Traditional vs Self Published Books

As the world of publishing grows, evolves and mutates, the net is cast ever wider on the methods of publication open to writers - self publishing, traditional, indie, hybrid. There are lots of opinions on the matter of whether this new direction of publishing is a good thing or not, and the debate has raged on many sides of the argument.

Some say that the traditional mode of publishing is stuffy and constricting, that it limits authors' productivity and creativity, and that it gives an author less control over their own work. Others argue that it upholds a certain standard, gets professional eyes on a book to make it the very best it can be, and knows how to handle the market.

Others argue that self publishing gives an author freedom and full control of their books and allows them to publish on a schedule that suits them.

Indie authors love the closeness they have with their publishing team and how connected they are at every step of the process...and some say that the lack of marketing and publisher reach can be an issue.

Yet more go for a hybrid mix of the two, taking what they need from each avenue. Still more think that becoming hybrid can lead to inconsistency within their "brand".

So, YATopians...what do you think?  Is there a perfect publishing route for a writer? Tell us here!

** Also, on the flip side - for anyone who'd like to, there is a poll over at Debate It asking whether you prefer to read books traditionally, self, hybrid, or indie published. Feel free to come over and join us.