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.
Sorry to make your head explode, Nathan, but why not both? In the film world, you're considered an indie filmmaker whether you go with a small production company/distributor (comparable to a small press) or distribute your film on your own.
Indie needs to stay indie — like FC2, Soft Skull, Red Hen, Coffee House, Graywolf…
Self published is what you do when you bring your own book to market.
Indie means there is an editorial presence, a selection process, an aesthetic at work.
Self published means the author is in control.
Authors are not indies. If they want a better word they should think of one that isn't already taken.
Having just spoken to the major independent book reviewing companies, I think this issue is very important. In general, the reviewers now have services for both both traditionally and self-published books. And the self-published books are reviewed under their service that inevitably seems to contain the work "Indie." The factors that seemed most relevant in their decision to consider a particular publisher traditional were 1) they printed a galley and figured pre-pub reviews into the publishing timeline; 2) they had specific standards for selecting clients, and clients signed a publishing contract only by the company's invitation; and 3) the company had a separate self-publishing division. The term "Indie" seems to be associated with the self-published books and authors for the purposes of securing pre-pub reviews, though I would think of the publisher I work for as an Indie publisher with a self-publishing division for clients who do not meet standards required for invitation of a publishing contract.
I've self published my stuff, I prefer the term Indie, it suggest Independant, alone, and that's self publishing, that's for sure.
And it sounds cooler. I suppose it sounds cooler than "small press" as well, so they want it too.
As far as vanity presses
with all the new self publishing stuff around and their sevices getting, cheaper better, easier and more respected, I don't see "vanity" presses surviving that, maybe I'm wrong.
off subject,
I've always been a little confused at small press authors claiming tadtional published. Can you be Indie and tradtional?
I alway felt tradtional was big 6, or an imprint of big six.
Sorry Nathian, put a helmet on, but I think "Indie" is both if writer wants it. And by the way, I prefer writer over author. But that's just me.
Hey Nathan, I tweeted you earlier about what exactly you meant by "indie" but after skimming through the comments here, I have to agree with some of the commenters here that "indie" as it relates to self-publishing is really just an attempt to co-opt into a more acceptable terminology that creates more credibility.
Self-publishing historically has had a pretty bad connotation. That's been changing over the past few years. I don't think the "indie" label as it's perceived in relation to indie publishers is a correct application to self-publishing anyway. They are different things. Because I believe the term "indie" means more than just not being a part of the big six.
Self-published authors just need to keep working at improving the image of that term. Good stories need to keep getting made and getting attention. Publishing by yourself does not necessarily make you an "indie" publisher. It makes you self-published, plain and simple.
To me, it seems like applying the "indie" label to self-publishers is trying to cover up that designation, which is a bit silly. I know there's still some stigma against self-publishing, but I think you should own that label if that's the route you choose to go! The stigma can't change otherwise.
I say, give it to the people who are willing to stick their necks (and hearts) out entirely on their own and stand or fall on the power of their words.
To me, small press is still 'traditionally published' in this day and age.
Give it to the people going it alone, as others have said, it doesn't get any more 'indie' than that.
That's what I think, anyway.
~bru
I say give it to the formally known as Indie. Self published authors need their own term. I have lovingly been calling myself a s-pub author.
I think calling us Indie, confuses too much of what we really are.
Why does the word "indie" have to belong to just one group of people? We use "white" to describe Americans, Europeans, the Brits, Kiwis, Aussies etc. No one is confused by that.
Agree with Zegota's logical explanation: you have independent publishers and you have independent authors (those who choose to publish independent of a publishing house).
I don't understand why there's any confusion.
Late to the party, so much I agree with in the comments. To follow up on Lydia Netzer's suggestion, I suggest two alternatives for self published authors: guerrillas or buskers. Both distinct enough from the Soft Skull indies, but similar enough to work. And what a grand way to describe yourself. "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a guerrilla author!"
Great question, Nathan. And a fun debate. That is still far from being resolved, I suspect.
Presses of whatever size have earned reputations. Publishers make their money when people buy books, not when people who write pay for book creation. Terms don't matter. If book buyers do not already know who the reputable publishers are, they will find out.
Shelfstealers is a new, independent publisher with 15 books, and looking for 35 more before we launch in 2012, but we don't call ourselves an "indie" publisher.
One reason is that self-published authors have usurped the "indie" label in their efforts to escape the "self-published" stigma. We believe they would usurp whatever new label the independent publishers might choose.
A second reason is that the quality of books published by independent publishers varies almost as widely as the quality of self-published books.
So what's an independent publisher to do?
We believe we must develop a brand that is identified with good books, i.e., we must earn the respect of the reading public by inextricably linking the Shelfstealers' name with the names of our authors and their good books.
Each of our books, even books previously published by the majors (one of which was short-listed for the Canadian Governor General's Award for English Fiction) goes through a rigorous editing process. Does this mean that readers will like all our books? Of course not, because readers' tastes are varied.
In the past, readers rarely sought the publisher's name in their search for books to buy. Word-of-mouth is still the most powerful marketing tool in a publisher's tool kit, and will likely become even more powerful with the decline of bricks and mortar chains. Some things don't change.
What might change, however–and we can't predict the future any better than anyone else–is that readers may seek more ways to sift the chaff from the wheat, and one of those ways might well be a publisher's reputation for good books.
In other words, the only label we hope to control is our own name.
Sincerely,
Sheryl J. Dunn
Chief Thief (a.k.a. CEO)
http://www.shelfstealers.com
Give it to the small presses. They've work damned hard for it.
I see three types of press.
Commerical publishers.
Indie publishers. Small publishing firms known for publishing left of centre.
Self-published, vanity publishers. Sure, they'd liked to call themselves Indie for a little extra street cred, but the fact is, they're just self published.
To me, independent publisher has always meant "small press," like "Night Shade Books" or "Subterranean Press." To me indie press means a physical book, not "kindling."
Is it important? A book is a book, a good story is a good story. Seems to me there are as many good books as bad books in all parts of the trade: traditional, indie, self-published… call it what you will. All I know is that I want to read good stories and write a good yarn. Who publishes it is immaterial.
"Self-published, vanity publishers. Sure, they'd liked to call themselves Indie for a little extra street cred, but the fact is, they're just self published."
This line of thinking is exactly the problem. The reason I use the term "independently published" doesn't have anything to do with street cred. It's simply because the term "self-published" is inaccurate. There are scads of self-publishers who put out poorly written, unedited, badly designed books, but there are also those of us whose work goes through just as much production as any book at a commercial house and who are just as dedicated to the quality and craftsmanship of the final product as any big six house.
For those of us in that small percentage of the publishing world the term self-publishing is plainly erroneous because it implies that the work is the product of one person, or that it has not been through any sort of literary filter or refinement. Nothing could be further from the truth. The term "independently published," on the other hand, describes what I do very precisely.
It doesn't matter what the abbreviated word "indie" should or should not mean or that it had a more exclusive meaning in the past. It matters how the word is being used now. If enough people use the word to mean something, then it takes on a new meaning. That's the way the evolution of language works.
The word "indie" is not the first word to have evolved in meaning. Words evolve, they are elastic. And it seems that this particular evolution of a word will probably stick, seeing as it's close to the original meaning, and there are parallels in meaning that jump to other industries.
So Nathan, as another commenter said, you're going to have to figure out a way to keep your head together. The industry is in flux, and this is one of those fluxes.
Prepare to explode your head. I think we can all carry the indie name. To me it means that someone is doing something outside the normal channels. That would make me and indie indie – small e-publisher and self publisher.
I'm not sure why anyone is opposed to labels. We're writers. We like to label things accurately because it's our job to have the right word.
That said, I'm a traditionally published author, but I have no problem with independent authors using the term "indie." Like some others, I would distinguish between small presses and self-published authors by defining them as "indie publisher" and "indie author." Though sticking with "small press" and "self-published" seems equally fine, and less confusing, I get that the reason for the change is due to the fact that these labels have a negative connotation. However, I don't think this will always be the case.
I'm not sure why anyone is opposed to labels. We're writers. We like to label things accurately because it's our job to have the right word.
That said, I'm a traditionally published author, but I have no problem with independent authors using the term "indie." Like some others, I would distinguish between small presses and self-published authors by defining them as "indie publisher" and "indie author." Though sticking with "small press" and "self-published" seems equally fine, and less confusing, I get that the reason for the change is due to the fact that these labels have a negative connotation. However, I don't think this will always be the case.
I'd like to suggest that the problem here actually lies with the definition of 'publisher'. There can be little doubt that a self-published author is more independent than a small press author, so I see no issue with self-pubbed authors calling themselves 'indie authors' but I don't think they can call themselves 'indie publishers.' A publisher solicits the work of various authors, stays with it, works with the author and takes a chance on those works – I don't consider someone who publishes only their own work fitting that bill. Unless they publish other writer's work, with all that that entails, they are not 'indie publishers.'
Temper temper… I sence so much hostility coming from the small press folks. Are you guys angry at all the attention self pubbers are getting? It's all good man, you can have the label if you'll just stop crying.
I'm sensing a spelling critique coming on…
I wasn't going to self publish but may re consider because, "I'm an Indie Author," sounds cool.
The small presses are in danger of being marginalized by the self publishing movement. They have far less to offer an author than the big presses. They should focus on keeping relevant and stop worrying about authors who choose to go it independently.
I'll wear whatever title you want to give me as long as "author" is involved!
https://darlene.underdahl.net/
I was thinking of applying to small press, but reconsidering. So hostile. Maybe better to self-publish.
Indie = Independent Small Publishing Houses
Vanity = Self Publishing
If you have to pay for it, it's Vanity.
Nobody gets to make a rule. Lots of people want to, but nobody cares what they want. Langauge will move with popular usage.
I'd like indie to be self-pub and small press to be small press. But maybe we just need more words (or less–could just drop indie entirely). We should get rid of vanity too–it either means nothing to the reader, or threatens to meant he wrong thing.
Maybe this is unpopular of me, but I still have a lot of suspicion for self published work. the simple fact is, most of us aren't evolved enough to really take an axe to our work without being prodded. That's why I still think indie and the growing cred that belongs to it belongs to presses. Presses often make a better product, if only because more than one set of eyes HAS to look over that manuscript. And let's be honest. Most of us author types are not ALSO brilliant cover designers and marketers. Hopefully, your indie publisher employs people who are. Remember that people like Amanda Hocking are an exception, and even she admits that is because she spent every single day doing everything she could to market herself. And even she took the traditional publishing deal at the end of the day.
I believe in indie publishing. It gives us, the author, more freedom because it often breaks genre restrictions (which are quite confining these days, imo) and people are in a position to take a chance on something experimental.
But I've still never picked up a self published book without being specifically asked. A book needs a midwife, so in my opinion the publishing houses get the label.
I'm self-published. It's an e-book in the Kindle Store. I paid nothing to get there. Consequently, it seems there is a flaw in the "paid for = vanity = self-published," equation.
Since Amazon has provided a place where I can sell my story for free and make as much or more in royalties per sale than the vast majority of traditional authors make per book through publishers of either the indie or the big six ilk, color me hesitant to call them my corporate overlord. No, the corporate overlords are folks with whom I have no contact as a consequence of at least two degrees of gatekeeper, none of whom are named Kevin Bacon. I tried. They let me see through the keyhole, but in the end it made more sense for me to drive right through that double garage door at Amazon.
The traditional worlds of authoring and publishing are trying to enforce rules and terminology that make their universe feel like home. I don’t think they should hold their breath until they get their way. Popular culture will have its own way, industry pillars be damned.
Once upon a time large numbers of people got lumped together because they had happiness in common. Those happy people had to learn to share the word “gay” with people who are attracted to other people of the same gender but may or may not be happy. Sometimes that works. Sometimes the female people who are attracted to other females like to instead use the “L word.” This all sounds like the same old stuff that has made political correctness so tedious at every turn. To use a famous quote from a guy to whom people rarely look for a good quote, “Can’t we all just get along?” I don’t know for sure, but I think Rodney is neither happy nor attracted to others of his gender.
The new publishing world, the one that includes people me and people like the meteoric Amanda Hocking and people like J.A. Konrath, seems to be something akin to the Wild West. Given that, I think I’ll call myself an indie author. The name seems to go with the territory, and as an extra benefit, it rankles all the right people.
To sum up, Nathan has had it right all along. There’s room for everybody at the table. Agents and publishers will continue to determine who gets in the gate of the pasture known as traditional writing and publishing. The public will decide who succeeds in the rough and tumble open range of indie or self-published or vanity or whatever writing and publishing. The name calling and the fighting over names should stop. Just give the people what they want… whether it be entertainment or enlightenment or inspiration or space monkeys or space kapows of the cosmic kind. Why is Nathan’s batting average so good?
Okay, I won't say "both" but I can think it.
Small presses are still traditional publishers; size doesn't matter (yes, women really do say that and believe it. About quite a few…um…things).
I say, give it to the self/subsidy published authors. We've more than earned it and it takes the stigma away. A stigma ("geez, they'll let ANYONE put out a book and it probably sucks, too") that hasn't always been earned.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
~Jesse V Coffey, Indie Author since 2001~
I wasn't saying this in any hostile way, but in terms of what words mean and do not mean.
"Independent Press" — small press. I don't see how it makes sense for a self-published author to refer to herself/himself as an "Independent Press" when there is only one of you.
"Independent Author" strikes me as a perfectly legitimate term for a self-published author, that is, one going it alone, without a third-party publisher.
According to Amazon's own definition, anyone who self-publishes with them is an Indie.
Let's be honest, everyone wants to be called Indie because it sounds cool. Small-press and self-published just doesn't sound as good.
Can we not just do Indie Author/Indie Publisher?
I'm down with that.
Just consider what "Indie" means. It means "independent", right? "Independent" carries the following definition: able to operate alone because not dependent on somebody or something else. So, by that account, I'd say the true "Indie" author is the one who gets no assistance at all to publish their work.
Self publishers using the term "Indie Publishing," are attempting to avoid using the "Self published" label because of all its derogatory associations.
The only people who should be using the "Indie Publishing" label are those truly independent presses. Pay-for-play publishers don't count.
I'd love it if 'indie publishing' meant small, independent publishing houses, period.
Self published is just that; it's not indie, not in my mind. Would but could I get the majority to think that way. But… it's a free country.
@Alice ~ what self-published book review websites? I didn't realise there were any…
I seem to have come late to the table on this one, and there are already so many very good responses that say ‘both’, I wonder that your head may be perilously vibrating, Nathan.
My 2 pence worth (in London) is the small Indie presses were those that were willing to take a risk on something other than what the mainstream Big 6 did. Indie Publishers are still Indie Publishers.
Let me offer you a parallel example from the music industry. I don't care how many CD's you sell off your website; you're not legit unless you have a label. If you start your own label, your one of those small 'independent' labels that no one's ever heard of unless you manage to grow your business successfully and either become a bonafide ‘Indie’ record label or a serious heavyweight (or one of the said heavyweights buys you out).
'Indie' and 'independent' in the music business have different meanings. ‘Indie’ is akin to ‘cutting edge’. It’s new, it’s daring and different. It’s the next music craze that we’re going to have to create a category for, a la Grunge or else they cater to a very specific sound. ‘Independent’ is a musician or band frustrated at not being able to achieve success in the traditional way and is trying to do things on their own (independently).
Musicians that record and print their own CD, sell it off their website and have their own Facebook, Blog and Myspace page are usually hoping that if they make enough noise and generate enough press, they’ll get picked up by a label. They are neither Indie nor Independent ~ just determined (quality does not come into it). This group is made up of those that don’t have a prayer of success and those that do (quality comes into to it marginally here).
I suggest that publishing is very similar. Big 6 are your heavyweight record labels. Indie Publishers are your Indie Labels. All our intrepid authors that have started their own presses because they know ‘self-published’ is like a death warrant, they are our small independent labels that I actually refer to as micro presses. I define a micro press as a publishing concern owned by an author that may or may not publish a small number of other authors in addition to publishing his/her own work. Not just one book, but several.
We still have the group that print their own stuff and sell it independently marketing themselves, very often in hopes of getting ‘picked up’ by the big guys but there are 2 important differences between publishing and the music business: self-recorded musicians do not get sneered at just for doing it themselves. If they’re bad, well so are a lot of them. If they’re good ~ great! There’s no question of them being substandard or somehow ‘less’ than musicians that were discovered via the normal route. Second, the music business does not really have an Amazon/Kindle distribution route. They have YouTube, but unless you know what to search for… Amazon will suggest books to you depending on your purchasing history ! BUT, when all is said and done, you still have those with a prayer of success and those that don’t.
How’s your head, Nathan?
My take:
If I were to register a publishing company and put out only my own books either under one name or multiple pen names, then I would be an Indie Publisher. Hence, an Indie author.
If I would register a publishing company, hire a staff to handle certain areas of the company, accept submissions, then I'd be a Small Press publisher.
Small Press is a NY Publisher on a smaller scale.
An Indie author is someone who is free of someone else controlling the reins.
I love being in control.
And for the record, my Indie Book sales are much higher than my Small Press book sales.
For those concerned about the quality of self-published books. Yes, there is work to be done there, but I've been seeing the same issues coming from NY and Small Press – so that's not a very good excuse.
Great post. I think they are two different things. Saying someone is "self-published" doesn't mean they are less-than. It means they just went through a different process. Distros and stores do the screening process of accepting or rejecting their work rather than publishers, and they retain sole creative control of their work. Why wouldn't someone want to embrace that, it's awesome!
Whereas independent publishers get a community (or group) working on one piece of work, so it's not just the author's vision, but that of the publisher and everyone who worked on it. If it's a rad, truly independent press, that's a really cool process too–just a different one than self-publishing.
Honestly, if someone has insecurities or other fears surrounding being self-published and feels better about calling themselves independently published, I don't really care that much (i am starting an independent press right now, so the lines between self-publishing and independent publishing are, in some ways, blurred for me right now, but in some ways very defined). I'm not offended or anything. I see how authors who worked to get their stuff published might feel like someone was taking their thunder, but if the work is good, it will speak for itself.
I just don't know why someone wouldn't own their process and call it what it is–maybe even inspire others to be empowered by your process
Traditional is to Avant-Garde. If you are traditionally published, you are traditional. If you publish yourself, you are avant-garde.