E-publishing encompasses both self-published and specialty published e-books so this seems like a pefectly reasonable place to discuss it. The subforum about covers and formatting surely isn't for the publishers you're referring to and the mods seem pretty good about moving stuff they believe has been categorized incorrectly.
No, it doesn't. And my POINT is that the ARTICLE is misnamed. The article doesn't have one darn thing to do with any e-publisher EXCEPT the author who builds his own formats and self-publishes it.
E-publishing is completely different from self-publishing. You are a self-publisher: you publish your own work. I am an e-publisher. I publish the work of other people after they survive my submission process.
You're trying to equate Little League with MLB. Just because your kid wears a uniform and plays for the Lancaster Rockies doesn't make him a MLB star. Just sayin'.
Okay, mscelina, but I reserve the right to know and define for myself the differences between self-epublished, self-print published, self-published, traditionally-published, commercially-published, vanity-published, etc., etc., etc.
And I reserve the right to tell you that your 'definition' is incorrect. As it is.
I'm pretty damned clear when I talk about Kindle that I mean, for the most part, self-epublished, but if you insist on splitting hairs, you can re-edit my posts at your convenience, thanks very much.
It's not splitting hairs. I don't claim to be a Big Six publisher. What I am is an e-publisher: owner of a company that publishes authors professionally. I put MY money into other people's manuscripts.
What is discussed in this article is an author publishing himself. That's not the same thing at all. But if you think that this distinction is 'splitting hairs' then I'll contact Putnam and Simon and Shuster and let them know to move over--the Big Six has been increased by one. They'll be so pleased.
Honestly, though. The differences, while meaningful in a "commercially published vs self-published" definition, mean little to anyone who hasn't been in the biz for awhile. Heck, even pros I know don't always know where the lines divide anymore so arguing about the lines is like arguing about which pigeon came out of which hole.
Again-totally wrong. As a publisher, I have the responsibility of making certain that my target market receives a high standard product that meets my specifications for quality. Why? Because I *have* a market. Because my brand is on every book we release. Because I and my staff put a great deal of work and effort into every manuscript we release. We don't just format a word document, slap a photoshop cover on it and throw it out into the world to sink or swim.
I can't speak for the quality of your work; I haven't seen it. But I can look at the 200 plus books that will be released by the end of the year and the 300 contracted books for 2012, to the 150 authors, the editorial staff of 25, an intern staff of 15, the artists, the designers, the techno-monkey staff and the marketers and promoters and I KNOW what the quality of our work is. And I damn well expect it.
And regardless of what the majority of self-publishers claim, the fact of the matter is simple--fewer than 1% of the books self-published in the last year are of a readable quality. Musa authors are screened on multiple levels before they are accepted. Their manuscripts are edited multiple times in content edits, then proofed and formatted, then line edited, then developed and designed into a final package that benefits from the experience and expertise of 10-15 publishing industry professionals.
Do we hit the mark every time? Nope. Publishing is a gamble. But getting published by a legitimate e-publisher? That means an author's work is actually DEVELOPED and MARKETED with an eye to building a readership.
And my authors don't spend one thin dime to get that done.
THAT is the difference between e-publishing and self-publishing. E-publishing is like auditioning for and being cast in a musical.
Self-publishing is karaoke.
They both sound good to the singer, but the standards in a musical are much higher.
I publish my stuff to entertain people and I charge a certain price for that entertainment. How does that make my stuff any less commercial than Stephen King's except for popularity? He's Frito-Lay, I'm No Name Chips. We're both trying to make stuff people are willing to shell out money for.
Well, you can define any words for yourself any way you like, but people will tend to correct you when you use them in a way that is different from how most people use them.
I think the value in "splitting hairs" is precisely to prevent self-published books from being blurred with professionally e-published books. Self-publishers would like very much to be considered the same as a writers who've been edited and trade-published, but as a reader, I'd like very much to maintain the distinction and avoid letting the one be confused for the other.
Actually, the comparison is more like Frito-Lay vs. homemade potato product of uncertain provenance baked in someone's kitchen. It might be better than Frito-Lay, it might be inedible.
QFT.
With self-publishing and e-publishing, the expectations are different.
An e-published book has (should have been at least) vetted in some way before it's published. But the standards for self-published books are much lower. That's not based on any factor whatsoever other than the expectation that has been built from the self-published books already on the market. Add in the content farmers and the asshats who add a 30-word introduction to Alice in Wonderland and then list themselves as a co-author on the buy page and you're looking at tens of thousands of self-published books with serious content issues.
Here's the odd thing--I believe that self-publishing is a great option for some writers: writers with a niche market, non-fiction stories/memoirs, midlisters wanting to get their backlists out. I believe that self-publishing provides some authors with a valuable avenue for them and their work.
But it's not the same thing as e-publishing. No way, no how. And no matter how much self-published authors try to blur the dividing lines between legitimate e-publishing and self-publishing, they're not now and never will be the same thing.
And it's articles like the one in the OP that keep trying to keep that distinction from the public's eye.
So you can switch up the terminology all you like and argue that it's all semantics, but the fact of the matter is that this is what you WANT to believe, and what you want READERS to believe. But I publish bestselling authors and up and rising stars.
I don't publish myself.
It's been around a long time. I don't believe anyone on this thread would argue there are good and bad books coming from all avenues. The issue is about blurring lines. As I said up-tread, self publish is self publish. E-publish is a format of delivery and may be self-published or not. E-publish does not mean the same thing as self-publish no matter who would like to believe it does. Blurring the lines doesn't help new writers who are unfamiliar with publishing terms. 
