‘Oh, so it’s vanity published,’ remarked an acquaintance recently, when asking about my novel All Desires Known, and I found myself wincing.
Why should the term ‘vanity publishing’ still have the power to hurt? Isn’t there a clear distinction between vanity publishing and all the modern variants of self-publishing?
Well, that depends who you are talking to. In essentials there isn’t that much difference. In all of them it’s the author who pays upfront; in traditional publishing costs are met by the firm who produces and then sells your book. It’s in the details of the self-publishing or vanity process that you can make distinctions, but you can go round in circles. In the end it might be better to develop a thicker skin.
But it’s still annoying – and is why many authors choose to describe themselves as ‘indie’. After all, investing in your writing and bypassing the gatekeepers of the book publishing industry doesn’t make you any more vain than someone who’s landed a traditional publishing contract. We are all vain to some extent – and all publishing is, in one sense, ‘vanity publishing’. A contract from a traditional publishing firm offers validation to the author; you might say it appeases our vanity.
It’s also a term which is unfairly limited to writers: someone who records and markets a CD of their own music or busks in the street is not called a vanity musician. An exhibition of paintings would not be described in the publicity as vanity art.
Some publishing firms are now setting up their own self-publishing operations – and naturally it’s not called vanity publishing there.
If authors self-publishing their work can match or exceed the professional standards offered by traditional publishing routes then it’s likely the old term vanity publishing with its pejorative overtones will become obsolete. The signs are that this is already happening across the board.
ninevoices 
I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. I belong to a small writing group and we try to self publish an anthology of our work every year. Yet a friend of mine who has paid for and published a number of booklets of his own poetry, considers our work to be vanity publishing, whilst shamelessly promoting his own work at every opportunity.
Thank you for raising this subject, I am sure it will prove to be a hot topic.
Ninevoices published a small book of poetry last year – written by one of our members – which is presumably ‘vanity’ publishing, though its production was organised by the rest of the group without the writer’s knowledge as a birthday gift and tribute to her talent.
Jane is the least vain person we know, and has had a poem published by The Times, so her work is as far removed from the general perception of vanity publishing as you can get. But, hey, nobody said it was a fair world, especially if you’re a struggling writer.
Maggie
In the ‘Times’ on Monday it was said of Virginia Woolf: “Woolf’s novels never sold well in her lifetime … Her publisher, the Hogarth Press, was understanding. I suppose it helps if you founded it and your husband runs it.” I’m not sure there’s a difference in basic principle here? (Nor am I sure how helpful the quoted phrase “in her lifetime” is in this comment … Sorry!)
Yes, the silly expression is thoroughly outdated, given what is happening within the the media and publishing worlds. I think it’s only used by people ignorant of these sweeping changes.With any luck it will soon disappear altogether, and the thicker skin I referred to won’t be needed!