Indie vs self-published: is there a difference

We're hearing so much lately about Indie Authors, but are they just self-published authors revamped for the new millenium? Well, okay, the millenium is a decade old, but it's newer than the last one.

I don't think they are.

We have

Traditionally Published (NY) Authors. They jump through hoops to get their work out.

Vanity Published Authors. They pay cash up front.

Self-published Authors. Small scale, often write crap, aren't that serious about the whole thing.

Indie Publisher/Authors. Serious business men and women who take their work seriously and seriously use the new technology in very serious ways. I'm serious.

So does that mean there's a difference? Well, this is how I see it. People self-publish books about their local towns or so on, things that have a very small geographical area of significance. There's no point in doing an e-book if your subject is Bonniebrig or if you fancy writing like this:

Ah dunnae kinn if 'at means there's a difference ur nae, but as far as aam concerned thaur is.

Imagine a whole book written like that. I could read it, but could you? So, self-publishing suits very small niche audiences. The writer can put the books together on their PC and print them out, bind them themselves and sell them on the streets of their hometown.

Indie authors are completely different. For the most part an indie author should have the same standards as a NY publishing house. An Indie author should run their own imprint. To look at music, an Indie author is the equivalent of the Ting Tings.

Ting Tings on youtube - Awesome, much.

A self-published author plays the local pub. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're not, very, very rarely they'll be picked up by an agent/publisher/record company.

Labels are important. It's why you won't here me refer to myself as self-published from here out. I'm indie, and I love it.

What do you think?


Ian O'Neill pointed out I should clear up some misunderstandings.  I did, and you can find my new post here.