Traditional vs Self-publishing. It’s the writer’s equivalent to Pepsi vs Coke or Red Sox vs Yankees. There seems to be a divisive split amongst the community about which is the better route to go. I can’t tell you what to do or what is objectively superior because it’s based on your preference or situation. Let me stop tip-toeing around the subject of Traditional vs Self-publishing. I went with Self-publishing because the creative freedom it gives authors was too hard for me to pass by. The thought of a Publishing House picking the cover, editor, and distributor made me uneasy. That was the deciding factor of my decision. Let me tell you more about the differences between the two.
There's no right or wrong choice here
In the battle of Traditional vs Self-publishing comes down to a few factors. If you want to save money, do traditional. Since the Publishing House takes hires the editor and cover designer, they will not consult you or take any sketches of covers you had in mind. You’ll just be responsible for marketing the book. Also, there’s no guarantee the Publishing House will accept your manuscript at all and you could receive rejection after rejection. So, unless you have patience, (I have none) I recommend going with Self-publishing. While it will cost more and take more time since you’re a one-man army, it allows you much more creative freedom and you’re not just sitting on your manuscript. So, in the argument of Traditional vs Self-publishing, I bet on myself and went the way of self-publishing. It’s a much more common practice, but I will knock no one who chooses the traditional way.