The poster shall remain anonymous, just in case s/he did not
mean to be as snarky as the comment
seemed to be. It started this way: “I
have not read this book, but . . .” Now
if I were inclined toward snark myself, I would stop reading right there. “No?
Then shut up! You shouldn’t be commenting on something you admit to knowing
nothing about.” Ah, but this was a comment from someone I’ve always liked in
an offhand sort of way, so I continued to read: “I have not read this book, but
I am inclined to reject the argument because the book is self-published.” Then
the writer went on to explain that self-publishing meant that the author knew
all of the following: that the book was not worthy of “real” publication . . . that no publisher
would have accepted it. . . and that the
argument would not stand up to careful fact-checking. ARRRRGGGH! I had so hoped that we were past
that old view that equates
self-publishing with the rip-offs of a vanity press. Do we need to make these points again? Apparently so! ·
Traditional publishers put out some books that
are unworthy of publication, simply because they know the author’s name or the
provocative title will guarantee high sales. We could all name book series that
have deteriorated over time, with the author’s carelessness or impending
senility. Traditional publication does not guarantee high quality, and has never done so. ·
Some fine and talented authors have good books
in several venues – traditional, small press, and self-published. The types
serve different purposes. ·
Last year two of the top-ten best-sellers on the
New York Times list were self-published. ·
Self-publishing does not necessarily mean
undocumented nonsense, badly-written prose, or a book full of typos, misspelled
words, sentence fragments, and grammatical nightmares. ·
Some (make that many) self-published authors
have their work carefully edited at their own expense, use beta-readers to weed
out any objectionable material, hire professional cover designers and layout
experts to produce visually-appealing books, and take full responsibility for
all sales and promotions.
Self-publishing is hard work, not taking the “easy way out.”! ·
Legitimate authors self-publish for many
reasons, including a bad experience with a traditional publisher, a need to get
the book out in a timely fashion, or the simple fact that they need to make
enough money on the book to recoup their expenses. (One example: I have a book
that is both traditionally published and self-published in different
formats. From the
traditionally-published volume, I earn $0.17 per sale. From the self-published paperback, I earn
$3.45. I’m not going to get rich on the latter amount, but it’s a closer
estimate of what my time and expertise is worth than is the $0.17 retail
rip-off.) ·
Like e-mail, digital images of rare manuscripts,
online editions of out-of-print books, and other electronic wonders of the past
ten years or so, self-publishing has become a reality without which much fine
scholarship would never reach the public. ·
Are there bad books among the
self-published? Of course. That’s where
human judgment and scholarly discernment must come into play. But to reject an argument on the simplistic
grounds that it has been self-published is like rejecting all books with red
covers just because they seem too showy. Add this to my list of reasons for being happily retired
from academia! |
