Why authors choose to go ‘indie’, and why the standard varies.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As an editor, I hate working with writers who believe everything they write is sacred. I don't make a lot of changes (other than obvious typos) but I do make suggestions, and any writer who isn't willing to listen to suggestions is going to have an almost impossible time improving their craft.

I wouldn't have a problem listening to suggestions. I tend to know when my writing isn't right anyway, I just get a sort of feeling about it or someting will nag away at me for a few days until I figure out what is wrong.

The main problem really I think is a lot of writers see it as an artform rather than a collaborative process. But publishers tend to see things in terms of monetary value and how they can maximise profits.

So they will want things like 10 page kitten killing descriptions cut out because it will affect profits, or they will tell you not to write about snail racing syndicates because the potential market isn't large enough, or they will say you can't have the narrator swear in every sentence.

Those are the sort of things that will cause friction between "artist" and businessman.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I wouldn't have a problem listening to suggestions. I tend to know when my writing isn't right anyway, I just get a sort of feeling about it or someting will nag away at me for a few days until I figure out what is wrong.

The main problem really I think is a lot of writers see it as an artform rather than a collaborative process. But publishers tend to see things in terms of monetary value and how they can maximise profits.

So they will want things like 10 page kitten killing descriptions cut out because it will affect profits, or they will tell you not to write about snail racing syndicates because the potential market isn't large enough, or they will say you can't have the narrator swear in every sentence.

Those are the sort of things that will cause friction between "artist" and businessman.

The thing I think you're missing here is that the editors aren't on the business side of the house - they're on the artistic side too. The bean counters may say they need 25% cut to be able to market the book profitably, but they aren't likely to say which 25% needs to go.

They will still tell you to cut 10 pages of kitten killing descriptions - but that's more because most readers' eyes glaze over and stop reading when faced with 10 pages of description, and that's not something anyone wants.

As for not writing about snail racing syndicates, the normal idea is you write, then they buy. If they think your book about snail racing is that good, they'll make you an offer - if they don't, you can always choose another option.

Publishers do want money, but the publishing game is one of throw things at the wall to see if they stick. Most books make some money, but not a lot; some few books hit the jackpot, but no one can predict them beforehand.

It's not as simple as your post implied.

[Luke King]

For me, it's all about autonomy. I don't want a publisher. It makes me wonder whether the slush piles at major publishers are slowly dwindling. There's got to be so many writers who just are bothering to send stuff in anymore.

[Just4kix]

Originally Posted by rhadin

None of this addresses, however, the complaint about typos, misspellings, and other poor editorial decisions, which was the subject of the introductory paragraph:



In this case, the problem is that the indie author thinks he/she can do it all themselves and either won't or can't afford to spend the money for professional help.

I recently had the temerity to suggest that Indie books have some sort of quality star to signify they are at least free of typos, misspellings and shoddy grammar, but the discussion got so heated that the moderator had to lock the thread.

[caleb72]

I suggest to myself here and there that I should write a book - mainly because I've had at least one idea that I really think would make a good book. To me that's not too bad as a starting place.

However, I'm not really considering traditional publishing as an option as I don't see the value in it except arguably a greater financial return which isn't really much of a driver for me.

I think I would rather find a reasonbly priced editor-for-pay with whom I can establish a rapport and use my own contacts for test-reading etc.. and then put out what is hopefully a book that is at least free from error.

In terms of reaching an audience, I've probably got a reasonable chance of at least being available to as wide an audience as with a traditional publisher given that I'm in Australia.

Of course, my attitude towards this may be heavily influenced by the fact that I'm not currently an author (no body of work). I can't guarantee that my attitude wouldn't be entirely different towards things like profitability if I had slaved away for months/years on my "masterpiece".



Regards
Caleb

[Russell Brooks]

Originally Posted by L.J. Sellers

Another reason some authors go indie is that it may be the only way they can make a living. That's the reality that authors often face: Do I want the prestige of having a publisher or do I want to make money?

I left my small publisher to self-publish and committed to treating my novel career like a full-time job. It was a very successful move.

L.J.
The Suicide Effect ($.99)

I'd also like to add that by being an Indie author we get to have more control over our own books. Indie authors control the price, the distribution, where we choose to tour or if we choose to do so. The best thing is also is when we finish writing a novel, we can get it available within days. Being with a publisher, novels usually take a year before they are available in the bookstores.

I'm still greatful for the tips you gave on Konrath's blog, LJ.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

So they will want things like 10 page kitten killing descriptions cut out because it will affect profits, or they will tell you not to write about snail racing syndicates because the potential market isn't large enough, or they will say you can't have the narrator swear in every sentence.

Those are the sort of things that will cause friction between "artist" and businessman.

As a reader (and as an editor) I can't imagine many people finding a 10-page description of killing a kitten very readable or artistic or creative. But then I may be on the puritannical side .

I think an author whose sole focus is on the "artist" aspects of writing is an author who wouldn't seek out a publisher or accept any editorial review whatsoever; they are, in today's Internet age, more likely to be self-published and financially frustrated.

And although I hear/read a lot of altruistic statements from authors, I think 99% really want to be the next commercial success, the next JK Rowling, James Patterson, Tom Clancy, JD Robb, etc., not simply an artistic success based on self-evaluation.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Luke King

For me, it's all about autonomy. I don't want a publisher. It makes me wonder whether the slush piles at major publishers are slowly dwindling. There's got to be so many writers who just are bothering to send stuff in anymore.

The slush piles aren't dwindling. Most people who take up writing want commercial success a la Rowling, King, etc., which they view (and I think correctly) as currently being only possible via traditional publishing.

Autonomy is a great thing, as long as you can afford it or accept its limitations. But there is a significant difference between being free of a publisher and free of professional editorial help.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Russell Brooks

I'd also like to add that by being an Indie author we get to have more control over our own books. Indie authors control the price, the distribution, where we choose to tour or if we choose to do so. The best thing is also is when we finish writing a novel, we can get it available within days. Being with a publisher, novels usually take a year before they are available in the bookstores.

I'm still greatful for the tips you gave on Konrath's blog, LJ.

I can see the advantage of control, but there's also the issue of rushing to publication too fast. As a writer, I wouldn't want to make a book available within days of finishing it.

I normally let something sit at least a few days if not longer - then read through again to look for holes and errors once it's no longer fresh in my mind.

[dworth]

Well it looks like my next book - The Kitten Murdering Racing Snails -is doomed to failure.

[Keryl Raist]

I'm also an indie who never went the trad route. For me it's a simple cost benefits analysis. I already know I'm not the next JK Rowling or Charlaine Harris. The book's too big, too R-rated, and the ending isn't happy. So, given that I already know I don't have a mega bucks market, what value does a publisher offer me?

Hmm... Well, the ability to get reviewed in more places. "Free" editing and cover design. Brick and mortar store presence.

The review thing has some value. But once again, I already know the New York Times, the New Yorker, Oprah, and the rest of the big players aren't going to review my book even if I was traditionally published. And while it would be nice to get into the second tier of reviewers, they aren't the kinds of reviews that drive tens of thousands of sales.

"Free" editing and cover design is really a loan. The publisher loans you x number of dollars, plus edits, plus a cover. You then pay it back at whatever percentage of your earnings the publisher keeps. And unlike most loans, where, once you've repaid your loan you're done, with the publisher, you're never done. They keep taking their percentage until your book goes out of print. Now, granted, it's possible to end up with the book not earning back the money the publisher gives you, but that's not precisely the ending anyone is hoping for.

Brick and mortar is certainly of value. That value dwindles each day as ebook become a larger and larger presence on the market, but it's still valuable. However, that value can be easily over-estimated. I've read in numerous places that the average trad published book sells 3000 copies. With the number of blockbusters out there, that means there's a huge number of books that sit on a shelf in a bookstore for six weeks, no one picks them up, and then to the remainder table they go.

Now, onto the costs side: Time, royalties, rights, and control.

Time: Time breaks down in several ways. First off the time spent finding an agent, then finding a publisher, then getting the book up to their specs. That's very possibly four years, maybe even more. Maybe less. As an indie I can take four years and get four additional books out. (Two novels, two novellas)

Time is also the time spent publicizing the book. I'll have to invest the same amount of time on marketing my book either way, so I may as well get a greater return on my time by going indie.

Which gets us to royalties. Hmmm... 35% on my creatspace physical book, 60-85% on the ebook depending on where I'm selling it. Versus, what 5-10% on a physical book and 25% on the ebook? Since I already know I'm looking at a smallish market, this is a no brainer.

Rights. I write fantasy, and though it's unlikely to happen to me because I've got a small market, it's still possible that if you sell your rights to the publisher, they can do whatever they like to your characters. Especially in fantasy you see this happen. You create characters that take off, and next thing you know there's a huge pile of other books based on those characters doing things you don't want them doing. Now, I've got no problem with fan fiction. Everyone knows it isn't part of the cannon. I've got a whole different set of issues when your publisher decides to farm your characters out to other writers.

Control over the project. I don't have golden word syndrome, more than 20% of the first draft got cut out, and all of it was significantly modified by the time the final draft was ready. But I do want control over my project. I didn't want to try and shoehorn it into a happy ending. I didn't want to tone down the sex. I didn't want a cover with a brooding hero looking longingly at the heroine and some sort of Loins of Passion title. I really didn't want to have to try and shove it into one genre or another.

So, by my calculus the benefits on indie publishing outweighed the benefits from going trad.

[Namekuseijin]

BTW, I can understand grammar issues, but I think it's unfathomable that bad spelling or typos are still a reality in face of widespread usage of computers and word processors. Lamer even for an ebook to suffer from such non-issue.

[Namekuseijin]

I wonder if it ever occurred to any authors to set up a self-published blog, write away short stories or chapters as blog entries and have a donate link through pay pal somewhere in the page and if so, how well it turned out in financial terms?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by dworth

Well it looks like my next book - The Kitten Murdering Racing Snails -is doomed to failure.

Oi, you pinched my idea. I'm going to sue you for $10billion loss of earnings.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

I wonder if it ever occurred to any authors to set up a self-published blog, write away short stories or chapters as blog entries and have a donate link through pay pal somewhere in the page and if so, how well it turned out in financial terms?

Lots of people do that. A few even got vanity publishing deals because of it (David Wellington and Scott Sigler spring to mind). Others, like Scott McKenzie or Anthony Barnhart just published it themselves through Amazon/Lulu when it was finished.

I doubt many people will donate money though, unless you left it at a cliffhanger and threatened not to write the next chapter. Things like that would be more use as promotion for the final product than direct income generation while you are writing it. And maybe a source of free editting advice and proffredding.