Indie vs. Self: What's the Difference

By Julie Daines

There's a lot of confusion out there about indie publishers and self-publishers. Let just get straight to the point. Here is this:

From Judith Briles on AuthorU.org (June 2014)

Don’t Confuse Independent Publishing with Self-Publishing

Indie, Independent and Small Press Publishing Are So, Soooooo Different from Self-Publishing, Vanity Presses and Pay-to-Publish “Publishing”  

I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a zillion times: yes, dear author-to-be (and those already published), there is a difference between self-publishing, vanity presses, pay-to-publish, a small press, and independent publishing. Don’t mix them up. Don’t get confused.

She quotes Wikipedia: 

The majority of small presses are independent or indie publishers, this means that they are separate from the handful of major publishing house conglomerates, such as Random House or Hachette. The term ‘indie publisher’ should not be confused with ‘self-publisher’, which is where the author publishes only their own books.

  Defined this way, these presses make up approximately half of the market share of the book publishing industry.

This is a great article if you're confused about any of these terms. Go and check it out.

Unfortunately, I feel the term independent publishing (Indie) is going the same way so many words have already gone--Verbicide. It is used so frequently in the wrong sense that it's original meaning is becoming lost.

James Patterson Mourns the Passing of our National Literary Culture

by Deren Hansen

Several weeks ago James Patterson placed an ad in the New York Times Book Review and in Publishers Weekly asking why the federal government "has stepped in to save banks, and the automobile industry, but where are they on the important subject of books?" (See Salon, "James Patterson speaks out about his aggressive 'book industry bailout' ads")

While many people have taken issue with the notion of a bailout for the traditional publishing industry, I see a deeper issue: what Patterson is really lamenting is the passing of an idealized national book culture.

The last question before the list of 38 books he considers important is, "What will happen if there are no more books like these?"

I was educated at an elite, east-cost university and hold a post-graduate degree. My home is filled with books (more than a ton of book boxes the last time we moved). I've read only four of the thirty-eight books listed in the ad. [To be fair, I've been affected by a few others on the list (e.g., movies).]

What's wrong with me? Why, in terms of Patterson's list, am I so poorly read?

Because I was reading other things.

There was a time when it mattered what was on television: with only three broadcast networks, you could always find people who had watched what you watched last night and wanted to talk about it. Now with hundreds of cable channels, video on demand services like Netflix, and YouTube, we can no longer assume anyone else watched what we watched.

With the possible exception of the Bible, not only is the same true for books, it's actually been a very long time since there were few enough books that one could make any assumptions about what most people had read.

Even though there has never been a national book culture, Patterson's lament is worth considering:

• What does literary culture mean in the new world of textual abundance created by Amazon and its ilk? 
• Who decides which novels belong in the canon of literature with which everyone should be familiar?

The answer is: we do.

In the infinite online catalog, we can actually vote (through reviews, for example), for the texts we consider worthwhile. Like democracy, the system isn't perfect, but over time it will tend to work better than tyranny, however benign.

Deren Hansen is the author of the Dunlith Hill Writers Guides. Learn more at dunlithhill.com.

Agent, Editor, or Self Publish

By Julie Daines

I've been getting asked a lot recently if it's better to get a literary agent, go straight to a publisher, or self publish.

My answer is always the same. I think all writers should carefully consider what they feel is best for them, set goals, and stick with them.

Don't let discouragement or the opinions of others lure you onto a different path than the one you have your heart set on.

No path to publishing is easy, they each have their pros and cons. And no path leads to guaranteed success. Changing course for the wrong reasons will only lead to regret and disappointment.

That is my advice.

If you're not sure what the difference is between literary agents and in-house editors, here is link to a quick article on that topic.

A few pros and cons in my opinion:

Agents are great because they will do everything they can to sell your manuscript to the best publishing houses, get you the best deals, and help negotiate contracts. Usually they will help you polish the manuscript before they query the editors.

However, having an agent is still no guarantee that your manuscript will sell, and on average they take 15 percent of commission on book sales.

Going straight to an in-house editor cuts the middle man, but, many of the editors in larger publishing houses won't accept submissions from un-agented writers. Plus, you're on your own to negotiate the contract unless you hire an attorney with experience in publishing.

Many smaller or local publishers won't accept writers that do have an agent, so if you're willing to start off at a smaller press to get your foot in the door, bypassing an agent makes sense.

Of course self-publishing bypasses agents and editors altogether. Because of that, it is possible to make more money from a self-published ebook than a print book from a publisher.

However, it is extremely rare for a writer to generate enough sales on their own without the marketing help of a publisher to make self-publishing lucrative. Sometimes, authors who have already developed a strong readership find that switching to self-publishing makes them more money than royalties alone, but only because they already have a following.

If self-publishing is your goal, it is crucial that you get your book edited by a competent freelance editing company. Depending on the length of your story, this can easily cost hundreds of dollars, so make sure you factor that into your decision. Many writers who self-publish skip this essential step, and that is the main reason why self-published books often carry a negative stigma.

What are your thoughts on this subject? I've only mentioned a few quick pros and cons, what do you consider important about making publishing decisions?

Can You Judge a Book by its Cover?

By Julie Daines

We've all heard this saying a million times: You can't judge a book by its cover.

But I really wish you could.

Some of my favorite books in the world have unattractive covers. Granted that's just my opinion and someone else probably loves the covers I hate.

How many times have you recommended a book and added the caveat to ignore the hideous cover.

Cover styles come and go. But lately, there has been a huge surge of nearly identical covers--especially in Young Adult fiction. Just click on this link and check out the covers of the 2012 YA debut novels.

http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/11525.2012_Debut_Authors_Young_Adult_Middle_Grade_

Luckily, I think/hope the random girl in a flowing prom dress (which usually has NOTHING to do with the story) is going out. Now we're seeing the close-up of a face with a haunted look.

We all know that as authors we have no say (or in come cases very little say) about our covers. Each book is marketed to a specific audience, so if a prom-dress is what's selling, then I guess it makes sense for every book to have one.

What do I prefer? I like covers that set the tone of the story, that give us a hint of what to expect. I like covers that leave the looks of the main characters up to my imagination. The character in my mind never matches the one on the cover.

What covers do you love? What covers do you hate?

If you are already published, what was your experience regarding the cover of your book?

The Great Chain of Rejection

by Deren Hansen

Summer is full upon us and in the Northern Hemisphere there riot of life is in full swing in our yards and gardens and open spaces. With the web of nature promiscuously displayed outside our windows my thoughts turned to the literary ecosystem in which we're enmeshed and I wanted to share a cheery thought:

Welcome to the Great Chain of Rejection that is publishing!

Think about it. The agonizing rejection we regularly enjoy as would-be scribblers is only the first link in a great chain of rejection:

• agents reject authors
• editors reject agents
• publishers (or internal surrogates like the publishing committee or the sales team) reject editors
• and readers reject publishers

Viewed in its entirety, it is a thing of beauty (cue Circle of Life from The Lion King). Your one small rejection is part of the great web of rejections that is publishing.

It's not fun, but it means you're living the writing life--where it is true that, "that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger."

Gatekeepers and Advocates

by Deren Hansen

In the past, there was a clear line between traditional and vanity publishing because it was difficult and expensive to set oneself up as a publisher. Now that anyone can be a publisher, the electronic pioneers wonder if traditional publishers bring any value to the table.

It's a good question--and I don't have any answers. But I want to point out a structural truth that's getting muddled in the agony and ecstasy of the invasion of the e-readers.

We often talk of all the gatekeepers we have to get past in order to get published. I've even heard the phrase,"vetted by publishers"--as if publishers where somehow the guardians of all that is good and true. But our sloppy language contributes to our confusion about the role of publishers.

The problem is that we've confused gatekeeping with advocacy.

Advocacy is an important element in maintaining the social fabric. A too-evident self-interest triggers alarm signals in the fairness centers of our monkey brains and we become deeply suspicious of the proposition. On the other hand, if a nominally disinterested party champions someone's cause we take that as an indication that the case has merit. That's why there are times when we need lawyers and agents.

The role of publishers, in the market that is publishing, is advocacy through investment. Talk is cheap. Putting your money where your mouth is by investing a substantial sum in a book says something. Of course there's no direct correlation between the amount invested and the quality of the book. But if publishers are rational economic actors, a non-trivial investment implies an endorsement--perhaps it's worth our attention if the publisher was willing to contribute so much to the project.

The new world of frictionless, costless e-publishing changes the nature of advocacy. Some people have done well as self-publishers because they've cultivated a legion of on-line advocates. But that same lack of friction has attracted mindless hordes of content-farmers, with automated systems that spider the web for articles and spew random compilations as e-books, who can make a fortune even if people buy only a few copies of each book.

My point is that regardless of the form, whether traditional publishers or social media reputation networks, our structural need for advocates doesn't go away in the digital world.

What Does it Mean to "Break In?"

by Deren Hansen

When authors tell the story of how they came to have books on the shelves in the bookstores, they often talk about how they "broke into" publishing. Perhaps that's why we don't laugh when people say that publishing is like a high-security facility.

And because of the way we tell stories (i.e., we skip the boring bits), it's easy to hear "breaking in" as synonymous with having "arrived."

What does it really mean to break in?

It might mean many things. The one thing it doesn't mean is that you've made it.

In terms of the market that we call publishing, it means that you're now a player.

At the most fundamental level, it simply means that someone is willing to make a non-trivial investment in your work.

• Getting an agent, for example, means that he or she is investing their time and energy because they believe they can land a contract for your book and get paid. 
• Getting a contract means that the publisher is investing real money, both by financing your advance and through the cost they will bear, in your book.
• Getting readers who will buy your book means they are investing some money and, more importantly, time in your story.

Breaking in only means that you're invest-able. There are no guarantees, for any of the parties involved, that the investment will pay off.

As with many things in this delightfully perplexing industry, "making it" is really a euphemism for "starting a whole new game."

Publishing: It's not a System, It's a Market

by Deren Hansen

It's both tempting and comforting to think of publishing as a system.

Systems, after all, have rules which, if followed, produce consistent results.

As aspiring authors, we study examples of things that worked, from pitches and queries to hooks and books, driven by the faith that if we can just figure out and follow the rules, we too will be published.

But publishing isn't a system.

First, there's no governing body to agree upon and enforce the rules. [Jane Friedman, a publishing industry veteran, has a blog called, There are No Rules to make this very point.]

Second,it's not consistent. I've heard people wryly characterize publishing as a high-security facility and would-be authors as infiltrators. If an author breaks into the facility, there's a big celebration, and then the guards seal the breach and add extra security measures to make sure no one else can ever get in that way again. It's a bit cynical, but there's an important element of truth in that story: it's different for everyone.

So, if publishing isn't a system, what is it?

"I know this one," you say. "Publishing is a business."

That's a much better characterization, but it still falls short. "A business," implies organization, perhaps even a degree of centralization. The fact that the big six publishers are all located in in New York certainly looks like centralization. But publishing is more than New York (sorry, Big Apple), and is not well enough organized to call it, "a business."It is, in fact, many businesses.

The best characterization is that publishing is a market--not a commodities market (i.e., you can't replace writing with corn and have the same market), but a market just like the market for goods and services where you live.

Open markets are about the things being traded, but they're also about the relationships among buyers and sellers. Why do you patronize certain stores and not others? Likely because the people at the stores you like have done something for you, like remembering your name or giving you a discount.

In the context of a market, where customers can freely choose among vendors, following "the rules" doesn't guarantee that customers will buy from you. Will, for example, a restaurant that follows all the "rules" of good restaurants always succeed in a market where there are plenty of restaurants to choose from? The "rules" might be necessary for success, but they're not sufficient to ensure success.

Clearly, if you want to participate in the market, you have to offer competitive goods or services. The "rules" of writing help define what it takes to produce a competitive novel. But once you're in the market, the game changes to one of relationships. So stop wondering why no one has recognized the merit of your novel and get out and meet some people.

Novels and Novelty: NYC Publishing and the Relentless Drive for the New

by Deren Hansen

Last year, Agent Janet Grant published a  post entitled, "Stuff You Need to Know for 2011: Hold Back Those Book Trailers and Book Covers."

Janet suggested that we should resist the impulse to release trailers and book covers when they're created--which is often as much as a year before the book will be published.
Why?

If, as a reader, I’m exposed to these promo items (yes, that’s what a cover is), I soon start to think that the book is old news. Heavens, I’ve watched the trailer, I’ve seen the cover several times…didn’t I read that book already? If I think I haven’t read it, well, I just dismiss the book. I want to read what’s new.

It's no accident that we call long-form works of fiction, "novels." The word comes from Latin, via Italian, and means new, as in a new story (as opposed to retellings of Greek and Roman classics).

But, "novel," is even more appropriate in a business whose engine is a relentless drive for something new. Partly because of the curious consequences of an industry where the product is 100% returnable, and partly because of the publisher's roll as a risk aggregator and the consequent pressure to make big releases, it's the new thing that matters most.

This is one of the fundamental ways in which the interests of authors and publishers diverge: authors, like soaring birds that glide for hours on a single wing beat, strive for books that will provide royalties for decades to come; publishers must constantly flap (with each release) to stay in the air because they need the constant boost of short-term revenue.

"So," you ask, "are you complaining about publishing?

No. This is about understanding the true nature of the situation so that we can have proper expectations.

Don't grudge other authors their moment in the spot light. Prepare for yours. Expect the moment to be brief. Then get busy on your next "new" thing.

LTUE 30: Tracy Hickman - "The Playing Field is Level between You and Me."

by Deren Hansen

Aside from a certifiably mind-blowing presentation first thing on the morning of Thursday, Feb 9, 2012 (about which modesty forbids me to say more) at Life, the Universe, and Everything (LTUE 30), I found Tracy Hickman's Saturday morning discussion about the sea change in publishing as he sees it to be the most thought-provoking.

Tracy made three key points:

• What makes you an author? Readers.
• The challenge now is to find your audience, not your publisher.
• The future of publishing is to find, connect with, and maintain your audience.

In the world before pervasive interconnectivity, getting published was the writer's holy grail because the publisher, who controlled the book distribution system, was the key to getting into the bookstores and ultimately finding readers. Now writers have additional ways to reach readers. More importantly, readers have ways to find and acquire books that don't include bookstores.

Tracy, who estimates that his fifty books have attracted about six million readers, told us how that lesson was made very clear to him when, on his last book tour, only eight people showed up when he signed at the largest sci-fi/fantasy bookstore in San Francisco but many more emailed after the fact to say they were sorry they missed him but didn't know he was at the bookstore.

"The playing field is level between you and me," Tracy said. "My readers were used to finding me in the bookstore, but they don't go there anymore."

It is both sobering and encouraging to think that if Tracy, who has paid his dues many times over, doesn't get a free pass to publishing success no one does. On the one hand, assuming we've written high quality books, you have as much a chance at success as I do. On the other, there are no guarantees.


Deren blogs at The Laws of Making.

The Sky is Falling

by Deren Hansen

Between the economic downturn during 2008 and 2009, and the rise of e-books in 2010, it seems that the voices prophesying upheavals of apocalyptic proportions for the book business this past year have grown louder and more insistent. With the annual odometer about to tick over, it seems like a good time to celebrate doom and gloom for the publishing industry.

Of course, there's been a book business for roughly four hundred years, so doom and gloom are nothing new. In just the twentieth century--and not counting the Internet--radio, television, paperbacks, video tape, and computer games have all been identified as evidence that the sky is about to fall on the publishing industry.

'Wait," you say, "this time it feels different."

Perhaps. But things tend to survive, sweeping change notwithstanding. Automobiles are pervasive, but there are still buggy whip manufacturers.

Books aren't going away any time soon. The book business, however, is another story.

If I asked you to name the major players in computing you'd likely answer, "Microsoft, Apple, and Google." If you're tech-savvy, you might add Amazon (because of their cloud computing services), and if you have a sense of history, you would include IBM. With the single exception of IBM, it wasn't that long ago that a completely different pantheon, with names like Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) and Cray, dominated the industry. And before them, there were the elder gods like Control Data Corporation.

Other industries have seen a great deal more changes. What is it that has shaken publishing to its roots?

It's simply that we can no longer rely on the certainties that defined the business for decades.

So, what's going to happen to publishing?

The most cogent argument-by-historic-analogy I've heard is that publishing is more like television than music. (See Kristine Kathryn Rusch's piece on changing times in the publishing industry for a much more thorough and thoughtful analysis of the structural changes facing big publishers.)

The key similarity between the two industries is that they grew up around a distribution network that was, for a time, basically the only game in town. If you wanted your television program to reach a national audience, it had to go through one of the three major networks. If you wanted your book to reach a national audience, it had to go through one of the major publishers. Remember, the key service historically provided by publishers was distribution.

Television changed when cable systems expanded and provided new channels outside the three networks. As viewers, we have more programming options than ever before. For broadcasters, it looks like the audience is smaller because we now spread our attention across all the providers. (And for the national networks, it feels like fall from grace because they're just one of many providers now.)

The new distribution systems supporting ebooks will most likely produce an analogous change: readers will have more to read than ever before, while the major publishers will have to compete for what looks like a smaller audience.

We clearly are subject to the old Chinese curse that says, "May you live in interesting times."


Deren blogs at The Laws of Making.

Self Publishing...Or Not...Again

By Julie Daines

There's been some sparks flying--again--on the whole To Self Publish or Not debate. So, I'm chiming in with my two cents.

Here is a great quote by Edan Lepucki (The Millions) from an interesting article about her reasons for not self publishing. I agree with with much of what she has to say, but not all.

I found this especially in line with my own thoughts:

Readers themselves rarely complain that there isn’t enough of a selection on Amazon or in their local superstore; they’re more likely to ask for help in narrowing down their choices. So for anyone who has, however briefly, played that reviled gatekeeper role, a darker question arises: What happens once the self-publishing revolution really gets going, when all of those previously rejected manuscripts hit the marketplace, en masse, in print and e-book form, swelling the ranks of 99-cent Kindle and iBook offerings by the millions? Is the public prepared to meet the slush pile?

Is the public ready to meet the slush pile? I'm not. And as more kids are getting e-readers, parents have to be doubly vigilant to ensure their kids aren't downloading anything worse than just a poorly written book.

But, as she points out, blogs and other forms of reviews are already popping up to help readers wade through the slush.

My personal reasons for going with a traditional publisher are similar to Ms. Lepucki. Mainly, I want my manuscript to be its best. I want an editor telling me what's working and what's not. I want that stack of revisions to make the story better.

I recently started reading a self-published book with at least FIVE editing errors on THE FIRST PAGE! I don't want that to be me. I had to put the book down.

I have nothing against self-publishing whatsoever. It's just not for me--at least right now.

What are your thoughts?