Chicken Scratchings

Posts Tagged ‘Vanity’

1. Vanity Publishing

In my last post, I tried to make a distinction between vanity publishing and self-publishing. I also tried, with limited success, to convince the readers that the very word vanity is insulting. What I don’t understand and I hope someone will explain it to me, is why authors, particularly those who paid their dues and know how difficult it is to succeed in publishing, would want to continue labeling other authors with the demeaning term vanity.

Just because an author wants to print and distribute a book to a limited audience doesn’t make them vain.  Family histories, poetry, even cookbooks usually come about as a labor of love. I thought about Love Publishing as a possibility and then decided it would probably be misinterpreted as an euphemism for romance or sex.

Instead I suggest that we re-name this type of publishing as limited. Limited Publishing instead of vanity is kinder, and really more accurate, don’t you agree?

2. Self-Publishing

New authors are vulnerable and there are plenty of people just waiting to fleece them. Whether they are wolves or knaves doesn’t really matter–the point is RUN away from them as fast as you can.

I have nothing but scorn for those publishing businesses that prey on the dreams of new authors to tap their wallets and bleed them dry. There is an abundance of trip-ups and traps in alternative publishing. One tip-off is praise that is too lavish. Once they say the book will only need light editing–watch out.  Stephen King in his Author’s Note at the end of his recent book Dome, wrote “Nan Graham edited the book down from the original dinosaur to a beast of slightly more manageable size; every page of the manuscript was marked with her changes.”  If Stephen King requires heavy editing, what do you suppose a fledgling author might need?

Many claim that they will produce your book and market it through catalogs or other means.  Authors write to me about using these services and discovering, too late, that they are just a number, a notch in the publisher’s belt. After signing on the dotted line and paying their fees they were turned over to employees with questionable skills.  One author told me that when speaking with a graphic designer she was told to peruse clip art and select her own graphic for the cover.

This author sent me a copy of her book. I read it cover-to-cover because I wanted to know for myself if it was a worthy book. It was. It was an excellent book. The cover art, however, violated all of the basic rules of good graphic design. It utilized four different type fonts, and the graphic was a small smiley face. The design fought the intention of the book. The book’s message was serious and the cover was silly. There were other problems with the inside layout too. So the author paid good money to get her book produced and she should have kept it in the bank instead. Remember no one will buy your book if they can’t get past the cover.

Don’t, please don’t, place your precious manuscript into the hands of publishing grist mills who hire the incompetent, the unknowledgeable, or inexperienced just to keep their costs down.

A bargain price should be your first tip-off. When they offer you a special deal or are having a sale, run the other way. These companies do not care about you or your book, their only concern is that you give them money and they produce it as cheaply as possible so they can maximize their profits.

If your ultimate goal is to someday sell your self-published book to a traditional publisher, you won’t impress anyone if your book appears to be sub-par. Doesn’t your book deserve the best chance of success you can give it?

I’ve been following the tirade over Harlequin’s effort to create a self-publishing division. I don’t understand the fuss and bother. By insisting Harlequin use the term Vanity instead of Self, isn’t the publishing industry really bullying authors into wearing a Scarlet V of shame? Haven’t we matured since the mid-1600′s when John Milton self-published? I can almost hear the grade school chants of “Cry baby titty mouse, laid an egg in Grandma’s house” when the phrase vanity publishing is tossed about.

First of all, let’s set the record straight. Self-publishing is not vanity publishing. Both self-publishers and vanity publishers share one trait, they pay for all of the expenses of publishing a book out-of-pocket. The difference between the two is in the distinction made by intention. Self-publishing is a business–the business is distributing and selling books. Self-publishers should be respected if not for their works, for their courage. How many traditionally published authors can honestly say they have the moxie to do the same?

Vanity press is reserved for those who want to have a book in print, but have no intention of sales and distribution beyond their immediate group of family and friends. What is wrong with that? A book from the heart speaks more to love than vanity.

Better remember who runs things here.

Do you really think that is right to deride an author whose dreams are fulfilled once the printed and bound book is in their hands? I don’t. I don’t know what dictionary the publishing world is looking at when they call these people vain. It’s the equivalent of using a racial slur. It’s ugly and should stop right here and now. Vanity publishing may be an accepted term, but it is time to scour it from the lexicon.

Maybe it is because the publishing competition is so fierce, but with the possible exception of professional wrestling, there seems to me more criticism, chiding, and mean-spirited bickering among writers than in any other industry. Psychologists will tell you that this childish name calling behavior comes from insecurity and fear. Are the mighty publishing houses and best selling authors really afraid of Aunt Martha in Iowa making an attempt at the brass ring without hamstringing her with the scarlet V? She will have plenty of other rivers to cross like distribution, marketing, etc.

Trust the public. The people will decide with their money what they want to read, and who they want to read. If we continue insisting on antiquated terms to protect the high and mighty, maybe we ought to take another look at who’s really vain.