Skip to main content

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity

Every now and then there's an outbreak of distaste from almost everyone who writes about being an author on the subject of vanity publishing. Most recently this blew up when the big US romance publisher Harlequin announced it was coming out with a vanity imprint. Such was the reaction that within a week they had decided that, though they'd still go ahead, they would take their name off the imprint.

Just to clarify terminology, we're talking about a way of getting books published where the author pays to be published. There are broadly two approaches to this. The more respectable is self publishing. This could be anything from using Lulu.com to setting up your own deal with a printer etc. When you self publish, you take on the costs of producing the book, print as many copies as you like and try to sell them yourself.

There are a number of good reasons for self publishing. It might be to produce a special book for friends and family, or to sell as part of your business dealings. Or it might be that you have a good idea for a book that will have niche 'long tail' sales, and you are happy for a copy or two a year to trickle out.

The despised end of the market is vanity publishing. This is where a company claims they will do everything for the author a conventional publisher does, including marketing and distribution into bookshops. They will typically charge up to ten times as much as is involved in self publishing. Generally speaking, this is a rip-off, because the vanity publishing company gives the impression that you will be treated just like a 'real' author. But in fact they won't provide the same level of editorial service, they won't usually do much in the way of marketing, and they have little chance of getting your books into a bookshop.

I don't discourage people from self publishing - though you do need to be aware that it's very hard work if you want to sell your books yourself. And it's very rarely a useful route to get into 'real' publishing - consider it a totally separate activity. Vanity publishing is a different kettle of fish.

I wish, in a way, that the word 'vanity' wasn't attached. In a sense all publishing is vanity publishing. It all requires the chutzpah to think 'what I write is good enough for other people to want to read it.' But vanity publishing is really not the route to take if you want to see your name in print. There is always a better way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense