Sure. I know someone who had to cut out an important scene from her novel and change the entire focus so the publisher could market it the way they wanted. She did, and got the contract.
Publishers are there to make money. At least, the large ones. There are niche publishers for works that aren't so commercial that probably exercise less control. When you go with a big publisher, not only does the editor have to want your work, she has to convince the marketing people and others at the publisher, and those people all get input into how the book should be changed, how they want to market it (in the case I referenced above, they wanted to be able to market in Romance, since that sells a lot), and so on.
It was changed from a fantasy with a secondary romantic subplot to a Romance, where the romantic plot was pushed to the forefront. And a moving scene around the death of an infant was taken out because while it may have been fine for a fantasy novel the publisher felt it was too heavy for a romance and not something the target audience would want to read.
Hi 1-9, Yes that was my experience of trade publishing. It may not be everyone's, I don't know. But yes, the very first thing I was told even before the editing began was that the book had to go from 160k to 130k. That was a business decision. It was even in the contract. It had nothing to do with merit of the work. And when I got my book back from its first edit I spent two weeks depserately trying to save stuff that I thought was necessary to the plot further on etc. And the second edit once I'd got it back was to lose another 10k simply because I hadn't got it down to 130k. As I say, I can't say whether every author gets this. And who knows, maybe it did help the book. It's hard from my POV to say. But regardless I did feel as though I as the author had lost too much control of the process. It must be a thousand times worse for newby authors who don't have the experience of publishing their own works, and thus don't feel they are in a position to object. Cheers, Greg.
Even if they have, it's disingenuous to call themselves an independent publisher. If they don't want the label 'self-publisher', why not come up with a new term instead of hijacking one that already means something? I don't get it.
Here's what Wikipedia says: "The terms "small press", "indie publisher", and "independent press" are often used interchangeably, with "independent press" defined as publishers that are not part of large conglomerates or multinational corporations. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_press My personal opinion is that some self-publishers are trying to adopt the term for themselves in a bid for legitimacy. I think it's unfortunate that they feel the need.
It's much the same as those biased against self-publishing feeling the need to deny the label to self-publishers in order to deny them legitimacy. It is unfortunate that those with that bias feel the need to do so, particularly when it is contrary to the plain meaning of the word "independent." In any event, the IBPA has been around since 1983 (long before current self-publishing) and is the largest publishing trade association in the U.S., according to their web site. If they recognize self-publishers as independent publishers then I'm in good company, and it undercuts the argument that we have to stick with traditional definitions.
It isn't contrary to the meaning of "I'm independently published" though, because that has meant a certain thing for decades. If you're proud of being self-published, why do you need to pretend you aren't self-published? Words are important. Meanings are important. Being independently published is very different to being self-published, so why use the terms interchangeably? Make up a new phrase to avoid self-publishing stigma instead of using an established phrase incorrectly. I've printed my stories out on paper, like stories have traditionally been published. But I'm not going to start telling people I'm traditionally published because it would be a lie, even if correct in a certain sense of the word.
I disagree, because the definitions overlap based on their plain meaning. Your argument about words is exactly one of the arguments the established industry always uses when a new, disruptive technology comes along, and it is used precisely to deny legitimacy to the new guys and not to preserve some sanctity of definition. Self-publishers are, by definition, a subset of independent publishers. Look at the words? Are they publishers? Certainly. Are they independent of the same market players that traditional independent published are independent of? There can be no argument of that either. So it comes down to nothing about words per se, but a desire to use words in a way contrary to their plain meaning to draw a line around a club that you don't want undesirables to be a part of. And I mean "you" in general terms of the establishment. This isn't anything new when disruptive technologies arise.
Also, the argument re: traditional definitons doesn't persuade me, particularly on a writing forum, for who knows better than writers that definitions evolve over time in response to societal, scientific, technological, and other changes.
I like the IBPA definition, having read it, and for purposes of the above I'm talking about self-publishers who approach their self-publishing as a business. Based on the plain meaning of the word "independent" it seems to me they qualify. The guy who cobbled together his memoir with a self-made cover and no editing, and published it through CreateSpace so he can hand out copies to relatives at Thanksgiving, doesn't qualify. Not because he's not "independent," but because I don't think his activities rise to the level of "publisher" as we're using that word here. So, yes, if you're self-publishing and you're approaching what you do like a business, that seems to me to fall within the scope of independent publisher, by definition. The words "self publisher" provide additional information (namely, to inform people what kind of independent publisher you are).
It's a little weird for me to see the definitions of indie publishers and self publishing get a little muddy. I say this because I used to work for a small press. The company has been around longer than self publishing or at least longer than self publishing options were so available. I think the owner would be pretty upset if someone asked what he did and he said he runs an indie publishing company and someone thought that meant he was a publishing himself. He's not even a writer and surely not self publishing or helping others self publish. I have this one friend who self published a book. He's never been ashamed of it or tried to hide it. I'm not saying that's the case here, but if you know someone is going to be confused or think something else if you say you were published by a small press or an indie publisher, then why say it like that? Why not just say you self published? My friend's book has done quite well. It has a very niche audience. That's why he decided to self publish. But whatever the reason, it is what it is. To me, being published by an indie press implies there was some sort of vetting process, some level of gatekeepers involved, and I think that's the idea most people have when they hear these terms.
And if we say that self-publishers (or at least some of them) are a sub-category of indie publishers, then what's the term for the non-self-publisher indie publishers? Like, the umbrella term of indie publishers includes some self-publishers and... some actual publishers? I'm not trying to be dismissive, but... what's the word, if we expand the meaning of the original phrase into an umbrella?
Indie indie publishers? Double-indie publishers? That is, the publisher is independent of the Big Five, and it's also independent of the author--no author can command the publisher to publish their work irrespective of its quality, as an author can when they're a self-publisher. Yeah, I'm mostly joking. I would just leave "self publisher" and "indie publisher" as separate categories.
Why do they need to pretend to be traditionally published to feel legitimate? All these caveats are getting very interesting. There have been issues in the past with small presses (actual, real, independent publishers) getting sloppy with their editing and covers. So should they call themselves self-publishers? Or are we clutching at straws, and maybe should just leave the definitions as they are without applying all these silly workarounds? Seems simplest all round really, doesn't it?
This is the same terminology shift the whole industry has dealt with. There's no reason indie publishing should be any different. The IBPA has already dealt with it in the excerpt from their website I posted earlier (this is a legacy indie publishing organization that has been around nearly 35 years, and which those of you biased against self-publishing have studiously ignored). They recognize that there are traditional indie publishers and self-publishers, and that the word "indie" covers them both. Their categorization makes the most sense of anything I've seen thus far, and it also follows from the plain meaning of the word "indie," which you have to disregard if you want to argue that there aren't indie self-publishers.
I've ignored it because it's not relevant to the discussion I'm having. I know there are self-publishers calling themselves indie publishers. I know some people and organisations are fine with it. If that's the point in contention then we're in complete agreement. What I'm arguing is that it's disingenuous, inaccurate, and they should choose a different term.
It's certainly accurate, unless you don't believe in the plain meaning of the words. Whether it is disingenuous goes to intent, and I submit you're not in any position to make that judgment with respect to any given person or publisher, unless you have some insight into their mental state that the rest of us do not.