3 ms·

I suppose the OP meant choosing (or being forced) to eschew mainstream publishers when publishing one’s book. Lolita and Ulysses both had to be put out by small

I suppose the OP meant choosing (or being forced) to eschew mainstream publishers when publishing one’s book. Lolita and Ulysses both had to be put out by small presses in Paris where there was no censorship, though indeed this isn’t quite self-publishing because there was a publisher who took on the risk.

leephillips 6y ago
Letting a small publisher that was not your first choice publish your book isn’t just not “quite” self-publishing, it has nothing to do with self-publishing.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  In practice, the concepts overlap more than you seem willing to admit, especially today. As a literary translator, I see this often: authors have a book they want to get out in a foreign language, but a mainstream publisher won’t touch it (due to the belief it won’t sell enough), so instead the author has to turn to a small press specializing in that kind of literature. But here’s the thing: many of those small presses also double as vanity presses. Some of the manuscripts they publish they think are deserving literature and they take on the risk, but for other books they put out they simply accept the manuscript because the author is willing to pay them a few thousand euro (and in internal discussions with me as the translator, the publisher’s staff even admit that the book is author-funded crap). The ordinary consumer actually has no way of knowing which of the small press's books were published on literary merit, and which ones are vanity press. Also, due to the pressure on small presses to cut costs, both merit-published and vanity-press titles get the same lax proofreading and editing and poor typesetting.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    I know about everything you say here, and it’s all true. But it has nothing to do with the two novels under discussion.

3 ms·

I suppose the OP meant choosing (or being forced) to eschew mainstream publishers when publishing one’s book. Lolita and Ulysses both had to be put out by small

by Mediterraneo10 6y ago

leephillips 6y ago
Letting a small publisher that was not your first choice publish your book isn’t just not “quite” self-publishing, it has nothing to do with self-publishing.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  In practice, the concepts overlap more than you seem willing to admit, especially today. As a literary translator, I see this often: authors have a book they want to get out in a foreign language, but a mainstream publisher won’t touch it (due to the belief it won’t sell enough), so instead the author has to turn to a small press specializing in that kind of literature. But here’s the thing: many of those small presses also double as vanity presses. Some of the manuscripts they publish they think are deserving literature and they take on the risk, but for other books they put out they simply accept the manuscript because the author is willing to pay them a few thousand euro (and in internal discussions with me as the translator, the publisher’s staff even admit that the book is author-funded crap). The ordinary consumer actually has no way of knowing which of the small press's books were published on literary merit, and which ones are vanity press. Also, due to the pressure on small presses to cut costs, both merit-published and vanity-press titles get the same lax proofreading and editing and poor typesetting.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    I know about everything you say here, and it’s all true. But it has nothing to do with the two novels under discussion.