Recently, I came across a post from a blog simply called Penn Group that, as an independent publisher, really got my blood boiling. (For another take on this same post, check this post on the Populist Publisher.)
The April 2 post, entitled “Self-Publishing Disasters, Part 2” begins with this statement: “Self-publishing companies are the dumpster-divers of the book world.” From there, it asks why authors feel the need to publish their work if no traditional publisher would have anything to do with it. The author of this post “investigated” her curiosity and found three noteworthy cases: books with bad titles, bad cover art, and bad subject matter that justified her position. It’s obvious she doesn’t care for such works, and based on the examples she presents, I would agree with her.
There are a lot of terrible books thrown together using print on demand (POD) technology and subsidy publishing companies that accept anything someone wants to pay them to print. These “works” give self-publishing a bad name and lend credence to views like those expressed in the Penn Group blog. As a result, self-published authors who care about their craft and the books they produce have begun calling themselves “independent publishers” rather than “self-publishers.”
But there are bad books produced by traditional, big-name publishers as well. In recent years, I’ve purchased books from reputable publishers that contain lots of misspelled words and poor grammar. Should they be considered worthy of the dumpster (or at least the bargain bin)?
There are elitist attitudes against self-publishers that permeate the writing world. The Penn Group blog seems to be another proponent of it. If a writer’s work doesn’t pass the scrutiny of the big publishers–regardless of the reasons–it’s not worth being publishing at all. That’s the mindset of many aspiring and traditionally published authors as well.
Fortunately, there have been many others who broke the traditional mold, produced their own books, and profited from them. They learned the craft of book production to create books that match or come close to the quality of those by the big-name companies. Self-publishers fill niches the traditional publishers won’t touch because of their limited appeal. Local, regional, and family histories immediately come to mind. Without them, a lot of history would be lost and not shared.
Just because a book happens to be self-published doesn’t mean it’s “dumpster-diver” quality. Each should be judged on its own merits and not by an elitist attitude.
UPDATE: The Penn Group blog will now have a “Self-Published Book of the Week” feature every Tuesday “by popular request.” But don’t think it will be positive. Here’s their first selection.
I completely agree with what you’ve said here – with one exception:>>Despite the fact that some subsidy companies accept anything and everything for publication, it doesn’t mean all are ‘drek’ either. >>Sometimes, for some very good reasons, an individual, after thorough research, will decide that subsidy publishing with a particular company – and with a particular package (entirely suited to the author’s needs) – provides the services needed in a relevant way.>>As a reader, what I am looking for is quality content – no matter the publisher. For self-published, independently published and subsidy published books to all be tarred by the dumpster-worthy brush is prejudice in the highest degree. >>The Penn Group should be ashamed of themselves for what they’ve posted on their site, because as writers, we all know the singular effect of words.
RJ,>>Thank you for your comments. I agree that subsidy publishing has its place; I myself have used Lulu, for example. When I wrote that they would accept anything, it wasn’t meant to be negative, just that they will accept anything unlike traditional publishers. I just wanted to clarify that point. Thank you for visiting my blog. 🙂