Standards.

[icebluenothing]

Of all the myriad ways in which Life Is Horribly Unfair, one that vexes me the most is this:

Are you an artist? Do you sell your own work directly to the public? Then you're an entrepreneur who should be rewarded for your creativity. It's a long, uphill road, but we're with you all the way!

Are you a musician? Do you sell your own work directly to the public? All right! There's that punk, fighting DIY spirit! Screw the labels, man, they're nothing but leeches anyway!

Do you create comics? Do you sell your own work directly to the public? Let me buy you a drink! Indy all the way!

Are you a writer? Do you sell your own work directly to the public?

..... Ha! Loser! Not good enough to get published, huh?

Comments

[surlyben.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered about this issue as it relates to comics. My theory is that it has something to do with the existence of vanity presses, and the snake oil stigma they have. In comics self-publishing, the tradition is either photocopy or deal with a printer directly, and people assume you are doing one or the other. On the other hand, for self-published books, people assume vanity press with all the stigma that goes along with that.

The solution seems to be to start your own small press label. Then instead of "self-published", you can say "small press", and it's clear that you haven't been fleeced by some dubious vanity press operator.

A lesser issue is the one of being vetted by an editor. Of the examples you gave, long-form writing is the one most likely to be warrant such vetting, because of the time commitment involved in telling whether or not it's any good. Art, music, and poetry can all be judged at a glance, before you buy. A book, not so much. In the case of comics, if the writing turns out to suck, maybe you still like the art.

[luchog.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's one I forgot. Books are much bigger time investment than the rest. And few people will put in that much time, let alone money, on something unknown.