What is an "Indy" author?

[BrianY]

For many years, I described myself as an "Indy" (okay, sometimes "Indie") author. I was told that this was the description for people who published with independent presses like Countryman, Reaktion, or Hippocrene. Companies like these seemed to be the right place for my work and I was fine. Lately, I've discovered that "Indy" is now used to mean self-published authors and that I am in search of a new descriptor.

Worse; I was at a conference recently where panels of self-published authors called themselves "indy," and a panel of small publishers used the same word. Actually, I introduced the panel of indy publishers and left everybody scratching their heads.

I've never self-published and have never been published by the big 5; all nine of my books came from smaller commercial publishers that I called "independent" up until this month.

What's the current terminology?

 

[RK Wallis]

I would have thought going with smaller publishers would make you traditionally published, because (and this is just my understanding) at a smaller commercial publisher you still get the support of an editor and the publishing house, and you don't pay for that privilege. To self-publish means to pay for your own editing and marketing. So, to me, an indie is someone who published but paid their own way. Someone else may well see it differently though.

 

[BrianY]

RK, that's interesting and in my experience, you're correct; indy publishers generally have given me excellent support. My issue though is the use of the term. If self-published authors are now called "indy," what do we call the people like me who used to be indy and what do we call the publishers that have always been called "indy" and don't understand why this description is being taken away from them. "Traditionally published" fails to describe the huge differences between major, independent, and university presses and makes it far more difficult to explain where you stand with your career.

When we discuss our craft, we need precise definitions.

 

[Dorm Ant]

Small press.

 

[BrianY]

RG, that's exactly what I thought. Those small presses are still calling themselves "indy publishers" too.

 

[RK Wallis]

RK, that's interesting and in my experience, you're correct; indy publishers generally have given me excellent support. My issue though is the use of the term. If self-published authors are now called "indy," what do we call the people like me who used to be indy and what do we call the publishers that have always been called "indy" and don't understand why this description is being taken away from them. "Traditionally published" fails to describe the huge differences between major, independent, and university presses and makes it far more difficult to explain where you stand with your career.

When we discuss our craft, we need precise definitions.

I see your point, maybe a combo of what I'm thinking with what @RG Worsey suggests, so "traditionally published with a small press"?

 

[Barbara]

How about simply using 'author'. Does the publishing path (whether we're trad published or Indy or both) really matter? And why? What are the benefits of micro labelling? And who does it matter to? If it matters to you, fine. But anyone else, who asks for a definition like this, is in my view not worth submitting to or dealing with.

Readers generally don't care about HOW we are published - indy or trad. They either find, buy, read and like our book, or they don't. And those in the industry understand that the publication paths is different for everyone and that it can be varied.

You could invent a new term and describe it as a 'creatively published author", or a 'multi published author'.

Personally, I don't create boxes with lables for myself to fit into. I feel it's too limiting of who I can be.

Interestingly, traditionally published authors rarely make a point about saying how they're published. They just call themselves author.

 

[Hannah F]

There are still prospective buyers who will choose traditionally published over self-published, expecting (not necessarily correctly) that they'll be guaranteed a better quality product. (Yes, that unfair stigma is still there, mainly because there are dreadful self-published books out there as well as brilliant ones). But I don't think people are particularly swayed by whether the book is traditionally published by a small press or one of the Big houses, though some do buy other books from the same imprint if they really liked a book the got from them.
I think self-published authors are using the label "indie" to get away from the stigma, so previous "indie publishers" (meaning not one of the big 5) are now moving to using "small press". The difference can be important in some situations e.g, the Scottish Book Trust have a bank of authors who can be booked for workshops, school visits etc. They except you if you are traditionally published by a big house or a small press but not if you are self-published.

If the publishing house do the paying, irrespective of whether they are big or small, you are traditionally published. If you want to be more specific, I would do what @RK Capps said above: traditionally published with small presses. Or be even more specific and say traditionally published by [names of small presses].

 

[Barbara]

There are still prospective buyers who will choose traditionally published over self-published, expecting (not necessarily correctly) that they'll be guaranteed a better quality product. (Yes, that unfair stigma is still there, mainly because there are dreadful self-published books out there as well as brilliant ones). But I don't think people are particularly swayed by whether the book is traditionally published by a small press or one of the Big houses, though some do buy other books from the same imprint if they really liked a book the got from them.

Very true. Those readers still exit. Another reason, not to label ourselves. And because this prejudice still exists, the book may be passed over if it's flagged as 'indy'. Shame, but I suspect the prejudice will remain in regards to self-publishing because there's no quality control as such.

The thing with labelling is, we potentially narrow the readership. (Can be a good thing if it's used to target a specific market.)

I suspect the general mass market punters (I hate that expression) don't bother about checking the publisher. They tend to buy by word of mouth, or follow the author, and such, or they go to Zon, see the cover, are drawn to read the blurb, read the first page, and either like it of not. I don't think the publishing path comes into it for the most buyers. But I really dunno and could be totally wrong.

 

[E G Logan]

If you need, or want, a label, a kind of shorthand reference to introduce yourself, how about:
'traditional small-press published author/or writer' ?

It's a bit of a mouthful, but it's clear. And your publishers won't mind.

[My guess is the self-publishers are taking over 'indie' because there is still some perceived stigma in the 'self' bit.]

 

[BrianY]

Wow! Lots of interesting comments, thank you everybody.

As for the need for labels in the first place - much of our public lives as writers happens at conferences, workshops, and meetings. While we're there; we'll often have just a few seconds to introduce ourselves and describe our work. Specialist agents, publishers, and retailers will want to know quickly where our work intersects with theirs. That's where these categories come in. The labels we choose can tell people what we've done, what we're doing, and how we do it in a time frame that's manageable.

In the marketplace, we have to label ourselves, our readers don't have the time or inclination to mull over every possibility.

 

[E G Logan]

In the marketplace, we have to label ourselves, our readers don't have the time or inclination to mull over every possibility.

Wasn't criticising! I take your point entirely.

 

[Rich.]

There's an interesting definition of 'independent author' on the Alliance of Independent Authors* website: HERE.

*I'm not affiliated with them in any way (though recently I have been looking at them with interest) and can't vouch for the quality of information or services they offer.

 

[BrianY]

Rich, this is really interesting. If this is the current, accepted definition - and it's really looking like it - those of us who once saw "independent author" as writers who were affiliated with "independent publishers" are going to have to find a new name for ourselves. I'm working on it!