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.
.jpg)
7 comments:
I agree. I have been published multiple times and I have not self-published, only blogged. However, if earning well from one’s books is a goal, then in self-publishing you do better if your books sell well. Also, some authors who have succeeded through self-publishing have gone on to get contracts with publishing houses.
Hmmm, I use the term in its broadest sense--to make public. Traditional publishing is so nice because you have a team of people behind you, but sometimes you have to choose to publish yourself, which is what I've done with a book of my heart. I wish Bodach Books were making lots of money because I would love to publish others' books as well the proper way with an advance. Ah, dreams! Btw, I really enjoyed Karen's blog. Thanks for linking it.
I concur with your definition. I've never self-published, only "been published," but I would consider self-publishing if I thought it would help me achieve a goal.
Love,
Janie
I was published in my 20s, first was several columns in a local newspaper, second was selling a story to a children's magazine. It's funny that for years I didn't think of myself as "published" since these were articles and stories, not a "book." How funny the things our mind does to us, downplaying so often our accomplishments. I always think of Virginia Woolf, who was self-published on a printing press she and her husband ran in the basement of their house. Funny that now nobody thinks of her as a self-published writer. But there's something that comes with an outside person or company wanting one's work and willing to pay to publish it. There's nothing like that, really.
Check out Evelyn's lovely self published book, WHERE ARE THE FLOWERS, here:
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Are-Flowers-Evelyn-Christensen/dp/0999629506?
Thank you, Mirka!
I do like the term traditionally published. Unfortunately there are a lot of books that are self-published that needed editing, cover design, better art. This site pokes fun at bad covers: https://lousybookcovers.com/
Post a Comment