Going
back to Karen Jones Gowens’ list of questions for writers, (see
here) I will address my personal take on the matter of whether
self-publishing (in addition to traditional publishing) also counts as “being
published.”
Whether labeled “co-op,” “subsidy,” or the dreaded “vanity,” self-publishing
in its many forms amounts to the writer paying to be published. Regardless of how much of the preliminary
work the writer does themselves (are you also a designer? An illustrator? A
specialist in art cover?), there is an expense to putting out the product, and the
writer bears this expense.
I
respect the effort and the quality of the best self-published books. They are “published,”
in the basic sense of being made publicly available.
But
your work isn’t “being published” if you are the active force (as in paying and
designing) to make the work public. To “be published” is in passive tense for a
reason. This means others have taken the work and brought it to market on their
dime.
To
me, “being published” means traditional publishing paid you. Ideally, with
advance and royalties, or even just royalties. [I’ve had one of each.] If you
are the publisher of your own work, it takes nothing from the work itself as
such. But you (i.e., your work) haven’t been published.
Just
my take, one of many, and I’m claiming no right or wrong in my understanding.