mollyringle: (books & pearls)
[personal profile] mollyringle
EDIT: Here I use "indie/independent publisher" to mean "small press." I am not, at this time, self-published, though the term "indie" seems to mean that too, lately.

I'd like to state again how pleased I am with the independent presses who have published me, Central Avenue Publishing and The Wild Rose Press. I've met more authors over the years, and read more about their experiences, and increasingly I'm coming away with the impression that those published (or formerly published) with the big houses often felt ignored and unloved. The attention from their editors/agents was being devoted far more to those couple-dozen huge-name writers who made all the money for the house, with little time to spare for the lowlier names.

As to advances and royalties: indie presses don't pay advances as often. True. But that's always been fine with me, as an advance is only that: an advance against future royalties. So you earn no royalties until the book has "earned out" its advance, and, according to the experts, the majority of books take years to do that--if they ever do. And your advance isn't likely to be a cool million bucks. Heck, no. Try a couple thousand dollars. To last you a few years? I'd rather just take the modest quarterly royalties I rightfully earned. In addition, royalty rates with big houses are usually smaller than ours in the small-press world.

So between the personal attention, the input we're allowed on cover art (again, almost unheard of in the big publishing world), the no-worse-than-average royalties, and the way e-readers have taken off lately, I'm getting happier by the year to be involved in indie publishing.

Also, in the indie-press world, we're far less likely to have movies made of our books. That's actually a blessing in disguise. Let's be honest: 9 times out of 10, doesn't the movie adaptation suck? And the writer usually gets no say in it. I mean, even with Twilight, which had the most gigantic following in the world and should have been able to afford doing everything perfectly, they couldn't get the makeup right and ended up making Robert Pattinson look like a powdered donut with lipstick.

Date: 2012-08-05 10:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mariole.livejournal.com
It's very good to hear such a nice report -- I will look them up. I've been thinking of going into indie publishing myself. The time appears to be ripe, as the traditional houses are so cheap on advances, it's really better to look at them as advertising (per Dean Wesley Smith and Kristine Kathryn Rusch) than as a viable income source. Their recommendation is to blend the two, use trad publishing for exposure, award noms, and advertising, and indie pubbing to make some money on the way-better margins.

I'm curious, and will know more when I follow these links, how these pubs differ from self-pub (which I'm also looking into, me as the publisher), and why you chose to go that way. What makes an "indie" publisher different from small press? I had one experience with small press, and it was terrible.

I can't agree that the reduced likelihood of having movies made of our books is actually a blessing in disguise. I look at it as "money for nothing" and would be delighted to get some. On the plus side, you'll probably get a lot more foreign sales, which are probably more likely. Hmm...

Profile

mollyringle: (Default)
mollyringle

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314 151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 19th, 2026 10:06 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios