Likewise, I've attempted many self-published novels, some with high praise from independent readers, and found nearly all to be of miserably poor quality - Andy Weir being the sole exception.
Even if you have the bones of a good story, even if you're a talented writer, a good editing process can transform your work from an unreadable mess to an actual solid novel.
Editors does a lot less for quality of the writing than people tend to think.
Also, there’s nothing stopping someone self publishing from getting an editor to polish their manuscript before publication.
The truth is that most authors who self publish are simply not good at writing.
I am generally a fan of self publishing, it’s great for good writers as they get to keep more of the money and for the ones on the border it allows them to get something out there that might be good enough for a small audience.
Editors vary. A good editor can take something rough and polish it, retaining the voice of the author. A bad editor can suck all the life out of the writing, never having noticed the author’s voice in the first place.
It seems to me there has been a decline in the quality of editing by major publishers in recent years – though it may be that I have become better at noticing prose that would benefit from editing. Self-published stuff is normally worse, but it’s no surprise: hiring an editor would turn many self-published books from a modest profit to a heavy loss.
The thing is that writing can be bad in a multitude of ways, and a good editor can fix at least one of those — and, at the very least, help ensure that the ideas on paper are written according to the norms and conventions of the language.
Even if you have the bones of a good story, even if you're a talented writer, a good editing process can transform your work from an unreadable mess to an actual solid novel.