For me, traditional publishing means poverty. But self-publish? No way | Books | The Guardian

A few days ago, I wrote a piece on my blog exploding the myth of the rich writer, and laying out (in terms the Royal Literary Fund

Old-established British organisation which is using substantial new funds from writers' estates for excellent new scheme offering grants to published writers, who act as 'fellows' helping to improve students' writing in higher education institutions. The fellows each have a page and contact details on the website. www.rlf.org.uk

described as "ruthlessly mathematical") what authors actually receive when you buy their books. The simple answer for many of us is nothing at all, after that heady advance in the case of my most recent novel, which was £5,000 for two years' work.

Extract

Now, I understand that "indie publishing" is all the rage, but you might as well be telling Luke Skywalker to go to the dark side. Despite royalty rates of 70%, I think self-publishing is a terrible idea for serious novelists (by which I mean, novelists who take writing seriously, and love to write). Here's why.