A new term has been cropping up in writing circles, posts, and Forums lately. The self-published author is no more, and from its ashes has risen the terms “Indie Author” and “Indie Publishing” (often presented in opposition to “Legacy” publishing, aka traditional publishing).
Using “Indie” to refer to self-publishing is at least a few years old (IndieReader launched in 2009), but here’s the thing that has some people around the Internet confused at least and rankled at worst:
Independent publishers outside of the Big Six, like Soho and Algonquin, have been known as “Indie” publishers for a long time. The authors who are (traditionally) published by them wear their Indie cred with pride.
So does “Indie Publishing” refer to self-publishing or traditionally publishing with a small press? Who gets the Indie banner?
And don’t say both, because that would make my head explode.
I say give it to who has had it the longest.
Problem solved. Bri has spoken. LOL
Nathan, the key distinction is between vanity publishing (confusingly called self-publishing by the vanity companies to entice customers—that is, authors—to give them money) and independent self-publishing, where the author sets up a publishing imprint, owns ISBNs, and contracts with service providers for editing, design, etc., as needed. The latter are no different in principle from any other micropublisher and may as well be called indies. After all, every publisher starts with one title and goes from there.
As long as you stop calling vanity-published authors "self-publishers" (which they are not), your head will not explode. I promise.
Please, Nathan, hold your head together – but I say both.
Won't some indie self-publishers morph into publishers of other writers? Then they WILL be both versions of indie.
Just a thought.
Nothing is more independent than self publishing. Maybe the previous Indie publishers can be called Alternative Publishers or something equally countercultural.
I've always thought of Indie as small press, not self-publishing.
I agree with what Dick said above. I think it's also common to see self-pubbed authors refer to themselves as "indie authors" rather than "indie publishers". But I think both deserve the title. And honestly, a lot of the "indie" publishers out there (when used in terms of other-than-the-big-six) aren't very indie in spirit and are just as corporate as the big-six, which further skews what "indie" really means.
I totally hate labels to begin with. I'm independently publishing my back list myself. Call me what you will.
I always thought the "indie" publishers were the ones who wore sandals and headbands and who refused to conform to societies norms. O_O
The smaller publishers can rightly be called "Independent" publishers. The authors published by those publishers are not "Independent" authors, as, by definition, they produce their works in cooperation with a publisher.
Authors who publish their works alone (or mostly alone, with a freelance copyeditor and cover artist) should be considered an "Independent" author.
That's my thought on the matter, but I don't really think it matters too much.
I recently asked this same question on my blog. No definitive answer. As long as someone doesn't confuse me with a vanity published author, I don't care what I'm labeled. I'm an AUTHOR.
I see it similar to indie music. Indie is indie, by definition without the big name or money behind it.
Well, I have to be honest. This isn't an issue that I really care all that much about – sorry.
I also think traditional independent publishing would be wise to ally with the new e-publishing rather than putting alot of energy into fighting with them over terms.
But, regardless, the bottom line is you can't fight popular culture, so if a term is coined for "indie publishing" to mean e-publishing, and it sticks, well, that's sort of that.
I say it stays with the small publishers.
I would equate this argument to what would happen if people who posted on You Tube started calling themselves Indie filmmakers.
I think there is a big difference between uploading your book to a website and going through the publishing process with a small press.
If I were to self-publish down the road, I would say that I have done just that because there is no shame in self-publishing.
As for the argument that self-publishers morph into different entities, I don't disagree. Companies change and grow all of the time. They may grow into a true independent publisher, but let them get that label when they are more than just a self-publishing entity.
My original thought is that the independent publishers where traditional publishing houses that stand on their own, not part of the big conglomerates.
But, isn't that what the self-publishing authors have too? They've just outsourced the printing or formatting for ebook distribution?
Hi Nathan,
Maybe start (being even more annoyed) by looking at the music industry.
You have
1. Indie artists (meaning independent artists who have not signed with a label for a variety of reasons).
2. Indie labels (small independent start ups that if they're lucky, sell to a major label despite their originally rebellious attitude. Think farm teams in baseball).
3. Indie the style of music (which seems to me to be a sort of second round of punk/lo fi).
What this shows us is that labels don't always work for art or artists. Marketing people want to put everyone in a box (bin or bookshelf) and that is a great idea as far as a way to sell stuff, but not always cut and dry.
I see no end in sight for this debate, so sorry Nathan, the answer is both and all.
Keep your head together 😉
I'm glad you posted on this – I have been following this debate with interest for awhile. I sympathize with the small publisher Indies but I'm afraid their label has been co-opted by the new breed of self-published authors, whether they or we agree or not. The more interesting facet for me is how upset some "old style" Indies get at the thought of being grouped with self-published authors. They may not have gone with the traditional corporate presses, but they have some very traditional attitudes.
There is a stigma in the writing and book industry. In many circles "Self-published" books are not held in such esteem as those that are "traditionally" produced. But look at "indie" music. These artists have been "self" publishing their music since it could be done. They get behind their art and market it themselves. And if a "tradional" label discovers them, perfect.
I say that self-published authors are truly indie. They believe in their art enough to pay to get it out there. Sadly, a lot of them need to pay more for copy-editing services. Traditional is better in that respect.
I think it belongs to small publishers, but I can see why someone would want to move away from the title "self-published." So I'd go with indie author for the self pubbed and indie pub for smaller publishers.
Thank you for coming to my rescue.
My first novel is coming out with a trade (traditional, whatever) independent publishing house this year. I find I have to spell this out very carefully lest people get the wrong idea.
By using the term "indie author", self-published authors are effectively trying to suggest that they've been through some sort of objective, independent critique and passed muster…i.e. that someone is invested financially in their work other then themselves.
This trend says to me that self-published authors are lumping themselves with me because they're ashamed of being self-published.
Why should they be ashamed of being self-published, for goodness' sake? People are more and more willing to buy self-published books, and it's a good thing.
On an egocentric note, I'm proud a stranger was willing to invest in something I created. It feels selfish of authors who haven't gone through that procedure to pretend they have.
Independent publishing already means something — that's exactly why it's being co-opted by self-publishers/self-published authors. And the values associated with it don't conform to the self-published (an independent sensibility that is curated, not market-driven). Taking over someone else's established reputation misrepresents what's on offer, and is, frankly, shady.
If I opened up a bookstore but only stocked my own books, you'd laugh at me if I tried to call it an "indie bookstore".
Self-published authors are self-published. And for those who say some of them might set up publishing companies that publish other authors too, I say hooey. Look at all the editors who are also authors, like Jane O'Connor. You don't see their own houses publishing their work, do you? Do they edit their own manuscripts? Of course not. It isn't the same thing.
Authors who have been traditionally published by an independent press can call themselves "indie" authors, but as zegota said, they're not really the ones who are independent, the publishers are.
Why not just shun the label altogether? Then no-one has to worry about it; we'll just stick our fingers in our ears and sing "la, la, la-la-la" every time someone says "indie" until they come up with something more accurate.
I am a self publisher, but the plan is to publish others with time. What does that make me?
Seems like the key would be more specificity. The term 'indie' is legitimately claimed by both, but why not specify indie publishers and indie authors?
I've been using the term indie author to describe myself before I ever heard of it! Since oh, around 2007 or thereabout. I did that because "experts" slammed any author who paid for a service to put their books out as "not self-published" since they don't take their books to a printer and store them in a garage to see themselves. Okay, so I don't say I'm self-published. I'm indie, just like indie bands paying to put out their own music. They of course pay a studio and they pay for their CDs to be distributed and hosted, but they are indie because they don't have a contract with a label. Same thing.
I'm an indie author because I don't have a contract with a publishing company, because I pay my own services, and I now own my ISBNs and my own company name.
You are NOT an indie author if you are published by an indie publisher who is paying your expenses under contract.
Independent means, well independent: doing it yourself, just as small local bookstores that start up their store on their own (as opposed to using a big chain name and promo) are indie bookstores.
Indie author and indie publisher should not be used in the same way.
Small presses are indie publishers. Authors paying their own way are indie authors.
Why do we even feel the need to make distinctions? A published book is a published book. Period. Does the publisher write the book? Not unless it is self-published. Does a traditionally published book make it superior? Not in my experience. The difference is in marketing and distribution. Tradional publishing is all about sales.
Books and authors stand on their own to be judged by time and tenacity. Is there anyone who doesn't know "Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman? Isn't it the only book he ever published?
I have always referred to a small press as a small press. I've never referred to them as an indie publisher. The only distinction between an indie publisher/author, in my view, is that small presses operate like big six presses on a smaller scales–they use offset printing, warehouses, have business infrastructure (offices), and a larger staff.
I think if you're an author that publishes your novel independently, including owning your own ISBNs and publishing under your own imprint (as I did) then it's fine to use the Indie author or indie publisher.
With the advent of POD printing, I have the same capacity to publish other authors' manuscript and operate as a small press if I so choose to do so.
I buy my ISBNs from bowkers like any other publisher. I can (and do) use the same printers as small and big six presses (many of Hachette's trade paperbacks are printed by Lightning Source POD–I use them). I can get my books into bookstores (got my book into B&N), use mainstream distribution channels (ingram, baker & taylor), the only difference is that I don't have to worry about selling a warehouse full offset print books because I use POD. Nor do I have to employ an entire staff…I can independently contract cover designers, editors, etc.
So, why should the fact that I'm only one person preclude me from using the indie author or publisher label to describe my business? That's what I am.
And, at the end of the day, who really cares?
I consider myself independently published rather than "self-published" because self-publishing implies a whole lot of things that my books are not.
There's very little "self" involved the publishing of my books. I contract artists, editors, proofreaders, copyeditors, distribution, a printer, etc. etc. And not in some sort of self-publishing package, but individually hand-picking each cog in the wheel. There were a lot of people involved in making the books what they are and it shows. It would be disingenuous then to call them "self published," and disregard the work that so many folks put into them.
That should have been "sell themselves" not "see themselves"!
And I just checked: I put up my indie publishing group to support the efforts of indie authors (and help spread the idea of being an indie author, likening it to indie musicians) back in 2005. I've been publishing on my own since 2003.
Nathan, did you have a say in your covers, such that they match your blog so supremely? It all looks so good on the page load.
Indie is a short form of “independent” and may refer to a number of concepts from music, video game development, or publishing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie (just Google it and see how many things this term applies)
An Indie Publisher is a book or magazine publisher whose publication appeal to small, niche audiences, and are typically not distributed widely.
Listed under Independent video game development – Wiki says games created without financial backing from large companies are Indie.
Indie refers to anything that is one: Independent, and two: not backed financially by any of the big boys in town.
So sorry, Nathan to make you head explode, but it can refer to both.
Pioneers are independent. Independent people think outside the box, create their own options, and often create their own paths, even when a couple feet away lies a smooth interstate.
Declaration of Indies – let the fireworks begin.
Anything and anyone who is Independent of the traditional publishing model/system should be able to call themselves Indie. that's what the word independent means, right? Many self-published authors actually start their own imprints too, which are technically micro-presses; they are about as Independent as you can get.
anon-
Thanks! We didn't actually try to match the blog, but it did turn out that way!
I agree with Alice. Because she nailed it.
I think the "indie" term makes more sense for people who are self-published, not for those are published with a small press. The term "self-published" has a stigma attached to it that "indie" authors rightfully want to distance themselves from, now that self- or indie-publishing is a much more viable business model than it was in the past.
Self published – no second or third party is involved (Solo, usually third time author).
Indie – a second and / or a third party is involved (Small group, co-writer, other professionals, but that doesn't mean small publishers) OR an already published or credited professional who is taking a different, independent path, but already worked in the industry before one way or another.
Both can be self-published and both can be independent, but some self-published is not indie and some indie is not self-published.
Everyone using labels to look down their noses and accuse other writers of not being as valid and vetted as they themselves are. So useful. Hey, how about we go write instead? Nah…
At the risk of making your head explode, there are additional classes of publishers who could rightly bear the label "Indie":
The publisher of 4-time Indy 500 winner Al Unser's memoirs.
The publisher of the Indiana Jones series of books.
V.S. Naipaul's publisher (he's from Trinidad, West Indies, and perhaps has the best claim of all).
Silly, I know, but so is getting upset over self-published authors calling themselves "indie."
Sorry. Second line edit;
(Solo, usually FIRST time author).
I'd say small press for the independent houses and indie authors for the self publishers. That may ruffle a few feathers, but I can remember when gay meant cheerful. Meanings often change with the times and clearly, times are changing in the publishing world.
The whole label thing seems kinda silly to me, but since people seem to like them, I'd agree with Mimi. The word Indie can be used many ways.
What I think would make more sense is to discuss a particular work. I have some short stories that are self-published, and some that are traditionally published, and some that are published by small press. I'm planning to do both self-published novels and traditionally published novels (if I can).
For example, Scott Sigler has several bestselling traditionally published novels, but he also has very successful self-published-only novels. Is it fair to call Scott one or the other, self-published versus traditionally published?
I think more authors will be moving in that direction: selling the more marketable stuff to traditional and small presses, and self-publishing the stories that are, for whatever reason, not in vogue with the print publishers.
I have to admit, I checked into the comments just to see if Nathan's head would explode. But I will offer this, conventions and definitions have always been a thorn in my side, I like physical laws, anything humans come up with can change.
I'd say that in the self-publishing world there are evolving "majors" like Lulu, Smashwords, and CreateSpace. And there are little guys who in comparison could be called "indie", in a way similar to the use of the term among print publishers (as well as oil companies – where you have majors and independents – or actually these days supermajors, majors, and independents).
Definitely small presses. As Writer Beware has often pointed out, vanity presses often call themselves "indie" to make themselves look more legitimate. Besides, small presses did indeed have the label first. 😀
The problem with the "self-publishing" label is that, for many years and until very recently, there was a continual stigma against any author who chose to publish without the backing/support of some sort of press, small or corporate. This has diminished over the years, but has not yet disappeared; consider the article concerning Jacqueline Howett (sp?) last week, run by the web division of a major newspaper in which the author took the opportunity to swipe at all so-called "self-published" authors, who are not "vetted" by publishers . . . you can imagine where her argument went.
I think it's unsurprising those associated with corporate publishers are so concerned about such labels, and so quick to call independent authors "self-published." It's like the "death tax" versus the "estate" or "inheritance tax." Regardless of stigma, there is always some perception/connotation that goes along with words or phrases.
I'm an independent author (go Team Indie!).
I'm published by a genuine independent press (Soho), so I'd give "indie publisher" to, you know, an independent publisher—a separate entity from the author that has made the decision to publish said author.
A single author working on her own and publishing her own books to me does not equal a "press," or a "publisher," indie or no. "Indie author" I can see for someone in that position.
If it's not the traditional Big Six — and it's not vanity — it's indie.
C'mon, people, "indie" is short for "independent". Whoever used the word first doesn't matter. Words mean things — and the self-published author, for better or worse, is inherently more "independent" than someone who goes with a publisher (large or small). So if it has to be one or the other, I'm afraid the small publishers are out of luck.
But in the end, that doesn't matter either, because it doesn't have to be that way. Clear explanation will still suffice to split whatever hairs need to be split. That's often the case with adjectives, their meaning becomes clearer when they're used along with whatever noun they're supposed to be modifying.
A "clean floor", a "clean bill of health", a "clean death" and a "clean slate" don't all mean precisely the same thing, either. No one's fighting over the word "clean". Fighthing over the word "indie" is just as silly.
Now people are arguing over "Indie" label?! Amazing. I say give it to Indiana Jones. Problem solved.
Indie publishers are legitimate, commercial small-to-micropresses.
Self-publishers are just that – SELF-PUBLISHERS. People shouldn't get themselves out of joint and throw a tantrum because they want to use a title that belongs, rightly, to someone else.
Blame vanity presses for muddying the waters. They convinced their marks years ago that vanity = self-publishing (which it doesn't) and that self-publishing = blacklist (which it doesn't)
They trotted out "traditional" and "indie" to create a false atmosphere of competition that would create an emotional response in people who hadn't been able to snag a commercial contract (or were so new to the game they didn't know any better).
Commercial publishing = potential profit for all involved
Self publishing = potential profit for the writer/publisher, if they know how to get around the obstacles.
Vanity publishing = near guaranteed profit for the press at the expense of the writer now saddled with the press' reputation.
Indie publishing = Independent press; not one of the author's creation.
Traditional publishing = bait for the hook
This is one of my pet peeves. If you are self-pubbed you are NOT indie-pubbed!
But, the vernacular has changed and it's one of the main reasons I don't want a small press publisher.
I will take one though, hey I'm not stupid.
The authors who are boasting that they are indie pubbed when they are only self-pubbed are frauds and they know it.
@Will E.
Here's the thing: nobody's saying that self-published books are necessarily bad or that being a traditionally published author makes your work necessarily good.
HOWEVER, for the vast majority of books, the fact that an objective, independent entity is willing to invest large sums of money in your work speaks to its quality, or at the very least, its readability.
An illustrative example: if you look at the AAR listings of agents, you'll find a huge mix of what particular agents will cover. Some will only cover specific genres, but the vast, VAST majority are practically begging for good literary fiction. They list it in all caps, or draw attention to it with asterisks, or something.
What does this tell you? That most literary agents are book nerds, that good literary fiction sells like CRAZY, AND that most (999,999 in a million) people cannot write good literary fiction — which are all facts the self-publishing community doesn't like to talk about.
Let me say again: I love that people are willing to buy self-published books again. I don't have an ebook reader yet, but when I find a good self-pubbed book in a format I can read, I buy it immediately. I want to support the self-pubbing industry. I subscribe to self-pubbed book review websites.
Be realistic and honest with yourselves: denial won't get you anywhere pleasant.
And then be all like, "Yeah, I'm self-published, what's your problem with that? Read my book and tell me I suck *then*." Then when they read it and think it's amazing, be really smug.