Those who've been around a while know that I'm a huge supporter of indie publishing. And having recently released a pair of novels, I'm doing what I can to become a success. My efforts got me thinking more and more about the difference between doing so in an indie environment versus a traditionally published one.
I know a few writers in both realms, and the differences aren't as stark as one might imagine. From everything I can tell, there is a little more reach in the traditional arena, mostly through catalogues and bookstore sales pitches/agreements. However, the fuse-to-bang ratio is short, meaning that if a new author doesn't catch on quickly, then the traditional publisher will soon move on to the next project.
What's more, my traditionally published friends are expected to do the same things we indie authors do without being prompted - market ourselves, promote our site and our books, look into the various avenues we can appear, etc. The biggest difference is that they often get nudged to do various things that might not have otherwise occurred to them, while we indie folks are expected to just think of it on our own(and it's a little more hit-and-miss).
From what I can gather, the biggest advantage to the traditional world happens after you take off. If your work shows some modicum of success, then a traditional publisher can use its extensive reach to spin things into the stratosphere - larger bookstore appearances, displays in windows, talk show bookings...the whole nine yards. We indie folks have a little more trouble getting larger marketing avenues to take us seriously. Sure, there have been some successes, like Andy Weir and William Paul Young, but usually even the most successful indie writers, like Hugh Howey and Joe Konrath, are not very well known to the public. Yes, they sell well and have devoted followings, but it's not to the levels of the former.
Does this mean that a writer must go traditional to have any level of fame? Or course not - it means that you have to have realistic expectations and an understanding that you will have to work harder. To me, that's not all bad. First of all, I love this writing thing(even the "boring" business part). Second, I feel it's a small price to pay for control over my craft. If I don't want to change something, I don't have to. If I have a vision for my cover, I can run with it. Until a writer becomes a massive success in the traditional world, that level of control is assumed by he publisher rather than the writer. I'm a control freak, and I wouldn't do well in that kind of an environment.
It all comes down to your personal preference, but don't be fooled into thinking that all you will have to do is write if/when you get a traditional writing deal from a publisher. The first steps will always be on you.
I know a few writers in both realms, and the differences aren't as stark as one might imagine. From everything I can tell, there is a little more reach in the traditional arena, mostly through catalogues and bookstore sales pitches/agreements. However, the fuse-to-bang ratio is short, meaning that if a new author doesn't catch on quickly, then the traditional publisher will soon move on to the next project.
What's more, my traditionally published friends are expected to do the same things we indie authors do without being prompted - market ourselves, promote our site and our books, look into the various avenues we can appear, etc. The biggest difference is that they often get nudged to do various things that might not have otherwise occurred to them, while we indie folks are expected to just think of it on our own(and it's a little more hit-and-miss).
From what I can gather, the biggest advantage to the traditional world happens after you take off. If your work shows some modicum of success, then a traditional publisher can use its extensive reach to spin things into the stratosphere - larger bookstore appearances, displays in windows, talk show bookings...the whole nine yards. We indie folks have a little more trouble getting larger marketing avenues to take us seriously. Sure, there have been some successes, like Andy Weir and William Paul Young, but usually even the most successful indie writers, like Hugh Howey and Joe Konrath, are not very well known to the public. Yes, they sell well and have devoted followings, but it's not to the levels of the former.
Does this mean that a writer must go traditional to have any level of fame? Or course not - it means that you have to have realistic expectations and an understanding that you will have to work harder. To me, that's not all bad. First of all, I love this writing thing(even the "boring" business part). Second, I feel it's a small price to pay for control over my craft. If I don't want to change something, I don't have to. If I have a vision for my cover, I can run with it. Until a writer becomes a massive success in the traditional world, that level of control is assumed by he publisher rather than the writer. I'm a control freak, and I wouldn't do well in that kind of an environment.
It all comes down to your personal preference, but don't be fooled into thinking that all you will have to do is write if/when you get a traditional writing deal from a publisher. The first steps will always be on you.
No comments:
Post a Comment