But a publishing situation where the author is publishing his or her own work has no quality test, and I'm not going to pretend that it does because I might, someday, want to self publish. It just...doesn't, and I can't change that fact. Whether you call it self publishing or co-opt the term indie publishing, that fact remains. And, no, I absolutely do not believe that an author can be trusted to judge the quality of his or her own work. And I don't think that I "belittle" my work by accepting that I need feedback on it, I think that I show it respect.
I admire your self-belief, and I agree with GingerCoffee that it is about framing, it's just that no one will buy into what you want to believe because the belief has flaws. Adopting an actual publishing term and changing it won't convince people that you are an indie author or publisher, because the term already exists. Indie publishing implies objectivity, quality control, which you can buy, don't get me wrong ... If you invest in that, and hell, why not call yourself an indie publisher if you are hiring others to do what a publisher would do, but to do it all yourself is simply not that. An indie author is just an author writing for an indie publisher. Your definition is publishing from the self as you are taking on all the major roles associated it. I'm afraid your definition just won't convince otherwise, but I can see where you coming from. Self-publishing is stigma in many aspects, unfortunately, because there is so much dross out there.
But there are some authors who have self published and their work is of high quality. Whether or not they are the judge of their own work, I can't say, an author can always pay a professional to give their work such a test. I wont argue that all self published stuff is of a high quality because it isn't. But then if we look at traditional publishing houses it can definately be argued that some recent releases have also somehow slipped by that quality test too. Publishing house editors are looking at work from a marketing perspective which may not equate to definitions of quality. Twilight got published because it was marketable, so did 50 Shades. Does anyone wish to argue the quality of those books? If we pick one from my favourite genre, I have no idea why anyone published Eragon or the further two books if we are talking quality. But clearly they were all marketable.
I had similar discussion - okay, an argument - a few years back on another forum about the same thing, saying why self-publishing was a bad thing until I was blue in the face (and the fingers), because I couldn't see why anyone would opt for self-publishing over traditional. But now my views have changed. There are other reasons for self-publishing, chief amongst them is autonomy. Having control over what you write and are expected to write is important to writers. When you experience a publisher dictating what your next book should be you'll see what I mean. And it's not just about autonomy either, but those books that are well written, but are not commercial. Traditional publishing is a business. An editor might like a book, but if the bean-counters do not foresee a return, they won't take it, no matter how well written it is. Writers are at the mercy of taste, timing, accountants and bad luck, which has probably scuppered many potential bestsellers throughout history (ones we'll never hear of because self-publishing has only just taken off in the last five years and become affordable). The arguments about quality control cannot be disputed, and writing is subjective, yes. What you think is a work of genius, might be appalling bad to someone else. But it works the other way too. You might worry about the quality of your work, not having the self-belief that it is any good, when in fact it might find an audience if you only gave self-publishing a go. Like everything in writing and publishing, I'd argue it is worth allowing the freedom to create and have an audience for any standard of writing, in order to unearth those gems that could so easily be lost for commercial reasons. If only there was some kind of quality control in self-publishing, that task would be easier, but that goes against the philosophy of autonomy in self-publishing in the first place.
Framing works, but the associations have to be fairly strong to begin with, or they need to be persuaded to accept those definitions. I don't doubt it works for @Devlin Blake to call himself an Indie Author, but based on this thread I find it hard to believe @shadowwalker's going to get any benefit. Arguing about the name is missing the point a bit, though. If you do what Devlin says indies do, you'll have a much better chance of success with your book. If you do what he says a self-publisher does, you'll have to get pretty damn lucky. Call it whatever works for you, just make sure you put in the work. Eragon was published because the kid's parents owned the publishing house. Sometimes the line between self and trad-published is a bit blurry.
Okay, if we're going to play with words and all... I'd say "self-publisher" is a hell of a lot more representative of the job of someone putting a book out by themselves than "indie author" is. The noun for the second one is "author", which focuses on the writing. Calling someone a self-publisher, on the other hand, seems to emphasize that this part of the job isn't about the writing, it's about the publishing. I've only self-published two books - one of them I shopped first, the other one I knew from the start I would self-publish. For both of them, there was nothing different about the writing portion of my work. I still went through the same process, used the same betas, sent the book off to the editor, made changes. It was the publishing side that was all new - not just all the promo stuff, but ordering covers, worrying about formatting and distribution, etc. So to change the word to something that ignores all that extra work? I don't think that change can be justified based on the new term giving a more accurate representation of what's involved! Rather, I'd agree it's an attempt to blur the lines between actual indie publishers and self-publishers. An attempt to get away from the flood of crappy self-published books on the market (which, I acknowledge, are a problem for people working hard at the craft of self-publishing and producing quality self-pubbed books). But the people putting out crappy self-pubbed books aren't going to disappear just because of a terminology change. They can be just as crappy as "indie authors" as they were as "self-publishers".
With such a mix of good and bad self-published books, how does an author who actually put the effort into research, and took the time to complete several drafts go about convincing readers who have sifted through many bad quality novels to pick up their novel and give it a chance? What marketing ploys do you use?
If I was to do it seriously, I'd start pre-publication promotion, offer three or five chapters free, so that the readers can get the idea of the quality and hopefully get hooked. Also, send free e-books to bloggers and reviewers, organise 'blog book tours' and Q and As, and run a promotional price of something like 0.99 cents or even cheaper, for a few weeks. But all this is assuming that the work is of equal quality as traditionally published manuscripts. If so, this kind of promotion will be enough to start word-of-mouth. But if the work is substandard, as pretty much every single self-published effort I came across so far (including my own), this will not result in success, it'll just add to the swamp of substandard work.
I've never heard of a reputable publisher dictating what the next book will be. I've heard of authors signing contracts they probably shouldn't have, mainly because they didn't bother to have an agent or IP attorney look it over first. Or there are authors who accept a contract to write per the publisher's requirements - much like writers of TV series do. As to the quality issue with trade publishers, well, really, that boils down to tastes. If the story hits the mark, readers don't really care if the commas are all in the right place. Yes, trade publishers make mistakes - but there are also a lot of reasons other than quality that books don't get picked up. Otherwise, I agree that there are very good reasons to self-publish. I think the biggest reason not to is because of anger at rejection by trade publishers; the second biggest reason not to is out of ignorance of how trade publishing actually works (or how much work is really involved in self-publishing).
Personally (o, here it fuckin' comes), I find that self-publishing allows some significant opportunity (vague again). I'm going to focus on digital self-publishing, because I think it is better for what I'm going to try to get at. This discourse in occurrence suggests primarily that quality and profitability are the main concerns -- at least these are the targeted points. When this happens, this pulls aspects of traditional publishing into the domain of self-publishing; it is like a sort of conversion. I think digital self-publishing is an entirely different creature and should be evaluated as such. I understand the points, but I think there are others to consider. First, there is the fact that digital self-publishing (ignoring author labor) is virtually cost-neutral. It costs little to reproduce and distribute data. For this reason, I don't think that digital self-publishing should aimed at profit, since there is an incredibly low inherent cost. This goes for anything digital. (Seriously, I saw an eBook textbook for rent. That's fucking shit. I get it's a textbook, and that industry isn't a good example, but I felt like referencing.) Further, I think that this digital era increases the ability to distribute. This is seen negatively because of copyright. I think we should abandon digital copyright and embrace this ease of distribution. I think the commodification of art is something to avoid. This is personal garbage subjectivity, but I think this value of profit over art is disagreeable. I understand that artists (to note, I'm classifying writers as such currently) pour ours into their works, but I don't know about this idea of profit. Truly, should art be profited from? I think it's something that should transcend such things. If it's in a physical format, I understand that there's some merit to it being paid for, since it cost something to put it in that format; but digital formats have practically no similar cost. Essentially, I think open-source software is ideal and beautiful and art should be like that. Also, is anyone familiar with the DiY ethic of punk music? I think self-publishing is a prime opportunity for a similar writer ethic to develop. I'd agree with this. To clarify, I'm not demonizing the position opposed to me. I understand that my points are pretty horribly organized. I apologize for my laziness and my lack of ability to churn out an ideal first draft. Lastly, I am not meaning to start a shit-storm.
You're relating the cost of the good to the cost of production. Doing that ignores all the other work that went into its creation, and that work should be compensated. Fuck yes. If art can't be profited from, only people who don't need to profit will be artists. Art can start being free just as soon as food is. ETA: Yeah, this is totally going to the debate room
I understand this idea, but I feel like a free and open cultural and artistic dialogue is more important than making money off art. Plus, I feel that making money off art rather sacrifices the art. After all, if you want to make money, then you have to write for a certain audience. Some things don't have room to make money. One might then abandon making art because it isn't profitable. This is a weak argument, and I don't mean it to take center stage, as I am simply trying to illustrate a certain point. Mainly, I think if all art were free, if we didn't get so caught up with ownership of it, we could have an environment in which one could more easily access, in general, culture. I think this is important; and I think profit margins get in the way of it. I get that there is a the happiness of the creator to consider, but isn't creating something the original happiness? Surely there is simply the urge to create, and once something is created (maybe read, viewed, whatever) then that original happiness is fulfilled. Then, as well, if it is free, the artist is making a donation to culture, and providing back. Creating, for me at least, is a very selfish process. I don't think I can justify making money off something so self-centered. I sit down, I write in the way that I think best illustrates the themes I'm trying to get at. I care about a reader in the sense that I want them to understand what I'm getting at, to an extent; but I'm not going to write for the reader; I'm not going to write what to fulfill the reader's indulgence. I'm writing for myself. I know others say that they do not do this, and I'm sure they don't to the edges that I just outlined. I'd say that someone who creates, does it initially for self-pleasure (and misery, as one might think about the nature of existence indulgently but at the expense of some happiness). Imagine, though, that all art were accessible be anyone, digitally. This gives more opportunity for a population to educate itself. I would conjecture that this could beneficial for a population and a society. Plus, it lays down a sort of principle: We preserve the value of art as something superior to the whims of money. For the copyright aspect, look at the development of jazz. It would've been stifled by stringency of ownership. Who owns what, though? Who owns anything? We have this idea of it's ours? But why? Because we value property? I don't want to burden art with the needs of a human construct. (If anything seems derogatory, cite my failure as a rhetor.)
No need for a shitstorm, but I feel your point requires an answer. Obviously, we all have a right to an opinion, and I don't aim to dissuade you at all, but as someone who's been doing art commercially for a while I think there are points you haven't taken into an account. Art is symbolism and symbolism permeates our culture. Symbolism is also heavily employed in selling people stuff, creating public opinion, creating trends, influencing all sorts of campaigns, from military to charity. Also art affects people on a deeply psychological level, just look at the fashion industry and its effect on body image and ideals of beauty and self-worth. Art, which is a symbolic representation of life, is incredibly valuable, and is in fact used to generate huge revenues in all kinds of industries. So why should the artist give it away for free? I do photography, I write and I sell my stuff. If I had a penny for every time I heard a sob story of how 'art should be free' from someone who's been caught using someone's copyrighted work without permission, I'd be able to quit my day job and dedicate myself to art full-time. So the focus on materialism is quite clearly not on the side of the artist, who sometimes has to wait for decades to see a penny from their day in, day out, labour. The materialism is on the side of the dishonest consumer, who, while professing his/her disgust with the artist's 'materialism' (because the greeting card with their photo costs the 'outrageous' £2.50 or an ebook they worked for four years to create is £2.99 instead of being free) is in fact the one who is greedy to have his cake and eat it too, get the fruits of the artist's labour and keep his £2.50 to spend on something else. This is only a sign of general disrespect the materialistic society has for art, and it is in fact reducing art to a commodity (albeit a free or extremely cheap one). I agree that profit should never be put before art, but that has nothing to do with artists being able to rightfully profit from the sales of their creations. Due to nominal cost, e-books should be much, much cheaper than paper books (as they already are). I agree that the publishers (trad or self) should expect less profit per copy (as they already are). I fully support anyone's decision to offer their content for free, even to publish as uncopyrighted, it's a noble, altruistic gesture I know one Zen master who is doing exactly that on his blog. He encourages others to reproduce and use everything he writes. I have done so myself when I felt like it, gave it away, although still copyrighted (I'm not as generous...). And that's what it should be - a generosity of artists, rather than the expectation of the audience to get art for nothing, or for peanuts, just because end-production costs are lower.
But it's not about the happiness of the creator so much as the creator's ability to eat food and live under a roof. Most people have to earn a living, so if you can't earn a living with art, then most artists will spend most of their time working on something other than their art. Would you rather see an artist spend a dozen hours a week on "pure" art (If he can find that much spare time) and forty hours a week sitting behind a counter doing customer service, or cutting French fries, or driving a cab? I'd rather see artists spending most of their time on art. Even if they spend forty hours a week on art with a profit motive, they can still spend that dozen hours on the pure art, and the "profit art" is probably increasing their skills. Plus, I don't feel that the fact that someone is willing to pay for art makes the art inherently worthless. And this scenario just applies to art that has no inherent cost other than the artist's time. What about books that require research--reference books, travel, interviews? What about visual art, which requires all sorts of physical supplies? What about films? What about cameras? What about software? What about musical instruments and concert halls? Now we've gone past requiring the artist to spend most of his time working to be able to eat and have a roof, and gone to requiring the artist to spend even more time working to obtain the money needed to obtain the resources needed for his art. And we're not going to pay for one little tiny bit of it, we're going to let the artist sacrifice and starve, because we don't want to corrupt him by supporting what he does.
I would stress that I do not wish to center my request for free art to be centered around being "someone who's been caught..." I know you didn't make this connection, but I simply want to clarify. I see your point. I would distinguish between, say, making a greeting card and some photographic project designed to say something. I am trying to get into the business of defining art (as I find this as easy as defining truth, virtue, or existence) but I would create distinction here. A greeting card is something justifiably commodified, to me. It's design is to provide a service. Creating art, however, isn't so directly a service. Surely, it can set up as one: Art provides a service to the person in the sense that is satisfies a need or request. I think this isn't quite what art accomplishes. I would say that art, more so, adds to the greater human, the society, the culture, the history, the totality that is our subjective representation of our reality and existence. Here's the problem: I've gone about defining things I said I shouldn't have (and I shouldn't have), and I have created a strange, uneasy, easily negatable stage on which to stand, and I have not truly addressed your points. Allow me to clarify a few things that I didn't stress prior. If someone is requesting a production, then I think they should pay for it. If one asks an artist to compose something, I think they are requesting this thing to become a service, and then it is a justifiable thing to profited from. If an artist, however, creates something because of want, I think this is something different. I would think that desiring payment at this point is like creating an expense. The compensation is interal: the artist wants to create and creation satisfies the artist. However, know I get into another vague area, because how does one define "request?" Let's pretend that art is free for a moment, and an individual is enjoying someone's art for free. They are not requesting of the artist to create. But on a certain level, since they enjoy the art, it would make sense that they would want the artist to continue to create. I'd suppose that this is where I'd say that the artist wants to create because this fulfills them, and since they have created, there are compensated. But, as some demonstrate, this doesn't seem to adequately compensate all artists, from the artists perspective. So, either I would have to suggest that the artist is expecting things that they shouldn't or that they deserve to be compensated as they see is fair. Of course, this could be elaborated further, and one could ask: "What is being compensated fairly?" One could then, probably, settle back at the beginning, and say: "Put a price on it, and the consumer will decide if it's fair." One could also settle on what I have said: The artist is compensated upon completion and viewership. I would state, before continuing, that I have constructed a poor thought process here. It is chaotic and does not follow very logically, in overall structure. Ok, because I have failed otherwise, I will resort to positing questions, because, truly, I merely think that this exchange of money for art isn't ideal. I do not exactly have an alternative. I am like a bad critic. Anyway. There is a planet in which no one is requesting art to be made. Someone on this planet wants to make art. They make art. They distribute this art. People enjoy the art, but they do not commission anymore. The artist, because they desire to, continues to create. Do they deserve economic compensation? Does the artist, in this circumstance, deserve to live off their work? I would apologize for bringing the term "deserve" into this, because at a certain point, it is a bullshit word. I'd also apologize for my horrible presentation, nonsensicalness, inexistent direction, and to @jazzabel my still-partial lack of response (to your placement of materialism being on the consumer).
Do they deserve to make a living from it? Not necessarily. Should they have the option of being able to restrict access and charge for it, so they might be able to make a living if enough people decide they want it? Absolutely.
Your points are very valid. Let's take the visual art aspect, since it costs a large amount of money to do at a professional level. If someone decides that they want to create professional-grade visual art but only as hobby, he/she is expected to bear the financial weight, correct? -- because this is their decision to do it only as a hobby. However, if someone wants to make similar art, but wants to make money, he/she is not expected to bear the financial weight? So, the only distinction here is the choice to pursue hobby or career? I guess this moves towards a sort of ethical boundary. It's about to move to free will, too, unfortunately, and I feel the need to apologize again. In what I have outlined broadly, this then boils down to choice. An artist chooses to pursue financial contribution or an artist does not. This is purely an individual indecision based on whatever they see fit? So, this is a decision of willingness to accept the consequence of want? If I want to make professional-grade art, and I know the expenses involved, and I simply want to do this (I am uncommissioned) then do I deserve to be compensated even if I produce something that is deemed worthy. Essentially, what is it about uncommissioned production that suggests that financial compensation is to follow? Again, I am in no way trying to put down the opposition. I am not trying to claim an bullshit characteristic high-ground. I do not hold someone negatively, because he/she wishes to pursue what I am suggesting against. I want to clarify, because I fear my poor presentation and disarray.
@Swiveltaffy : I think you are jumping to conclusions. Nobody here proposed that artists who create something should be automatically paid just because they created. That would be 'something different'. If an artist creates something, and somebody wants to use it (read it, listen to it, hang it on its wall or use as a header for their website) that constitutes a transaction. It's irrelevant what came first, the product or the need. People appreciate and use art because they need it, because it makes them think and see things they wouldn't have seen otherwise, and that makes their lives richer, their existence more meaningful. Without art, with totally utilitarian world of demand followed by supply, I the artist would become a machine, that just sits there on my ass waiting for someone to ask me to take a photo of that flower, that person, that tree. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything they don't want to use or enjoy (except for the advertising industry, but that's another story). I understand why you as a consumer want to get art for free. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, because it'll never happen, as long as you need living, breathing artists (with bills to pay and mouths to feed) to produce it.
Are you suggesting no self published work has had a quality test? Yes, there is all kinds of crap out there. But not all of the crap is self published and vice versa. You don't need to 'trust' the author. People can read a preview of anything on Kindle or equivalent platforms before buying. You do have to find the book in the first place in order to preview it, and that takes marketing. Publishers are very good for marketing, but so is social media, and the publishing industry is undergoing rapid change when it comes to electronic platforms. Getting a book published and in the book stores is no guarantee the book will be well received. Surely you aren't assuming the publishing house gatekeepers guarantee the quality of a book? As for the feedback, I have no idea why you think I've said getting feedback wasn't important. I'm of the opinion all work for public consumption needs objective feedback. You get that, and lots of it, before you publish. My feeling in the matter, which is based in part on my experience with big business in general, is while the publishers can do a great job marketing and distributing a book, it comes with some censorship of books not deemed to have the specific market the book is aimed at. I'm reading Upton Sinclair's "The Brass Check". It's an eye opener about publishers refusing to publish "The Jungle" because of political pressures. It's all about the money. It's not that subversive books are not going to get published. Expressing an anti-capitalist POV in Sinclair's time had its particular obstacles to overcome. Today, it might be that if you write something different, unproven, it's a crap shoot. You have publishers who aren't looking to invest in an unproven writer. They'd rather publish books with demonstrated markets. YA, dragons, zombies, vampires, mystery/thrillers, epic action adventures, good guys vs bad guys, etc., whatever fits the current market the publisher is looking for is going to get past that gatekeeper more easily than something untried, even something well written. Sometimes something unique finds its way into the market. But the idea that publishers are neutral and just out there expertly assessing great writing ignores the reality that is the marketplace they are selling in. Publishers are looking for book that they think will sell. So you get Stephanie Meyer's best sellers that aren't the best written novels and you get Upton Sinclair struggling to get "The Jungle" passed the publisher gatekeepers.
Apologies for the old-fashioned quoting; I'm having trouble getting quoting to work at the moment. > Your points are very valid. Let's take the visual art aspect, since it > costs a large amount of money to do at a professional level. If > someone decides that they want to create professional-grade visual art > but only as hobby, he/she is expected to bear the financial weight, > correct? -- because this is their decision to do it only as a hobby. > However, if someone wants to make similar art, but wants to make > money, he/she is not expected to bear the financial weight? Either artist has to bear the financial weight of creating their art unless and until (1) they are willing to sell the art and (2) someone is willing to buy that art. The artist who wants to make money is presumably putting more effort into getting someone to buy the art. That may involve creating exactly the art that they want to create, and trying to find someone who appreciates it. It may involve him evaluating the body of potential work that he considers worthwhile, and focusing on the choices that are most salable. It may involve changing some or all of the art so that it is more pleasing to a larger market. > So, the > only distinction here is the choice to pursue hobby or career? I guess > this moves towards a sort of ethical boundary. I'm not seeing the ethical boundary. Why is it wrong to be paid for creating art? If you're talking about changing the art to be more pleasing to the paying audience, there are a number of ethical issues to discuss, but the mere fact of being paid doesn't assure that that's what's going on. > Essentially, what is it about uncommissioned > production that suggests that financial compensation is to follow? I don't see the relevance of "uncommissioned." I realize that it may be a critical differentiator for you, but it isn't for me. In an ideal world, an artist makes the art that he wants to make, and other people value it, and they pay him for it, and then he can continue to spend his time making the art that he wants to make, rather than driving a cab. I don't see a significant difference between, "Will you please paint a portrait of my grandmother? I'll pay for it, of course." "Well, I'll have to meet her to see if she's an interesting subject, and then we can talk about it." and "Wow, your grandmother has the most fascinating bone structure. Would you ask her if I can paint her? Yeah, sure, I'll probably be selling the portrait when I'm done; I can give you right of first refusal." Now, I don't actually know if that's how it works. But one of those is a commission situation and the other is not, and despite that both of them are driven by the artist's choices about the work that he's going to do, and both of them involve him getting paid for doing the work that he wants to do. Now, that artist may well accept commissions for portraits of people that don't interest him, in order to make living expenses, so that he can afford to paint portraits of people that do interest him but can't pay. I see no problem with that; you may. But merely getting paid doesn't mean that that is happening. And I don't feel that creating art that isn't precisely what he would create if he were independently wealthy is inherently worse than driving a cab and creating no art at all in that time.
@jazzabel I would clarify that I am not proposing what I am proposing, because I want to get free art. I am proposing this, because I think that a database of free art would be beneficial to society. I agree with the short-sightedness of my quoted hypothetical. I wasn't trying to convey that artists who create think compensation is "automatic." More so, I was trying get at the picture of an artist who thinks that they ever ought be compensated. Part of me agrees with all that you've said. I agree with this pragmatism. Part of me thinks that there could be a better system. I propose none, currently, though. I have succeeded in only demonstrating the irrationality of my mind; I need to reorient and think some.
The ethical problem comes into play when asking the following: Is it ethical for someone to be paid for something self-indulgent? This assumes that the art made is self-indulgent, as in, it is what the artist wants to and disregards other wants. As you and jazzabel have noted, this exchange of wants (consumer's want for a painting and the painter's want to either paint or be paid or both) seems viable and balanced. All I can say now is that I feel that I have forgotten half of myself and feel that I need to step back and think on this. Very good points; and I am unwilling to admit much for the time being.
You might be surprised how powerful framing is. I don't think anyone is saying just call it Indie Publishing and that's all one need do. The point is only to frame things positively. You still have to write a good book and market it effectively. And who knows, it may be that self-published loses its negative connotation one day. And we might want to keep in mind that the majority of readers are not going to notice published vs self published except for where the books are being distributed. I might notice those self published books are cheaper on Kindle than the best sellers. But that negative connotation, I'm not so sure that readers who are non-writers really notice.
