Re: Indy Press


"Lisa Geoffrion" <Lisa_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fafnol01hc1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hey folks, this is my first time posting, though I've been lurking for a
bit.

I'm very interested in the idea of indy press and how it might compare to
indy
film and indy music.

I have no idea about comparisons, since I'm unfamiliar with indy film and
music. However, there is a thriving small press world out there, and I
think that's really what you mean when you talk about "indy press."

As far as I can see, the main advantage of large house
publishing is distribution. Large house publishing also provides "free"
editing, proofing and marketing, and pays the author an up front advance.

None of which are trivial factors. Nor do I understand the purpose of the
scare quotes around "free" -- from the author's viewpoint, that's exactly
what happens. You get edited; you get copy-edited; you get marketed (OK,
not much of that last, until you have something of a track record, but more
than most first-timers think. It's just mostly invisible, because the
publisher is marketing the book to *distributors and bookstores*, not to
readers. Initially, anyway.)

Furthermore, most small presses I'm familiar with edit, proofread, and
market their titles, and many pay an advance against royalties. It's just
that the advance is invariably smaller, and the editing and proofreading and
marketing have much more variability from press to press, than with the
large houses.

Beyond that, books that are published by the large houses are perceived as
higher quality writing than independent press.

By whom? In my experience, it depends entirely on the particular small
press. In many market categories, small press offerings are considered of
equal or higher quality, compared to the large houses. The main difference
isn't quality; it is that small presses can fill market niches on which the
large houses can't make money, or which it simply isn't worth a large
house's time and overhead to produce. There are some extremely
high-quality, high-reputation regional presses that only handle titles that
are of limited regional interest; that's one example. Another is a small
press that puts out a 500-copy hardcover printing of a novel that will be
issued from a large house in mass-market paperback -- for most large houses,
the small profit to be made from 500 hardcovers is just not worth the time
and effort, even if there is indeed marginal profit to be made. There have
been several SF specialty presses that focused on doing archival or
library-quality hardcovers for collectors (acid-free paper, sewn signatures,
etc.). And so on.

I don't have any evidence to
back this up, even anecdotal, and I wonder why independent press is seen
as less
valid

Again-- by whom? I've never heard this kind of thing from anyone in the
business. In the SF/F market, there are a number of prestigious semi-pro
zines and small presses (some of which have grown into larger presses over
time). Same for literary fiction and mysteries; I'm not as familiar with
the other genres, but I'd be surprised if the situation isn't similar.

I'm also curious about your definitions. For instance, I wouldn't call DAW
Books or Baen Books "indy presses," and they're certainly not small presses,
but they're privately owned, not-part-of-a-large-conglomerate houses. Are
they "indy presses" by your definition, or not?

or less desirable than something purchased from Haper-Collins.

As far as "less desireable" goes, I should think the answer is obvious, from
a writer's standpoint: more sales and more money are better than fewer
sales and less money. Other things being equal, a large house will pay the
writer a larger advance and provide significantly more in terms of
publicity, print runs, distribution, and marketing than a small press. That
being so, why would I take any of my books to a small press unless I
couldn't sell them to a large one?

Again, in the SF market I'm familiar with several cases in which a book that
was sold to a large house -- Ace/Berkley, Baen, etc. -- was back-marketed to
a small press for first-edition hardcover release, because the large house
didn't want to do a 500 to 1,000-copy print run but the small press would.
This kind of arrangement is advantageous to everybody involved.

I read an essay from an author who wrote that he'd tried both independent
press
and a large house publisher. He said that he sold more books with the
large
publisher, even though most people (including him) thought that the book
that
went through the small press was better. His conclusion was that he
wasn't
interested in writing if it wasn't going to sell, so he'd stick with the
large
house publisher.

"Better" is a subjective judgement; it does not mean "more likely to sell
copies." It is entirely possible that the small-press title would not have
done much, or any, better at the large house. That's the trouble with these
sorts of comparisons -- you can't run a double-blind test on them, or repeat
the trial with different parameters. Because every book is different from
every other book -- and a literary gem, brilliantly written, may just not be
as accessible as a less polished title with more mainstream appeal.

Harcourt has published eight books for me now, Tor four, and Ace/Berkley six
or seven, I forget. Several titles have been reissued by other publishers.
Some books have done well; others haven't. In only one instance do I think
I have any legitimate reason to think that having had a different publisher
could have or would have changed the sales results. (Different covers,
now...*that* makes a difference. Demonstrably.)

It is easy and tempting for any author to blame poor sales results on the
publisher, rather than the work. It's especially easy when one title comes
out from a small press and another from a large house, because there *are*
distribution and publicity differences. Large ones, sometimes, depending on
the small press. And you pretty much have to belief in your own work, or
you go nuts. But realistically, some books are sellers and some books
aren't, and they can come from the hand of the same writer...and perceived
quality can have little or nothing to do with it.

I've never liked "the way things are done." I don't expect that I'll ever
sell
a lot of books.

What does any of that have to do with "the way things are done"? The
submission process is exactly the same, whether you're talking small presses
or major houses. The publication process, from the writer's standpoint, is
pretty much the same (unless you're talking self-publishing, which is a
whole different kettle of fish). Editing is a variable that doesn't have as
much relationship to the size of the house as you might think; I've had both
excellent and lousy editing from large houses, and I know both excellent and
lousy editors who work for small presses. (And there's the small matter of
personalities -- one writer's perfect, ideal editor is another's nightmare,
and vice versa...and again, this has nothing to do with the size of the
press.)

There are good reasons why a writer who has decided to pursue commercial
publication might choose to start by submitting to a small press, but "I
don't expect to sell a lot of books" doesn't strike me as one of them.
Placing a higher value on prestige than sales/advances, or a desire for
involvement in/control over the production process, or even a close
friendship with a small-press editor -- those are choices and trade-offs.
But I've seen too many beginning authors who are *way* too hard on their own
work to be particularly comfortable with the "I don't expect to sell"
rationale. Sometimes, yes, it's a knowledgeable and considered judgement
that no, this book they've written really is more of a niche market property
than a commercial/general one...but all too often, it's been a bad guess
based on rumor, inadequate or downright erronious information about "how the
market works," and/or a serious lack of self-confidence.

Patricia C. Wrede


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A precious gift from an old friend (long)
    ... House renovations had to be put on hold, ... have to go to children in emergency situations that all the cat fur stuck ... I am of course religiously opposed to throwing out books, ... The last was the dear old delapidated wardrobe with one of the drawers ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: Eric Noahs heard something about D&D Fourth Edition
    ... Keep the flavor stuff to dedicated non-crunchy books. ... you aren't the target market. ... I think Hasbro has recognized that there is some value in the WoTC ... PrC min/maxing. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Will Lisette sink the level script?
    ... Other strict famous troubles will market any far from books. ... He can belong governing dialogues, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: What is work? (was Re: Writing courses)
    ... We went through a similar slash and burn episode at the beginning of the year because besides all the stuff in the house we have a stable block out back which is 30x40 feet. ... I still have some of my favourite books from when I was a child but lately I find my heart is hardening. ... I used to be good at throwing out books when I was a librarian, but I've never been able to apply the discard principle to my own collection before. ... I solved the CD problem, though, by buying a four drawer chest from Ikea ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Sgt. Pepper Honored On American Idol!
    ... >> RichL wrote: ... And people watch house fires and car wrecks. ... >> even watching something you like and feel is not demeaning your ... > read 3/4 books a month back then. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)