(Note: Since I was tempted to call this, "My Publishing Journey," you should be forewarned that this may be a maudlin, self-serving account. You may want to return to my home page or go to some useful information about self-publishing. I would be pleased though if this account strikes a resonant chord with someone else.)
I realized during the 1970s that I faced two especially difficult problems in getting my material published: (1) My original work was not in the mainstream philosophically; and (2) My wanting to present my original philosophical work in introductory text material was outside standard publishing norms.
Fortunately, during the late 1970s, I produced a relatively neutral introductory medical ethics text that impressed David Boynton, then philosophy editor for Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Publishing. Some of HRW's readers gave the manuscript enthusiastic reviews; and the text, Medical Ethics: Thinking about Unavoidable Questions, was published in 1980. Sales were reasonably successful, although it received a somewhat unfavorable review in Teaching Philosophy. Getting a book published by a major textbook publisher turned out to be of great benefit to me because it established a standard by which to judge my other work: Recognizing that the rest of my work was of equal of greater quality than my published medical ethics text has enabled me continually to retain confidence in my other work--regardless whether or not I could convince anyone else to publish it. (For this, I owe an especially great debt of gratitude to David Boynton.)
I later submitted to editor Boynton manuscript material for an ethics text--consisting of four parts: two original dialogues, a neutral account of some standard ethical positions, a discussion of miscellaneous moral issues, and my original work on values and facts. HRW's readers gave this unintegrated work mixed reviews--the neutral account of some standard ethical positions getting the most favorable response. So I decided to expand the neutral account--thinking (hoping) that publication of one more relatively neutral text would establish a firm base for acceptance of my other, more original work. The subsequent manuscript for an ethics text dealt with six issues--the good life, knowing the good life, human nature, individuals and society, moral responsibility, and God. Although HRW's readers generally gave the text high marks for clarity of exposition, the reviewers did not express great enthusiasm for its success as a text--noting, for example, that it did not suit any one particular ethics course and that the succession of positions in the different chapters made the work rather tedious and complicated. After Dave Boynton rejected the manuscipt for publication at HRW, I submitted it to several other major publishers, with a similar result: initial interest in the first chapter on the good life but then rejection of the manuscript as a whole. Looking back, I think that these major publishers were making sound decisions about the market potential of my manuscript as an introductory ethics text.
The manuscript, minus the chapter on God, was published by University Press of America in 1986, as Directing Human Actions: Perspectives on Basic Ethical Issues. Although the text received a favorable review in Teaching Philosophy, it went comparatively nowhere in terms of sales--other than for library orders and for use in my classes. Consequently, the text did nothing to establish a base for publication of my other, more original work.
Then along came the laser printer and desktop publishing. So I decided to start my own publishing company. Appropriately, I think, I chose as a name, G. Bruno & Co. Publishing--after Giordano Bruno, the Italian heretic who was burned at the stake. (A "Jordan Bruno" also turns up in several of my other writings.) Having my own publishing company suited both my situation and temperament very well. Situationally, I was able to publish small runs of my books and, by using them as textbooks in my classes, to recover the costs of production. Temperamentally, I do enjoy controlling all major aspects of producing a book. (As a senior in high school, I was told by my advisor, with some concern, that a personality test showed that I had a tendency not to want to rely on other people for anything. I have mulled this over with mixed feelings ever since. I tend to see it as a strength rather than a weakness--although I also recognize the limitations it places upon me. I came to the conclusion that our greatest strengths in one respect are our greatest weaknesses in some other respect, and vice versa.)
There are some other advantages to self-publishing worth noting. I am pleased to have control over pricing and to have the copyright in my own name--so as to avoid problems I had in the past. For example, HRW raised the price of my paperback medical ethics text (238 pp.) to an expensive (in my judgment) price of $31; and I had no say in the matter. It also took me six months to get copyright permission to use 3 pages of my medical ethics text in a later text, Practical Ethics.
Thus far I have published five books. All, except a book of William James' writings, are introductory philosophy textbooks that include my own points of view. See my vita or my enhanced vita. Future plans include several more textbooks.
I am well aware that self-published books carry little, if any, prestige in the profession. Moreover, I have no special quarrel with the importance of peer review. On the other hand, I am not going to denigrate the quality of my own self-published books. Although they are outside the mainstream, I do not see them as "quackish," since they take positions well within the range of reputable philosophy. And the prospect of my books falling into scholarly oblivion does not terrify or discourage me--so long as I am free to accomplish what I want philosophically and I am satisfied that my students benefit from reading my texts.
Given my experience, which do I really prefer, self-publishing or an established publisher? I confess it would be nicer to have an established publisher produce my work. On the other hand, when I think about what that entails--in terms of making a case for the advantages of my own work, providing a market comparison with competing texts, relying on approval from a publisher's readers, losing editorial freedom, losing time getting my work out, losing copyright and pricing control--I have reason to revise that judgment. Even if it is not as nice, at this point in my teaching career, I am content with self-publishing.
Last updated 11/14/95