# Indie publishing is not self publishing



## shadowwalker (Mar 22, 2013)

Leyline said:


> I never said that you could do it with any novel. But a properly constructed chapter does indeed have a beginning, a middle and an end.  You _can_ do it with the novels-that-are-made-out-of-short-stories I mentioned.



But again, a chapter doesn't start and finish the story itself. Only if you compile a set of short stories could the 'parts' of the book do that.



Leyline said:


> Continuing interest in the character? Knowledge that a short story only covers a brief portion of the life of that character and the next will introduce new themes and new experiences?



Yes - so they want to read the next story.



Leyline said:


> No, I think you're saying that _you_ don't. Other people have other wants. The Mosley book was written as 14 short stories, bought, packaged and sold as a novel, was commercially successful and critically acclaimed, and was turned into a well respected film. The Sturgeon book was written as three separate stories. It was bought, packaged and sold as a novel, was commercially successful and is acclaimed as one of the finest SF novels ever written to this day.



I'm not saying a set of related short stories can't be successful. I maintain that however they were "sold as" they were still a collection of shorts. After all, a lot of people who supposedly know the industry are now calling self-publishers "indie publishers" - which just proves not everyone uses the proper terminology.

Anyway, I think this is starting to get repetitive. I've stated my opinion, take it for what you will.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Gotta take those for opinions. They're certainly not facts. Self-published, indie-published, what's the difference? I'm an indie publisher and an indie musician. Who determines what the "proper terminology" is? Just like the language, that's determined by usage.
As examples-I maintain that "hair glam" isn't metal. But the world ignores me and continues to use "improper terminology". Therefore my stand is quixotic. However, I realize this, recognize the reality, reject it, and substitute my own. I maintain that "sci-fi" is a pejorative, and that the proper term is either "speculative fiction" or "science fiction", depending on the actual scientific content. The world at-large ignores that too. The heck with them. Fifty thousand Elvis fans CAN be wrong.


> [h=3]nov·el[/h]/ˈnävəl/
> Noun
> 
> A fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.



That's it. That's the whole enchilada. Simple, yes? Let's see that line again-"A fictitious prose narrative of book length..."

Yep, that's it.

Judge, the gavel please.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 23, 2013)

moderan said:


> Gotta take those for opinions. They're certainly not facts. Self-published, indie-published, what's the difference? I'm an indie publisher and an indie musician. Who determines what the "proper terminology" is? Just like the language, that's determined by usage.



Within the publishing industry, indie publishers are those publishing companies which are not part of the Big 5. They are companies which publish _other _writers, not just their own work. So it's terminology that has been used in the industry for many, many, many years. I'm sorry if self-publishers want to usurp the term (why, I don't know) but it doesn't change the _fact _that it is an established term already. "Indie" may mean an individual producing their own stuff in music, but not in publishing. 

As to the rest of your comment, I already stated I'm not commenting further on that part of the discussion.


----------



## moderan (Mar 23, 2013)

Hooey.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 23, 2013)

Well, if that's your response to facts, so be it. Nothing more to be said.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 23, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Well, if that's your response to facts, so be it. Nothing more to be said.



Dogma is not factual.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 23, 2013)

Leyline said:


> Dogma is not factual.



Dogma? I suppose you tell the medical profession that their specialized terminology is just 'made up' and doesn't really mean what they think it does. 

Believe what you want. Won't change the facts, but there's a lot of self-delusion around.


----------



## moderan (Mar 23, 2013)

So the term "self-published" is the publishing industry equivalent of "sub-dural hematoma"? Whatever you smoke, pass it around.
Before you start tossing around terms like "delusional", let's see your credentials to speak for an entire industry.


NathanBrazil said:


> Yep.  Sorry for not being clearer.  In the  first book of the trilogy, Simmons uses a mechanism where each of the  major characters delves into their past.  These are presented in a short  story format.  I don't really know the history of how the book was put  together and I was curious if this book felt more like a themed  collection to you.


It doesn't...but I can see how it might. Simmons had published parts of Hyperion previous to their book-length incarnation. And you were clear enough. I was just being pedantic. My bad.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 23, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Dogma? I suppose you tell the medical profession that their specialized terminology is just 'made up' and doesn't really mean what they think it does.
> 
> Believe what you want. Won't change the facts, but there's a lot of self-delusion around.



LOL. Yes, because exacting medical terminology that may mean life or death is EXACTLY like publishing terminology. Complete strawman argument.

Besides, it's funny: the publishers who bought and sold the examples I gave called the books novels. You actually said they were using the terminology wrong. I wasn't calling the publishers dogmatic. 

YOU are dogmatic.


----------



## moderan (Mar 23, 2013)

GLOSSARY OF PUBLISHING TERMINOLOGY - English-this one is early-internet vintage
BookSurge Provides a Glossary of Book Publishing Industry Terms

I do note that the second link does say "self-published" and not "indie-published"...however, I betcha that I could email my former agent or one of my betas (who works in the industry) and they'd know what I was writing about. I'm sure Mr. Roget would agree.
Interestingly, neither one of them defines "novel".


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 24, 2013)

moderan said:


> I don't recognize that as factual. Therefore, to me, it's hooey. It's just so much calumny. "Indie" means produced independently in any genre, in any form. I don't see any attribution to "publishing industry" representatives using such terms exclusively, and never have. And it wouldn't matter one whit if I called my work self-published or indie-published or whatever. It's the same stuff.



Not quite.  Self-published is a type of indie.  Indie can also refer to a small independent firm or non-mainstream publishing.



shadowwalker said:


> Within the publishing industry, indie publishers are those publishing companies which are not part of the Big 5. They are companies which publish _other _writers, not just their own work.



This isn't correct either.  There are more than 5 mainstream publishers for a start, publishing material from a range of authors, and who have contracts which can't be defined as independent.

But of course none of this is related to the thread's topic.


On topic.  For a series of short stories to work as a novel, there should be an unresolved issue which is present; otherwise they're just a series of short stories gathered together in one volume.


----------



## moderan (Mar 24, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Not quite.  Self-published is a type of indie.  Indie can also refer to a small independent firm or non-mainstream publishing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The last I'll agree with.
[ot]The off-topic stuff...well, nobody has yet shown that their version of "facts" are actually facts. The closest was the lists I culled from publishing websites and they didn't refer directly to the terms bandied about except to say "self-publishing" and to give a rather narrow definition.
So outside of sheer semantic hairsplitting and personal preference, we have no conclusion. I'm just gonna drop all of it unless someone has something real to chew on there.[/ot]

As far as the OP...I think we've established by simple consensus, with objections, that it is possible for a novel made up of short stories to be a complete and satisfying narrative. There are far too many examples of them in far too many genres for this to be really challengeable.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 24, 2013)

Okay. The Big 6 are now the Big 5. The Big 5 have imprints - those are not truly 'independent' or 'indie publishers'. 

And since my word has been doubted, here are several articles that talk about indie publishers in the way the publishing industry has used the term. And might I suggest that in the future, if people doubt someone's words and yet haven't done much research on their own, they resist the urge to claim someone else is spouting 'hooey' or 'dogma'.

Who Should Have the 'Indie' Label: Self-Publishers or Small Presses? | Nathan Bransford, Author

Small press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Small and indie publishers unite! : The Future of Long Form: exploring the space between writers and readers in the new media galaxy.

QUALITY OVER QUANTITY; MELBOURNE’S INDIE PUBLISHERS | Couturing.com

Independence Day 2011: Independent Publishers We Love For Their Spirit (PHOTOS)

Do Amazon and Createspace rip off Indie publishers with failure to correctly report sales? | The Passive Voice | Writers, Writing, Self-Publishing, Disruptive Innovation and the Universe

Ask Orndee...: Financial Realities of Publishing - Small/Indie Publishers

Now you have some sources from people who 'know what they're talking about'. Or maybe you'll decide they don't either. Makes no difference to me.


----------



## moderan (Mar 24, 2013)

If it made no difference to you, you wouldn't have gone to those lengths. Thanks for the articles. Had you provided any basis for your claims, the oputcry would have been less.
However, let's review.
The first article basically says nothing other than noting that some folks are confused about which label to wear
From the second:"The terms "small press", "indie publisher", and "independent press" are often used interchangeably"
The third is a puff piece-basically ad copy for small publishers in Australia.
The Huffpost show has independent and small lumped together again.
The next doesn't really speak of the semantic issue at all.
The last is the one that I expect that you base your claims on. It doesn't really refute anything. It says that small and indie publishers "may not" be one and the same thing, and spouts the "Big Six" line about 29th street publishers and their tendency to maintain their superiority in the marketplace by buying smaller publishing houses.
None of these articles make your case that small and independent (indie) publishers are held as separate entities, or that those names are set in stone, or that those of us who question your veracity are delusionary.
In fact, perusing them simply strengthens my contention that self and indie publishing are interchangeable terms, and Leyline's claim that you're being unnecessarily dogmatic on this nonissue.
I still maintain that you don't speak for the entire publishing industry. The people whose articles you provided may "know what they're talking about", but they aren't supporting YOUR claims. 
You can rant and rave and make any claims you want and look down your nose at people who disagree with you all you want, but either the things that you claim are "facts" aren't, or you're poor at making your arguments stick, or both.
I suggest in the future that you stick to real facts or resist the inclination to engage in dialogue with people who have critical skills and the ability to think for themselves.


----------



## Sam (Mar 24, 2013)

I've always referred to it as 'self-publishing', but that doesn't mean that 'indie' and 'self' aren't interchangeable. It's like that elitist argument that 'which' and 'that' aren't interchangeable, when all evidence concludes that they in fact _are. _It's all in the name. Independent publishing. Independent of whom? It could refer to a group of publishers independent of the Big 5, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of it also referring to authors who self-publish. What's the argument here, really? Surely, as authors, we can agree that a term can be used to mean a variety of things. As I said above, I've always used 'self', but that doesn't mean Mod is incorrect when he uses 'indie' -- no more than it makes me incorrect when I use 'self'.


----------



## moderan (Mar 24, 2013)

The argument is that there is an argument. It's semantic hairsplitting of the most mindsplitting sort and it fair makes me emit earsplitting screeches when I dive into it. But insomnia dictates that I persist, and those loud yowls dictate that others must needs awaken too.
I'm done here, I think. I get in such trouble in "writing discussions" cuz I insist on having opinions. _Those kids_, of all ages, y'know, Sam?


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 24, 2013)

Indie originates from Independent Record Label.

Wiki : "The boundaries between major and independent labels, and the definitions of each, differ from commentator to commentator. In practice, however, the traditional definition of a 'major' record label is one that owns its own distribution channel.
Independent record label - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And its literature page
Wiki : "The National Literary Awards defines *independent* or *"indie" literature* as "books published outside of mainstream publishing.'
Indie literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JosephB (Mar 24, 2013)

Me big like too.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 26, 2013)

moderan said:


> I'd like to see some documentation that refers to either in those terms and by those definitions.



I'm sorry, I missed this reply, somehow. Believing that I should always respond to questions, fairly asked, I'll reply now, even though I've already rambled on in earlier posts... (And, I won't use too many commas, promise.)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_press

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-publishing_press



> ..I don't think there is a clear distinction.



There's a pretty clear distinction.

(Sorry for the delay. The relays in my brain did not click over when reading your above post, thus my _auto-reply-to-everything-as-best-I-can mode _was not engaged.  )


----------



## moderan (Mar 26, 2013)

from the links:





> 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. Defined this way, these presses make up approximately half of the market share of the book publishing industry.[SUP][2][/SUP] Many small presses rely on specialization in genre fiction, poetry, or limited-edition books or magazines, but there are also thousands that focus on niche non-fiction markets





> *Self-publishing* is the publication of any book or other media by  the author of the work, without the involvement of an established  third-party publisher. The author is responsible and in control of  entire process including design (cover/interior), formats, price,  distribution, marketing & PR. The authors can do it all themselves  or outsource all or part of the process to companies that offer these  services


I don't see the distinction. But feel free to be right if you want.
I'm sorry I spent all the time discussing that "distinction". It is truly unimportant to me. But I've done worse. From time to time I've discussed religion.
Thank you though for taking the time to provide a basis for your point of view. And likewise to everyone else who has.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 26, 2013)

moderan said:


> I don't see the distinction. But feel free to be right if you want.



That's a little bit harsh, isn't it?

I would think that this isn't an argument to be won, but a discussion amongst peers. Or, if not peers, at least amongst those who have a similar interest and feel strongly enough about that interest to pursue interactions with others of similar mind. We disagree on the definition of a word, that's all. I can not win. It is impossible for me to win - There's no contest, here. I can reply with what I believe is the correct definition and state my reasons for believing so. Likewise, so can you. If one of us has a more convincing argument in support of an opinion, it is not that one of us decides to "win", but that the other must decide to reason for themselves whether or not they should change their own opinion in the face of a stronger argument.

I've been wrong plenty of times in my life. But, whenever I am faced with information that demonstrates I hold and invalid opinion, I change my opinion. As I continue this habit, I find that I end up being less wrong, more often. It's a rewarding experience. If you present information that substantiates your position as being the more valid one, I will change my opinion. "Win" has nothing to do with it.


----------

