www.inkthinkerblog.com — Over on the PEN Yahoo! Group (limited to PEN members only, sorry!), we recently discussed why some editors choose not to work with self- or vanity-publishing authors. The general consensus is that, despite the fact that there is indeed some high-quality work in the self- and vanity-pubbed world, the majority of it is, well, crap, and having books published by notoriously crappy vanity presses will make any editor look bad.
I’m of the camp that any book I can contribute to substantively and would be proud to be associated with is a book I want to edit. I don’t give two hoots who publishes it once I’m done if it’s a good book. I also buy secondhand clothes and designer knock-offs because I don’t feel like everything I own has to cost a bajillion bucks or be a name brand, so maybe I’m weird like that. But good writing is good writing (and jeans that fit and look good on me fit and look good on me even if I got them at Goodwill), and sometimes the big houses pass on stuff that they end up picking up after it’s self- or vanity-pubbed when they realize they made a mistake.
However, that doesn’t mean that the category self- and vanity-published books has been unjustly maligned. Just because Laurie Notaro did it doesn’t mean everyone is that good/funny/talented/whatever, and just because someone’s listed on a dossier of so-called self-published authors doesn’t mean that the work they’re famous for is the one they self-pubbed (although in Laurie’s case, it is). I really enjoyed this blog post over at Scrivener’s Error about the “intellectual dishonesty” many self-pub proponents display.
__________________________________________
www.kristenkingfreelancing.com
Finalist in 2006 Writer’s Digest Best Writer’s Website Contest
Contents Copyright © 2006-2014 Kristen King
Comments on this entry are closed.
Thanks, I’ve just updated my self publishing article with a link to that one.
I’ve also seen names like Grisham(?) bandied around as a self-publisher, when apparently all he did was buy a few boxes of his first book from his publisher and sell them from the boot of his car.
All this is missing the point – it’s not about proving self-publishing is worthwhile and viable, it’s whether the individual books are any good. If someone packages up a load of crap and tells themselves it’ll sell because Stephen King self-published his novella they’re completely deluded.
Self-publishing can work (I can attest to that), but it’s not a shortcut.
Ever read something and wish YOU’D written it istead of the person who actually did?
If someone packages up a load of crap and tells themselves it’ll sell because Stephen King self-published his novella they’re completely deluded.
Yeah.
kk
Kristen,
I’ve been seeding some literary critics’ blogs, agent provocateur that I am, to prompt discussion of the problem that critics tend to ignore self-published books. The thesis I’m developing is that we need to start making a distinction between vanity publishing and honest self-publishing. I’m trying to get people to start using the terms “indie publishing” to refer to authors who establish publishing imprints, buy ISBNs, hire people like you or me to edit, pay a book designer and a cover designer, and take marketing seriously.
In other words, yeah, they wrote the book. But then they took on the role of publisher and did what publishers do. They may choose to use POD technology or offset technology to print their books. They may, for strategic reasons, decide to work with one of the vanity presses because of their association with a major bookseller. But they are still functioning as indie publishers, on the model of indie musicians who market their own work and avoid the major labels.
Yes, POD-dy Mouth, sifts through the vanity press detritus and occasionally finds something worthwhile. But mostly that stuff is trash because mostly the author has no idea that publishing is more than just typing up your masterpiece and sending it off to lulu.com as is.
Anyway, I think this is a useful distinction, and I’m hoping book critics will catch on some day to the value of looking at books for what they are instead of looking at them for what imprint is on the spine.
Here are some good discussions, on a couple of blogs (in chronological order):
http://bookcriticscircle.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-critics-ignore-certain-books.html
http://booksinq.blogspot.com/2006/08/dick-margulis-sends-along.html
http://booksinq.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-promised.html
Join the fray. The more the merrier.
Dick
I’m adding these links to a new post called “Self-Publishing Links from Dick” so they’re clickable and linking back here.
Thanks, Dick!