Traditional- and Self-Publishing Aren't Mutually Exclusive

The internets tell me that there seem to be two violently opposed camps in the publishing world - those who say that traditional publishing is where the money is and self-publishers are deluded idiots, and those who say that traditional publishing is dying a horrible death as we speak and self-publishing is the shining future.

As usual, I firmly oppose extremes, and get all anxious-like just thinking about them.

First of all, in what other art form are commercial and indy work mutually exclusive? Does anyone say that bands that record their own cds and play shows out of their lofts shouldn't make the effort? Where would painting or fashion or film be if there weren't people out there experimenting in their own studios? In all of those fields, a lot of the indy stuff is crap by people who don't know what they're doing. But a lot of it is wonderful, much better than comparable pieces put out by Chanel or Hollywood or whoever. Some people hate the "sold-out" big names and only go with the indy stuff, and some people don't want to go to the effort to find the indy stuff so they just go see blockbusters and look at commissioned art in magazines. And that, my friends, is what makes the world interesting.

Really the only sensible position, and the one I think most people actually take, is to like what you like and not give a damn who put it out.

That's my first reason. There are more. Can you think of them?

Survey : Meta-literature

What are your thoughts on fiction about authors and writing? Books where a major character is a writer trying to make art and having a hard time of it?

I tend to be skeptical...I mean, I love it conceptually, but in practice I'm almost always disappointed. You're encouraged to write what you know, of course, and what a lot of what many first-time authors know is, well, an author sitting at the computer failing to write a book. Most of the time I find this feels cheap, and even when I really like the author's style, I wish they were writing about something else.

I've seen films and read books that are like this, and have liked them very much. Swimming Pool, for instance, and my favorite book of all time, Hopscotch. Both use the struggling-author thing as a springboard for greater achievements, though, not just as an examination of the author's own psyche. Do we care that much about a random unknown author's psyche that we want to read a whole book about it? Not often, eh.

I guess my feelings on this are best summed up by that rhyme..."When it is good, it is very very good, but when it is bad it is horrid."

Your thoughts?