s Digest has pulled together a guide to self-publishing that can answer any questions you might have about that method of getting into print.

I mentioned in my comment that I believe many vanity presses are predatory, taking advantage of authors who have met the sting of rejection. These authors are not willing to look at their book and objectively assess why it was rejected. If you get a rejection, especially if the rejection includes specific feedback, please take the time to look at your work again and see if there is any further work that needs to be done to help you get that all-important acceptance.

Many of you pointed out that decision of whether to publish a book is a business decision, based on the quality of the writing, the depth of the story, and the current and projected market conditions. For some writers, that means their book may be rejected even if the writer has done everything right–polishing their prose to a diamond-like sheen, developing rich and believable characters and plots, targeting the right agents and publishing houses, and building a solid platform.

Yes, this is another way of saying that rejection isn’t always about you. We writers are a lot like actors–we may do our absolute best work ever, yet it doesn’t quite fit for some other reason completely out of our control.

All we can do is begin work on the next project, which may be the one that gets us published.

Publishers provide important services (editing, design, production) and the access to online and bricks-and-mortar stores that the average self-published book simply won’t get.

And the dangers of self-publishing, with its high price tags and the virtual impossibility of getting those books into stores where consumers could actually buy them, are well documented. (Writers Beware is one source of information, but there are certainly others. A quick web search will net a wealth of information.)

But, if a book is good, does it really matter whether it came from a vanity publisher or a traditional publisher? If all other variables were controlled, would a good book that came from a publisher notorious in the industry for releasing unedited crap stand a chance? Would reviewers throw away their review copies unopened, unwilling to waste their and their readers’ time on a book that is obviously junk? Would readers take a chance on a new author from a publisher that had a bad reputation? Or from a self-published author who had done all of the due diligence of a traditional publisher?

My inclination is that it would still matter. Even if the author was the next great national treasure, he or she would always be tainted by the reputation of the shoddy publisher or the vanity press. The distribution variables simply can’t be controlled. A traditional publisher has a much greater ability to distribute books than a single author has. And, really, what good is a book if no one reads it?