Pros and Cons

My last post I covered knowing what you want from your writing and publishing. With a lot of drama going on in the writing world, I'm reminded why I'm primarily indie. When I first went indie, my husband sat me down and said "Hey, make a damn choice and stick with it." Or something to that effect. So as I do with many things. I sat down and made a list. A list of pros and cons. I'll share them for you and I invite you to continue the list on your own or in the comments.

Indie Publishing
Pros:
I get to keep more profit
I control everything
I don't have to change my story (this has happened to me on a short through trade publishing)
My deadlines, my schedule

Cons:
Most of the profit goes back into publishing
Everything comes out of my pocket or I have to learn how to do it myself
Still have to depend on others for cover art and editing

So those are generals, I actually listed out what I get to control and what was going to cost me. I also tried to draw on experiences of others, with keeping in mind that I wasn't going to be an over night success. From there I moved on to trade publishing, including small presses- anything that I had to write a query letter, submit, and wait on.

Traditional Publishing
Pros:
Professional editor
Professional Cover art
Marketing?
The attraction of a big name behind the title.

Cons:
Possibly less royalties
Very little or no control
Still might have to do all my own marketing.
Could take a long damn time.

Both lists are close to being even, Trade has a few more pros, but since marketing is questionable, it evens out. To me. To someone else they may think that trade publishing is better. To each their own. However, due to recent events (that because it's not SPE related, I won't mention here in detail) I'm very happy that I didn't put all my eggs in the trade publishing basket.

The thing is that indie publishing met up with what I wanted and what I need. I have a wonderful support team and I've learned a ton on this journey. I've even learned a program that I swore I'd never get along with. I have to say that I like having the control over everything. Down to what edits make it in the book (have I mentioned how much I love my editors?) to what the cover looks like, to the release day. I get to throw my own parties, decide how I want to market, say what events I go to. I can also hammer down my own timeline and if it doesn't get done, I only have myself to blame.

So while you're asking yourself: What do I want out of my writing. Also ask yourself: Which route is best for me?

Egos and Elitism part 2!

So I'm back, did you all enjoy me picking on traditionally published authors? Yeah? Well now it's time that I pick on the indie crowd. Now you may think that indie authors have no problem with egos or feeling elite. You're wrong, they are just better at hiding it than most. Why? Because things said on social media, blogs, and interviews can hurt indie authors. Especially those just starting out and have a small fan base.

This last week I combed the web looking for direct quotes like I found for the last post. I haven't found any. But I know it's out there. Talk to and indie author, ask them why they chose that route or what they think of traditional. Many of the times you'll get a fairly good answer, normally about being in control of everything. But then you will get those authors with answers like these.

"Because traditional publishing is on it's way out, indie is where it's at."

"Traditional is the lazy way, they have people to do everything. Indie's do it on their own."

(If you find some direct quotes, let me know. I'd be happy to add to this post and expand.)

But my favorite is when an indie author trash talks traditional publishing because they think they are the best at everything. They think their stories are better, their editing is better, everything, even their covers.

These attitudes on either side of things is not a way to win fans, friends or networking. There are authors both traditional and indie that I will not read because of their elitist attitude. When it comes to networking it's the worse thing you can do because you make it seem like you are not approachable. Why would I network with you if I'm terrified you won't think I'm good enough?

So it's time to knock it off. Indie, traditional, hybrid, suck it up. We're authors. Get over your ego and your better than everyone attitude and write. There are misconceptions on both sides, each author has their own reason for going on the path they chose. Congratulate them, talk to them, learn something from each other.

Egotism and being an Elitist Part 1.

You've all heard me preach about ego before on how it can hurt your image, but lately I've seen and trend in the author world where an author is better than another author or a group of authors. Is that vague enough for you? Yes, some authors have better writing than another author, this is clear by quality and reviews. But I'm referring to the on going battle of traditional publishing vs indie publishing. You've seen it all over the internet, but here let me pull some quotes for you so we can take a look on how the problem is not just on one side of things.

"To me, it seems disrespectful … that a 'wannabe' assumes it's all so easy s/he can put out a 'published novel' without bothering to read, study, or do the research," said Grafton. "Learning to construct a narrative and create character, learning to balance pace, description, exposition, and dialogue takes a long time. This is not a quick do-it-yourself home project. Self-publishing is a short cut and I don't believe in short cuts when it comes to the arts." -Sue Grafton (pulled from this article)

"The complete opposite is true," he said. "Self-publishing means finding your own proofreader, finding your own editor, finding your own cover designer (or designing your own), doing all your own marketing and sales work, etc. Having a publisher is lazy as all you need to do is write a half-acceptable book and allow your publisher's editor to make it sales-worthy. Self-publishers must do it all – we have no one else to pick up the slack." -Adam Croft (pulled from this article)

Now, I take issue with both of those comments. What? You expected me to come out fighting for the indie author and not disagree? Let me break down my thoughts. 

Grafton has a point, anyone can publish on amazon and yes, there is a lot of crap out there. I have to disagree with her that it is a short cut. Those who are truly indie-authors (not doing this for a hobby, but to make a living or trying to make a living) so not see it as a short cut. In fact, it's not a DIY project, it's a job that takes dedication and time. Lots of time. 

That being said, we have the other side of things in response to Grafton. A best selling indie author claiming that having a publisher is lazy. I disagree with him on that. It's not lazy, I'm a hybrid author (I do both indie publishing and traditional publishing) guess what, unless you're a huge name author you don't get your marketing paid for and we all know that is a ton of work. Okay, sure so you have an editor, but guess what though they tell you what should be changed and make suggestions, you still have to have a damn good book going in or you don't snag that publisher. 

But Grafton isn't the only one who has problems or issues with the indie populations. Kim Harrison had this to say (in regards to price fixing, but still...)

"...force books that are created within the scope of a publishing house to adhere to the same price points as those created by independent authors who are not all paying for marketing, placement, cover artists, proofing, and the building to house these people, not just for their book, but all the books within the publishing house. Independent authors can afford to charge a lower price because they do not have these things. Indeed, they should be allowed to charge a lower price to garner the attention that they miss by not being associated with a big six publisher. But forcing those who _are_ paying for marketing, cover artists, proofing, ect, not just for their book, but others in the publishing house..." (taken from here)

I must wonder who Ms. Harrison thinks pays for all that when it comes to indie-authors. Yes, I understand that there are overheads that publishers must cover and honestly the price fight is a topic for another day. But that comment makes me wonder...do traditionally published authors really know what goes into indie publishing? 

Here she is again "You can’t ask someone who has been working their entire life at crafting words into cohesive stories to be valued equal to someone who has been at it for two years. Would you work at a job for 20 years, then accept a new, forced salary commensurate with the mail room guy? No. Of course not." (taken from here)

In my free lance work I've read books that are just as good as a big press author who plan on going indie. I've ready authors who have been at it for years, are big press published and it's crap. My point is, quality is found everywhere. Not just in big publishers, not just in indies. I've been writing since high school, it's a passion, who is she to say someone who has the same passion for the craft isn't to be valued equally?

This is a challenge we face as indie authors. Elitism from traditionally published authors. This is a problem this wall needs to be broken down to where we are all just authors. Now don't die of shock, but this is also a problem on the indie side of things. I'll be covering that my next post. So stay tuned. 

The Perceived Image of an Indie Author

Ah, the wonderful world of the internet. It's great for networking, wonderful to keep in touch with families, and it breeds drama, but it can also be a great place for open discussion. I tend to lean more towards conversations with indie authors, but occasionally I cross over and talk to traditionally published ones too when it comes to talking shop. My favorite is to talk to other hybrid authors, which Mia are now considered hybrid authors. That's important, because I'm getting ready to break down somethings that I found and or experiences on the internet this last week. I often like to pretend that there is no more perceived image of an indie author, that we can walk amongst traditionally authors with our heads held high, and no one will pick on us. Yeah, right. (Though to be fair, we pick on traditionally published authors.)

So let's quickly define indie authors, traditionally published, and hybrids.

Indie authors: Normally this refers to authors who have no affiliation with a true publisher. There are authors who are considered indie who have combined to make their own press, or even just one author who made their own press so there was a publisher name, but it's not a publisher that caters to other authors.

Traditionally published authors: Authors who has a publisher, regardless of it's a big five publisher or not.

Hybrid authors: Authors who are published both ways.

So now to the fun stuff, now that we're all caught up. On a Facebook post a traditionally published author poised a question in regards to the possibility to produce a large amount of writing as an indie author and it being quality writing.

When I was an aspiring author, I was completely against self-publishing, and this was one of the reasons why. I saw a particular author releasing something almost every month and I thought, there is just no way that it's polished enough. My Hubby tried to play devil's advocate and questioned me as to why it wasn't possible. In the end I shrugged my shoulders and thought, 'we'll see.' Now that I'm an author, under two different names, one which is indie and one which is hybrid, I know it is possible. Everything I'm writing, with the exception of A Demon's Heart, are things that will be published next year. Everything I'm planning on releasing this year is written and either just waiting on covers or is currently being edited. Under one name, I'll be releasing six titles, three that are novels, and three that are short stories. Under Alexandra, I'll (hopefully) be seeing the release of two books with Ellora's cave and two indie releases. At a convention, I met several authors that work this way and now that I know how it works, I know it's possible.

So naturally...I jumped in wanting offer the perspective of a indie author. I wrote a well though out response that invited conversation, did not bash traditionally published, and was hoping for a well thought out response. What I got instead was a simple thanks for responding. Hm. So I continued to follow the conversation, one person pointed out that I had valid points, and we continued to discuss, but the conversation ended basically with this: Traditional is better because edits take time and the publisher is the best at that.

That is an age old argument. Indie books are not edited. That is not true. Granted, there is stuff out there that is not edited, but that is not the whole lot. Just like people tend to think: Traditionally published have better story lines and knows what sells. No. I've read some awful Traditionally published books and though they follow trends, they can't switch as easily. (I'm not saying write towards the trends people, just pointing things out.)

Now as for the editing. Worried about downloading an indie book and having it been unedited? Check out the sample first, that's a glorious feature right there. It saved me $10 on an indie e-book the other week. On a book that helps give indie authors a bad name. But back to the point, traditional authors still hold that idea that they are better because they are with a publisher, that their editors know more than editors we can hire or our betas, who are normally made up of our target audience. Am I saying that indie authors are better? No, what I'm saying is that we are all authors, and yes there is good and bad writing out there and good and bad stories out there, but they aren't exclusively indie. There are those indie authors who think that they are better, though and that is the wrong attitude to have. We can all learn from each other here people, so knock it off!

That brings me to my next point. There was an article going around social media that had mentioned how different hybrid authors are. It talked about how we aren't indies, which is partially true, and we aren't really traditional, which well, is kind of true as well. We have a foot in each world, but here's the thing. We are still indie, we still know and do all the work for some of our projects. In the article it talked about how the only way a hybrid author could survive in this world is if they were a New York best seller before they 'turned indie' like we're vampires or something. Turned. According to the author of the article, if the author was not a NY best seller, than they were no better than the indie authors.

Hold up. That gives hybrids  a negative image too. Again, can't we all be just authors? Can't we all get along? Probably not, because this is how life goes, it's a uphill battle for us all, yes even traditionally published authors. The perceived image of an indie author is still a negative one in some people's eyes. What we need to do is find a way to change this, regardless of the category that we fall in.