Old Guidelines, retired 8 July 2012

[Old Hack]

This part of AW has become steadily busier over recent months and with that increase in traffic I've noticed an increase in misunderstandings on several levels, which has led to some rather negative behaviour.

I want AW to be a positive, happy and educational place for all of us: and so with that in mind, and with some consultation with the other mods, I've put together a few guidelines for us all to follow when posting here.

1. This part of AW is for discussing self publishing, but is not limited to self publishers only. Everyone is welcome to participate regardless of how they're published, so long as we all remember AW's central rule: Respect Your Fellow Writer.
2. Please check your facts before posting here. That means, don't believe everything you read on the internet; don't try to disguise your opinions as fact; and don't make claims which you cannot verify. For example: if one more person states here that John Grisham self published, my head will explode. There's a useful thread here about successful writers who are said to have self published.
3. It's not "traditional" or "legacy" publishing: it's "trade" publishing, or sometimes "mainstream" or "commercial" publishing. If you're not sure which, then "trade publishing" is usually the one to use. Unless of course you mean academic publishing, which is another thing entirely.
4. Similarly, if you self-publish your own work you are a self-publisher, not an "indie" publisher or writer. An independent publisher is a completely different thing.
5. E-publishing is not the same as self publishing and anyone who suggests otherwise will be Hello Kittied without mercy. At the very least.
6. People who point out the difficulties involved with self publishing aren't necessarily being rude about self publishing, and might just have a valid point to make: but everyone is encouraged to debate this with them, so long as everyone follows our One Rule.
7. If you're going to post statistics, make sure they prove what you think they do,and that they're reliable, used in context, and verifiable. Otherwise you will make yourself look like a banana.
8. Despite the growth of self-publishing, trade publishing is still doing rather well. Let's not insist otherwise because doing so doesn't help anyone, regardless of how they're published.
9. Finally, if you think that anyone has overstepped the line, please use the "report post" button. If we mods don't know you're upset, we can't do anything to help.

Update, August 2011: I've added a new point to this list: you'll find it at number 8.

[mscelina]

Thank you. I'm going to have to send you a bouquet of chocolate flowers for this sticky, God knows.

[rsullivan9597]

How do you want to refer to an author who is published through an organization run by a relative or part of a "group" of like-minded authors that have banded together to form an indie press? "self" because there is no vetting? or "indie" as they have a marketing machine behind them and cross sales from other authors of the publisher.

[Soccer Mom]

If you're asking about Ridan, I would consider that an indie or small press focusing on a niche (spec fiction). You publish more than just your husband's works and have submission procedures, editing, etc... You don't charge anything to your authors nor require them to purchase their own books. Just my .02

[rsullivan9597]

Originally Posted by Soccer Mom

If you're asking about Ridan, I would consider that an indie or small press focusing on a niche (spec fiction). You publish more than just your husband's works and have submission procedures, editing, etc... You don't charge anything to your authors nor require them to purchase their own books. Just my .02

I don't think there is any question that Ridan is classified as a indie press. But what is Michael? Is he self-published or indie-publised? When I say he is self-published people cry fowl because he has the power of a "publisher" behind him. Whn I refer to him as "indie" people cry fowl because he was not independently vetted.

Nathan Lowell is easy. He is indie published. He was vetted, he is editted, and money always flows in one dirction - to him.

I do know of several authors who have made a publishing company by joining together. I have no idea how to refer to them - and hence the question.

[Old Hack]

Robin, I've added a few links to some of Mac's comments about indie vs self-publishing, which should answer your questions.

[rsullivan9597]

Originally Posted by Old Hack

Robin, I've added a few links to some of Mac's comments about indie vs self-publishing, which should answer your questions.

Yes it does - thanks for the clarification.

[Old Hack]

You're welcome, Robin. I've noticed so many conversations going round in ever-decreasing circles because people don't know, or won't use, established terms, and it's so draining. I hope that this will come across as establishing useful ground-rules rather than being pedantic, and that it'll encourage more wide-ranging conversations in future. We'll see.

[Irysangel]

This post is terrific - thank you!

[kaitie]

You are awesome!

[efkelley]

Originally I wondered if 'Indie Writer' might not apply for the self-published crowd. But then I recalled Victoria Strauss's article and it made sense. Unless we're on the payroll for a particular company, we're all Indie Writers, regardless of publishing path.

[ResearchGuy]

Originally Posted by Old Hack

. . .
People who point out the difficulties involved with self publishing aren't necessarily being rude about self publishing, . . . .

Some of us who are supporters of self-publishing done right and for the right reasons point out the difficulties inherent in self-publishing. I am and I do.

--Ken

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by ResearchGuy

Some of us who are supporters of self-publishing done right and for the right reasons point out the difficulties inherent in self-publishing. I am and I do.

--Ken

Using disembodied quotes is a bit dishonest don't you think? Why lift it from its full and true context?

[Old Hack]

I have no problem with Ken's post, Gothic. I don't think he was being dishonest at all. Let's move along.

[Queen of Swords]

Thanks for putting this together! I wondered what being Hello Kittied was like, but I suspect it is one of those things Man Was Not Meant To Know.

[ResearchGuy]

Originally Posted by gothicangel

Using disembodied quotes is a bit dishonest don't you think? Why lift it from its full and true context?

Uhh . . . I reel back in stunned disbelief. It is normal practice to clip only the pertinent portion for a response. Why repeat an entire LONG post when I am commenting on one small part of it? Would that more would have the courtesy to NOT repeat entire posts in their responses.

--Ken

[Alessandra Kelley]

Thanks for the information, Old Hack. I think this is a rough subject right now because the state of publishing is in such flux. There's a lot of uncertainty and a lot of worry, and we need civilized ways to discuss it, regardless of our positions.

[Old Hack]

Kaitie has just made a comment elsewhere which I think sums up very nicely what this section of AW should be like. You can read it in its entirety here.

I want to see a place where everyone acknowledges the inherent truths of self-publishing: It's hard. Many people won't succeed. To be successful will require a lot of effort and certain necessities (a good cover, great editing, and good marketing).

I'd like to see a forum where those in favor didn't get automatically defensive once someone stated one of those truths, didn't repeat lies, and didn't claim everyone who says anything even remotely negative about self-publishing is then treated like we're being elitist or like we don't belong and our information is unwelcome.

Absolute Write is built on information. You know what--commercial publishing isn't easy, either. That's why there are entire sections about things like trying to write a good query letter, or a synopsis, or how to improve writing, or who to submit to, or how to submit, or how to deal with rejection, etc. etc.

No one is running around anywhere on these forums and saying "You should commercially publish because you'll be guaranteed success and it's easy and then everyone will do all the work for you" or anything like that. What happens everywhere else is that there are accepted truths for commercial publishing: It's hard. You have to write a query letter whether you like it or not (and it has to rock). You need a good, edited manuscript. Even then you probably won't succeed on your first book so you have to keep trying and learning and improving and eventually if you're patient and deal with the rejection well you'll make it. And a lot of us have found success by following that.

So yeah, I'd like to see these stupid arguments that are built solely around defensiveness and worry and the fear that the other side is looking down on you (both sides have this problem) and an acceptance of these inherent truths.

Then maybe we could move on and instead of arguing about things that aren't really important and having so much sniping going on, we could be doing what we should be doing. Telling people it's hard, that success is difficult, and here's what you need to do to succeed, and here is how you do it.

Without the lies, without the exaggerations, without the guarantees, and certainly without the name calling and the petty arguments.

Exactly.

[Craig Mattice]

I have seen this too many times and here it is happening to me once again on AW.

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

Just tonight while having a serious discussion with another member, obtaining their insights and recommendations, they suggested I look into self-publishing as well as commercial publishing. They felt under my circumstances it may be a good route to research, consider, then make and informed decision.

I started my research and found this great, new and refreshing thread regarding 'self-publishing.' Not only timely and well presented but containing the information I didn't know I didn't know.

This is an outstanding thread and original post.

Thank you.

[ResearchGuy]

Originally Posted by Craig Mattice

. . . found this great, new and refreshing thread regarding 'self-publishing.' . . . .

AW also has many more threads dealing with self-publishing -- different views, different angles, different specific aspects. Sometimes different kvetches.

Enjoy.

--Ken

[readlorey]

I'm going to have to re read this whole thing because I couldn't get past the "Hello Kittied without mercy".

Awesome! I may have to use that sometime.

[bearilou]

Originally Posted by Old Hack

Otherwise you will make yourself look like a banana.

[necia phoenix]

Thanks for this sticky. Cleared up confusion.

[Old Hack]

I've just added a new item to this list, just in case anyone's interested: it's a link to a thread begun by HapiSofi which will, I hope, balance some of the claims that are often made that trade publishing is on its knees.

If anyone knows of an article which provides similar verified and quantifiable stats about self publishing I'd be glad to add it to the list. Thanks.

[Big Wolf]

Well, not lots. But what does it mean to be "hello kittied?"