Talk:Self-publishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is somewhat POV at present, I've self-published my own stuff and whilst I may not be JK Rowlings I've steadily sold to an audience in the vegan and permaculture markets (and not even used wiki for publicity ends!). There's more to self-publishing than 'vanity presses' (like not wanting to be beholden to any sort of editorial control) and I resent the insinuation that one can either be 'published' or self-deluded. For me self-publishing represents a 'third way'. I can be creatively free, make a modest income, and spend my evenings in ways that are more stimulating than watching EastEnders ... Here's my website, make up your own minds; [1] (oops what was that about not using wiki for self promotion???) quercus robur 01:15, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• 207.44.148.201 was User:Jstanley01 who forgot to log in. With the advent of personal computers and the internet, the 'third way' you talk about has become much more viable than in the olden days of typewriters and photocopy machines. Just look at what the 'third way' is doing to the music industry. That said, looking at self-publishing as a whole, I believe your success still represents a statistically-rate exception.

As far as POV, if it ain't NPOV, correct it. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Recognize, though, that writing about a subject with a perfectly NPOV can appear to have a biased POV to someone with a stake in the subject. ô¿ô 01:37, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

• Good job on the changes. ô¿ô 02:10, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

This article fails to note the prevalance of self-publishing in the past. In former centuries, the first edition of many books that are now regarded as "classics" were self-published. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:13, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's really interesting, Daniel. Can you add that statement, with some examples, to the article? -- The Anome 16:15, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Indeedy. there is alot more that can be added- please do so! Weren't the original writings of William Blake, William Morris, etc self published? (I'm not sure enough of this to add it myself). self publishing is a fine & venerable tradition, which is perhaps why I saw red at first when it was originally dismissed as 'vanity publishing'... Also stuff on the Digger tracts, the writings of Abneizer Coppe, etc, etc?? quercus robur 17:44, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know that Blake's were, but I'm unfamiliar with Morris. Those who have read Blake's work as only poems on a black-and-white page don't know Blake at all; the unique method of engraving he invented and the integration of pictures and writing in his beautiful and extremely subtle engravings are the real Blake. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:40, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

How about self-published/released music? Is there an article on that, or should it go in here?Vicki Rosenzweig 17:50, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

it's certainly pertinent, esp the post punk independent record labels boom and the DIY punk ethic (which informs my own attitudes to self publishing BTW). A paragraph could certainly be integrated, or at least links added in the 'see also' area. Not tonight by me though, I'm off for a barbie in the garden with mucho lager and rum drinking in store.... quercus robur 17:56, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Until Edison and his dog came along, all music, except for sheet music, was "self published." You just sat down at your harpsichord and played for whoever was over that night for supper. Once tunes became a marketable commodity -- to be recorded, packaged, and distributed -- music began to be dominated by big companies, the way print had long been dominated (not to mention that the proportion of the population which learned to play musical instruments dropped sharply).

As far as print: until Gutenberg came along, and with him translations of the Bible and other works in the vernacular, most people remained illiterate. The earliest "self-published" works were often Protestant diatribes, at first against Catholicism, and then against one another (sorta like Wikipedia NPOV disputes).

With the rise of print, came the rise of literacy, and with the rise of literacy, came a rise in the demand for published works, and with the rise in demand for published works, came the flowering of poetry, fiction, and non-fiction, ongoing to this day. The publishing industry was organized to meet that demand.

As the article notes, with the advent of PCs (that's "personal computers," Ethyl, NOT the "politically correct") for production, and the Internet for promotion and distribution, self-publishing has become much easier. However, it looks to me like the practice is making its biggest inroads, not in print publishing, but in the music industry. If true, it's probably due to the fact that there are a heck of a lot more good musicians out there than there are good writers.

As far as researching and writing about this...of course, I'm busy with other stuff too...like dissecting the fractals in my belly button-lint -- a surrealist's endeavor sure.ô¿ô 20:08, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

Jstanley said; However, it looks to me like the practice is making its biggest inroads, not in print publishing, but in the music industry. If true, it's probably due to the fact that there are a heck of a lot more good musicians out there than there are good writers.

This statement seesm to make the assumption that the aim of every writer is to be validated by being published by a 'real' publisher and to sell bucketloads of books to the 'mainstream' punters (whoever they are...). maybe yer average local allotment historian, situationist prankster, anarchist ranter, permaculture plotter, gnostic visionary, old lawnmower collector and renovator is quite content to address their specific audience in a way which is direct and unmediated and that has it's niche- it's not to do with quality of writing but what you want to say and to whom. Are you saying that the average published Mills and Boon novel is of a higher quality than, say, the well researched history of Rottingdean allotments (yes, there is such a book, I own a copy, and found it fascinating rerading), simply by dint of the fact that the Mills & Boon book is published by a recognised publisher? Maybe the aims and objectives of the allotment book are not the same as those as the M & B writer....

Is the music of Queen or Status Quo more artistically valid than that of say, Spontaneous Music Ensemble simply because they shift more units? quercus robur 22:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I was talking about "good" in the sense that there are a sufficient number of people willing to go to the effort and expense of procuring someone's music or books, that her/his efforts can be counted as something other than mere narcissistic doodlings.

I'm not telling you that "Mills and Boon" (whoever they are) are "good." It's the people who buy, read, and enjoy their novels that are telling you that. If those novels are just "banal entertainment," okay. But who are you to say that a little banal entertainment now and then is a bad thing?

Don't fool yourself. It's the enjoyment you, and people like you, derive from niche works that gives them their niches.

Be advised, I was talking about "good," not "artistically valid." For me, dissecting the fractals in my navel lint is an entirely valid artistic endeavor, even if no one else agrees. Methinks, though, that the joy of making music or literature ought to be the joy of having someone else listen or read, and like it.

That's the whole point, ain't it? Then again, I'm just the old-fashioned type who prefers making love over just "choking my chicken." ô¿ô 00:40, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Jtdrl, where abouts in the world exactly are the terms 'vanity publishing' and 'self publishing' synonomous? Vanity publishing may be one form of self publishing, but I can't accept that the traditions of fanzine production, samizdat, come under the vanity publishing heading. Peter Finch's 'How To publish Yourself' lists a number of options for the self-publisher, of which Vanity publishing is but one, and about which he unequivocacbly states To be avoided at all costs because basically they will publish any old shit and leave you stuck with 500 unsalable books. He also lists 'private presses', 'independant publishers', small presses and subsidy publishers as options for the self publisher. quercus robur 14:25, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

quercus robur 14:15, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have a lot of contacts in the book trade (I used to work in it and now it publishes my stuff). They are equated I know in Ireland and in dealing the UK reps who were visiting Ireland they use both terms interchangably. That may be because with the appearance of DP self-publishing is now a more viable option, it moving into the niche that was called vanity publishing. My guess is that s-p is effectively taking over VP, with VP as a term evolving to have a broader new meaning that heretofore. That is just my theory from my experience of publishers and the book trade and their usage of language. VP as a specific niche, where a printer prints text to order, is less in demand now that authors can use DP to do their own text, reducing costs and so making it possible for them to have very small print runs. It is all, like the entire book trade right now, a rapidly changing area. FearÉIREANN 14:57, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

[edit] Kat's View

This article needs work and some refactoring.

I am uncomfortable with the use of "Vanity Publishing" as a synonym.

We should be careful about the use of this phrase as it is more of an attempt to read the motives of the self-publisher than a neutral description of the phenomenon. The motives probably range all over the map. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My point entirely Daniel and expressed most succinctly. I'm very happy with kat's editing and refactoring though which positions Vanity publishing as but one manifestation of the motives/manifestations of self-publishing. quercus robur 19:32, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of self-published material that is not inherently self-aggrandizing. Willys World and Salmagundie are both self-published magazines, yet have moved well beyond the 'zine moniker and are published more as a service than because of vanity. In books, there are any number of locally significant books on an area's history that are self-published yet not self-aggrandizing. There are probably better examples.

The article dances around the distinction between self-printed and self-published work. This should be called out and discussed more clearly.

"Death of the Dream", for example, is published by a county historical society, iirc, that commissioned the writing and photography that it contains. Inasmuch as that organization has published little else, this volume might best be considered self-published. Yet, it was printed in considerable quantity and has printing, binding, and overall production values comparable to any other "coffee table" book. Self-published; but not self-printed.

This is a really bizarre definition of "self-published" that reverses the actual definition. Whether or not something is "self-published" does not depend on the publishing record of the publisher other than that book, just whether or not that particular book was "self-published." --Daniel C. Boyer 13:27, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And finally, the article doesn't address the distinction (or lack of one?) between self-published books and such things as political and religious pamphlets.

Kat 15:57, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd welcome your inputs Kat, this is a subject I feel strongly about, I've self published stuff but I don't think I'm particularly 'vain', but decided to step back from this for a few days at least to get a better perspective on what needs to be said here. Your inputs may well help to make me feel less embattled over this issue, which is how I'm tending to feel at the moment... quercus robur 16:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] No-cost self publishing

In sharp contrast to the 'vulture press' variety of vanity press outfits that charge 100% of the cost to the author, a new bunch of companies like lulu.com has sprung up that charge the author nothing and the author retains 100% of the rights. All the costs are folded into the sales price of the books, which are printed on demand as they're ordered.

Another thing, which has gone pretty much nowhere, is the point of sale book machine. The idea is to allow a bookstore to have a machine that produces books on demand, with a selection of paper and binding grades. If a buyer wants a cheap paperback to read once, she can get it without having to wait weeks or months for the more expensive hardcover to sell down its print run enough for the publisher to start on the softcover. At the same time, a book collector can get the utmost in acid-free heavy paper with a hardcover, from the same machine.

The cost for the machine would be a large chunk of change, but a bookstore with one would save big by not having to keep hundreds or thousands of books in stock, and the worst thing that can happen too a book store, selling out of a popular book, would never happen.