The rise of the indie author

[boxcorner]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13853728
22 June 2011

"As American John Locke becomes the first self-published writer to sell a million Kindle electronic books on Amazon, the first "indie authors" to top the UK e-books chart explain their success."

[sabredog]

I knew nothing of indie authors before I shifted to ebooks and joined Mobileread.

I put SF authors such as;

Steven Lake
Thomas De Prima
Randolph Lalonde
Simon Haynes and
Dan Worth,

right up with other, popular authors running through a publishing house. There are others and my apologies for not including other authors on this list. Fantasy authors would need another list

Thanks gents, my to read list has never looked better

[Giggleton]

I'm just going to say, if you've sold a million ebooks you ain't indie.

[witeowl]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I'm just going to say, if you've sold a million ebooks you ain't indie.

Regardless of whether one is self-published? That's an odd definition of indie you have there.

[jhempel24]

by my definition and independent author self-publishes, and has no deal with a publisher, it has nothing to do with how many books you've sold.

[Giggleton]

All things begin as independent, from an individual, and then tend towards the mainstream as they gain an audience. It is the only definition for indie and mainstream content that makes any sense and it applies to all content and perhaps all thought.

We can say that John Locke was indie, when he posted his first book on the Kindle store, and then the work started sliding up the mainstream curve.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

by my definition and independent author self-publishes, and has no deal with a publisher, it has nothing to do with how many books you've sold.

My take on it exactly

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

All things begin as independent, from an individual, and then tend towards the mainstream as they gain an audience. It is the only definition for indie and mainstream content that makes any sense and it applies to all content and perhaps all thought.

We can say that John Locke was indie, when he posted his first book on the Kindle store, and then the work started sliding up the mainstream curve.

So in short as soon as something sells well it isn't independent anymore? I've never heard of anyone else who defines independent that way.

[Japes]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

All things begin as independent, from an individual, and then tend towards the mainstream as they gain an audience. It is the only definition for indie and mainstream content that makes any sense and it applies to all content and perhaps all thought.

We can say that John Locke was indie, when he posted his first book on the Kindle store, and then the work started sliding up the mainstream curve.

This is simply absurd. Independent (in publishing) is an author without a publishing deal with a publishing house. If he is self-publishing, he is independent, regardless of how many books he has sold.

"The Blair Witch Project" was an independent film. As was "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." How well they did at the box office doesn't play into whether they were independent or not.

[Giggleton]

Yes, I will agree that "The Blair Witch Project" WAS an independent film, but it is no longer so. It is a good definition because it allows for shifting of itself.

It also is not about money, that would require someone to define how much of it would need to be made, all that is required is a measure of an art's impact on the public's consciousness, perhaps the two are similar, perhaps not.

[witeowl]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So in short as soon as something sells well it isn't independent anymore? I've never heard of anyone else who defines independent that way.

I kind of have, but it's absurd. It's used frequently when discussing indie music. As soon as an indie band becomes a commercial success, even though they're still unsigned, they're accused of having "sold out" and are no longer considered indie.

But, again, I find it absurd.

[witeowl]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It is the only definition for indie and mainstream content that makes any sense and it applies to all content and perhaps all thought.

You act as if "indie" is an antonym for "mainstream". It's not. Indie describes an artist's ties to some sort of corporate content distributor. Mainstream describes an artist's popularity among the general population. An artist can be a mainstream independent success just as it can be a mainstream signed failure. I think the confusion is that all non-mainstream is indie (because only artists who are expected to be commercial successes get signed), but that doesn't mean that all mainstream is signed.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, I will agree that "The Blair Witch Project" WAS an independent film, but it is no longer so. It is a good definition because it allows for shifting of itself.

It also is not about money, that would require someone to define how much of it would need to be made, all that is required is a measure of an art's impact on the public's consciousness, perhaps the two are similar, perhaps not.

Well then the Warner Bros big budget flop, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, was apparently an indie film. Also Ishtar.

[witeowl]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Well then the Warner Bros big budget flop, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, was apparently an indie film. Also Ishtar.

No, our movie wasn't a flop; it just became indie!

[Japes]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, I will agree that "The Blair Witch Project" WAS an independent film, but it is no longer so. It is a good definition because it allows for shifting of itself.

It also is not about money, that would require someone to define how much of it would need to be made, all that is required is a measure of an art's impact on the public's consciousness, perhaps the two are similar, perhaps not.

Your definition of independent is so far off that it's comical and truly not worth discussing.