Dan asked in Arts & HumanitiesBooks & Authors · 6 months ago

I heard on here, when I asked what was better for autobiographies, traditional or self-publishing, that tradtional was better, Is that true?

4 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    That depends on whether you actually intend to sell them to people or not.

  • 6 months ago

    Traditional would have had an editor and fact checkers, and the publisher would not put out a book that was poorly written

    Self published works generally lack all three of those things.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Athena
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Is it true that you heard it here?

    It seems to be as that is what you said.

    • Dan6 months agoReport

      No, I did not say that I heard it here from someone else.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Traditional will probably give you better marketing and exposure, unless you excel at this kind of thing yourself, but unless you're famous, whether you're an actor, politician, activist etc. or have had some kind of unique experience and lived to tell it, then your chances of being accepted by a traditional publishing company is more or less nil, in which case self-publishing is better and you might as well jump straight to that instead of querying agents and publishing houses.

    • Marli
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      If you are not well known already, your autobiography won't sell well no matter who published it. Do something great first.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.