Ebooks: Independent publishers, self-publishers, and more fun things
The ebook is picking up steam, as is self-publishing. Have you heard about Amanda Hocking? She's a self-published YA author who became a millionaire selling her own books on Amazon, Smashwords, the iBookstore, etc., and she just signed a $2 million book deal with St. Martin's for her next four-book series. She wants to spend more time writing and less time designing/publicizing/marketing. On that same note, have you heard about Barry Eisler? He's a New York Times bestselling author, and he turned down a $500,000 deal with a big house, instead choosing to self-publish his next book. He thinks he'll make more in the long run and have more creative control on top of the cash.
Book publishing is in a very interesting place right now. Neither Amanda nor Barry is "wrong"--it's all about what works for each author.
But what does it mean?
It means everyone with a completed manuscript might try self-publishing an ebook, which means there will be a lot of crap out there. A lot of gems, but also a lot of crap. Agents, editors, and publishers have long been the gatekeepers of the book world, and although crap slips through every now and then, they do an okay job. I'd venture to say that they don't do quite enough to bring new talent to the industry, though, as books that aren't seen as "commercial" enough are rejected over and over, even if they're good books.
But now, self-published authors are picking up the term "independent author," when "independent" has long been used by independent publishers--small presses, medium-sized houses, basically anyone that isn't the Big Six (Hachette, Penguin, HarperCollins, Random House, MacMillan, Simon & Schuster) or owned by some corporation--you know, the mom & pop presses.
But there's a key difference. Self-published authors may have hired a freelance editor, but the book still hasn't gone through the gatekeepers. And independent houses ARE gatekeepers. They strive to publish quality material, and they work as a team to rally behind the author and his or her book, much like any of the Big Six. They may not have the money or influence to BE the Big Six, but they're still publishers, they're still professionals, they take care of design/publicity/marketing, and they often pay royalties.
So, I'm a little miffed that self-published authors use the term "independent" now too. Sure, it sounds better and more professional, but it's undercutting the hard work of dedicated professionals who work at (hell, who FOUNDED) independent publishing houses. Sure, some of the indie houses don't catch every error, don't design the best covers, don't make a lot of money. But there's a certain validation in having a book accepted and published by someone other than the person who wrote it--a validation I myself am striving for, even though I'd love to get ALL'S FAIR out there for people to read (and buy!) right now. And yes, self-published authors work hard, too. But they work hard for themselves. Indie publishers work hard to make other peoples' books happen--books by writers overlooked by the Big Six, or by writers who don't want the NYC publishing experience--sometimes at great personal expense.
The one thing I can't figure out is when an independent publishing house that already has a substantial backlist publishes a book by one of its founders, or one of its editors. Is that self publishing? If a book is published by the same person who wrote it, even if can put an established indie house's name on it, is it always a self-pubbed book?
Don't get me wrong: I believe that self-publishing is a viable alternative to traditional publishing. I think it can add a lot of value to the literary landscape, and that anything that gets more people to buy and read books is A Good Thing. I just think it should be called what it is, instead of confusing people.
I'd love for writers/readers/publishing people to chime in. What do you think about the word "independent"--should self-published authors get to use it, along with independent publishing houses?
Book publishing is in a very interesting place right now. Neither Amanda nor Barry is "wrong"--it's all about what works for each author.
But what does it mean?
It means everyone with a completed manuscript might try self-publishing an ebook, which means there will be a lot of crap out there. A lot of gems, but also a lot of crap. Agents, editors, and publishers have long been the gatekeepers of the book world, and although crap slips through every now and then, they do an okay job. I'd venture to say that they don't do quite enough to bring new talent to the industry, though, as books that aren't seen as "commercial" enough are rejected over and over, even if they're good books.
But now, self-published authors are picking up the term "independent author," when "independent" has long been used by independent publishers--small presses, medium-sized houses, basically anyone that isn't the Big Six (Hachette, Penguin, HarperCollins, Random House, MacMillan, Simon & Schuster) or owned by some corporation--you know, the mom & pop presses.
But there's a key difference. Self-published authors may have hired a freelance editor, but the book still hasn't gone through the gatekeepers. And independent houses ARE gatekeepers. They strive to publish quality material, and they work as a team to rally behind the author and his or her book, much like any of the Big Six. They may not have the money or influence to BE the Big Six, but they're still publishers, they're still professionals, they take care of design/publicity/marketing, and they often pay royalties.
So, I'm a little miffed that self-published authors use the term "independent" now too. Sure, it sounds better and more professional, but it's undercutting the hard work of dedicated professionals who work at (hell, who FOUNDED) independent publishing houses. Sure, some of the indie houses don't catch every error, don't design the best covers, don't make a lot of money. But there's a certain validation in having a book accepted and published by someone other than the person who wrote it--a validation I myself am striving for, even though I'd love to get ALL'S FAIR out there for people to read (and buy!) right now. And yes, self-published authors work hard, too. But they work hard for themselves. Indie publishers work hard to make other peoples' books happen--books by writers overlooked by the Big Six, or by writers who don't want the NYC publishing experience--sometimes at great personal expense.
The one thing I can't figure out is when an independent publishing house that already has a substantial backlist publishes a book by one of its founders, or one of its editors. Is that self publishing? If a book is published by the same person who wrote it, even if can put an established indie house's name on it, is it always a self-pubbed book?
Don't get me wrong: I believe that self-publishing is a viable alternative to traditional publishing. I think it can add a lot of value to the literary landscape, and that anything that gets more people to buy and read books is A Good Thing. I just think it should be called what it is, instead of confusing people.
I'd love for writers/readers/publishing people to chime in. What do you think about the word "independent"--should self-published authors get to use it, along with independent publishing houses?