I found this piece from Mike most illuminating. We all know I write, yes? But while I once attempted to merge this blog with my publishing aspirations, I rather swiftly backed down. I have a massive block against mingling my personal creative forum with a profit-oriented commercial goal. However, it’s become manifest that I need to create a forum in which I can comfortably achieve both goals. I’m a writer, yes. But I do need to shift perspective if I wish to publish and market the produce of my brain in a successful way.
Last week, a friend of mine took a look at my non-fiction and said, “I couldn’t find much on your blog about indie publishing… I’ve traditionally published before but always on the look-out for interesting posts on how to successfully self-publish.”
Her point was well-taken, I do lean heavily toward the author side of the publishing equation, and maybe my site navigation could use some work. But her observation also points up a distinction that isn’t always clear: What is the difference between “indie publishing,” “traditional publishing,” and “self-publishing”?
Possibly the easiest of these to define is “traditional publishing.” No one disputes that Hachette and Penguin Random House are traditional publishers. There was no such thing as “the internet” or “the ebook” when these publishers first sprang into existence, and their overall business strategy is not digital-dependent. If the internet crashed tomorrow, these publishers would have the infrastructure in place…
View original post 1,636 more words