I spoke with an author today who said he'd been writing his book for 16 years and had never been able to get an editor to look at it. He asked if he could send me his manuscript and I said I'd be glad to read it, but that he should be aware that, were we to publish his book we would charge him for our time and experience and that we were a subsidy press. His chummy manner evaporated. "You mean you're a vanity?"

Rather than try to educate him by challenging his prejudices I took the  path of lesser resistance and agreed that we were indeed one of that hateful ilk, whereupon we agreed to go our separate ways.

I often get this reaction in the course of doing business and as you might guess, I've done a bit of navel contemplation on the topic. This is what I've decided:

Publishing in America is now, and has long been a restricted club. If you possess the right outlook, politics, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, connections, portfolio and pedigree, you will find the doors swing wide for you. If not, you are treated as a leper regardless of what you write.

The myth promulgated by the industry is that, should you only study hard enough, write well enough, and craft just the right query letter, you will be published. If you have yet to be honored by the wise and wonderful editors, associate editors, agents and manuscript readers in New York, why then you're not yet good enough, that's all. Keep trying. Keep writing. Keep buying our books. And someday... you too, may be one of the chosen.

This happy tale was created by the industry it benefits in a clear conflict of interest. Should the millions of aspiring writers ever learn that in fact, regardless of the quality of their writing, they never had, do not have and shall never have a chance of publishing (with rare exceptions, of course), these aspiring writers might well buy fewer books. They might withdraw support from an industry that has restricted them from entry into the game. This would be bad for the industry. What is publishing to do but create a fairy tale in which every housemaid may become queen.
Those upstarts crow who dare circumnavigate the roadblocks erected to keep them silent are now branded vain. The presses who publish them called vanity presses. By whom? By those  publishers who must keep book buyers convinced that without their imprimatur, a book cannot be worth reading.

Is logic here? Could anything be more vain than big authors published by big houses? Have you listened to a successful author, critic or big publisher lately? Does humble describe them?

Ah, but those who publish with vanity presses are vain because they have no chance of making money—and profit is how we measure value and success. But wait a moment. Nine out of ten books published by big publishers lose money. And many self-published books turn a profit. Confusing isn't it?

Well, everybody knows that vanity presses publish poorly edited, poorly written tripe. Of course they do. I contend that most books published by corporate publishing is tripe as well, albeit highly polished, slick tripe.  Every small press worth their salt (including us) proofreads carefully.

Here our literary friends would protest that anything of sufficient quality will be published by a reputable publisher. This has been disproved so often by so many I can add nothing to the rebuttal. Any quick visit to wiki will list the many great writers who have had to resort to scaling the ramparts of the exclusive publishing club to break into print.

So, is paying a publisher to bring your writing to the reading public an exercise in vanity? Is wanting to publish at all vain? Is wanting to share your thoughts, ideas and dreams vain? If it is vanity to imagine you have something to offer, something to share, then I must count myself among the vain. What about you?

We may wish to consider carefully before accepting prejudices promulgated by those who benefit by them—and this applies to more than publishing. It's the timeless truth of the legal phrase: cui bono? Who benefits? It's plain who benefits from tarring the black sheep of publishing. It's plain who benefits from imbuing readers with the habit of judging a book, not by its content, but by its imprint.

Have I now or will I ever change anybody's mind about the term vanity press? I doubt it. I no longer even try. The black sheep's praise of brown wool is suspect and rightly so. We are each very fond of our prejudices, and trying to disabuse someone of them is treading clear ice. After all, where would we be without them?