Someone recently asked why, if indie publishing is so great, you "have [never] heard of any big-selling indie that has stayed indie?"
My name was mentioned in the thread as someone who had bailed on the indie publishing model. Yes, it's true that I signed with Thomas & Mercer for books that had previously been indie only. The deal was a little different than with a traditional publisher, in that I'm able to keep selling my versions of the first three books of the Righteous Series until the T&M versions come online in February, but it's legitimate to ask why, if I were doing so well as an indie, would I sign over my rights? There is certainly the assumption that indie is a weak second place to a traditional contract, like Triple-A baseball instead of the Major League.
Maybe there's some truth to that, but for me the question is what will allow me to get my books the widest possible exposure and what will give me control over what I write. I wouldn't sign a contract that limited how much I could write or publish, or a contract that forbid me from continuing to publish indie books. Ideally, I would have a career that included both indie books and traditional contracts as I think this would give me the best possible chance for being able to do what I love for as long as possible.
I think your last sentence gets to the heart of the matter. You're a writer, you take the wisest writing path that you can travel, and both you and the reader benefit. The only label you should be tied to is 'writer.'
ReplyDeleteAnd hey, I enjoyed your interview with Jim Bell (old family friend of mine).