Self-Pub: Your Table is Ready

Bitchin' Blog Posts

by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | May 26, 2009 | Tuesday at 11:51 am | 105 Comments

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?

Filed: But...that's not really about romance novels, General Bitching, Random Musings

Tagged: publishers, princeton, erotica, authors

| |

Charlene said on 05.26.09 at 01:21 PM • [link]

Sometimes value judgments like that will carry over into areas where they aren’t relevant, and they can inadvertently put other people’s backs up. Self-publishing has long been legitimate for niche non-fiction, where the most useful book may not have a large enough target market to interest a traditional publisher. A niche non-fiction writer could take the screeching and screaming about the horrors of self-pub to mean that only fiction and mass-market non-fiction are valuable, and that anything appealing only to a niche market is by definition shameful and worthless.
Alessia Brio said on 05.26.09 at 01:25 PM • [link]

*nods* Self-pub is now a competitive choice on the publishing buffet, not something to take when all the General Tso & Mongolian beef is gone.
Jenyfer Matthews said on 05.26.09 at 01:28 PM • [link]

It’s an interesting discussion. I did a search on Amazon a couple of weekends ago for “chick lit” because I was trying to identify publishers with lines in that genre. I was very surprised by how many of the titles that came up were self-published - probably because I myself have a lingering prejudice against self-published books.

Having said that, the more I know about self-publishing, the more my attitude is shifting. Would I ever consider doing it myself? At this point, it’s still not my first choice but I’ll never say never…
LizzieBee said on 05.26.09 at 01:33 PM • [link]

I was thinking about what you wrote, and then my mind wandered, as it does. I went from “self-publication” to how books have been published in the modern-novel’s timeline, and then how books USED to be published. That got me thinking about how Dickens was published first in syndicated form, where you bought a pamphlet of story once a week, and then when all the story was published in this form, you could buy the book in a bound set-of-three. Which got me thinking about how Jane Austen was published. Which was, to start with, she self-published. She paid the publisher to produce the novel, and then got a small amount of royalties back. I have a feel we’ll be going back to this way of publishing, especially in ePub format, and then once the author has a prove sales record, they’ll move onto a more “traditional” format, where you don’t pay anything to be published, and get the royalties, or even where you self-publish, and then get picked up to get a wider distribution. It’ll be interesting to watch, in any case.

[word: lines59. There will be 59 lines in the new contract. ;-) ]
Rick O said on 05.26.09 at 01:54 PM • [link]

I, for one, have decided that I enjoy writing but abhor the process of getting published. It’s easier for me to make that decision, though, as I am not a professional writer. I have a day job that I love and won’t be giving up any time soon, but at the same time I enjoy writing.

In the tech industry, self-publishing would be referred to as a “long tail” niche, which is to say that you aren’t going for the meat of the bell curve, but for the outliers. If I have a circle of friends (and fans?) that is large enough to warrant a small print run, but small enough that the money isn’t the point, then self-pub is a great option. Print on Demand is getting there, too, but it’s still on the expensive side of affordable.

I think in this time of blogs and Facebook and twitter and LinkedIn and other social networking, it would be easy enough to garner a couple hundred or maybe even a thousand like-minded people that would be interested in reading your work and would pay a few bucks to do so. Why try to make it something more than it is? Self-pub a thousand copies, set up a PayPal account, and be done with it.
Ann Somerville said on 05.26.09 at 01:57 PM • [link]

“Do you think the stigma of “vanity press” will ever go away entirely? “

Vanity publishing and self-publishing are two different things, and I wish people wouldn’t confuse the two. The former is *pretending* you’re traditionally published, and you pay someone else to carry out that deceit. Self-publishing means you piut yourself out as the author and publisher, and don’t pretend otherwise.

I’m self-published. I was before I got contracts with Samhain and PD Publishing, and am now, and will continue to be even if I decide to submit to other publishers. My first self-publishing was for free on the internet. The satisfaction as an author I get from the response to that free material is every bit as satisfying as money, but I can’t eat feedback. I find in publishing through Lulu, I get a combination of feedback and income, along with the independence that I need, and I can still offer free copies without worrying about violating a contract. This model won’t suit everyone, of course, especially if you need to make a lot more money than I do.

For me, in a niche genre, where the epubs can only really sell in the hundreds, self-pubbing is a realistic, if somewhat less lucrative option - I sell fewer copies but I keep more of the sale price. I am now at the point in my writing craft where my own editing, with the help of skilled friends, is equal to that offered by the epubs (or is better, frankly), so I can offer a polished product that I feel offers value for money. So a publisher only gives me a wider audience - but because I’m writing in a niche market, that wider audience isn’t as big as what trad romances can expect, not by any means.

Epublishing is risk free - no set up costs for the author. Print publishing is another animal altogether, and I wouldn’t advise any author unless they *knew* they had guaranteed sales in the hundreds, to even think about it. Flogging individual items POD from Lulu or the like is okay - I have readers who *must* have my books in print, so they’re happy. But no way could I, in Australia, afford to print up a consignment, afford to have it shipped here, market it, and then ship it out to customers. If we’re talking about doing that, this is what I consider a traditional publisher’s strongest attraction is for niche market authors.

If the future of publishing is electronic, I think self-pubbed has a big role to play. If we’re talking print…not so much. It’s just too damn expensive all around.
BevBB said on 05.26.09 at 02:18 PM • [link]

Everytime I hear romance readers decry the lack of storylines that push the “boundaries” of the genre and then put-down self-publishing, I literally roll my eyes. Are there going to be horrible books out there being self published?

Sure.

OTOH, might not some of them actually push those very same boundaries that everyone is so hot to have pushed?

Quite possibly. And do.

So the question becomes, just how hot are those readers to have those boundaries pushed? Or are they truly waiting around for the big publishers to get around to doing it on their own without some real motivation? And we all know what that means. ;)

That aside, though, back when I was a lot more actively involved in a fandom, I had a friend who’d been self-publishing creative fiction of poems, short stories and novellas in magazines formats for years. Usually of a romantic type. She’d been involved in several fandoms pre-Internet so not all of them were “for profit” but had drifted from fandom material to original works over time. I noticed recently that she’s writing for Whiskey Press and doing quite well. I think she’s on about the fourth or fifth book in a series for them. She is now retired, too, though, from her day job. Some people are honestly in it for the the hobby of writing, not as a career.
Diatryma said on 05.26.09 at 02:31 PM • [link]

Thank you, Ann Somerville.

I think that vanity publishing will always suck, because part of the definition of vanity publishing is ‘it sucks’.

Self-publishing is tied into small presses with me, and I think that small presses at least will become more common and take more of the market share in the years to come. It’s partly economics and partly the influence of the internet—people get used to getting what they want, exactly what they want, and big publishers don’t have the resolution to put out exactly what a very few readers will read and buy. Self-publishing then becomes the very smallest of small presses, and I think that the internet helps there, especially with experimental formats.
Ann Somerville said on 05.26.09 at 02:42 PM • [link]

“Are there going to be horrible books out there being self published? “

The point is, there are horrible books being e- and print published too, from presses large and small. Of all the reasons for criticising self-pubbed authors, this is the most specious. I would guarantee any of my self-pubbed books - free or pay to read - were a hundred times better edited and written than a good many from presses like Ravenous Romance.

The main difficulty for a self-pubbed author is building an audience. I’ve been building mine for six years as an original author, and the process is the same for me wherever my books come out.
Gry dla Dzieci said on 05.26.09 at 02:45 PM • [link]

You’re describing a very sad process, one that can be observed in all book genres. With all these “new”, attention grabbing media, new generations are not really fond of books. To put it mildly.
Soon all bookstores will disappear, and the only books you’ll be able to buy online will be the Bible, an Encyclopedia (book on CD I bet) and vanity publications…
If this happens, I’m jumping off a bridge.
Etruya said on 05.26.09 at 03:28 PM • [link]

Will the stigma of self-publishing ever go away? Possibly not. Speaking as an unpublished author who is actively querying agents, I’ve begun to understand that there is a purpose in the whole convoluted process of getting traditionally published. While the outcomes of this process may not be the want I’d necessarily want, it is difficult for a good reason: quality control.

The process isn’t perfect, as everyone understands. Good authors mightn’t get published because they don’t market themselves well. Published authors may not necessarily get the acclaim they deserve. But in the end of the day, writing is an art form. Getting paid to do something you love is a privilege, not a right. The book you write doesn’t only have to be technically proficient; it also has to connect with the greater audience.

The cold hard truth is that some writers just can’t do that, or they can’t do this well enough.

Has anyone else noticed that the market for writers is growing? This market sells the dream of getting published, and getting sales. I understand writers’ conferences and workshops are helpful for amateur novelists, but over the years, the scope and volume of these events have increasingly expanded.

I’m not putting down self-publishing. This option exists because traditional publishing is an imperfect system (and also because some people want to publish things to distribute to a specific, personal audience, but that’s not really relevant now). Getting published, paid and widely read is… a fantastic gift. But how successfully books are received depends on so many different factors. Self-publishing is a resource that some people may utilise to get their books out in the open, but the critical process of traditional publishing is very important in giving writers goals to work towards: relevance and technical proficiency.

Oh wow, this was long. :S
BevBB said on 05.26.09 at 03:36 PM • [link]

The point is, there are horrible books being e- and print published too, from presses large and small. Of all the reasons for criticising self-pubbed authors, this is the most specious. I would guarantee any of my self-pubbed books - free or pay to read - were a hundred times better edited and written than a good many from presses like Ravenous Romance.

Well, of course. The friend I was talking about was an elementary school teacher. Over the years, she’s had several partners, usually other teachers, who’ve helped with editing and publishing the various magazines they’ve put out. I think originally when they were fanzines, they printed them themselves in her garage. Later, when they changed to original fiction, they switched to using commercial printers for a more polished look. But the point is that it was never about one person writing and editing any of it. She always set a high standard for herself in that regard, even when it was only fan fiction.

Self-published doesn’t mean lack of quality. It simply means that for some reason the person had to do it themself. That could be a good reason just as much as a bad one.
Stephanie said on 05.26.09 at 04:34 PM • [link]

I have a friend who I met through my writer’s group. When I first met her and found out she was a published author, and younger than me, I was completely jealous. She came to one of our writers group meetings and told us all about the publishing process and this and that…. and then I later found out she was using a vanity press… I felt like she had deceived to us. Why not just say what it was?? Why try to make it sound like a traditional publisher if it’s not??

Self-publishing was never for me. Maybe it was my lack of self esteem…I needed someone else, someone in the publishing world, to tell me my stuff was good. But as I go along, maybe I’m growing and learning and maybe I’m building some confidence, but it’s starting to sound like an option that can be successful.

I have several writer friends who self-published books of poetry…and for poets, I think self-publishing is almost the only option.
BevBB said on 05.26.09 at 04:51 PM • [link]

Are vanity presses even considered self-publishing in the strictest sense, though? What I’ve always heard self-publishing defined as was that the individual(s) do everything except possibly contract out the printing. And many times they even do that.

Big difference between that and a vanity press. Anyone can send a manuscript to a website and pay to have it “published” but that doesn’t make it self-published. In fact, many times it makes it a plain old rip-off.
Michele Lee said on 05.26.09 at 05:04 PM • [link]

I prefer to look at it by the project; is self publishing for this project? I recently started serializing a contemporary erotic romance novella I wrote on my blog, with intention of releasing it as a free ebook or really low cost lulu book (proceeds going to charity). I’m releasing it because I’m primarily a SF/F/H writer and despite how much fun the novella was to write (and how I want to make it a whole series) I just don’t have the time and energy to try to run two careers right now. I don’t know when I can write the next book and after thinking about it I don’t think it would be as much to write if I had deadlines and was giving up other writing projects for the fun, spontaneous one.

I still think I could have found a publisher for it, despite it’s length. But I want to keep it a fun project, not add it to the list of stories and book I’ve written that I’m struggling to get publication for.
Teresa said on 05.26.09 at 05:31 PM • [link]

If self-pub becomes a more accepted and common form of publication, won’t we be coming full circle? I suspect the first books were self-pubbed.

I would consider self-publishing if I had the right book for it. Besides the financial support that comes with publication by a NYC pub, the major loss would be editorial support. That barrier to entry may be preventing great books with low commercial appeal from being published, but it is also stopping a lot of really bad books. Assuming I’ve decided my book is good, I’d still miss the great wisdom of the editor.

Of course I’ve heard from authors that many NYC pubbed books are also missing that great wisdom these days, which makes that self-publishing look better and better.
Cat Marsters said on 05.26.09 at 05:43 PM • [link]

As mentioned above, there’s the problem of definition and confusion. Self-publishing and vanity-publishing aren’t the same thing. And they’re also both remote from small press and e-publishing. Although if you’re the Board of the RWA, they’re all the same thing, they’re all evil processes, and anyone who takes part in self/vanity/e-publishing is a desperate idiot who lacks professionalism.

Or was I missing the point of the editorial in this month’s RWR?
Jamie D. said on 05.26.09 at 07:46 PM • [link]

Great article. I’ve really been struggling with this, because I’d like to do both. I started a serial novel on my blog this year (draft) that I’d planned on eventually editing and self-pubbing (through Lulu or similar) to release as an ebook and/or POD book for anyone who wanted the “finished version” (family and blog readers, mainly). I assumed that by posting the first draft on my blog, I was “using up” first rights, but I thought maybe a few people might still like to read it as a complete novel edited and in “book” form. It was going to be just something fun - I kind of saw it as one might see a craft project, making a few to sell here and there as a hobby. My mom does craft shows - I might even consider printing a few copies and putting them up for sale there, just for fun.

But I also would eventually like to submit manuscripts to agents and pursue getting published by a traditional publishing house. And with the stigma on self-publishing works, I’ve read that if I self-publish my little blog novel, I could hurt my chances of getting other works picked up by a trad. publisher. It doesn’t seem quite fair to me - the “all or nothing” thing…I don’t feel like I should be penalized by the “big boys” for doing personal projects self-pubbed on the side.

I still don’t have an answer - or a decision on what I’ll do. It’s a lot to consider, and I often find myself wondering why it’s turned into such a either/or situation.
Sarah W said on 05.26.09 at 10:50 PM • [link]

Jamie D.,

I’m not sure it has to be an ‘either or’ situation—from what I read on agent blogs (primarily Nathan Bransford’s blog), agents and publishers may or may not care if a writer has previously self-published\used a vanity press, but they all would frown on that writer claiming in a query that they’ve had a work ‘published’—which in publishing industry-speak means it has gone through the ‘normal’ publication process—when they haven’t.

If it wasn’t professionally published, it doesn’t count against a writer as much as it doesn’t count to them as a relevant writing ‘credit,’ in the same way that my random little historical articles in The Biographical Dictionary of Iowa aren’t relevant in a query for my dystopic novel about a futuristic librarian trying to cope with the final actions of her deceased mass-murdering space-pilot mother (blame Nanowrimo).

So, if I ever submit that novel to an agent or publisher, I will simply say that this is my first novel and leave off the professional writing credentials I don’t have, although I might mention that I’m a librarian, as that could be relevant to the realism (snicker) of the novel.

Perhaps you could do the same when you have another MS ready? However, you might mention your web presence—that’s a built in audience, right there!

Of course, I’ve never had a novel published, so maybe I’m talking ignorant bliss out of my . . . hat. Anyone else have a different take?
Wilma Howe-Bennett said on 05.26.09 at 11:48 PM • [link]

Hi, all:

What with Kindle rapidly becoming the new wave of reading, I’m thinking that we’re going to see, more and more, people going TO the self-publishing so-called “vanity” press so that they can e-publish and put the books on a reader. What with the cost of a book these days - and even $8.00 is a bit much for a paperback - we’re also going to see Kindle-style readers in libraries, for rent for X amount per block of time.

With the e-publishing, there are drawbacks. My baby brother has, so far, created and self-published three books that were met with enough success that he actually made $100 grand over and above the cost of publishing. However, he had to be his own agent, he had to make all the contacts with the booksellers, he had to do all the publicity and promotion - and he got REALLY tired of it all. It’s a wearing, brutal process, because you have to, in some cases actually PAY the bookseller to stock your book if you’re not a recognized author with a major publishing house.

I’m probably going to have to self-publish my sci-fi/fantasy book because the main protagonists are a pair of lesbians and a pair of gay men that are in business together (no, NOT moneky business, either!). Regardless of the content, the mere FACT that I’m writing about what I know, which is GLBT relationships, as an adjunct TO the main story is going to kick it to a specialty house to begin with, and I really don’t want to be labelled as a GLBT writer ONLY.
Wilma Howe-Bennett said on 05.26.09 at 11:49 PM • [link]

Hi again, all:

I MEANT to say “MONKEY” business . . . sorry about the misspelled word!
Jessica Scott said on 05.26.09 at 11:52 PM • [link]

Self publishing, like using the internet to ‘make’ a book is still in the early stages. I think as we continue to move forward this will continue to grow. But as Janet Reid demonstrates on her tweets about someone calling her a c%^t b/c she supposedly did not read his book, there will always be a segment of self publishing that does serve the author who just couldn’t cut it. What is unfair is that really solid authors who self publish will continue to be tainted with this brush until the industry as a whole as well as consumers turn away from the stereotypes and start recognizing the talent that is there amist everything else.
I did not consider self publishing and I’m glad. When I look back at earlier drafts of my work, I can now see what others saw. Potential but not ready yet. Had I moved into self publishing, I might be putting stuff out there that is just that: not quite ready and it would continue to remain that way. My continued quest toward print publication has made me a better writer (I hope:) and with luck, it will pay off in the long run.
Everyone’s experience is different and like I said. Just like internet review sites are coming into their own, I believe self publishing will as well.
Chris Szego said on 05.27.09 at 12:12 AM • [link]

Speaking as a bookseller, self-published novels are a hard sell.

They’re a very hard sell to me, the person who chooses which books end up on the shelves. That’s because they’re an extremely hard sell to the customers who peruse said shelves. And that’s because of bitter experience. The vast majority of self-published books I’ve been offered were shoddily produced, unedited, and practically unreadable. {NB: that’s not a judgement about SP books: it’s an observation of the SP books shown to me}

But we do carry a few SP titles. A very few. And we rarely pay for them. In SP cases, we only accept titles on consignment. Which means the author sets the price, of which we keep 50%. And - here’s the tough part - it’s up to the author to get back in touch with us at the end of the selling period, to check if the book is selling and to pick up any monies/non-sold copies. Thus far, only one SP author has done so.

Obviously, none of the above applies to ebooks. And again, I have no objections to self publishing as a model. But if you think it’s hard to be new author, just one person trying to stand out among the hundreds (thousands?) at your publishing house… imagine trying to stand out as one book against all 275,232 of them.
Jamie D. said on 05.27.09 at 12:30 AM • [link]

Thanks, Sarah for the helpful information. I’ll definitely keep that in mind, as I have a novel draft I’m editing now for possibly querying next fall.
John C. Bunnell said on 05.27.09 at 12:43 AM • [link]

This is a whole tangle of questions at once, and I’m not sure we yet have the vocabulary to untangle all of them properly, let alone formulate realistic answers.

The thing is, each step of the publishing process—acquisition, editing, production (itself encompassing text prep, art development, and printing), sales, promotion (and those two aren’t the same thing), and distribution—reflects an expense which adds real or prospective value to the final product. Omitting one or more of these steps, or minimizing the resources devoted to one or more steps, will result in products that are of less inherent value, and/or are likely to be less profitable. And that’s true irrespective of who’s paying for the resources involved.

As has been noted above, self-publishing has long been a valid (and potentially profitable) choice for certain kinds of nonfiction with well-defined markets. But the reason for this is that the authors of the works involved have gone into the process with specialized knowledge—they know those markets intimately, which greatly reduces the resource-cost of sales, promotion, and distribution. Established authors of genre fiction, if they’ve cultivated and tracked a sufficiently large fan-base, can sometimes make self-publishing models work for much the same reason.

But self-publishing for a general audience that hasn’t been so helpfully pre-defined strikes me as a much dicier proposition, and even more so for authors who don’t have prior publication credits. And while e-publication makes some aspects of the publishing process less complex, it does not remove any of the basic steps from that process, nor does it shield the e-publisher from the consequences of under-allocating resources to any of those steps.

I’m in no way morally opposed to self-publishing; indeed, I can think of one or two nonfiction projects that I might be willing to try to self-publish if I had the $$ to put into them. But I think that making money at self-publishing is going to remain a difficult and elusive proposition for most writers of genre fiction in the near to middle term, because the true resource costs of quality self-publication are just too high.
Lisa said on 05.27.09 at 03:00 AM • [link]

Whether or not I’m right, I believe books are self-published for one of two reasons:

1) They don’t fit into a niche that publishers confidently believe can make money
2) They suck

I would be willing to read self-published stuff in the first category but I am terrified of wasting my money on the second category. I don’t have a reliable source for reviews/buzz on self-published books to help me weed out the unedited crap. Also, I guess, I don’t even know where to go about buying it. I don’t have an e-reader of any kind and am always skeeved out giving my credit card number online to anybosdy.

Anyway, I’m not saying I’m correct about self-published books, but I suspect I’m fairly typical.
Wilma Howe-Bennett said on 05.27.09 at 03:42 AM • [link]

Hi, all:

THANK you all for both responding and answering a BUNCH of questions that I personally had about the e-publishing/self-publishing of a book. The biggest problem is - for me, at least - that, while I’ve co-authored and published several textbooks, EVERYTHING was taken care for me and all I had to do was write the book, defend my conclusions, annotate my research, and turn it over to the textbook committe. When I say everything, I MEAN everything. I had NO responsibility for talking to an agent, or dealing with a publishing house, or in truth doing anything other than correcting my work in re spelling, punctuation, grammer, and what few factual errors (which always DO this, like Murphy’s Law mandates) creep in.

I expect that I will try to get one of the smaller houses interested if that’s even possible in this economy. While it’s NOT Shakespeare, it’s also not (in *MY* humble opinion at least) a stinker. It’s somewhere in between, I HOPE: rough but salable.

Oh, well . . . any suggestions are welcome!
Ann Somerville said on 05.27.09 at 04:32 AM • [link]

1) They don’t fit into a niche that publishers confidently believe can make money
2) They suck

3) As mentioned above, the author doesn’t want the hassle that goes with trying to be published, or they’ve been discouraged by knock backs. Couple of examples:

‘Whistling in the Dark was turned down by a well known e-publisher, so Ms Allen self-pubbed it. After some rave reviews, Lethe Press picked it up. You can hardly say it’s so outre that it couldn’t have been published by any of the epublishers, and it certainly doesn’t suck.

A book of mine was turned down by Samhain, so I self-pubbed it. Quite a few reviewers don’t think it sucks. I’ve since self-pubbed another book which would have fitted within Samhain’s remit and sales and feedback indicate that readers find it of acceptable standard.

You take the same risk with a self-pubbed book that you do with any other kind of publication, and you can only go by samples and word of mouth. Reviews are often of limited use - I love the Bitches, but I’ve been badly led astray by their reviews because they put entirely different weight on things that drive me around the bend. Sad to say, amateur reviewing is beset by back scratching and love ins, and ironically self-pub books are probably less prone to fluffy useless reviews simply because they’re outside the cliques. No one’s going to care if they upset Lulu or its authors if they slam one of my books, the way I’ve been told I’m supposed to care if I negatively review one of Samhain’s offerings.

If you can’t read a sample chapter online or free offerings on the author’s website [hint, you can do both with my books] then you probably don’t want to risk a purchase unless it’s very cheap. Because samples are just simple good sense in marketing, and any author too clueless not to offer them is probably not likely to have a supportive group of fellow authors to help them polish the book to semi-pro standard. But self-pub != sucky or non-commercial in every case. It really doesn’t.
Lori said on 05.27.09 at 05:30 AM • [link]

Whether or not I’m right, I believe books are self-published for one of two reasons:

1) They don’t fit into a niche that publishers confidently believe can make money
2) They suck

I wouldn’t have said “suck”. I think I would have gone with “not ready for prime time”. Otherwise as a reader I tend to have the same basic feeling as Lisa. It’s a matter of percentages and access/awareness.

There are some traditionally published books that make me wonder how on earth they ever saw the light of day. Some self-published books are great. However, my experience is similar to Chris Szego’s in that the ratio of quality to crap does not favor self-published books.

Sample chapters help with avoiding books by authors with no concept of grammar or sentence structure. They’re of more limited usefulness in avoiding other problems, like stories that are illogical or characterization that’s hopelessly cliched or inconsistent. Those problems often don’t become obvious until you’re several chapters into the book. Since those things drive me nuts I worry about that. I’ve simply read too many self published work that wasn’t fully baked.

There are exceptions, but I think many self-pubbed authors don’t get nearly enough input from objective sources before the book goes out. Some have objective critique partners who can fill the role of a traditional editor, but many don’t. and friends and family just don’t cut it. Most people can’t tell a friend that she has a bad haircut or that her new dress makes her butt look big, so they certainly can’t be counted on to tell her that her book is not working and needs a major rewrite.

So, I’ll read self-published book only if it is recommended to me by a friend or reviewer that I know has similar taste to mine*. I just don’t have the time or the money to take a flyer on a book that hasn’t gone through even basic filtering. I know that I’m missing some gems, but I’m pretty comfortable that at this point I’m still missing more stuff that’s not worth my time.

*This has nothing to do with whether the reviewer is an amateur or a professional.
Ann Somerville said on 05.27.09 at 05:39 AM • [link]

Isn’t it ironic that everyone is so worried about quality in self-pubbed books, and most people won’t even give them a first look, and yet a group of authors can get together, call themselves a publisher, put their own works out under a variety of pseudonyms, pay nothing for editing or in advances, and automatically be rated as somehow a safer bet than authors publishing through Lulu?

Dear Author reviews books by Ravenous Romance - which wasn’t paying editors, paid a $10 advance, allowed its own authors to edit their own books etc - and yet I can’t remember seeing a single self-pub review there. I doubt Whistling in the Dark would have been reviewed on DA before it made it to Lethe. I don’t think the Bitches review self-pubbed books either.

It’s all very well talking about curation and so on, but if a press isn’t imposing credible editorial standards and their upfront investment in the author is zero or close to, ask yourself why you assume they’re producing anything of quality at all?

Before self-publication can ever be a realistic option, readers need to get the idea out of their heads that ‘publishing company’ always means independent quality assurance.
Lori said on 05.27.09 at 06:18 AM • [link]

Dear Author reviews books by Ravenous Romance

Have you read those reviews? They aren’t exactly an advertisement for Ravenous Romance. They are positive only if you believe that any publicity is good publicity. For me they simply served to put Ravenous Romance on the do not buy list.

Yup, there are publishers whose books I don’t bother with unless I get a positive review from a source whose tastes match mine. That’s because I tried them and my experience with them was that the ratio of crap to treasure isn’t good enough to make it worth the risk.
SonomaLass said on 05.27.09 at 06:21 AM • [link]

From what I’ve read of Jane’s Ravenous Romance reviews at Dear Author, she is NOT assuming that they are “producing anything of quality at all.” On the contrary, she is going out of her way to point out exactly what you’re saying, Ann, which is that this particular publisher does not provide a basic standard of quality.

I wouldn’t know where to begin with self-published books. But if I heard good word of mouth about one and it sounded like my cuppa, sure I’d buy it. The more places on line foster discussion about who likes what, even us lowly amateur reviewers (aka readers), the better the odds that I will hear exactly that some day.
Ann Somerville said on 05.27.09 at 06:42 AM • [link]

“They are positive only if you believe that any publicity is good publicity.”

I never said they were positive reviews. They’re clearly not - but how many people buy the books to see if they’re as bad as they sound? (and RR clearly think any publicity is good publicity!) My point is that these books, good or bad, are considered wasting review space and time on. The *assumption*, despite the lack of a track record, editing standards, advances, is that they *would* be producing quality - and so people are disappointed when they don’t, even though they’re not investing any more time in their products than a self-pubbed author would.

Books by Torquere and other small presses which are (or were) nothing more than groups of author friends self-publishing under a company name, are treated the same as Ravenous - as if they’re real publishers, and so their products deserve attention. Few epubs pay advances and the editing quality is notoriously poor, yet they get a foot in the publicity/reviewing door simply because they call themselves publishers.
John C. Bunnell said on 05.27.09 at 07:41 AM • [link]

Isn’t it ironic that everyone is so worried about quality in self-pubbed books

I worry about quality in any published book, regardless of who publishes it. One reason I am disinclined to self-publish my own fiction is that I know I don’t have the resources—either in $$ or in personal skill—to put out a product that would meet professional standards of production quality. Professional editorial quality, yes. Production quality, no.

I could spend a lot of money hiring out the parts of the production and marketing process I’m not equipped to handle—but it would cost enough that I’d never break anywhere close to even on sales, because of the distribution roadblocks. Or I could do all my own production and marketing work—some of it competently, a lot of it amateurishly—but in that case I’d be lucky to break even, because the result would be a product whose overall mediocrity would itself be a barrier to strong sales.

Now yes, New York et al release work that’s textually mediocre all the time, and make money at it. They can do that because they can make mediocre texts look desirable by throwing lots of resources at the sales/promotion/distribution end of the publishing process, and the economies of scale on that end of the process are such that the quality of the text (or lack thereof) essentially doesn’t matter.

Self-publishers and small presses don’t have those economies of scale. They generally don’t have the resources (either fiscal or human) to duplicate the kind of sales-by-packaging that the major-media publishers are able to engineer. And in the rare instances when they do have the resources to engage in high-end marketing, the cost of the marketing is even more rarely recouped in actual sales.

My view is not that self-publishing is morally wrong; it’s that it’s very, very difficult to make money at it—especially in genre fiction.
grace cassey said on 05.27.09 at 09:23 AM • [link]

Interesting post. There is still much flak against self-publishing but time has actually changed tides, especially now.
Self-publishing is actually a smart option for those who want to make their dreams of becoming a published author reality.
Because at the end of the day, especially now at these trying times, those who insist on going the traditional route could die dreaming, much less, they die trying.
Barbara said on 05.27.09 at 01:42 PM • [link]

I self-published my novel for several reasons, not having the time or energy (literally) to go the traditional route high on the list. I had a built-in audience to some extent- there’s great interest in the Golden Age of Hollywood, and the romance between Clark Gable and Carole Lombard is somewhat legendary. It’s sold well, did not cost an arm and leg to do, and has been well-reviewed (and not by friends/family, of my amazon reviews, only two are known to me). It’s been a positive experience all around. As I don’t have the time/energy to do promotion, I wouldn’t do it again, but in this case, it was a good fit.
Deb Kinnard said on 05.27.09 at 04:51 PM • [link]

I think it’s interesting that small presses are defined as a group of self-publishers banded together to put out their own work. Not so…unless, of course, it can be proven. Maybe the poster is a heat-seeker and is just stirring up legitimate discussion. But saying “all” to anything is asking for a challenge.

Any takers?
SonomaLass said on 05.27.09 at 07:42 PM • [link]

@ Deb Kinnard: I don’t think Ann said “all,” to be fair; she said “Torquere and other small presses which are (or were) nothing more than groups of author friends self-publishing under a company name.” Truth about those I don’t know, but it certainly isn’t a universal statement about small presses.

It’s a fair point that being published (by any press) gives a book a better shot at being reviewed than being self-pubbed, and certainly the lack of quality provided by some publishers makes that seem unfair. But even the lousy publishers serve a purpose—I can recognize and avoid a whole group of books that way! Publishing companies are a “brand,” and that’s a marketing device that we’re used to. Self-published books aren’t branded, so it takes more effort for a reader to hear about them and figure out whether a particular one is to her taste. This is perhaps especially true in romance, where many of us cut our reading teeth on categories—the epitome of book branding.
Deb Kinnard said on 05.27.09 at 10:38 PM • [link]

@Sonoma: true. I think maybe my small press hackles got raised prematurely.

I am, however, tired of small press land being branded as any one consistent thing. It isn’t; it’s all over the map, just like large press land. But small press credentials are unacceptable in a general sense to RWA, now also to ACFW who I thought would have better sense. There seems to be this unspoken (and sometimes verbalized) mindset 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.

Enough already.
JenTurner said on 05.27.09 at 11:46 PM • [link]

I’m a self-published author. The first book in my dark paranormal romance series has been out for seven months and I’ve sold just under 900 copies. I originally went the traditional route with agents, five of which requested the full MS for my first novel. Even though four of those agents told me they “loved my voice”, in the end, they all felt my heroine was too non-traditional to sell, or that my series was just too dark. Two asked me to make changes and resubmit…I chose not to.

I’m with the others here who’ve made the comment that sometimes a story is just too different for traditional publishing. Not every book is self-published because it “sucks” or because the author can’t write. Sometimes it happens because traditional publishers can’t envision enough readers accepting a homeless, drug addict as a heroine. ;)

By no means has self-publishing made me a rich woman, but I have made a decent profit from my sales. Of course, I consider myself lucky because I was already proficient with most design programs and MS Word, so I was able to handle the cover design and interior formatting myself. I’m also no stranger to web design or the internet, which helped a lot because I didn’t need to pay for extra services. And, I had a small team of proofreaders to help me with editing. We didn’t find every single error before the book went to print, but I’ve only seen two comments thus far that mention anything about editing. One was by Mrs. Giggles, the other was by a reader.

At this point, I’d say I’m very happy with my self-publishing experience. I’ve gotten some great reviews and feedback, a slew of e-mails from readers who love the characters, and enough cash to buy a new laptop and publish the second book of the series. Aside from not being able to physically walk into a bookstore and see my novel on the shelf, what more can I ask for?
Ann Somerville said on 05.28.09 at 12:36 AM • [link]

“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.
Mary M. said on 05.28.09 at 09:00 PM • [link]

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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 07:50 AM • [link]

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! :D

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.
Ann Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 09:48 AM • [link]

“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.
Ann Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 09:53 AM • [link]

I should say that I’m in agreement with Victoria Strauss on the whole ‘indie publishing’ thing.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 10:03 AM • [link]

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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 10:12 AM • [link]

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.
Ann Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 10:24 AM • [link]

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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 11:03 AM • [link]

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?
Ann Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 11:13 AM • [link]

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.
Barbara said on 05.30.09 at 11:20 AM • [link]

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.
Ann Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 11:54 AM • [link]

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.
Barbara said on 05.30.09 at 12:02 PM • [link]

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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 12:04 PM • [link]

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 Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 12:19 PM • [link]

“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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 12:20 PM • [link]

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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 12:36 PM • [link]

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.
Barbara said on 05.30.09 at 12:39 PM • [link]

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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 12:51 PM • [link]

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 Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 12:55 PM • [link]

“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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 01:04 PM • [link]

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.
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 01:06 PM • [link]

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.
Barbara said on 05.30.09 at 01:08 PM • [link]

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
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 01:12 PM • [link]

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.)
Barbara said on 05.30.09 at 01:15 PM • [link]

Thanks, Zoe, I have a Kindle, so I’ll check it out right now.
Ann Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 01:16 PM • [link]

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.
Barbara said on 05.30.09 at 01:22 PM • [link]

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
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 01:24 PM • [link]

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.
Barbara said on 05.30.09 at 01:31 PM • [link]

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, :).
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 01:35 PM • [link]

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. :P
Barbara said on 05.30.09 at 01:40 PM • [link]

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
Zoe Winters said on 05.30.09 at 01:45 PM • [link]

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.
Ann Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 01:47 PM • [link]

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.
April L. Hamilton said on 05.30.09 at 05:29 PM • [link]

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.
April L. Hamilton said on 05.30.09 at 05:30 PM • [link]

Sorr y I got your name wrong - I meant Ann Somerville.
Ann Somerville said on 05.30.09 at 11:52 PM • [link]

“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.
April L. Hamilton said on 05.31.09 at 01:04 AM • [link]

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. =’[
Ann Somerville said on 05.31.09 at 02:21 AM • [link]

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.
RJ Keller said on 05.31.09 at 03:08 AM • [link]

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:

Indie authors are authors who have *chosen* to self-publish, not *resorted* to it.

If I wasn’t so afraid of needles, I’d get that tattooed upon my person.
April L. Hamilton said on 05.31.09 at 04:18 AM • [link]

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.
Angela said on 05.31.09 at 04:19 AM • [link]

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.

Oh dear Lord…what a way to divert the conversation!
Ann Somerville said on 05.31.09 at 05:08 AM • [link]

April, I apologise for calling you ‘privileged’. Clearly you have experience of racism, and I do not.

I still think your analogy was foolish and offensive - and hyperbolic. Whatever point you were trying to make is lost when you compare two things which are so completely unalike. Self-publishing has a bad rep because of the actions of self-pubbed authors. ‘N*gger’ has a bad rep because the actions of racists towards black people. Self-pubbed authors are responsible - to an extent - for how they are seen. Black people aren’t. And that’s why I find that comparison offensive.

“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. “

Did you miss the fact I’m self-published? Or that I’ve been arguing that self-publishing should not carry the stigma that it does? Did you miss *why* I am so opposed to the term ‘indie’ - which is that it has acquired an even greater stigma, and that all that’s happening is that people are now confusing vanity publishing/self publishing/‘indie’ publishing more than ever?

I don’t want to preserve the status quo. I just very strongly disagree with you and Zoe’s method of trying to change it.

“Indie authors are authors who have *chosen* to self-publish, not *resorted* to it.”

Well, aren’t you speshul. I didn’t ‘resort’ to it. I chose to self-publish for all kinds of reasons. I just don’t feel a need to call myself anything other than self-published.

I’ve said before - call yourselves what you want. But you don’t speak for self-published authors as a group, and you’re not doing writers like me any favours by statements that *you* don’t have to be self-published, but the *others* (who aren’t ‘indie authors’) do. I’ve got epubbed and trad pub credits as well as self-pub titles. I don’t have to prove a damn thing to anyone - or have a tattoo to remind myself of the party line.
RJ Keller said on 05.31.09 at 05:25 AM • [link]

There’s no party line, Ann. Tattoos are a celebration, which is why I used the metaphor. Some of us on this planet have been given a great gift - from the gods or God or genetics or faeries or whatever - that of being able to express ourselves with words in a way that moves and entertains other people. I feel blessed and grateful for the talent I’ve been given, or inherited. I want to put my stuff out there. I’m excited about it!

Where’s your joy? I’ve been reading your free stuff this evening. You’re damned good. YOU have been blessed with an amazing talent. Yet you’re here quibbling about labels with other writers you don’t even know. So again I ask you ... where’s your joy?
WryHag said on 05.31.09 at 06:23 AM • [link]

I never claimed I was impassioned and you had a bee.

Oh, lord, it’s late, and I’m easily entertained. :-D

In summation:

1.) Crap abounds, regardless of its source. But crap backed up by a recognizable name is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as potential intellectual nourishment.
2.) Nobody gives a royal rip what authors call themselves, self-pubbed or not, because we’re all viewed as drama queens and self-styled divas . . . and this discussion essentially proves why.
3.) Just write the best damned book you can and spare us the labels. I identify myself as That Weird Old Lady Who Loves What She Does, Can’t Do Anything Else That Might Be Considered Even Moderately Productive, and Is Stupid Enough to Think She’ll Someday Be Able to Afford the Cost of Cremation, at Least, Before She Kicks the (Delusional) Bucket. How unfortunate I can’t even condense that into a manageable acronym.
4.) I also have books you can read, Barbara, but I’m going to make you guess their titles and publishers because I’m just that way.

It’s been a slice.
Zoe Winters said on 05.31.09 at 07:57 AM • [link]

WryHag,

If I hadn’t had my personal integrity attacked on a well-trafficked blog in order to prop up Ann’s own moral fortitude, I wouldn’t have cared one wit about labels. “Indie Author” is what I like and use for myself but I don’t pretend everybody should like it or use it. What I expect though is that random people on the internet who don’t really know me shouldn’t come out fists flying with insult and outrage over a personal word I use to describe myself and what I do.
Zoe Winters said on 05.31.09 at 07:58 AM • [link]

Nevertheless, i didn’t have to play into it, be emo, or help derail the thread. I’ve seen Ann’s antics on the interwebz before, I should have rolled my eyes and moved on.
Ann Somerville said on 05.31.09 at 08:05 AM • [link]

“So again I ask you ... where’s your joy? “

I appreciate the compliments about my writing, but spare me the amateur psychology, please. My ‘joy’ or otherwise isn’t any of your damn business.

Zoe, you suck. You went right to ad hominem and stayed there, the mark of someone without a moral leg to stand on. So piss off, do what you like, and I’ll keep pointing and laughing, okay? Call yourself a baboon’s erection for all I care.
Zoe Winters said on 05.31.09 at 08:27 AM • [link]

LMAO Ann. Um, okay. Look I’m not sure where you are getting your “ad hominem” from, since you right off the bat claimed I was dishonest, trying to fool people, trying to look better than I was, and defrauding readers. You further attacked my intelligence point blank. You couldn’t just agree to disagree on labels or tell me the phrase that upset you to begin with. Nope, you had to take the scenic route.

Either way, I’m sure anyone who can read, and who has come into contact with you anywhere else on the internet before has seen your special brand of “debate” and “telling it like it is.”

Oh and you just added that “I suck,” and I’m assuming you mean as a person since you’ve never been inside my bedroom. And oh yeah… you questioned my morality yet again. To hear you tell it, I may as well have horns and a tail. Or excuse me, a baboon’s erection.
Barbara said on 05.31.09 at 09:54 AM • [link]

WryHag - no fair, I’m clueless as it is! (Or so my husband is often saying, I retaliate by throwing the Percocet bottle at his Mensan head, the jerk:) ) And I like your name, I’m thinking of changing mine to Cranky Bitch.
Ann Somerville said on 06.01.09 at 08:49 AM • [link]

Zoe, funnily enough, whenever your name is mentioned, like it was here:

http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2009/01/06/breaking-the-sky-is-falling-will-publishing-innovate-or-deteriorate/

(I notice you distinguished yourself by the moderate tone you took…oops), it’s always about your method of publication.

When people mention *me* it’s either to rail about what a c*nt I am, or how great my writing is.

Seems to me, a writer should be better known for their writing than how their single book is going to be released. But then you strike me as someone who kinda likes writing, but who really, really wants to be published. I’m the other way around - would kinda like to be published, if I could get away from the cliquey BS that being published (even self-published) involves, but I really, really love to write. And to be read.

So excuse me if I don’t engage. with you and your friends any more because I’ve got some more stories to release on Lulu. I think that probably takes me to over 3 million original fiction words on line and available for free or very little. When I’m on my deathbed, I very much doubt the shame of being ‘self-published’ as opposed to ‘indie published’ will weigh heavily on my soul. I think the letters from my readers and the friends I’ve made from my writing, will be what I’ll cherish.

Good luck. Time will tell if your efforts are worth it. Maybe you’ll rediscover the pleasure of writing in the process.
Zoe Winters said on 06.01.09 at 09:16 AM • [link]

Well, Ann, I’ve never called you a C*nt. But judging from a lot of your invective on the many places you’ve gotten into cat fights on the internet, you don’t seem to believe anyone has a right to hurt feelings but you. That tends to annoy people. You say something mean and people are silly for being hurt by it, someone says something mean to you and you go to terror level orange. If you could either easily take what you dish out or stop dishing out what you can’t take, online communication with you would be far less bothersome to people.

Thank you *once again* for assuming things about me you do not know. First I must be being dishonest because I’m “hiding” behind an imprint label, and now I must just have some real big “ego-reason” that I just “need” to be able to run around identifying myself as “being published.”

I don’t even know where to classify your “really wants to be published” comment. All I can say is please stop assuming things about me you do not know. A few posts up you told Kel to spare you the amateur psychology, and yet…

Just saying.

I have no need for the social status of “being published” but thanks for throwing around more invective, even if you’re being slightly more subtle than your earlier comments about sucking and baboon erections.

If you hear more about my method of publication it’s because the places that you’ve seen me, that’s what the topic of conversation is, and I’m also involved in communities that *revolve around* the whole concept of *being indie.* So it shouldn’t be surprising that this is a topic I talk about a lot.

Again, there is no “shame” in being self-published. I’m not sure where you’re even getting that. “indie” is just an affirming label and classifies in a stronger way what it is I’m doing. (like indie musicians, indie filmmakers.) The practice is the same, the labels are different. It’s called self-confidence and the decision not to let “other people” label what you do. If *you* prefer the label self-publishing and think my label is stupid, that is all well and good.

You must have been asleep when April went through her: “When a label has meant “inferior by definition” then when things change labels start changing” concept. That is why. Not because I’m “ashamed” of self publishing. I swear, it’s like beating my head against a brick wall.

I have never LOST the pleasure of writing. I have no idea where you get this stuff, but by assuming things about people you don’t know, you only make yourself less credible. And you have far less right to criticize the intelligence of others.
Zoe Winters said on 06.01.09 at 09:24 AM • [link]

Oh, also thank you for that little implied jab that just because the only place *you’ve* seen me mentioned, it was about publication method, my writing must by definition be inferior.

At least it’s more subtle than many of your other insults we’ve all seen all over the internet.

But just a question… are we going to be talking about my mama next? Cause if we are, I really want to get some popcorn.
Barbara said on 06.01.09 at 10:44 AM • [link]

OK, I probably shouldn’t be butting in here (woke with major pain issues) but: suppose I ask Jill Hennessy (yes, we’ve met, talked, exchanged a few emails, etc) about the impending release of her CD, unsigned (which, with my limited knowledge of the music industry indicates indie status) and how she feels about authors applying the same label to themselves. She does have some status as a “Star” and I would tend to take her POV seriously. Would anyone else? Would her opinion carry any weight in this discussion? She’s a very bright lady, she thinks before she speaks, and if she has time to answer (the CD is being released in about two weeks), will her opinion matter on this matter?

As it stands now, I see self-pubbed authors arguing over what to call themselves, with each side taking a position they support with various opinions/citations. Music is frequently cited as a comparison, pro and con. While one TV star’s opinion isn’t gong to change everyone (or anyone’s) mind, is it worth seeking it?

And no, I’m not trying to qualify for box seats in heaven by fulfilling a beatitude, I’m just asking if an outside opinion, by an indie musician of some standing, will help settle the matter? (Assuming she’s not too busy with promotion and performances to answer, but she usually does when my question carries some weight). I can also ask Natalie Gelman, another indie musician, how she feels about authors using the label, but I pretty much know her opinion - she told me independent artists of any stripe should support one another.

So, ladies, would outside opinions from a different artistic endeavor be of any help in defining our labels?

Best, Barbara
Zoe Winters said on 06.01.09 at 11:21 AM • [link]

Hey Barbara,

I think ultimately opinions are like noses. I don’t need the whole world to validate my label. What gets up my butt is the idea that it’s okay to browbeat someone to change their label cause they think it’s stupid or illigitimate or inaccurate. Who cares? Everybody has opinions. That’s fine.

I think in order for the view of an indie musician to be weighed seriously on the idea of indie authorship, they would have to be aware of why indie authors label themselves in such a way and some of the similarities we’ve drawn with what we’re doing to what has been done in music and film before us.

Either way though it’s another opinion. I’m not sure an appeal to authority really wins anything. For some people maybe, not for others.

I don’t really think most self publishing authors are arguing over what to call ourselves. It looks like there is far more division in this issue than there is. Most of us really don’t care what people call themselves. The issue is merely that because Ann didn’t like my label and thought somehow I was attacking her seriousness as a writer with it.

Yes, my original comment may have been slightly hyperbolic due to excitement over the original post content, but come on…it’s stretching to just assume I think Ann isn’t serious for calling herself a self publisher. I wasn’t even addressing her in my original post.

It’s also a stretch to think I was mocking her for using Lulu. I have Lulu books on my SHELF from writer friends whose work I value highly.

I’ve corresponded with people who have been self publishing for decades (Before we had ebooks and POD technology) and take pride in the term self publisher and I would NEVER say they aren’t serious or that their label is wrong. For crying out loud.

But instead of bothering to find that out, instead we get into a discussion about “me” as a person. My motives, my agenda, etc. etc. It’s rather tiresome. I don’t care that some like the label indie and some don’t. People should use the label that they think best fits them. What I care about is not becoming the latest target of attack for someone who can’t stand for anyone to ever disagree with her.
Barbara said on 06.01.09 at 11:40 AM • [link]

Hi Zoe.

I think, bottom line, I agree with you that it doesn’t really matter what we call ourselves, how we self-identify. It’s a word, and if it feels comfortable to us, and isn’t a lie, there is nothing wrong with it. Others who find it uncomfortable may use another label that feels better to them. As I mentioned in my previous post, I have talked about this with Natalie Gelman, who vigorously supports indie artists no matter the medium. I don’t appeal to her as an authority, but as someone who lives very much with the label “indie” and understands its nuances.

This discussion was the first I’d read/heard that there was any dispute over labels, hence my initial interest in it. Budweiser could start labeling itself “Beer, With a Bite” and it would still be beer, plain and simple. Microbreweries are still beer, the labels they use for themselves simply that, labels, identity markers. Musicians who are indie are still musicians, many of them gifted, and writers the same. Isn’t it all about the route, the business decisions behind the choice, the product, and not the label itself? Indie implies, in many ways, self published, in my mind. If I’m that curious about a book I’m interested in, I can look at the publisher, not that it will affect my decision to buy or not.

Maybe I’m naive, but I think all self pubbed, or indie, or whatever, writers of quality product should be supporting one another in whatever way they can, each wearing the self-descriptor that feels best to them. Just my little opinion. Best, Barbara
Zoe Winters said on 06.01.09 at 11:47 AM • [link]

Hey Barbara,

I’m sorry about how that came off the “appeal to authority” line. I think maybe I should have phrased it differently. It seems to me if a big indie musician were to come in and say “Yes I totally see where they’re coming from with the indie author label” that it’s just as easy for someone else to call it an appeal to authority and therefore dismiss it anyway.

It seems to me it wouldn’t “win” an argument. Though I would be interested to hear what they have to say.

And I agree with you. Indies/self-published/whatever putting out good work should be supporting each other rather than bickering over labels. It makes us look bad, especially when we bicker in a forum that isn’t made up of only people doing what we’re doing.
Ann Somerville said on 06.01.09 at 11:53 AM • [link]

“my writing must by definition be inferior.”

Not at all, and you’ve completely missed my point.

Whenever I’ve seen your name mentioned - and I see it a lot - it’s always in the context of your ‘indie publishing’. So you’re getting a name as a ‘indie published’ author. People are focusing attention on your supposed innovation ( I’m simply not getting into that aspect of it at all.)

But they *should* be talking about your novel - or your next novel. Or your past novels. And what a terrific read it is, and how much they want to read the next one, etc etc. Yet I’m not seeing that buzz when I look up your name.

What’s the point of all this interest in you, if it’s not garnering your readers? You’ve shifted attention off what should be important - your writing - onto your business methods, which are simply not terribly enthralling. They’re not enthralling when Mary Q Authoress babbles on about her new contract with Ellora’s Cave, and while there’s trainwreck value in watching Jamaica Layne ‘promote’ something like Ravenous Press, when it comes down to it, all the matters is what they publish, not how. A few industry mavens will want to talk about RR’s supposed plan to blow the opposition out of the water, but the paying public aren’t going to give a toss.

So what are you - a writer or a publisher? If you’re a writer, then go write. You’re hawking a single novel around the place, but its name is not prominent when I do a google search. You want people to read your book? Write more books. But if you don’t like writing enough to do that, and keep doing it, then how you publish isn’t enough to make this a worthwhile experience for anyone.

I doubt you’ll take the least advice from me, so I can only do what works for me - write, shove it out wherever people will take it, write some more. I love writing, and I love interacting with my readers. The business side of it bores me shitless. More than anything, the whole ‘indie publishing’ concept turns me off because I’m not a publisher, and don’t want to be. I don’t buy ISBNs, I don’t buy bulk orders of my books, and I don’t even take orders directly for ebooks via PayPal. I am not interested in what you are so fanatic about promoting (quite aside from my intense ethical disapproval of your methods, which there’s no point in repeating.) Being self-published, I thought, meant getting right out of the politics of publishing, and labels, and expectations, and here you and your friends are trying to lay that all down on a group of people who are, by definition, allergic to it.

Do you want to be known as ‘Zoe Winters, indie published author’ or simply as ‘Zoe Winters, kickass writer’? I know what I want. Do you?
Barbara said on 06.01.09 at 11:57 AM • [link]

No worries, Zoe, no apology needed, but thanks. You do make a valid point - it’s just an opinion, no matter who uttered it. And we all know the saying about opinions…

And I really don’t think arguments can be “won.” The individual has too much invested in their opinion to capitulate all that easily. Sometimes “commentary” from an outside source may help influence an opinion, but in the end, does it all really matter?

Our product speaks for itself, in the end, no matter who produced it. To me, that’s all that matters, the work itself, and not the name of the publisher on the spine. I think we agree there, as well. But I will ask Jill what she thinks, but I won’t count on an answer, the woman is running herself ragged at the moment, and post it here - or give it to you privately. Best, Barbara
Zoe Winters said on 06.01.09 at 12:10 PM • [link]

Ann, on blogs and places about independent/self publishing I think the focus “should” be on the act of indie publishing itself. Just like publishing industry blogs talk about facets of publishing rather than talking about individual books. For example when Nora Roberts posts over on Dear Author, while sometimes someone will mention one of her books or being a fan, that’s not the *topic* of conversation.

If people just randomly started talking about how much they liked my work on a forum or post not even *about* my work, it would feel a little awkward. When I’m talking about a publishing method, I don’t *need* for people to stroke my writer ego that exact second. I have overall wonderful reviews on Amazon, mostly from complete strangers, and even Mrs. Giggles encouraged people to go download KEPT from her blog. And Mrs. Giggles found me on her own.

But when I’m talking publishing, it’s about me as a *publisher* not necessarily about me as an *author.* Or my specific work. To me being a publisher as in the act of publishing, is just as important as the act of being an author. I love both aspects of the process equally. The business hat as well as the creative hat.

If you don’t, that’s fine. We are all different people with different value systems, wants, and needs.

I don’t think my identity as *an author* is somehow more important than my identy as *a publisher.*

It shouldn’t be surprising that when you search out my name you find so much about indie publishing, because I’m actively involved in those communities. But when you search Zoe Winters, one of the first things that should come up is my blog and author profile. On my blog there is a page on what readers are saying at the very top menu bar. Not hard to find.

You must not have been looking very hard. On amazon you can see that I’m normally in the top 2,000 in the kindle store sales rank and out of 19 reviews, only one is mixed. Most of these people I do not know.

So if I’m becoming “known” as an indie, then GREAT, because that’s what I want. I want to be one of the voices in this movement. Because it’s not all just about “me” and my individual fiction right now. It’s about a lot more than just that.

Since the end of November when I began to make it available I’ve had over 5,000 readers (that I can track) of KEPT. I’ve had fantastic feedback. I’ve had newsletter subscribers. I’ve had gushing emails. If I’d been more actively marketing it, I’m sure I would have had more. I’ve been pretty radio silent online for about two months, during which time, my downloads and kindle sales were being fueled entirely by word of mouth and my kindle store sales rank. So saying I’m not making any dent at all for my actual fiction is a bit of a stretch.

But I don’t *need* to talk about that all the time. What’s more important to me right now isn’t just my own success, but this whole movement going on around indie authorship. It’s an exciting thing to me to be a part of. *just as* exciting as my own individual fiction efforts.

And I *am* writing more books. Why are you so concerned with what I’m doing, Ann? Just do your own thing and don’t worry so much about what’s important to me.
Zoe Winters said on 06.01.09 at 12:12 PM • [link]

Thanks, Barbara, I’d love to hear her take!
Anion said on 06.05.09 at 05:06 AM • [link]

For the record, because Ann was kind enough to let me know my name came up here (and I mean that sincerely)...

It may be a bit late for me to comment here but I stupidly lost my email password and so haveonly just been made aware of this discussion. Yes. I had a bit of a tiff with Zoe at DA a while back. A misunderstanding. I would like to make clear here that Zoe and I had (at least as far as I was concerned; I can’t speak for Zoe) patched up our differences and apologized to each other. I certainly bear her no ill will, and wish her the best, and I’m saying that because our argument was brought back up and I thought it would be good to mention.

For the record also, no, I am not Ann, and I think anyone with access to our IPs can confirm that. I do happen to like Ann, but I am not Ann.

That is all.
Zoe Winters said on 06.05.09 at 05:16 AM • [link]

Hey Anion! :D Yep, we patched things up. I knew you and I had had that argument that time on DA (which to be fair to you, I was pretty defensive from the start, had I not been that way it wouldn’t have happened.) But I was *sure* that Ann and I had scuffled too. I could be wrong on that point. But once I’m called stupid for an honest mistake, you can see how I don’t want to even further get into the issue. (not by you.)

What probably led me to believe that Ann and I had scuffled before was in her original post to me where she said:

“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.”

Where she said “as you’ve said before…” just made me think she and I had argued about this issue before because it felt very much like dejavu, specifically on DA which was the only place I’d posted where she also posted. If she and I didn’t directly argue, then I’m mistaken, but I do know she and you aren’t the same person. I had thought she and I had gotten into it *in addition to* me and you.

If that was incorrect then I apologize to her for that assumption. A lot of my initial defensiveness came in part from how I read her initial statement and felt she was opening an old can of worms. Though all the other attacks on my integrity/honesty/intelligence/general disposition, etc. didn’t exactly lead to super friendly conversation.

Anyway, good to see you. :D
Ann Somerville said on 06.05.09 at 08:16 AM • [link]

Zoe, you and I have never, ever interacted before this, and you clearly leapt to an erroneous and insulting conclusion based on no evidence. I’ve *seen* you talking about being ‘indie published’ before. Doesn’t mean I’ve *talked* to you about it. Your views and reputation are as well known as my own.

“though all the other attacks on my integrity/honesty/intelligence/general disposition, etc. didn’t exactly lead to super friendly conversation.’

I think it’s fair to say you were the originator of a fair few very personal attacks yourself, and attempting to portray yourself as the helpless wounded damsel is a bit rich.

In any event, our two points of view are irreconcilable, as are our ambitions, so there’s no point in pursuing it. So long as you don’t attempt or appear to speak for all self-published authors again, you and I should never need to interact for any reason. I hope not.

Good luck with your writing and your career.
Zoe Winters said on 06.05.09 at 04:21 PM • [link]

Ann, actually we have interacted before this, in the link on DA that you posted. It just wasn’t rude. But I’ve watched you call people names all over the internet. Your reputation precedes you and your tone with me in your original post caused me to misremember. I don’t always have the best memory in the world, excuse me for my lack of perfection.

It was an honest mistake. But when you come back lambasting me for my obvious stupidity, you can see where I might no longer care to offer you an apology.

LMAO I’ve never portrayed myself as a wounded damsel, and I won’t pretend to be an innocent who has never said anything even remotely mean to anyone, but I’d love to know what you consider a personal attack against you on my part here. Other than the misunderstanding over us communicating before.

HAHAHAHA @ “so long as you don’t attempt to speak for all self-published authors again” I never spoke for all self published authors to begin with, you just assumed I did. I’m not even sure why the statement: “Be prepared to start hearing serious self publishing authors…” in your head translates into: “you aren’t a serious self publishing author unless you use the label I use.”

I didn’t say that, I didn’t mean that, and I won’t let you chastize me for things I’ve never said or meant. Your personal perception and interpretation of my words are not my personal responsibility. If you need clarification you ask.

I too hope we never interact again, to quote a well known source, I feel very much like I’ve been run over by a truck after interacting with you. That doesn’t make me a ‘wounded damsel,’ just means I’ve had to displeasure of being hit by hurricane Ann.

Be well.
Zoe Winters said on 06.05.09 at 04:41 PM • [link]

It amuses the hell out of me that after insinuating I’m dishonest, highlighting my stupidity in many different posts, saying I suck and can call myself a baboon’s erection… that SOMEHOW… you still get to take the moral high ground.

UNfreakingBelieveable.

We are two people who clearly don’t get along. There is no need to act like one of us is a saint.