Self Publishing and PrintingSelf-publishing and printing
What is the distinction between print-on-demand, self-publishing and grant publishing?
Well, self-publishing and subsidized publishing: self-publishing has experienced a shifts in significance in the last 50-100 years. Previously, self-publication would mean that an writer after finishing his MS (manuscript), would be charged for a text writer to use the text in typed (metal parts, which would once be organised into pads for the pages of the text then used to write the text).
Then a bookbinder was recruited to tie these sheets into a leaflet. In some cases, the writers paid for these expenses on their own, in other cases there was a pass from other persons who received a copy (or more, according to the agreements made) when the work was published and hardback.
From a technical point of view, this is not a publicized work in the meaning that publishing now means offering a work to the people. Naturally, if only by subscriptions, there are no open resell. Walt Whitman, Virginia Woolf, T. E. Lawrence and many others publishers they contact did not want to be a part of.
As a rule, what is now known as a self-published text is when an editor agrees with a firm to publish the text for a charge. Usually, the enterprise looks after the detail. It is often agreed in the contracts that the enterprise does not affect the text itself and is not liable for mistakes or issues in the MS that the writer submits to it as a computer document, and if there are issues (from spelling mistakes, word abuse, issues that may require resolution, to a format that prints issues such as erratic sales structures or even only half of the text given on the pages of the text, with the remainder being "off the page").
Briefly, the enterprise takes everything that is given to it and makes a cliché. All issues the writer does not like are the authors own liability (to agree or repeat them and continue to charge additional costs as the firm has met its part of the agreement). That means that the self-publication used to be the author's work and the writer now has a firm that prepares and publishes the work ( "in whatever form") for the royalty that has been made.
Well, conceit squeezer is an interesting notion. I' ve seldom, if ever, heared of a firm called a conceit compactor. Apart from that, the concept probably relates to the fact that the media is there to promote the pride of the writer. After all, any organisation (company, media, publishing etc. etc.) that is in the shop is either subsidised (with funds for the continuation of its valuable work) or must be financially self-sustaining in the long run.
The way the business remains above water in order to bear its own expenses can vary: some do so by primarily focusing on significant volume sourcing. Typical are low-bagging businesses that are able to make the considerable amount of cash available to get the business moving, with the anticipation (or hope) that the product will be sold in large numbers to offset the return on investments made by the business before.
To do this, some share the pecuniary risks ("risk", indicating that this is a risky business) with the writer. In some cases, the authors are asked to assume the entire risks and to pay for the entire proces. At times, a covenant can work with the author's obligation to buy so many titles.
Acadamy textbooks (among others) are usually taken for publishing if there is a warranty for a certain number of specimens (e.g. 50 or 100 etc.) in the higher education institution or in the bookshops of universities according to the listed prices of the book/textbook. Or, the writer must undertake to buy (and remunerate ) a certain number of work.
In the end, if an writer creates any kind of value (the "vanity"), that is a psychologic aspect of history: I' d think it would promote conceit more if, rather than the writer who pays in advance for the work, a world-renowned firm (like Penguin Books, Doubleday, Hachette, MacMillan, HarperCollins) ever took the title to publishing without penn.
However, nobody seems to call such a trial vain. Subsidies probably refer to the fact that the writer is investing some money into the trial, whoever the editor may be. When we go beyond moralising here, the overall publishing experience of a work is a collaboration between the various individuals and works that must be done in one way or another.
As I see it, the fact that writers can now post without rating their work is in some ways marvelous ("Take what I am typing or leaving!") and also a limiting element (along the lines of "Whoever is his own attorney has a jester for a client", it is certainly an advantage to have his or her pride and pleasure (writing) checked and annotated and perhaps changed or otherwise improved).