I like writers. That's no secret. I like publishing their stories on this little blog, helping my clients bring their books into the world, protecting them from getting taken advantage of, and giving unagented/unpublished writers advice. Writers are my people. Which is why it makes me sad that there's a civil war happening in publishing right now when it should be the time we're all celebrating together.
Author Chuck Wendig just posted about this very topic, and even though I may not add a different opinion than his, self-publishing "ego," as Chuck puts it, is still a subject I think needs discussing. (By the way, if you aren't reading Chuck's blog, Terrible Minds, then what are you doing with your life?)
The continued "us vs. them" mentality with self-publishing makes me, for lack of a better word, disappointed. Self-publishing, 15 years ago, was by and large made up of people who just wanted to see their manuscript bound in book-form to give to their family and friends. Not exactly the stuff long-lasting careers are made of., but that's OK because they weren't looking for that anyway. They didn't know they could look for that in self-publishing. At least not until about five years ago. After the digital wave hit, there were not only more outlets to get your work out to readers, but the opportunities for self-promotion increased too. Now, self-publishing really can be the way toward a career in writing, albeit a modest one.
And yet.
Most self-published writers still think of self-publishing as the "alternative" to traditional publishing and not as its own viable option. When I attend conferences, the number of people with self-published books in their hands is staggering. They tell me they got tired of waiting, so they "went ahead and self-published," as if going ahead with the decision wasn't a big deal that could impact their future career as an author. Further, they ask me "what I can do for them," while handing me their books, not realizing they've already chosen a path that doesn't include me.
And writers, there's nothing wrong with not using an agent. You can self-publish! It's OK! The time is perfect for self-published books to be taken seriously. The only thing holding them back is you.
It's true, there is still a stigma. And here's why: The number of writers self-publishing out of impatience outweighs the number of writers who self-pub because they're making it a career. Which means the overall quality of work being produced through self-publishing is too low to have credibility.
There are so many self-published authors who've spent just as much time researching and planning as they would have if they chose the traditional route. They treat self-publishing with respect and don't just see it as a way to avoid the "shackles" of traditional publishing. To the self-published authors who are doing it right, thank you. You give me hope that publishing's civil war will soon come to an end.
Because the thing is, most of the traditional publishing world has moved on and we've stopped thinking about you. We'd rather focus on ourselves. Frankly, we think you should go and do your thing if that's what you want to do. More power to you. This town is big enough for the two of us. We promise.
The self-pub vs. traditional pub war reminds me of the pre-2003 Yankees/Red Sox "rivalry." I use the term in air quotes because, let's face it, before 2003 the rivalry was pretty one-sided. Before they "got good," the Red Sox felt the need to prove they weren't just equal to, but better, than the Yankees. The Yankees had the power and the money and the World Series rings that the Red Sox thought they deserved.
So Red Sox Nation had their "Yankees Sucks" chants and relished in anti-Yankee sentiment and convinced themselves that despite their team's many losses, they were better. Meanwhile, during this pre-2003 era, the Yankees would pat the heads of the little kids throwing rocks at them before riding off in their fancy cars with their supermodel girlfriends.
Then came 2003. It was like a switch was flipped and people started paying closer attention to them. Even more significantly, then came 2004 - when the Red Sox finally beat the Yankees in the playoffs. This, I'd wager, meant more to them than winning the actual World Series.
Since then, the Red Sox and Yankees rivalry has been meaningful for both sides. No, the Yankees didn't suddenly decide to humor them. It's because the Red Sox pulled together a team that the Yankees could no longer ignore. They got good and they started winning and before the Yankees knew it, they were real competition. And honestly, it's been way more fun ever since.
As a Yankee fan, it pains me to say this, but self-published authors need to be more like the Red Sox if they want to be taken seriously. Right now, self-published authors are the pre-2003 Red Sox - an emerging force that has what it takes to be a bona fide equal - but unless they get it together and make the impatient, the bitter, and the amateurs the minority, they'll never make it to 2004.
So, self-publishing community, for being called "self," you're not very autonomous. If you want to convince traditional publishing you're its equal, stop drawing comparisons and start recognizing yourselves as your own entity. Self-publishing is not an offshoot of traditional publishing, and it's not a gateway to traditional publishing. You're something new. We traditional folks won't be mad, hurt, or think you're foolish if you choose to self-publish. Like I said before, we're not even thinking of you at all. Go write an awesome book, take your trade seriously, and treat self-publishing the way you would any other career path.
AND STOP CALLING YOURSELVES INDIE. You're not that either. Using "indie" interchangeably with "self" only confuses people who want to self-publish and pisses off actual independent publishers. There is a clear difference between publishing with a small press ("indie") and using a vendor ("self"). Misusing/stealing pre-existing terms doesn't give you credibility; it makes you look unprofessional.
If you feel the need to run away from a label just because it has a stigma, ask yourself why the stigma exists and how you can make a difference. The Red Sox didn't start calling themselves the Pinstriped Sox to hide from their losses. Instead, they embraced their history of being a losing team. They changed their stigma from the inside by working together, and if self-publishing can do the same, I bet it'll be way more fun.
I think this will be the only time I agree that we should be more like the Red Sox.
ReplyDeleteAnd it took me a while to discern the difference between Indie and Self-Publishing because people used the term to describe both. When I found out, I was like, that's totally different. So I can attest to the whole confusion part.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYankees stink. (Yeah, I grew up a Sox fan, deal with it. :-)
ReplyDeleteAs a self-published author who counts himself among those I think you'd like (based on this post, and apart from baseball), I would add two points to color the self-publishing side.
First: The publishing industry has not stopped thinking about the self-published in negative ways. I was recently told by an independent bookseller that while I was welcome to attend an upcoming YA event, my book was not. Because I published through Amazon. And Amazon "is against everything we stand for." (That's a direct quote from the bookseller.) There's more dust yet to settle, I'm afraid.
Second: I am doing great in my day job and don't look at my writing as a career. But your post helped me change that. Writing will never replace my day job. I don't expect to make money (nearly all my 6,000 downloads in four months were free, and I've sold only about 60 print copies). But I do retain all my rights. And over the next 20 years before I retire from my day job, I'll write several more books. Which means that from now on I'll look at my writing as my future second career, as part of my retirement plan.
Thank you for acknowledging that self publishing is a viable option unto itself. I think it's a disservice to tell writers they have to choose between self- and traditional-publishing. It's like telling people they have to choose between trains or boats, without asking whether they're going Phoenix-to-Lubbock or Maui-to-Bali. You have to know your own objectives first.
Thanks, Peter. I think I confused a few people with the word "career." Even traditional publishing won't exactly replace your day job unless you hit it big. I just meant "career" in terms of taking it as seriously as any other job. Self-pub is hard! I think writers can sometimes forget that. (Some writers! Not all.)
DeletePeter: Re: your first point, there's a difference between the publishing industry and booksellers. TO publishers, Amazon is a retailer for their product. For independent booksellers, they're competition akin to WalMart for a mom & pop shop. Two different things. So a bookseller having a problem with your Amazon published book has nothing whatsoever to do with what the publishing industry thinks (or doesn't) about it.
DeleteThanks, Sarah. Self pub is hard, sure, but also a ton of fun. For me, anyway.
DeleteLeah, that's a good point about the difference in perspective, but the mom & pop shop analogy doesn't really work. Will an independent local grocer refuse to carry Tide because Wal-Mart sells it cheaper? No. Nor does this independent bookstore refuse to carry Harry Potter books even though Amazon also sells them. That would be stupid. But they do refuse to carry books published through Amazon. Which says to me that they do very much care what the publishing industry thinks. Otherwise, why would they care who publishes a particular book?
The only other argument I could see is that they don't want to sell a book that would result in some of the funds ultimately going back to their competitor. In that way, the grocery analogy would work in the sense that no independent grocer will carry Kirkland brand products (Costco's brand).
Regardless of the reason they hate Amazon, I don't understand what they think they're accomplishing by locking out my book. I respect their right to do so. I just don't understand it.
Thanks for clarifying why self-publishing is not called "Indie." There has been a recent round of confusion with listing book on YA Books Central. YABC wanted all books--Indie and Self-published classified under Indie, and for all authors self-published or Indie published to pay a fee. After some consideration and objection by Indie presses, this policy was changed to allow Indie published books to be listed for free. However, YABC are still calling the self-published books "Indie." So, there is still the confusion.
ReplyDeleteI love that you're discussing this topic honestly. Kudos!
ReplyDeleteI <3 traditional pubbing & respect many self pubbers. I’m one myself. It’s a hard business & definitely NOT the EZ way out. I think the 2 sides competing & bashing each other is unproductive & negative. We ALL should be more concerned with the changes/threats going on in the industry than marking our respective territory. There are enough readers to go around.
I totally agree with needing self pubbers to do books right. It frustrates me when they want to do it quickly, do it for free, and expect to sell. I say "go big or go home".
There is a ton of crap and it’s hard to stand out. Sucks for those of us serious & trying to take a leadership role in promoting the importance of quality in self pubbing.
But lets be honest, there's A LOT of crap on the traditional side too. A lot of typos, bad covers, and bad writing. There are bad authors who make it and good authors who don’t. Sometimes it comes down to what sells – not what is the best. Just like in self pubbing.
I see self pubbing as a short cut to distribution NOT to writing. Craft, beta readers, editors, professional covers, and jacket copy are essential. Professionalism is key!
I do disagree with career path part. I dont think if you self pub - you are stuck there. Just like if you have traditionally pubbed - you haven't chosen that path forever. I think it is very viable to change career paths when it’s right for you. I think we can even straddle paths. There are many hybrid authors already doing it - you might just not know them b/c they have pen names :) Can't tell you how many "confidential" emails I have gotten in the last 6 months from traditional authors asking about self pubbing.
Have I chosen this for now? Yes. Will I always be here? No clue. I'm just trying to make my own difference in this tough business and follow my heart. Not sure where I will end up. I know I'm a good writer with good sales who didn't quite make it in traditional pubbing for whatever reason - I had a great agent, vetted writing, completed noncontractual revisions, and went to acquisitions a few times. At that time I was told thrillers would not sell in YA.
So things change.
The people doing it to get into traditional pubbing are fooling themselves. 90% of self-pubbed authors sell less than 100 books. Sales are key – as always in publishing. Bad sales hurt an author - no matter what side we come from.
As far as the term “indie” - I guess it might be a way to stand out. To get a fair shot and be judged on the merit of my book not my “title”. But it is NOT a way to mislead anyone. The INDEPENDENT Publishers Association allows in small publishers & self published authors - all under that name - Independent. I am not trying to fool anyone. To me the difference is like arguing whether we call people who work for us staff, employees, or associates. Or like calling a sticky notepad, a Post It. Or saying a laptop, notepad, and desktop cant be called a computer. It's a matter of splitting hairs - in my opinion. Titles and trends change all the time. It's part of evolution as industries change and grow.
Maybe I’ll coin Entrepreneurial Author :)
Besides, some of us are not just going through Amazon and uploading ebooks in 1 day. Some of us are trying to do it right from Day 1 - creating mrkting plans, using distr. channels, selling inventory, filling orders, giving wholesale discounts, handling foreign inquiries etc etc. That to me is an “indie”. Running a business. Not a book.
No matter the self pub crowd, there are many of us committed to quality books. Some of us are trying to do it right and sell a respectable amount of books. (I’ve sold 7,000 copies in 6 months.)
As far as caring about us, just know we (self pubbers/indies, EAs, etc) care about the industry just as much as anyone. We love books. We love reading. We try to do it right. We take pride in our work.
Cant we all just get along? ;)
Shelli, I'm so happy you commented. You're one of the self-pubbers I had in mind when I thanked the ones who were doing it right. I think your experience and a handful of others' have helped me change my own opinion about self-publishing. To clarify quickly, I didn't mean "career path" had to mean forever. People change careers all the time and as circumstances & expectations evolve, writers may find they want something else. I just meant that writers who make the choice to *begin* their writing career that way should treat it with the same weight they would traditional publishing. Self-pub won't get taken seriously as a credible option until writers themselves see it that way.
DeleteBut I still need to disagree w/ your definition of "indie." 1) Unless your potential buyers have read the guidebook for the Independent Publishers Association, no one would know it's technically an accepted term. It means something else to the rest of the publishing industry, so self-publishing should respect that. 2) Just because it can take as long as a traditional publishing experience might doesn't mean you aren't still doing it yourself. If someone told me they were independently published, I'd assume they were published by someone like Graywolf or Akashic. I feel lied to when it turns out they meant self-published, which never leaves a good impression.
As a baseball fan and a book lover (and an aspiring writer who is committed to getting published traditionally), I just have to say that analogy made my day.
ReplyDeleteI'm still laughing over "Pinstriped Socks"... I'm so glad you hit this subject! It's been a big discussion that I hold in my class - not with just the self-published literary world, but with the music industry as well. Opening the gates to ANYbody, while I feel the world will catch up and start sorting the crap from the innovative soon, goes to saturate the art and hides the golden nuggets under a ton of unpolished brass and half-eaten happy meals gone stale.
ReplyDeleteBut as the reviewers are rapidly integrating themselves into social media sociaty, popping up as their own internships into the literary world, I firmly believe that they will play a strong role in weeding out the enjoyable from the overdone, much the way agents and editors shuffle through the more 'traditional' publishing routes.
It takes a LOT of good reviews to counter one bad, and perfect reviews mixed in with wretched ones will often destroy credibility. (If they've only reviewed one book and gave it 5 stars... you kind of have to wonder)
But I strongly agree with your post and think there should be more speculation on the subject.
The Sox(pronounced Sawks) fan in me can't resist. Before 2003, the Red Sox had some very good, sometimes great teams. But they always managed to find a way to lose - especially to the Yankees (google Bucky Dent). Call it the "Curse of the Bambino" (google that too if you must) or just bad luck, they snatched defeat from the hands of victory for 86 years. In 2003 a player named Kevin Millar came to the the Sox and dubbed them "The Idiots". It was this mentality that helped them beat the Yankees in 2004. Who else but a bunch of idiots would actually believe they could be the first team ever to come back from an 0-3 deficit against a team that "was their daddy". And yes it felt GREAT beating the Yankees. But I digress.
ReplyDeleteApplying that same mentality will help any author pursuing a career, be it self-publishing or traditional. In sports, they say to be successful you must have a very short memory. Do likewise in your career. If you get ten rejections, then be an idiot and try ten more times. If self-publishing has a stigma to it, then be an idiot who doesn't care what the industry used to be and forge ahead with your business plan.
But don't be a total idiot. By that I mean, if an agent tells you that your writing needs work, don't discard their advice and think the three months you spent writing your memoir trumps a decade worth of industry knowledge.
Simply put - forget your mistakes and don't be discouraged. When they were down 0-3, Jason Varitek said "We don't have to win four games in a row. We just have to win the next game." And the Idiots came up with the greatest response of them all when asked about the overwhelming odds against them, "Why not us?"
Thanks for the reminder about the Indie vs Self-pub labelling.
ReplyDeleteFor many readers, 'traditional publishing' is like some kind of rating - means to them the book must have been good enough to be published. I agree to a point, but have also read a few books via that route that either didn't click for me, and a few that were just badly written.
The problem with self-published, as you've pointed out, is that there's such a range from the amazing to the atrocious. Even online reviews can be misleading, as it's easy to get your friends and family to fawn over your book.
Maybe we will see the evolution of publishing 'houses' that are a collection of self-published authors, a closed group that manage the quality of their books they put their collective label on, maybe even as beta readers for each other.
Readers would know then what to expect, when looking at a new book under this label.
I really don't see this war you're talking about (and you've offered no examples to back up your statements). The indies I know are very happy going it alone. And many, many authors I know have a foot in both worlds.
ReplyDeleteBut to address the word choice issue...
I don't call myself independently published, but I am an independent author.
The term self-published doesn't even come close to describing all that goes into the production and sale of my works. I have no publicist, marketing department, sales force, jacket copy writer, art director, book designer, etc...that all gets done by me or contracted out.
self-pub·lished (slfpblshd)
adj.
Having one's writings published by oneself
Um, yeah, it's waaaay more complicated than that, folks.
I am an independent contractor running her own business.
in·de·pen·dent (nd-pndnt)
adj.
1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
4. Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.
Others don't have to like it or agree with it, but it's the correct word choice and I stand by it.
Mark Twain published Huckleberry Finn on his own. What a shame if it had sat in a drawer.
Barbra Annino
This post really was unnecessarily hostile. You do of course realize that Ms. LaPolla works in the best interest of all authors, self-published or traditionally, that she comes in contact with and is an exceptionally friendly person in real life.
DeleteExcept zombies.. she hates those...
She wasn't saying that self-published authors are crap. She's following along the lines of a seminar we just attended where the self-published authors who were rejected by many houses and decided to strike out on their own instead of listening to advice on how to better present their tale are often slush-pile authors.
There are MANY talented self-pubbed authors out there and I thoroughly enjoy their work.. mostly because I don't have to deal with jacked up prices from the big houses and I often find my self with unique, memorable stories that don't all follow the same formula.
And Sarah would agree.
Also.. we are very aware of all of the work that goes into self-publishing... and it's a full-on business, I will certainly agree with that. The idea she was hitting on was that 'Indie Author' is the title given to authors published through independent houses (Dark Canyon Press and Immortal Ink come to mind for your particular genre)
It'd be like calling an erotic romance 'fantasy' because it occurs in the deepest recesses of somebody's imagination. The fact that it's an erotic sex book doesn't make it any less fantasy, it's just categorized differently to avoid confusion.
Alright, I've said my peace. =) I do hope that you continue reading Glass Cases, as it's a great site with a really unique opportunity for writer's to showcase their skills... (no matter if or how they're published)
And sorry Sarah if I overstepped my bounds on this one.
I'm happy this post is sparking a conversation, but I'll poke my head in quickly to remind everyone that debate is good, but please keep it civil. I will now pop my head back out.
DeleteMatthew, disagreeing with someone and defending one's career or word choices is not hostile. It just is. And I'm certain that Sarah is a great person. That doesn't mean I have to agree with her.
DeleteHowever, I found the use of war references, the rivalry analogy, ALL CAPS, exclamation points!!!! and the condescending tone of this:
"Which means the overall quality of work being produced through self-publishing is too low to have credibility."
this:
"Because the thing is, most of the traditional publishing world has moved on and we've stopped thinking about you. We'd rather focus on ourselves. Frankly, we think you should go and do your thing if that's what you want to do. More power to you. This town is big enough for the two of us. We promise."
this:
"Before they "got good," the Red Sox felt the need to prove they weren't just equal to, but better, than the Yankees."
this:
"but unless they get it together and make the impatient, the bitter, and the amateurs the minority, they'll never make it..."
this:
"So, self-publishing community, for being called "self," you're not very autonomous. If you want to convince traditional publishing you're its equal, stop drawing comparisons and start recognizing yourselves as your own entity."
this:
"We traditional folks won't be mad, hurt, or think you're foolish if you choose to self-publish."
and this:
"AND STOP CALLING YOURSELVES INDIE. You're not that either. Using "indie" interchangeably with "self" only confuses people who want to self-publish and pisses off actual independent publishers. There is a clear difference between publishing with a small press ("indie") and using a vendor ("self"). Misusing/stealing pre-existing terms doesn't give you credibility; it makes you look unprofessional."
to be a a bit hostile. And inaccurate.
Because, Sarah, the authors that have gone it alone (that I know--and there are many) aren't thinking about you either. We don't view traditional publishing as competition. We aren't trying to convince you of anything, least of all that we're equal. We focus on readers. They pay the bills, and believe me, we are making a living at this. Better than we could have on a traditional path (and yes, I have been there.) And we still respect the work you've done. And the books you've put out. And the authors you sign. We'll even still read them. I promise.
I completely understand how the post could be potentially infuriating if taken to a personal level, and so I would like to state that I meant no offense to you, Barbra, but was initially turned off by the insertion of dictionary definitions...
DeleteFrom a completely objective viewpoint, I wouldn't mind a good discussion if you're open to it. You'd quoted Sarah as stating "Which means the overall quality of work being produced through self-publishing is too low to have credibility." I honestly agree with this statement, but in the sense of 'over-all quality' and certainly not labeled to the individual.
As stated before, I've read some FANTASTIC self-pubbed works and am inspired to tweet, review, and blog about these books, even grabbing interviews from their writers when I'm lucky.
On the down side of this, I've read some just horrid fiction - also presented by self-pubbed authors, which, as stated previously, would cause many people to develop a bias against self-pubbed (or indie if you would prefer the title) authors. And I for one think it's a shame that the label has received a bad name from these, but their quantity makes them more the rule and less the exception.
From an author of several published novels, what's your take on the indie market at this time?
If the trade publishers would think this new choice-thing through and change their contract terms a bit, we could soon see authors deciding which way to go with any given project. Must it be all or nothing? I recall one author's statement that her publisher found her in breach for taking direct to reader some short stories they'd already rejected. Must it be us vs. them? If it doesn't have to be, kill the outrageous non-compete clauses.
ReplyDeleteOne point I constructively take issue with is the notion of the marketplace being filled with self-published slush and readers not being able to find good material. Yes, there is plenty of traditionally and self-published slush, but speaking from personal experience and with others, I don't think the majority of readers have a problem finding quality material they will enjoy. E-tailers like Amazon provide rankings (which consequentially pushes the slush no one is buying towards the bottom of the pile), books can be previewed before purchase, returned after purchase if you don't like them, and buyer reviews provide valuable insight (and yes, it is quite easy to tell which reviews are genuine and which are from an author's family member or friend).
ReplyDeleteMy two cents :)
Thanks but no thanks for the pat on the head.
ReplyDeleteI've published my first book electronically. Now, I wanted to try giving it a go with an agent on a new project. But some experts are suggesting not putting that info in my query. I though the expertise would be a good thing!
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely no expert on this but I think it really depends on the situation. Because self publishing has the stigma someone might unfairly assume you haven't done your homework even if you have. However, if you have a good sales record and a healthy following from your self published book, that can be helpful in the traditional publishing world. And the self marketing experience can be helpful as well.
DeleteGreat great post! I agree with much of what you have said and I know we talked about this topic briefly at the Missouri Writer's Guild Conference. I think self publishing is great when people do their homework and get an editor and aren't in a hurry, but unfortunately like you said that is the minority. I really respect the self published authors that do the work and treat is respectfully. Publishing is something you have to work for whether self published or traditionally published. It's not something to be taken for granted.
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI wonder if some of the animosity comes from self-published writers who maybe feel slighted in some way by traditional publishing, either directly or indirectly. As a successful computer programmer by day, self-publishing provides me with a creative outlet and some nice extra income. Subsequently, I have no interest right now in a traditional publishing deal because self-publishing is really working for me.
That said, I don't "have it out" for traditional publishing, I've just chosen a different route. Aside from reading some trad pub authors, I don't think about traditional publishing at all. It was never an option. Self-publishing is a choice for me (I've never sent a query letter), but that doesn't mean it's inherently good or bad. It's just good for me, for the time-being. Will I ever publish through the traditional route? Maybe. It just depends on the deal.
Don't get me wrong, even though writing is a part-time job for me, I treat it as a career. I hire an editor and proofreader and vet my stories with beta readers. I don't rush to market. I study the craft and write every day. I put in the hours. I write the best book I can possibly write, cutting no corners. In other words, I'm serious about it.
I think this town is big enough for the two of us. There are many more readers than writers, so the market can support us all. It's not a zero-sum game. When the dust settles I think we'll see all of this more clearly. Hopefully we'll all find a place where we feel comfortable, be it self-published or traditionally-published.
Brian J. Jarrett
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"AND STOP CALLING YOURSELVES INDIE. You're not that either. Using "indie" interchangeably with "self" only confuses people who want to self-publish and pisses off actual independent publishers. There is a clear difference between publishing with a small press ("indie") and using a vendor ("self"). Misusing/stealing pre-existing terms doesn't give you credibility; it makes you look unprofessional."
ReplyDeleteSelf-publishers call themselves "indie writers" or "indie authors". They're not misusing the word any more than indie musicians are.
I call myself self-published, but there's absolutely no appropriation, stealing, or misuse of the phrase "indie author".
[Sorry for double-post fixing typo.]
I hope it's OK if I mention this here. One of Andrea's self-published novels was an Aurealis Award finalist. That is huge. When I discovered that, I immediately bought and read her book and became a great fan of her writing. Around that time, I also stopped worrying about publisher labels. :)
DeleteWell put, Andrea.
DeleteI'm getting the sense that the "self vs. indie" label is one that's currently in transition, and that I just haven't made the shift yet. Like many others in the business who were only familiar with the traditional definition of "indie," I probably won't come around to it for a while. But, that's what being in a transitional period is all about.
DeleteCongrats on your Aurealis Award nomination!
This is an important point, I think. The term "indie" has meaning far beyond the publishing industry's traditional use. When I tell people I'm an "indie" author, they tend to relate it first to music. "Indie" is a description that readers easily understand - and use all over the Internet. Amazon has an "indie books" category now that I believe includes all KDP published books (so self-published and a lot of small press books).
DeleteSo I think the days when that word could be stuffed back into the box you wish it were in are gone :).
Awesome post in that you’re asking self-published authors to be proud of their well-written self-published work. Having recently self-published novels and short stories that now sell copies every day on Amazon, having also had the honor of being published and interviewed on your blog, and having great respect for you, I’d like to mention that two of your comments in your blog post did sting a bit and suggest that you’re holding onto prejudice against self-published authors, even while saying that you respect self-publishing.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say to self-published authors, “Like I said before, we're not even thinking of you at all,” that comes across as a taunt or insult, and I can’t imagine why anyone in publishing shouldn’t be thinking about self-published books. Today, there are so many self-published authors who have won major book awards, it seems important to be aware of that, to think about it, to read their books. The world is changing. We’re living in a global, digital age and independent creative people are doing things outside of large, traditional organizations. This year, the Huffington Post received a Pulitzer Prize. The space industry is becoming privatized with SpaceX having made history by blasting off the first private rocketship yesterday, the Falcon 9 rocket with Dragon capsule now on its three-day journey to the International Space Station. In recent news, Amazon has struck a deal with Waterstones to carry the Kindle, while Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has filed for bankruptcy. The world is topsy-turvy.
I think the real reason there are a million cultural civil wars right now, not confined to publishing, is because people are frightened by change. Extreme change is happening right now on a global and technological level, and everyone wants to protect their turf.
While you tell self-published authors to stop calling themselves “indie” and say that there’s a clear difference between “self” and “indie,” that’s not exactly how it works for many authors. Many are published in a variety of ways, but define themselves as “indie” because they function independently. I’m published by both “self” and “indie” methods. In fact, one of my book series that was “indie” published and is now “self-published” got permission from the indie publisher for me to do that but to keep the audio version of the first book indie-published, and Amazon gave me permission to self-publish with them while keeping the audio book indie-published. Labels aren’t strictly one thing or the other. That’s not how it works. And the field of self-publishing will always be messy because it isn’t an organization like the Red Sox. Telling self-published authors they all need to get their act together in order to function as one cohesive organization is like asking all small businesses or painters or actors or musicians to do that. It ain’t gonna happen. That’s not how it works.
Marilyn, I definitely didn't mean to taunt self-published authors! You know as well as anyone how I much I respect them (you being one of them). The particular *brand* (shall we say) of self-publishers who traditional publishing is ignoring right now are the ones who are bashing the role of agents and publishers on their blogs, self-publishing as some type of "revenge," and - more specifically - the ones we rejected in the past who email us about their successes. (Yes, I receive these emails that say "see what you missed.") Those are the ones we ignore. It's like we're the ones being taunted, but all we do is hit delete so it just comes off as immature on the writer's part. When it comes to self-published authors like you and others like you who are doing it for the right reasons and putting out good books, THEN we pay attention and we see you as equals. Hope that made things clearer.
DeleteSarah, I get that those emails must be frustrating. But perhaps it may have been best to address those folks directly (like, Dear Authors who send me nasty emails), rather than lumping an entire group together in a blog post. The use of the words WE and YOU seems to draw a definitive boundary so naturally, people are going to want to address your statements.
DeleteSarah – Thank you so much for your very kind words. You just made my day! I can’t imagine receiving emails like the ones you describe. Authors don’t ever experience that. It would be a strange world indeed if writers received tons of emails from agents saying, "Look who I signed now, someone who will sell many more books than you!" LOL. I guess one of the main problems is that blogs reprimanding self-published authors don’t fall on deaf ears; they fall on the ears of writers who respect literary agents and take their words seriously. I’ve been traveling a great deal the past few months and have missed keeping up with your blog. As always, I enjoyed the discussion here!
DeleteYeah, the "we're not even thinking of you at all" part reminded me a bit of Donald Draper, and we all know how that's going to turn out. TEAM GINSBERG. :P
ReplyDeleteSarah - I thought of your blog post as soon as I saw a recent announcement about a self-published author I recognize from the Kindle Boards. He’s now a truly independent hybrid author in the truest sense of the term. Hugh Howey was a quiet, self-published Kindle author with a short story or novella called WOOL. Later on, he was a quiet, self-published Kindle author with a series of WOOL books. Then – WOW! – very recently he’s been offered a huge Hollywood movie deal for WOOL, as well as offers from the big publishing houses. He’s signed an incredible movie deal, has signed with Random House overseas, but has decided to remain an independent author in the United States. Here’s an article about it: How My Self-Published Book ‘Wool’ Became A Hot Movie Property.
ReplyDelete"Because the thing is, most of the traditional publishing world has moved on and we've stopped thinking about you. We'd rather focus on ourselves. Frankly, we think you should go and do your thing if that's what you want to do. More power to you. This town is big enough for the two of us. We promise."
ReplyDeleteUsually when I'm not thinking about someone I write over a thousand words about them and then I post the evidence of me not thinking about them on the internet. By current agenting standards, I think one thousand words counts as a novel.
In all seriousness, it's a miracle that some authors manage decent sales figures without the benefit of agent revisions, editor revisions, ARCs, launch parties, publicists, cover artists, marketing campaigns, book tours, social media advice, film and foreign rights management, etc. Writers obviously benefit from the traditional publishing model because it helps them release the best product possible to the widest audience possible.
But the traditional publishing model (agent to publisher to market; then writer receives a Brooklyn apartment, skinny jeans, and pink Ray Bans) is not without fault. I mean, most literary agency websites were clearly built by fifth graders in the late 90s. And how many agents out there are looking for the next "Hunger Games only a little different," not because they think it will be a great book, but because they think it will be an easy sell? I'm sure agents struggle with taking on what is true to their heart and making an easy buck. Still, how many agents/publishers turned down Twilight and then after its success clamored to release their own silly vampire book? Too many, I think.
Self-publishers as a whole will never be comparable to any team sport. Self-publishing has no group aspect, no formula for universal success, merely SOME standouts that achieve notoriety. I think a better analogy is that self-publishing is like playing for a minor league baseball team and that you, as an agent, are like a scout for the majors. Odds are that the self-publisher/minor leaguer isn't going to make much money and he has a good chance of getting hurt in the process. HOWEVER, if the self-publisher/minor leaguer works his butt off and happens to be a skilled writer/player, he might eventually get called up to play in the big show.
Perhaps lit agencies could innovate and find better ways to ensure that fewer agent-worthy books slip in the abyss of self-publishing. In the meantime, thank you for being a champion of writers. We need you now, and we always will.
I love this sentence, "Still, how many agents/publishers turned down Twilight and then after its success clamored to release their own silly vampire book?" and am sad you don't have a blog linked. (MISSED OPPORTUNITY, MAN - your publicist)
DeleteAs a fair-weather fan of the Red Sox, I do like the analogy, but I’m in mild disagreement with a few other points. I'm not sure that what is going on between the legacy industry and other types of publishing is so much a war as it is a cultural and technological tsunami. And as a bit player in the industry, I can't agree with your definition of “indie.” It is true that the word has been used in various ways at various levels, but self-published authors are even more independent than small publishing companies, so it seems to me that they have more not less right to use the term, regardless of any previous use. As a guy who sits somewhere between those two worlds (my brother owns the small publishing house that publishes me), I can see both points. Thanks for a great, thought-provoking blog .
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing out the difference between self-publishing and indie publishing. I never mix up the two, personally, while speaking, but have heard many people mix up the two and then doubted myself and whether I understood the difference.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the problem with self-publishing is everyone focuses on the screw ups, while ignoring all the screw ups in traditional publishing. If I judged traditional publishing based on the bad books I've read rather than the excellent ones, I'd say that traditional publishing leads to poor writing as well. And I've read a lot of very poorly written traditionally published books that make me scratch my head and wonder where the editor was. And I'm NOT a big critique.
We notice our comments in response to your blog was not published by you, which is unfortunate. It seems only some discussion is permitted on the topic. We'll address your comments in another forum.
ReplyDelete... make that "were not published"
ReplyDeleteRegards
Mel
Hi Melanie. I'm sorry your other comment didn't get through. I don't approve comments beforehand, so it should have been posted automatically. I only deleted one comment here because it was off topic and purposely rude, which. Otherwise, I let everyone stay and continue the discussion. I don't like policing comments. It's counterproductive. Maybe re-try? It's possible there was just a Blogger issue before. Thanks for letting me know it got lost.
DeleteI have several friends who have self-published because that was the way they wanted to go after researching all the viable possibilities. Then there are those who self-publish because they couldn't get an agent and didn't want to have to rework stuff until they could. The first have been hands down better than the second.
ReplyDeleteThis is the second time this week I have seen a post talking about self vs indie and who can use which title. Interesting - something I need to look into more. I just found your blog - look forward to your posts.
I'm glad I stumbled on this post! I'd never actually considered the "indie" vs. "self" debate, so I had no idea how contested these terms are.
ReplyDeleteI've published two novels on Amazon, and sell copies daily. (Not many, but some.) I've won national contests, including the RWA Kiss of Death Chapter's Daphne du Maurier award. In my heart, I know I'm a good writer--good enough to be published traditionally. I also know that traditional publishing just doesn't happen for everyone, good writer or not. It's about timing and luck, two things I haven't had together yet.
That's what led me to self-publishing. I did it because I believe in the books I wrote. If they weren't right for the agents I queried, that's absolutely fine. They are right for me. And I truly believe they are right for others out there, too. I'm not hoping to cash in. I'm hoping to share stories and characters and plots that made me laugh or cry or shiver with anticipation as I wrote them (and revised them and revised the revisions and revised the revised revisions).
I don't use the term "indie writer" or "self-published writer" to describe myself. I'm a writer. Period.
It seems like arguing over "indie writer" or "self-published writer" is a little like arguing whether the word should be "history" or "herstory." It is what it is and the name doesn't change it. I'm a writer. That's all I want to be, however it happens and wherever it takes me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete