I have been wrong before. I maintained a false attitude about Harlequins and got schooled as to how wrong I was. I got royally schooled at Princeton about inspirational romances and the community of women who read them, and the corporations who distribute them.
So I think I may have been wrong about self-publication. Yes, there is no curation and some of it is outrageously crapalicious. Indeed, there is a stigma to flipping a book over and seeing “iUniverse” instead of “HarperCollins” or “Berkley” – like flipping a greeting card over and not seeing “Hallmark.” iUniverse, in my mind, often meant, “In my universe, I couldn’t get published.”
I think I am wrong about that attitude, and will be proven wrong soon enough.
In the future, self-publication operations will have to be included in the discussion as to where publishing is going, and how it’s going to change, mostly because the structural foundation of distribution and marketing as we know it is changing faster than expected in a sour economy.
Distributors are going under and everyone suffers. Why else were there February paperbacks still in drugstores in April in Walgreen’s in Florida? Mass market authors with March releases got screwed in a place most often seen in erotica, and it weren’t pretty.
Publishers are downsizing left and right in all departments, and the promotional efforts fall even more on the shoulders of the author now. And recently authors have started to speak very candidly about what they spend their funds on, and how much it all costs.
NOTE: This is not to say that publishers aren’t doing jack shit, because I know that many publicists inside houses are working their asses off – because they have a miniscule budget with which to promote and a fuckton of books about which to bring in the funk.
What’s that song with Miley Cyrus whining how it’s all about the climb? When the climb is never-ending and looks from all angles like futility, it’s time to stop and look for other options to ascend.
If publishing houses are streamlined and cut back to the point where they are places of curation and production, and the majority of publicity and marketing shift to the author, self-publication firms should be welcomed to the discussion about the future of publishing simply because it will become a viable, profitable choice.
This article in the United Airlines Hemisphere magazine discusses self-publication as sort of a work-around to avoid the “high barrier to entry” in print publishing as fewer acquisitions are made in the face of dwindling profits.
Of course, undermining its own point, the article highlights three books that achieved “legitimacy” by… wait for it… being acquired by New York publishing houses. Two of the three authors featured, Brunonia Barry and Lisa Genova, hired book publicity firm Kelley & Hall, which sells itself as a firm which takes self-published novels and scores deals with NY publishers. So: good self-pub novel plus publicity firm equals potential million dollar Big Pub deal. It’s the same end point: big money in NY Print.
The Washington Post published an article by Eric R. Danton from The Hartford Courant in March that examined self publication as it compares to indie rock bands and bloggers. Josh Jackson of Paste magazine is quoted in the article discussing the parallels between bands and writers:
Bands have the comparative luxury of writing songs and then performing them before they ever record them, which helps hardworking (and lucky) groups build audiences for the albums that might eventually follow. Writers, by contrast, traditionally have relied on finished products, such as books, to build their audiences, although that’s starting to change as more post their writing on blogs.
“Maybe that’s where the parallel is,” Paste’s Jackson says. “You have bands going out and playing live shows, and you, as an author, can congregate an audience through a blog….”
The Washington Times also featured an article this past Friday 22 May which included the Bowker statistic that:
Traditional publishers released fewer books in 2008 than in 2007 — 275,232 new books, a drop of 3.2 percent. However, on-demand publishers, the route many writers take to self-publish, released an astounding 132 percent more — 285,394 in 2008.
The idea that self-pub isn’t the doghouse of dreck is important. With that slow disintegration of established distribution channels and the shifting roles of author and publisher, self-publication may ultimately be an equal option independent of big houses for writers to publish and distribute. Eventually, perhaps with some form of (please God) curation, the self-pub stigma will disappear. And as it does, profits will speak louder than reputation.
Everyone’s role is going to be redefined in the next 5 years, I think, and the old publishing model and path to publication won’t remain, or even look like itself. Defining what it means to be an author, a publisher, or a reviewer, even, will be a changing task as the economy and the changing landscape of book sales force a whole mess of navel gazing. Self pub is often accused of being the formal output of the relentless navel-gazer – if that’s so, and if they’ve learned anything from the process of self-publishing and self-evaluation, they may end up ahead of the game.
Have you self published? Would you consider it? Do you think the stigma of “vanity press” will ever go away entirely? What’s your take?
“I think maybe my small press hackles got raised prematurely.”
I think it did. I thought I’d been careful not to brand all small presses as vanity set ups but I apologise for the impression. I thought it was well known, at least in epubs, that a lot of smaller outfits started up to publish the owners’ own work. I won’t name names, but it’s been the subject of discussion before and if you look at certain publishers’ catalogues, you will see they are dominated by one or two authors – though in some cases because of a plethora of pen names, you won’t realise that.
“if you’re e-published or small press published, you might as well call yourself vanity or self-pubbed, because “everyone knows” those houses will take anything.”
I’ve been at the sharp end of that myself, with a Big Important Author declaring to the world that I wasn’t a real author because I was only self-pubbed (because my ebooks with Samhain were the same thing to him – real books are print books, according to him, but only if they’re published by New York). The antics of certain epresses who *do* take anything, or who publish a disproportionate amount of the owner’s work, doesn’t help when you’re fighting that. But when you’re *actually* self-pubbed, it’s even worse. Trust me on that. As I said above, even the most disreputable publisher can get their books taken seriously by default, whereas self-pubbed books are labelled crap by default. Small presses get a first chance to impress, at least.
But regardless of all that, self-publishing can be astonishingly liberating *if* you don’t see it as a way to make huge amounts of money. The first books I self-pubbed were just to meet reader requests, and then to raise money for charity, and now to pay for a trip to meet my friends. I have low aims, and I’ve not been disappointed, while having the satisfaction of knowing that some people, at least, consider my work good enough to pay for. Self-pubbing is never going to satisfy the greedy or the arrogant author.
I don’t associate “self-published” with “bad books”… I’ve seen books that were published by “real” publishers” that were utter crap. Yes there is bad stuff that is self-published, but there are good books too. Sometimes I think people who self-publish just don’t fit in the limitating niches the industry is willing to publish, and we all know how willing publishers are to take risks…. Plus, I think some authors don’t have the information or contacts to find a good agent that will get them published. At the same time, the costs of self-published books is often prohibitive, so unless it gets very good word of mouth, very few people are likely to read those books. Pity.
Holy Vanity Bat Man! hehehe. Am I dreaming? Somebody pinch me. I want to print this out and frame it and put it on my wall. Okay, actually I’m really going to do that as soon as I finish this comment.
I really can’t believe we’re getting to this point, and it warms my little indie heart! 😀
Be prepared to start hearing serious self publishing authors calling themselves “indie authors.” Look for self publishing to have a new face. There will always be a lot of crappy self published books because of the nature of what self publishing is (i.e. anyone can do it good or bad0, but look for the cream to start rising to the top.
Many of us start our own little micropress imprints. i.e. the spine of my books will say: “IncuBooks” not iUniverse or Lulu (hey, wouldn’t even print with them, they eat up too much profit margin. Lightning Source is a more likely option for many of us. Or CreateSpace because of the immediate tie in to the Amazon system.)
Many of us buy our own ISBN blocks, seek outside help for editing, interior layout (though I argue that one is totally a learnable skill for most people and doing it helps you get another angle at catching more errors), and cover design.
It’s a new, exciting world out there, and more and more independently minded authors are saying “to hell with the stigma, sign me up for this indie thing.”
Currently I’ve got a novella free on my blog (“test marketing”) and “semi-free” (as low as Kindle would allow me) on Amazon, working on edits for the first print release now.
“Be prepared to start hearing serious self publishing authors calling themselves “indie authors.””
Not me. That’s dishonest. All authors are ‘indie’. I think you meant to say ‘indie published’ as you’ve said before – and it’s a stance I think seriously misleads people. An indie publisher is a small press putting their income at risk to publish *other* authors. If you’re only publishing yourself, then you’re self-published. You’re risking your own money and time for your benefit alone. Blurring the terms debases the currency of terminology.
If you’re ashamed of being called self-published, then why are you doing it? Either you believe in your product or you don’t, but pretending to be ‘independently published’ when you are no such thing, is pulling the wool over consumers’ eyes.
I should say that I’m in agreement with Victoria Strauss on the whole ‘indie publishing’ thing.
I know Ann, but you’re just going to have to get over it. There is already a large group of people calling it “indie authorship” and “indie publishing.”
And this bizarro line you have where the author and publisher absolutely cannot be the same person to be a micropress, small press, or indie press, is just that, bizarre.
Why is it so important to you that someone risk their money to publish “other” authors. Who CARES? I cannot fathom why this is such a big deal to you.
And I didn’t say the word “indie publisher” anyway, I said “indie author.” Independent musicians and filmmakers don’t call themselves “self published” They call themselves “indie.” I really don’t understand this level of masochism writers have that they can’t take a label that actually sounds nice.
“Self published” sounds vain. Yeah, I used both words interchangeably, but it does. And incidentally, and just cause this amuses me, I will tell you that most very serious self publishers out there doing offset print runs, would insist that you aren’t self published because you’re using Lulu.
But this obsession with labels… it’s a little intense, Ann.
You can define things how you want, others will continue on with their labels. If you don’t like “indie author” I expect you to be doing a lot of cringing in the upcoming years because it’s a term that’s starting to stick.
There is nothing “dishonest” about calling myself an indie author. Indie author is just like indie musician or indie filmmaker. It’s the same concept INDEPENDENT artistic production.
Nothing confusing about it. And no, all writers are not “indies.” Now a trad published author may be an independent contractor in a sense but they are not indie, anymore than a musician with a recording contract with a big record label is indie. I kind of can’t even believe you just said that and meant it seriously.
For the last time I will tell you, I own my own ISBN numbers, I have my own imprint. I am literally and legally my OWN press. So therefore I am most certainly an independent micropress. Whether you like this or not.
To me this is like if I owned a little clothing boutique but also sold my own brand name of clothes and you saying I can’t be running a real clothing boutique cause I’m not selling other brands.
It’s just strange, Ann. In the end, everybody has their own labels for things and people will argue about it all day long, but is it really worth it to argue it endlessly? Just go on with your own labels and forget about what I call it.
If you are a true self-publisher—if you’ve handled every aspect of publication on your own—then yes, you can accurately call yourself an independent author, in at least one of the senses below. If, however, you’ve used a POD self-publishing service, here are three reasons why the term won’t fly.
Actually Victoria says I can call myself an independent author. (Not that I was looking for permission, would call myself that anyway) Because, I am not using a POD self publishing service. Lightning Source (where I will be getting my printing done) is NOT a self publishing service. They are a printer, used by NY houses, small and indie presses, as well as university presses. Once again… running my “own” imprint here.
There’s actually very little in her post that I disagree with. And yeah, I don’t like the term self-published, it’s like sitting at the back of the bus. It’s a negative piece of terminology, and yes, it does still carry quite a bit of stigma. Nevertheless I’m not “ashamed” to self publish. But you better believe that I will label myself rather than letting others choose my labels for me.
Zoe, just because a lot of people are ‘published’ by Publish America, doesn’t make PA a traditional publisher no matter what it claims. You call yourself what you like, and every time I see ‘indie author’, I’ll be thinking, ‘there goes someone trying to fool everyone else.’
You won’t be the first person to mock me for using Lulu, but you don’t think that smacks a teeny tiny bit of hypocrisy? In any event, I’m not ashamed of my writing, or where it’s made available, and if anyone feels I ought to be, that says more about them than it does me.
“I don’t like the term self-published, it’s like sitting at the back of the bus.”
Too damn bad, really. I’m sitting at the back of nothing. All I care about is the quality of my writing, and the feedback in my inbox tells me I’m no joke and neither is my work. If the only way someone can measure my achievements is by things that matter nothing to me, that’s their problem too.
Ann, did you even read Victoria’s blog post? Do you really not understand that according to Victoria’s own definition, which you agreed with, I’m an independent author? Holy crap, why do you “care” what I call myself?
I’m not fooling anyone. I’m being very upfront about the fact that I self publish. BUT I started my own micropress. I don’t use lulu, etc. I am a publisher AND an author. Although I suppose in your world it’s impossible to be both.
And I have not mocked you for using Lulu. I personally don’t have a problem with Lulu or anyone who publishes using Lulu. But that was “your” litmus test of what wasn’t a indie author.
I don’t totally agree with your litmus test but I passed it.
I have said “many serious self publishers would say you aren’t a real self publisher for using Lulu.” I don’t personally care if you use Lulu nor do I think you can’t use the label “self published” if that’s what you want.
I also wouldn’t begrudge you if you wanted to call yourself an indie author. I think you would have a better profit margin overall if you got your own ISBN block and signed up with Lighting Source, but it’s your choice what you want to do. I certainly don’t think things like ISBN, imprint label, and profit margin has anything to do with one’s legitimacy as a writer.
I have good friends who do use or have used Lulu. And some of them call themselves indies, and are just as much a part of the indie spirit as I am. But you’re the one who had the list of stuff someone has to have done to be independent. Not me. I just told you I fulfilled that list, yet you “still” wont’ “let” me call myself an indie.
I dont’ think you should be ashamed of yourself or your writing or how you put it out, but you won’t afford me the same consideration because you feel it necessary to attack my label and act like it’s imaginary just cause “you” don’t like it. Which to use your own words back at you, “says more about you than it does about me.”
I’ve never derided your writing. I’ve never even “read” your writing so I would be in no position to deride it. One of my good friends, R.J. Keller wrote a book called “Waiting for Spring.” She went through Lulu initially and it is one of the most beautiful books I’ve ever read. As in ever. Not just of “self published” or “indie” books.
So to recap, I make a post, you immediately attack me, opening up an old argument between us from another blog, you point me to a post to prove your stance, but it only proves mine. I explain to you exactly why I actually can call myself whatever I want, but you still attack but then decide I’m mocking you. WTF, Ann?
If you’re so sensitive, why attack to begin with?
Zoe, I don’t recall interacting with you previously at all, and certainly not over this issue. I’ve read your comments about calling yourself an indie publisher before and rolled my eyes because you’re kidding no one. If a bunch of your friends want to mutually kid each other, fine, but as someone not in your crowd, I’m just not convinced.
I’m a fan of plain speaking and I’ll admit your stance gets right up my nose. I really hate people pretending to be different or better than they are – that cuts right to the heart of the whole discrimination bullshit over self-pubbed authors, and people setting up presses to pretend they’re not.
‘Indie’ author / publisher is a euphemism used because as you said, you don’t like the original term. Fine. But unfortunately, a bunch of vanity presses have chosen to call themselves ‘indie publishers’ too. So how exactly do you differentiate yourself from them? On the basis that you’re publishing *yourself* and not paying someone else to. In other words, your best defence against being lumped in with vanity pubbed authors is that you’re self-published.
I don’t care what you call yourself, provided you don’t expect me to accept it as accurate, but I would thank you not to make statements like “Be prepared to start hearing serious self publishing authors calling themselves “indie authors.”” Personally, I’m offended by the concept and the motivation behind it, and I consider myself a serious author. I just happen also be someone who prefers to call a spade a fooking shovel. Speak for yourself, call yourself what you like, but you don’t speak for me in the slightest.
I’m following this discussion between Ann and Zoe with great interest. While I’ve never publicly referred to myself as an “indie” I have in conversation, because in that’s what I am in many ways.
Jill Hennessy has just put out a CD, and she makes it clear on her web page and MS page that she’s “unsigned” by a label, she’s an indie. Having listened to her music, in person and on her web site, it’s beautiful stuff, and I’m surprised she didn’t sign with a major label – but I don’t understand the music industry, and I haven’t asked her.
But my point is, if musicians can be “indies” and filmakers the same, why can’t a self-published author be one? In the end, regardless of labels, doesn’t it come down to product, to vision, to putting one’s money where one’s vision is? Yes, there is a stigma with self-publishing, but that seems to be slowly evaporating. Perhaps publishing will go the way of music, and an indie, who believed in their vision and put it out there, will be as recognized as a musician like Jill Hennessy.
Interesting discussion, ladies.
Barbara, did you see this link buried in the comments at Victoria Strauss’s blog?
http://mickrooney.blogspot.com/2009/03/author-solutions-article-by-keith.html
“if musicians can be “indies” and filmakers the same, why can’t a self-published author be one?”
Why can’t they just be self-published, which is a perfectly good and descriptive term? If the term ‘indie’ is already being used by scammers, what good does it do an author to call themselves ‘indie published’ when other people snicker and go ‘oh, she’s *vanity* published’?
The answer to the prejudice against self-publishing is not dishonesty or misleading labelling. It’s showing people that self-pubbed authors can offer a real, professional grade product at a price comparable to other forms of publication (admittedly that’s easier to do with epublication.) And it’s also taking pride in what we do and what we call it, and not buying into shame imposed by others.
it’s easier, admittedly, to do what so many have done – set up a mini press, add a couple of outside author as a figleaf, and pump out one’s own work under a company name. From the outside, who can tell the difference at first glance between a self-publication outfit and a geniune small press? But it’s still a scam on the consumer, and I just can’t bring myself to participate in that or anything that remotely smells of it.
Ann, no, I haven’t (yet) read the blog post.
I recognize your points as valid – it’s not in me to deceive people, and deceving someone to make a buck is the lowest – I have no problem with admitting my novel was self-published, and feel good about the product. I guess I’m just thinking in general terms – my work, in a broad sense, is independent, I’m “unsigned” so to speak – and hence my comparison to the music industry, of which I am admittedly ignorant.
I’ll read the blog post, so I’ll know more of what I speak. I hate putting my foot in my mouth! Thank you for the link, Ann.
Ann, you argued with me about this same issue on Dear Author several months ago.
My question to you is… if an indie author (which Victoria kindly defined for us. Don’t totally agree with her definition, but you do, so let’s go with it) is publishing themselves independently, then what type of publishing are they doing? They are doing independent publishing, or indie. If you think I’m kidding myself, um, okay.
But think about this… if I really wanted to fool people about “my publisher” I wouldn’t TALK about self publishing. I use the terms “indie publishing” and “self publishing” very interchangeably. So there can be no doubt that I admit that I am oh noes, self publishing.
The term I’m going to use is “indie author” it has cache, and after all it is all about marketing. When you buy horse shit for your garden it’s “organic fertilizer.” (and no that was not a ‘self published books are horse shit’ analogy.)
And thank you for assuming you know me and my motivations. I didn’t set up my own imprint to “look better than I am” or to fool people or whatever else you think. I did it because I started my own business and owning my own ISBN numbers gives me more control of my work. It also gives me more distribution options. Because as my OWN press I can use Lightning Source, and they have many distribution partnerships that I can use to my advantage, AND their printing prices are very good. Much better than Lulu’s printing prices.
The decision to start a micropress was purely a business decision and I resent the implication that I instead did it to “fake people out.” And as I’ve said, if I wanted to do that, I just wouldn’t talk openly about being indie at all. I certainly wouldn’t be a contributor at places like http://www.publishren.com and http://www.publetariat.com I’d just quietly publish my stuff and not talk to anyone who was going to ask me who my publisher was.
And frankly when someone asks me who my publisher is, I don’t say: “IncuBooks.” I say: “I’m my own publisher, I started my own imprint to publish my work.” So how on earth that’s pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes, I’ll never know.
Oh… and now we’re getting to the meat of your attack. You think that I think because you don’t call yourself an indie author, that you aren’t serious. Well that’s a whole boatload of assumption, but no, I don’t think you are less serious just because you don’t like the term “indie author.” Holy crap, Ann. Wouldn’t it have been just easier to say: “I find this thing you said offensive because I consider myself a serious author but don’t use that term.” ?
To which I would have replied, “I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have made such a heavy generalization.” Though I *never* said you’re only serious if you call yourself an indie author.
I haven’t once spoken for you, Ann. And if you’ve gotten the impression that I have, then I apologize. But you could have been a little less acerbic in your attack. I don’t post here, people here don’t know me. So when the first thing out of your mouth is an attack on how I’m a disingenuous little fake, gee, how am I supposed to react to that? How would you react to that?
Hey Barbara, that was pretty much my thought process on the issue, and I think *part* though certainly not all of the lessening stigma toward self publishing, may be to do with both the actual label “indie author” (which not everybody has to like or use) and the direct comparisons of what we’re doing with what musicians and filmmakers have done before us.
“Ann, you argued with me about this same issue on Dear Author several months ago. “
Made such an impression on me, i can’t remember the conversation. So I was hardly replying out of a grudge, if that’s what you think. I argue with too many people to bear grudges over it.
“The term I’m going to use is “indie author” it has cache, and after all it is all about marketing.”
You say ‘marketing’ and I say ‘horse shit’, and no use pretending I feel otherwise. Giving yourself an ‘imprint name’ and calling yourself ‘indie published’ means that to those who don’t know you and won’t have the luxury of discoursing with you on the topic, that you are setting yourself up in exactly the same way as Torquere Press and Dreamspinner Press did. In your mind, you’re being open and honest. But someone picking your book up and seeing ‘IncuBooks’ as the publisher, will assume you’ve gone through some independent editorial process and that someone else put up the money and the risk. If they found out otherwise, you can’t blame them for being peeved, or worse, defrauded.
None of that reflects on the actual quality of the product at *all*. But what I can’t seem to make you realise is that you *look* like a scammer. Scam publishers use weasel words and borrow legitimate terms to hide the fact they’re scamming authors and running vanity presses. They will do *everything* they can to disassociate themselves from the term ‘vanity press’ and a frequent claim is that they are indeed ‘traditional publishers’. Using the word ‘indie’ which has an established (and someone different) meaning in music and film *and* by your repudiation of the term ‘self-publishing’, you *look* like you’re trying to pass horse poo off as hand cream.
And I’m sorry, that effort reflects badly on all self-pubbed authors, because as can be seen from the discussion above, people already confuse self-publication with vanity publication. The last thing I want is someone *else* using a term for what I do, that is the same as what vanity publishers call themselves in an attempt to deceive.
The well is poisoned, Zoe. Not by you and not by me, but by vanity presses who taint all they touch. You’re handing critics of self-pubbed authors a mighty big stick to beat *all* of us with, not just those claiming the ‘indie’ title. And while I would otherwise be happy to say do whatever the hell you want, in this case, you’re shitting in *my* nest too. So you won’t convince me and I’m not changing my mind. I’m sorry that this means we will continue to be at odds, but so be it.
Barbara,
“Indie author” is no more “dishonest” than it is for an indie musician or indie filmmaker. It’s the exact same concept. If *you* like the label, use it, if you don’t, don’t. Ann having a bee in her bonnet over it shouldn’t define you.
The real problem is that the term “independent publisher” was already taken and meant a small publisher that wasn’t influenced by big corporate shareholders. (though that’s true even if the publisher is also the author) But… no one can be confused by the concept of “indie author” especially not when the term already has precursors with “indie band” and “indie filmmaker.”
Ann,
POD self publishing companies (like the one you use) are the ones using terms like indie publishing. They use it for the same reason I use it. It has more cache. I cannot control what other people call themselves (anymore than you can.) And they also use self publishing and indie publishing interchangeably, so both terms are equally tainted.
But then, like I say, there are those who say you aren’t a “true” self publisher unless you have your own imprint, own ISBN’s etc, so there is no perfect term that everybody is going to agree on.
I’ve never lied or misrepresented myself to anyone who has asked who my publisher is. I’ve always said “me.” It’s also really easy to find this out about me whether someone asks me directly or not.
Further, the largest stigma is because of the large amount of craptacular work self published. That’s never going to change. There is always going to be craptacular work. The only thing we can hope for is that enough GOOD work gets put out independently that it creates an image in readers minds that self-published/independently produced (as in independently by the author) books CAN have merit and don’t all suck.
I want indie authors to gain ground. I’m actively involved in communities working to do just that. I’m not *hiding.* I’m pretty far out of the self published closet here.
But… this begs the question of… if a book is good, (and there will always be ways set up for readers to sample my work before they buy, so they know what they’re getting), then who CARES who published it? Big NY publisher, Small press, or self publishing. Who freaking cares?
If the book is good and the reader liked it, do you really think they ultimately care who your publisher is? Or will they feel “cheated” if they don’t know the identity of the publisher? No. Only other writers obsess about goofy stuff like that.
And I think that’s what it’s ultimately about, writers and what other writers think. Because being able to say you are “published” (as in by someone else) is still this stick you can beat someone over the head with if you so choose. A way of being elevated above other authors. (Some writers even freak out if you dare to call yourself an “author” without being published how they think you should be published.)
The truth is, the more cache being an “indie author” has, the less cool it is to be able to say “so and so published me.” And ultimately it is that validation that so many writers so desperately want to cling to, or that hope of that validation in the future.
If it’s no longer a big deal how you got published, then what?
I’m sorry but my worth and your worth and everybody else’s worth as a writer is not legitimately defined by a corporation. And the idea that art is defined corporately is so bassackwards I don’t even know where to begin with it.
Ann, you are making me tired. It doesn’t matter who publishes a book.
I give readers every opportunity to check out samples first. No one is “buying blind” with me.
Okay, and if someone bought my book, and loved my book, and then later found out that I was my own publisher when they didn’t know before, and they felt “defrauded” i would think they were a little emo. You are too wrapped up, IMO on this whole “who published you” issue. Or “traditional vetting.” Or whatever.
It. Does. Not. Matter. What matters is *I* put up the risk for my work. *I* go through every step necessary to make sure that I’m putting out the best quality product I can. If someone dislikes it, it will be because it isn’t to their taste, not because I wasn’t vetted by an outside publisher.
So sorry, I’m not going to publish through Lulu, have fewer places to distribute my books, have less control over my work, and keep less profit “just so” every single potential reader can be informed ahead of time that I self published. That’s so insane my face is doing this right now: 0.o
I look like a scammer for starting my own business? Wow. Just, wow. So… when an indie band starts their own label up… if someone buys a CD of theirs at a concert and thinks they have a big record label, they’re a scammer? Or look like one?
And for the record, vanity publishers do not deceive end readers. They are deceiving writers, when they convince them to give them their money.
Further, places like Authorhouse, iUniverse, and Lulu are BY definition, Vanity POD presses. But that doesn’t make them all bad companies. Each POD self publishing company is different. Some are better than others.
And what we need to remember here is, the whole reason vanity presses got a bad rap wasn’t because they defrauded a bunch of readers, but because they cheated writers out of large amounts of money. So we should be concerned less with labels and more with companies that are out to cheat writers.
As for cheating readers… bad books just don’t sell. Or if they do, they don’t sell for very long. We are in a free market economy, which means, I can create a company and produce any product I want, as long as it’s legal. The market decides. Period.
I don’t have to put a label on the front of every book to warn readers that I published it myself.
Damn painkillers, I think I’m being clear and I’m not, sigh.
Zoe, I did not, truly, mean to imply you were being dishonest, for to do so would imply the same about me when I refer to myself in conversation as an indie. I think Ann raises some valid points, but you also do, and my poor, injured self, has me WUI and I apologize for any lack of coherence as I try to distinguish my thoughts as they merge and diverge with the two of you on different points.
I believe self-publishing is slowly, very slowly, gaining a little respect, as better quality product emerges. I was fortunate, in that I had a ready audience in the Golden Age of Hollywood/Carole Lombard devotees, and my audience found me. I don’t know how difficult it is for someone self-pubbing a novel in a different genre to find an audience, or if the publisher’s label has any actual meaning to those potential readers. I would think the reviews would be the influence on that potential reader, and not the label.
Zoe, I think you’re honest in all aspects, you aren’t trying to deceive readers by using your own imprint. You say plainly you’ve made an independent business decision. I apologize if you thought I was saying otherwise.
I will continue to read this discussion, it’s fascinating to me, but I think I should refrain from speaking until the Percocet wears off, that dreaded foot seems to be aiming for my mouth otherwise. I will say you’re both serious and true believers in your POV on the subject, and I’m learning a lot from reading your exchanges. While I think Ann raises some valid points, I’m still leaning toward indie as a perfectly acceptable way to describe the route one took toward publishing – I see both sides, but I think it fits, in its own way.
Hey Barbara, I don’t think you’ve implied that. Ann has. I’m still not sure why me shouting from the rafters that I’m an “indie author” is going to confuse any potential reader into thinking I have a “real publisher”
I agree with you that slowly the view toward self publishing is starting to change a little. And before I was a “serious” writer I couldn’t tell you who published anything. In fact, I later discovered that some books on my shelf were self published under an imprint the author created and I didn’t get upset or feel defrauded. I thought: “Well damn, she’s pretty spunky for doing that all by herself.”
I don’t think most readers look at publisher labels. What we see on places like Smart Bitches is a VERY small set of the reading population. Not everybody cares about this crap. The beauty though is… readers who do care about it can dig to their hearts content until they figure out if someone is self published or not, if that information matters to them.
And those that don’t care, well, they don’t care. I don’t care. I care about the quality of the book. And if I have access to a sample and reader reviews, that’s all i care about.
And no, I’m sorry, I posted my replies to you and Ann in the same post and it might have looked like I was saying things to you that I was saying to Ann. Ann is the one who thinks I’m dishonest by having my own publishing imprint, no matter how much better of a business decision it is for me, apparently I should throw myself on some kind of self publishing sacrificial altar so that no reader ever can buy my book without knowing the “awful truth.”
There’s no foot in your mouth, don’t worry. When the Percocet wears off you’ll see you were perfectly fine and didn’t upset me in the slightest, lol.
I think it’s valid to identify with whatever label truly works for you. No matter what label you have in any area of life there will always be someone making that label look bad. Dumping every label anyone has ever misused would leave us in a world without words. A very bad place for a writer to be in.
“Ann is the one who thinks I’m dishonest by having my own publishing imprint, no matter how much better of a business decision it is for me, apparently I should throw myself on some kind of self publishing sacrificial altar so that no reader ever can buy my book without knowing the “awful truth.””
It’s really hard to respect you when you engage in such hyperbole, Zoe, and the kind of rhetorical dishonesty where *you’re* impassioned but *I* have a bee in my bonnet.
In any event, I remain unconvinced – and unimpressed.
Oh and I meant “cachet” not “cache” as I’ve typed like thirty times tonight. I had “cache” stuck in my head. Gah. Moron cleanup on aisle 5.
Oh, I have a bee in my bonnet too Ann. You irritate the hell out of me. I never claimed I was impassioned and you had a bee.
But you have told me over and over that I’m dishonest for referring to myself as I do. You assumed I started my own imprint to “look better than I am” and fool people. And that it was like defrauding readers. These are all words you’ve typed, not me.
I’m interested enough in the discussion and personalities/POVs expressed here that I’m interested in reading both of you. Would you mind telling me your most recent titles, and if they’re listed on amazon? (Due to illness, I buy through amazon, rather than struggle with leaving the house to shop – not that there’s a bookstore within fifty miles of this little town on the butt end of Maryland) Thank you, Barbara
Hey Barbara,
I’ve got a novella available right now as test marketing for what will be a longer hopefully late fall release. (If I can stop arguing with people on the internet and get edits done, lol) The novella is a paranormal romance called KEPT. You can get it for free in PDF form from my blog here:
http://zoewinters.wordpress.com/kept
Or, if you have a Kindle reader you can also get it on Amazon for 80 cents. (Because they won’t let me put it for free on the Kindle. Everything free there is specially authorized by Amazon for promotions and such.)
Thanks, Zoe, I have a Kindle, so I’ll check it out right now.
Barbara, I have books listed at Amazon (in the Kindle store), but can I urge you to read my free fiction instead:
http://www.logophilos.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=37
There are links on my site to my books for sale, some from Samhain, some self-pubbed. If you desperately want to try any of my self-pubbed book, listed here (several are also on my website free in HTML), I’d be happy to let you have a free copy. Just email me (contact link on the site) and let me know your preferred ebook format. I only write m/m though (that’s gay romance) – if that’s not your cup of tea, I completely understand.
Same offer goes for anyone else reading this. I’d hate anyone to waste money before they had a chance to try my stuff, and frankly, I’d rather people didn’t buy anything of mine if they have the slightest doubt over quality.
Ann, thank you very much for the offer of free reads, but I’m so computer illiterate I’d no doubt frustrate myself trying to download. And I like my Kindle a lot, so it’s back to the Kindle store to search for your titles there. I have no problem with m/m -gay stories at all. Thanks for letting me know where I can find your work, I’m looking forward to reading it. Barbara
Thanks Barbara! Let me know what you think. My email information is at the end, or you can contact me on my blog as well on the “contact me” page.
OK, ladies, I can almost feel my Kindle tingling across the room. Ann, I chose “Interstitial” (sorry if I misspelled that), and Zoe, I have “Kept.” Zoe, I don’t have your blog link, I did bookmark Ann’s for further exploration. I appreciate the recommendations, and will be reading this weekend – something my spouse appreciates because it means I’m not bitching and moaning about pain, :).
Oh Barbara,
Rereading through my posts here (because after a long argument online I always reread to see just how much of a prima donna/ass/psycho I looked like in the exchange…and eeek. I need to learn to edit it down. The longer it is, the worse it looks.)
Anyway, the place where you apologized to me, it *did* look like I was griping at you. I was irritated because I thought you felt like you weren’t “allowed” to use the term “indie” because of what Ann had said. But I wasn’t irritated at you. I didn’t think you personally were saying the same things. Just wanted to clear that up. Because rereading it, it does look like I’m jumping on you a bit. I look like a flaming crazy most of the way through, but yeah. 😛
No worries, Zoe. You’re both women of strong opinions and don’t mind taking a stance, something I like and admire. After all, I come from the culture of the “Steel Magnolia” so…
Off to read, and thanks again to both of you, Barbara
hehe Barbara. And if you want to check out my blog, just click my name in this thread. Its links back to it.
I just think it’s funny Ann and I are at each other’s throats and we both gain a reader. It normally goes in the opposite direction.
Barbra, I hope you enjoy your choice. There’s a free sequel (single page) here:
http://www.logophilos.net/synchronised/synchronised_1_1.php
When you’ve read it.
Ann Sommers:
The reason why we indie authors reject the “self-published” label is the same as the reason why African-Americans reject the “N word” label. When a word has been used for so long as a term of insult and stigma, literally as a definition of “inferior” in many ciricles, when the paradigm shifts, terminology has to change.
“Self-published” has too much history and baggage to be a “perfectly fine” description of what it is I do. And as numerous others have already pointed out, nobody calls indie musicians or filmmakers “self-produced”; it just so happens that indies in those fields have never faced the same stigma and bias as self-published authors have.
I am not deceiving anyone in calling myself indie. I am very open about my self-pub status, I even left Createspace as the publisher name on the spine of my books. I’m Out And Proud. And that’s what being an indie author is all about: confidence and pride in the decision you’ve made to go it alone. Indie authors are authors who have *chosen* to self-publish, not *resorted* to it.
Sorr y I got your name wrong – I meant Ann Somerville.
“The reason why we indie authors reject the “self-published” label is the same as the reason why African-Americans reject the “N word” label. “
Okay, now this is simply offensive. There is *no* comparison between racism and the problems of being self-published, and you should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to make it. If you want me to respect what you’re doing, you’re really doing it wrong.
Oh, and the reason I can’t remember my conversation with Ms Winters before is that it apparently never happened. The person Ms Winters talked to was a commenter called ‘Anion’ who is a regular at DA and *not* me. I won’t forget *this* conversation, or the stupidity.
Ann –
Calm down. Nowhere did I compare the struggles of being an indie to the struggles of dealing with racism. What I said was:
The reason why we indie authors reject the “self-published” label is the same as the reason why African-Americans reject the “N word” label. When a word has been used for so long as a term of insult and stigma, literally as a definition of “inferior” in many ciricles, when the paradigm shifts, terminology has to change.
I’m talking about semantics here, nothing more. ANY label being used as shorthand for “inferior” is offensive to those to whom it is being applied.
Bottom line: the people who are doing the thing (in this case, producing their own books, marketing and distributing them) should be allowed to decide what that thing is called. The very fact that you and others insist on marginalizing our efforts by refusing to respect our use of any name, other than the one that has been synonymous with “inferior” in publishing for so long, is proof enough that the stigma is still there—-and that you want that stigma to stand. Why else would you be so insistent that if we refuse to accept the old shorthand for inferior, it means we’re being deceitful? Fine pair of choices you give us: either meekly accept the inferior label, or risk a worse one. =’[
April, I refuse to respect your labelling because you’re showing a huge lack of respect to those who don’t use it. Your comparison to racist epithets is both ignorant and dripping with privilege.
All you and Ms Winters have done by your nonsense is convince me of the impoverishment of your arguments and your intellect. Call yourself what you like, but you won’t ever convince me that you’re anything but a damn fool for what you’ve just said.
I’m late to the party as usual.
Just wanted to say a few things. First of all, thanks to Sarah for this post. Second of all, thanks for the shout out, Zoe. I really appreciate it. Thirdly, this (from April) says how I feel about the topic in a pretty little nutshell:
If I wasn’t so afraid of needles, I’d get that tattooed upon my person.
Ignorant and dripping with privilege? I’m sorry, have we met? You seem to think you know something about me and my life, and that I don’t know anything about racism or the struggles of minorities. Allow me to enlighten you.
Hamilton is my married name. My surname at birth was Amador, my birth father was Hispanic. Following his abandonment (and an eventual divorce in absentia), my mother, myself and my two sisters lived in poverty for a time. My mother worked two jobs and did ironing piecework on the side for ten cents an item just to keep food on the table and a roof over our heads. She finally swallowed her pride and moved in with her parents when a homeless man was killed on the back porch of our tenement apartment one night. My mother eventually met the man I think of as my only real Dad and they married. While he’s as Anglo as they come, my olive skin, dark eyes and dark hair did not magically go away when he legally adopted me and my sisters.
As a child of divorce, a child of poverty, and a woman of mixed race, I’ve been on the receiving end of plenty of ignorance and hate speech over the years. So how about if we just switch “African Americans” and “the N word” in my posts above with “Hispanic Americans” and “spics”, since these are terms with which I have personal experience? Do my statements drip with any less privilege or ignorance now?
Regardless, I have no wish to derail this conversation. My original point stands, regardless of the specific terminology. When a word has been used for so long as a term of insult and stigma, literally as a definition of “inferior” in many circles, when the paradigm shifts, terminology has to change.
A related point I’ve not yet made is that whether we’re talking about the term “self-published”, “spic”, or any other word historically used with the intention of demeaning another person or that person’s work, the only people you’ll find arguing in favor of continuing to use the term in question are those who wish to maintain the status quo—-and the stigma.