# What is an indie (Independent) author



## jbcohen (Jul 29, 2011)

What makes an author an indi (Independent) author?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

In short and indie author would be an author who independently publishes their work without a publisher. With the surge of ebooks many have gone that route and you can find their books on Amazon, B&N and other online venues. Many also offer paperbacks too. It has grown in the past year as many authors see the many advantages of publishing indie. I have found many very good books from indie authors. Indie ebooks are priced far below big publisher's books because indies don't have a huge overhead.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Many people see 'indie authors' as synonymous with 'self-published authors'. I'm not sure I would consider them to be the same. Many authors are self-pubbing their back catalog (if they are fortunate enough to have pried the rights away from the original publishers). So they would fall into two categories: traditionally published, and self-published.

There might be a case for considering indies to be anyone not with one of the major publishers. even if they are with a small press. I think it is one of those terms that doesn't have a precise definition and requires some explanation or definition before you get into discussions about it. 

Personally, I'm inclined to go with indie and self-pubbed being different. And non-exclusive.

But it's like all labels... it never completely describes the thing being talked about, only some of the characteristics that we have cherry-picked.

Mike


----------



## jbcohen (Jul 29, 2011)

John Guenther publishes his works with Gold Eagle, a business unit of Harlaquin books, is that independent?  Does an author need to self-publish his/her works?


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

I wonder why it matters, really, whether a writer is an "indie" or not.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

jbcohen said:


> John Guenther publishes his works with Gold Eagle, a business unit of Harlaquin books, is that independent? Does an author need to self-publish his/her works?


Different people will have different definitions. Though who/what is the publisher is the very last concern to me, I'm more interested in the story.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> Different people will have different definitions. Though who/what is the publisher is the very last concern to me, I'm more interested in the story.


Very well said.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I would agree with this definition presented here.  I consider myself an indie author.  I tried to do it the conventional way, but agents seemed to run from me and publishers were, at best, indifferent.  So, I write, edit, publish and market my books myself (at least with my fiction work).  I have no agent.  I handle it all myself.  I do work with publishers for my non-fiction, but I deal directly with them on contracts and royalties and, again, do not have an agent as a go-between.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

To me, an indie is somebody who takes control of the whole process themselves (buying in experts as required) - the writing, editing, designing, publishing & marketing.


----------



## Todd Trumpet (Sep 7, 2011)

jbcohen said:


> What makes an author an indi (Independent) author?


Fedora, bullwhip, spirit of adventure.

First two optional.

Todd


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

To me, it's an author published independently of "the big six" publishers and their imprints. It includes but is not limited to self publishing. There are, after all, publishing companies and small presses which refer to themselves as "independent publishers" and therefore their authors would be "indie" too. There's awards for independent books and authors and the winners are not always self published.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

jbcohen said:


> John Guenther publishes his works with Gold Eagle, a business unit of Harlaquin books, is that independent? Does an author need to self-publish his/her works?


Harlequin is a rather large traditional publisher. It is unlikely to fall as independent under most definitions of the term, although they aren't generally lumped in "the big six."


----------



## Alexandra Sokoloff (Sep 21, 2009)

Obviously the new technology is inventing a new language, and we're still trying to define terms!  I'm curious - do people consider a book that has been traditionally published but then is released independently by the author an indie book?  Is there actually a term for those books that I haven't come across?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Also, if someone hires a person to do some of the work of publishing, does that take away their "indie" status? If you sometimes work with a publisher and sometimes don't, does that still make you indie?

In general, people just make this stuff up as they go along


----------



## JBool56 (Feb 22, 2012)

> To me, it's an author published independently of "the big six" publishers and their imprints


Technically, I agree with you, though from the point of view of readers and e-books, I think it is more useful to think of Indie as synonmous with self-pub, the reason being that any publisher who has signed, and is paying, an author is more likely to be offering greater quality control. So there's less risk in buying a book from an established publisher.

But like all things, with risk comes greater reward. There are some great Indie/self-pubbed books out there, many of which would have been taken on by publishers in less commercially-orientated times, but who these days are forced to concentrate more on books that they are confident will have high sales.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

JBool56 said:


> Technically, I agree with you, though from the point of view of readers and e-books, I think it is more useful to think of Indie as synonmous with self-pub, the reason being that any publisher who has signed, and is paying, an author is more likely to be offering greater quality control. So there's less risk in buying a book from an established publisher.


Then how do you distinguish between independent publishers (and their authors) and "the big six"? Because to me, there is a noteworthy difference between them and I would like some way to refer to them separately. Small press authors? Fact is, many of them still refer to themselves as "indie" so using it to refer to only self published authors is surely just confusing?

For me, if I'm taking about self published authors, I'll say self published! Why call them something else that to some people, does not refer only to self published authors?


----------



## JBool56 (Feb 22, 2012)

Well, as I say, technically (and etymologically) I agree with you. But I think common usage is changing the meaning of the term - much as it did with Indie bands. To be honest, I've never felt the need to differentiate between the Big Six and smaller publishers - but that's probably more a measure of the kind of fiction I read! Out of curiousity, what is the noteworthy difference you see between them - I can think of a few...?


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Plenty of authors on Kindle have agents, novels out with the "big six," and the rest of it. They simply self-pub their back catalogue because it's another string to their bow, hopefully reaching a new audience.


----------



## jbcohen (Jul 29, 2011)

How about TOR and BAEN?  I do not think that either are part of the agency publishing model.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

JBool56 said:


> Well, as I say, technically (and etymologically) I agree with you. But I think common usage is changing the meaning of the term - much as it did with Indie bands. To be honest, I've never felt the need to differentiate between the Big Six and smaller publishers - but that's probably more a measure of the kind of fiction I read! Out of curiousity, what is the noteworthy difference you see between them - I can think of a few...?


Well, the obvious one is that independent publishers have a smaller budget and profit margin. They often specialize in specific genres or may only publish academic works. They are not involved in the agency model pricing. For these reasons, I feel independent presses are in it more for the writings and content than the money (also probably true of self published authors but the noteworthy difference there is that they have no publisher backing them). I could be wrong but that's the impression I get. Regardless, it is still worth noting the large budget and profit differences between small publishers and big ones.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

jbcohen said:


> How about TOR and BAEN? I do not think that either are part of the agency publishing model.


Tor is owned by Macmillian/ Tom Doherty now, so they are into the giant publishers. Baen is still independent.

What do you mean by the agency publishing model?


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

jbcohen said:


> How about TOR and BAEN? I do not think that either are part of the agency publishing model.


Tor is a branch of St. Martin's Press which in turn is part of MacMillian Publishing, a German entity that is one of the Big 6.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Alexandra Sokoloff said:


> Obviously the new technology is inventing a new language, and we're still trying to define terms! I'm curious - do people consider a book that has been traditionally published but then is released independently by the author an indie book? Is there actually a term for those books that I haven't come across?


I can only speak for me, but I treat them as traditionally published in my vetting process. The reason is that I can find a history on those books. I can see reviews on goodreads and Amazon from years past. I can see the former publisher and know they have been put through a process editing etc. And I can finally get my hands on some out of print stuff I had on my TBR lists for a while. 
I have no clue as to terms though.

I get confused at the terms indy and self publishers and tend to lean more towards self published for those going at it on their own. Its like the difference of a indy band signed to a indy label and John Doe renting out a recording studio for an hour with his buddies.

I just don't know if those terms can be also applied to books the same way than music.

But when I hear indy, I tend to think of smaller press. But then there are publishers like Kensington, Harlequin, Sourcebooks etc. I don't know how small or large they are. But they aren't part of the so called big 6. To me they are part of traditional publishers.


----------



## EmersonHarris (Apr 10, 2012)

jmiked said:


> But it's like all labels... it never completely describes the thing being talked about, only some of the characteristics that we have cherry-picked.


This. On a certain level, _indie_ is a spectrum, in the same way being _conservative_ or _liberal_ is a spectrum. Someone can be more "indie" than another author, because they are more _independent_. Independent of what? A self-pubbed author is more independent than one with an independent publishing house, who in turn is more independent than an author with a larger, more traditional publishing house.

As they say, it's all relative.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I get confused at the terms indy and self publishers and tend to lean more towards self published for those going at it on their own. Its like the difference of a indy band signed to a indy label and John Doe renting out a recording studio for an hour with his buddies.


Yup, that's how I see it, too. I don't know why people get upset when I call it self-publishing (which is why I call it DIY now).


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

To me, an indie author is one whom goes it alone - much like Indiana Jones   

An indie publisher is a small publisher who is independent of the larger publishers, but an author published through an indie publisher is not an indie author (in my eyes)


----------



## Rogerelwell (May 19, 2011)

JBool56 said:


> Technically, I agree with you, though from the point of view of readers and e-books, I think it is more useful to think of Indie as synonmous with self-pub, the reason being that any publisher who has signed, and is paying, an author is more likely to be offering greater quality control. So there's less risk in buying a book from an established publisher.
> 
> But like all things, with risk comes greater reward. There are some great Indie/self-pubbed books out there, many of which would have been taken on by publishers in less commercially-orientated times, but who these days are forced to concentrate more on books that they are confident will have high sales.


There is probably a relative risk, but personally I think the risk is not too big, especially with the capability on e-readers to read a sample for free. In any case, the large publishing houses also put out work that isn't very good (which is obviously a subjective opinion anyway), especially the 'work' from 'celebrities'. Remember that the publishing houses are there to make profit (aren't we all in some way) and therefore will publish lots of material that is of questionable quality if they can shift lots of it.

I agree it can be very rewarding, finding a good book from an indie, as I do all the time...


----------



## JBool56 (Feb 22, 2012)

> To me, an indie author is one whom goes it alone - much like Indiana Jones Cheesy
> 
> An indie publisher is a small publisher who is independent of the larger publishers, but an author published through an indie publisher is not an indie author


That seems an excellent definition! 



> ...personally I think the risk is not too big, especially with the capability on e-readers to read a sample for free. In any case, the large publishing houses also put out work that isn't very good...


I agree with this too! Although, few publishing houses will put out something that looks like it was written by a dyslexic grandmother who never went to school... (no offence grandma's!). On the other hand, the commercial pressures of big publishers do tend towards safe and samely books, so I think it's actually a very exciting time in publishing, and as you say searching new and undiscovered authors can be very rewarding. (As long as you 'look inside' and ignore reviews - but that's another story!)


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Rogerelwell said:


> There is probably a relative risk, but personally I think the risk is not too big, especially with the capability on e-readers to read a sample for free. In any case, the large publishing houses also put out work that isn't very good (which is obviously a subjective opinion anyway), especially the 'work' from 'celebrities'. Remember that the publishing houses are there to make profit (aren't we all in some way) and therefore will publish lots of material that is of questionable quality if they can shift lots of it.
> 
> I agree it can be very rewarding, finding a good book from an indie, as I do all the time...


I lost all faith in traditional publishers the day I walked into Waterstones and saw a book by Jordan (that dumb fashion model) on the table of new releases. It wasn't even yet another authobiography, it was a children's picture book. I mean, come on.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

headofwords said:


> I lost all faith in traditional publishers the day I walked into Waterstones and saw a book by Jordan (that dumb fashion model) on the table of new releases. It wasn't even yet another authobiography, it was a children's picture book. I mean, come on. I'm not a C-list celebrity and I don't write what trends as popular, so trads won't touch me. Doesn't make my book any less awesome, though. I'll go it alone, thanks, and if I sink at least it'll be my own fault rather than some misguided publisher pushing me under.


What does this have to do with what indie means?


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Anya said:


> To me, an indie author is one whom goes it alone - much like Indiana Jones
> 
> An indie publisher is a small publisher who is independent of the larger publishers, but an author published through an indie publisher is not an indie author (in my eyes)


I agree with you. And we are indie authors over here.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Beatriz said:


> I agree with you. And we are indie authors over here.


So I'm not an indie author? Huh. Good to know.

The indie label no longer has any meaning.


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

In my observation, the word is sometimes used interchangeably with self-pub. But it's also often used as an umbrella term to mean "nontraditional" publishing, when "traditional publishing" means one of the big publishers/imprints of the big publishers that can usually only be queried with agents. Not just the "Big Six" or "Big Five" or however many there are since the last time I checked, though. Small presses, epublishers, groups of authors publishing jointly together under their own LLC, and self-published/independent authors all get lumped under the term "indie" nowadays, and I think rightfully so. If you are conducting your business independent of the old system then you should be able to call yourself an indie.

If we make a venn diagram of the term "indie," self-published would be a smaller circle inside the larger circle that is indie, as all self-published authors are indie, but not all indies are self-published.

As to why some people object to being called self-published? Self-published is still a bad word in some circles, and even I used to flinch at the term because of my own prejudices (I'll freely admit that's what they were, and I'd happily describe myself as self-pub now) that had been hammered into me during the years I spent seeking traditional publication, so I completely understand how some people wish to adopt the much nicer and less baggage-ridden term "indie" to describe themselves.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> So I'm not an indie author? Huh. Good to know.
> 
> The indie label no longer has any meaning.


You're a super indie. Indie publisher, and self-published. Or indie squared, if you prefer.

I'm proud to call myself a self-publisher. I see nothing wrong with the label. The only people that (sometimes) get sniffy about it are people in the industry. I don't think readers generally care who has published a book, as long as the story is up to scratch and it's produced well.

This is probably pie-in-the-sky, but I see indie bookstores, indie publishers, and indie authors (both kinds) being natural allies of a sort, even if it seems far fetched right now.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

KateEllison said:


> In my observation, the word is sometimes used interchangeably with self-pub. But it's also often used as an umbrella term to mean "nontraditional" publishing, when "traditional publishing" means one of the big publishers/imprints of the big publishers that can usually only be queried with agents.


What about all of the people who get with those publishers without an agent? They exist.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> I'm proud to call myself a self-publisher. I see nothing wrong with the label. The only people that (sometimes) get sniffy about it are people in the industry. I don't think readers generally care who has published a book, as long as the story is up to scratch and it's produced well.


And that's the rub. So many self-published books were not up to scratch that it gave everyone a bad name. At the same time, the authors who aren't banging the indie drum whenever they speak about their books often fly under the radar in the bad rep. So, it goes both ways.



> This is probably pie-in-the-sky, but I see indie bookstores, indie publishers, and indie authors (both kinds) being natural allies of a sort, even if it seems far fetched right now.


I see this all of the time locally. Local, micro publisher and their authors get lots of space at the local indie bookstores.


----------



## Titania Ladley (Apr 12, 2012)

I see traditional authors as those who go the route of agent>NY editor>contract/deal with print runs, etc.

I see small press authors as those who publish through publishers that offer electronic and/or print formats. These could be Ellora's Cave, Samhain Publishing, LooseId, and a whole host of others that have began their platforms online rather than on a concrete street.

I see indie authors as any of those authors above (as well as newbies who've never been published before), who choose to take more control over their careers and have a desire to get their books to readers faster. Editors and formatters are hired, and book covers are done professionally through some of the same graphic designers that NY uses. It is, more or less, cutting the middleman out so the author can get closer to his/her readers asap.   

Titania
Sassy but never sweet


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Titania Ladley said:


> I see traditional authors as those who go the route of agent>NY editor>contract/deal with print runs, etc.
> 
> I see small press authors as those who publish through publishers that offer electronic and/or print formats. These could be Ellora's Cave, Samhain Publishing, LooseId, and a whole host of others that have began their platforms online rather than on a concrete street.


So what about the small presses that are print-orientated and not ebook? What about the small presses that do print runs and don't use POD? Is a publisher who does 2000 copy print runs of each of their books a small press or a traditional publisher, since they aren't in NY, don't require agents, etc.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks. . . a reminder. . .this thread is in the Book Corner. . . .please leave your author/writer "hats" at the door.  Some posts have been edited or removed and a few are borderline. . . . . .

Please respond as "readers". . . . . .


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I think this whole thread should be moved to the Cafe as it has nothing to do with books and is really just a terminology discussion that most readers don't care about.

For me there are 
1. Big trade pub
2. small house pub
3. Indie pub (authors)

And no amount of arguing within the ranks is going to change my mind on how I see it.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

^^ I agree.


----------



## Titania Ladley (Apr 12, 2012)

>>>>And no amount of arguing within the ranks is going to change my mind on how I see it.

I think we all just have different ways of looking at it and experiences with indie. It was very interesting to see how everyone viewed it. Great topic. 

Titania


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

JBool56 said:


> On the other hand, the commercial pressures of big publishers do tend towards safe and samely books, so I think it's actually a very exciting time in publishing, and as you say searching new and undiscovered authors can be very rewarding. (As long as you 'look inside' and ignore reviews - but that's another story!)


I agree with this. The OP's question, and this answer in particular, reminded me of blog post I wrote a few months ago about the homogenization of art and the independent culture rising in music, film, and now books. Instead of linking it, I thought I'd just paste it. (Hope that's not against the rules to post something this long). It's funnier with Monty Python video embedded, but this will have to do...

GOT BOOKS?

I'm going to talk about books in a second. But first, a little hard science and a desperately thin analogy.

"Homogenization is a generic term which refers to processing a solution so that it becomes uniform. It crops up in many industrial and scientific applications, although it is often used specifically to refer to milk, as part of a two stage process which prepares milk for sale. The first step, pasteurization, sterilizes the milk so that it is safer to drink. Homogenization stabilizes it for a smoother mouthfeel and flavor."
"In order to accomplish homogenization, the milk is forced through a very fine screen at high pressure."
-from the article "What is Homogenization?" at wisegeek.com

Sounds delicious, right? With "smoother mouthfeel" and everything!
So, that's a little about the homogenization of milk. But there is so much more in our world that "becomes uniform" after it "gets forced through a very fine screen at high pressure."

Books, for one.

Making a living as any kind of artist today is about reaching a lot of people with what you do. (Yes, yes, "not necessarily, because I know a guy who bends old hub caps into coffee-tables and sells them online." Okay. Agreed. Always exceptions to my broad statements).

But in general, to make a comfortable living off your artistic pursuits you need a big audience. And in order to reach that audience you need access. And in order to gain access, you first must seek the approval of&#8230;

Gate Keepers. This term means slightly different things depending on who you are talking to, and who you are talking about. But in the most general way of looking at it, a Gatekeeper is pretty much anybody who works in any field with the words "The" and "Industry" surrounding a creative endeavor. "The Music Industry." "The Film Industry," "The Publishing Industry" "The Hub-Cap-Coffee-Table Industry&#8230;"

Gatekeepers have varying levels of responsibility, from the college intern at CAA who likes one in particular of the dozens of scripts a week he might read, to the studio head who has the final say on whether that intern's favorite script becomes a film. No matter what your title may really be, as a Gatekeeper, your job is to find art that will work well as commerce and to open the gate for it and its creator to enter the magical world of Access. All of these people are important, hardworking parts of the process, many of them are far smarter than me, and just to be clear, none of what I'm saying is meant to bash Gatekeepers.

That said, to the rock band who doesn't understand why some of these people want them to put on neck-ties, or lose the neck-ties, or wear make-up, or stop wearing all that make-up, or change their sound completely before they can move on to the next step&#8230; Gatekeepers sometimes seem like the Black Knight in "Holy Grail." The dude who just doesn't listen, doesn't get it, and won't get out of the way.

And that attitude is fine for your artistic integrity, but artistic integrity alone ain't getting you through that gate. Because the flip side of the Black Knight analogy is that the Gatekeepers are usually right. That band may very well suck donkey.

The problem is, you and I will never know, because if they don't get past the Black Knight, we'll never see or hear them. Although, that too has changed in the last few years, but my metaphor is already too strained to handle a digression now. So...

What does this have to do with homogenization?

Like Goldilocks, the Gatekeeper's job is to say "no," until they see something that is "just right." And "just right" has a lot of variables that Gatekeepers - especially the ones near the top who get paid a lot for their opinions - must be very good at spotting and understanding.

Let's look at movies from the GK perspective. Will this potential movie make money? Is it close enough to what made money last year so I won't get fired for doing something stupid if it tanks? Is it different enough to feel fresh and new? Is it any good? (yes that's important, but not necessarily number 1 on the list).

These are tough questions. And when your job depends on the answers, they are pretty damn important too.

Now here's the problem. Well, maybe I should put "problem" in quotes because whether this is a bad thing or not is pretty subjective. So&#8230; here's the thing. Gradually, as imaginative work after imaginative work gets "forced through a very fine screen at high pressure," everything starts to become more or less the same. And that's pretty bland. I'm not saying it's "bad." But I am saying it's more or less the same.

And sameness is a function of industry not of artistry. Sameness is about not straying too far from what we know "worked" in the past, while maybe taking an incremental step in a new direction just to make sure we don't stagnate.

Before 1977, nobody in Hollywood wanted to make "Star Wars" but Alan Ladd Jr. By 1978, right after that unexpected and interesting decision struck gold, "Battlestar Galactica" was on TV every week, Shatner and Nimoy's phones were ringing off the hook again, and someone even thought "Tron" was a good idea. Again, not bad things per se&#8230; the system worked in the end, "Star Wars" happened, I can never get enough Shatner, and by 2007 "Battlestar Galactica" got pretty good.

But if it wasn't for that lone Gatekeeper who thought "Star Wars" was a good movie, there never would have been a "Tron - Legacy." And I'll leave it to you to decide if that's good or bad. In my opinion, it's just another gallon of milk, same as the one I bought last trip to the store.

So what does this have to do with books?

In the big three of the entertainment industry, film&TV, music, and publishing, something really important is happening. The most powerful among Gatekeepers, the ones whose giant companies control the magic elixir called "distribution" (remember that in order to make a living through your art you MUST reach huge audiences), are becoming less powerful.

Digitization of music has radically changed the music industry and opened the gate to anyone who thinks they can find their own audience (no easy task, mind you).

Digitization of film and less expensive cost of equipment has opened the door for indie film makers wider than it's ever been. Of course, big movies still cost big money and the gatekeepers there are naturally even more particular about what is "just right." But at the same time, spending 200 million on a film and another 200 million on marketing can make you feel pretty silly when you see a film like "Paranormal Activity," which could have been shot on an iphone, was originally marketed for next to nothing on the internet and (after getting picked up for distribution by Paramount) has made 190 million dollars.

But the new development in publishing might just be the most radical of the big three. A very short time ago, books were very expensive to print and very difficult to distribute. The gatekeepers were firmly entrenched in a New York based business that had a strangle hold on the magic elixir (Distribution).

But then something happened. Amazon's experiment with electronic books, the "Kindle," worked. People liked it. They told their friends and bought more. Other companies with internet presences followed suit with their own ereaders.

And now, quite suddenly, books are not expensive to produce. And distribution is readily available for an after market cut of the profits. That is to say, there is no distribution cost to the manufacturer (the writer).

Imagine that you have been guarding the same bridge for one hundred years, then the water in the river suddenly drains and there is no need for your bridge.

"Oh my God," some of you might say, "I LIVE on the other side of that bridge! Doesn't this mean that there will be a flood of crap writing from every wannabe poet and novelist who couldn't get by the Gatekeepers?"

I've got two answers for that.

First, in 1977 there was a movie that was even better than Stars Wars. But even Alan Ladd Jr. wasn't interested. So I never saw it. You never saw it. Nobody will ever see it because it doesn't exist. (I'm obviously just joking to make a point here because, as everybody knows, there has never been a movie better than Star Wars).

And second, Yes. Yes, of course there will be tons of crap. But unless there is something terribly wrong with you, you ought to be able to recognize and easily side step crap.

But keep your eyes open because there will be a lot of other things coming as well.

There will be beautifully written stories in which nobody but the teller had a say in how much or how little sex and violence "needed" to be in it or not in it. Or in how long or short a book must be in order to save on printing costs. Or in who lives and dies in the end. Or in how many sentence fragments can be strung together with artistic license in order to make a point about artistic license.

There will be concepts that are so different from whatever was successful last year that they will shock and delight you. Rules will be broken for worse or for better. And readers who are not gatekeepers will find that there are books out there written, it will seem, just for them.

And new things that work, new things that are good, new things that may surprise and delight, will be picked up by those for whom they were intended. Word will spread to others who like the same things, and before you know it, somewhere within the millions of diverse minds, tastes, and interests that exist in cyberspace, audiences will come together. Perhaps so small that they are barely a blip on the world wide web, but easily large enough for writers they enjoy, to write for.


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

I think indie is somebody who generally publishes through small presses or self publishes...or even a bit of both.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

An indie author is an "independent" author.  That's it.

How about, what's the difference between "indie publishing" and "vanity publishing"?  My answer - nothing.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

headofwords said:


> How about, what's the difference between "indie publishing" and "vanity publishing"? My answer - nothing.


With vanity publishing, the author pays all the expenses in production of the book, and if the book is distributed at all, the author does the distributing. Vanity presses make their money from the author. These days, you can publish your book and have it distributed without a cent out of your pocket.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> These days, you can publish your book and have it distributed without a cent out of your pocket.


That's only true if you do everything yourself and only sell off your website or in person. If you use a bookstore or an online distributor, money comes out of your pocket and at a high rate, too.


----------

