Support for Indie Authors discussion

I have very much enjoyed reading all kinds of discussions, but I am surprised that most authors take it for granted that indie authors aim to write a number of books, whether in a series or not, and one of the key things is to create a following so that next books would have an audience. That makes an indie author necessarily young(ish) and a good planner. Authors seem to know to call something volume 1 in what-not series, implying that volume 2 is coming next year. Is that how you work?

I tend to work in complete works. So if I write a trilogy, I won't put it out until it's completed. I feel it does a disservice to myself, and to the people that want to read it. nothing pisses me off more then going to read a series, especially one that I love, and finding out then I need to wait a year in order to read the next one... So I try not to do that.

my first book is a stand alone that could be part of a series. kind of like nancy drew where you could read any book and not miss vital information from another book. i did this on purpose so i could work on other projects and not have to focus on only one series at a time. it has really helped to say the least.

Tina wrote: "That makes an indie author necessarily young(ish) and a good planner."

I'll be 57 in August. And my only plans are to keep writing until I drop. (And to try and finish several of the dozen or more stories I've already started.)

Does that make me youngish and a good planner? Dunno, but I'm definitely an indie author.

;D

As for volume numbers...I have several stories set in the same universe. So far everything I've written in that setting has been a standalone story. But in order to make it clear on Amazon that these stories are set in the same universe, I've had to give them Book Numbers. So I've numbered them according to their importance. Book 1 is the first novella in that universe I published. Book 2 is a collection of the remaining stories. Books 3 & 4 are short stories included Book 2, but published separately. I numbered these according to their chronological order in the shared history.

I have another universe with only one Book in it, but I'm currently editing the second book...or is it the first? See, it's set like 500 years before the first published book in this universe, so I'm not really sure which should be listed as Book 1!

How's that for planning?

@Rob: Are those stories part of a shared history/universe? Other than the real world of today, that is.

If they are then there may be some good in numbering them. Right now I've got publications in two universes: The Merchant Corps Histories, and the Posthuman Cycle. The advantage to having the stories linked together (even though all the stories are standalone with no common characters) is that the series title itself can be used to see all related stories on one page. Basically it's yet another page to be discovered on, and a consolidated place for related works to be viewed.

Tina wrote: "That makes an indie author necessarily young(ish) and a good planner."

Change planner to looker and you'll have a friend for life. ;)

All kidding aside, I am neither young nor much of a planner, but yes, I certainly am an indie author. Everything from the initial concept to the final edit, cover, and marketing is done by me. I do make sure to note if my books are in a series, even if there is only one book published. I think it's only fair that the reader knows what they are getting into.

Well, by that definition - and you all seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet - I'm not an indie author because I only wrote one book, a biography, and there is not going to be a sequel. I'm not suggesting we should be in two camps - those who are trying to build a following with long-term ideas in mind and those like me - I'm all for us all sharing thoughts and supporting each other. However, I have been intrigued by this focus on creating a following and collecting email addresses for the next book. (Or maybe I just want to say, look at me: I have no following.)

Tina wrote: "Well, by that definition - and you all seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet - I'm not an indie author because I only wrote one book, a biography, and there is not going to be a sequel. "

V.M is correct, and I don't anyone commenting means to imply you are not an author (indie or other) because you only wrote one book. Authors have different aspirations, and say V.M. says, one set is no more valid than another. But those aspirations levy different requirements.

I, for example, intend to make a living off our books. That does not make me "more" of an indie author than you -- it probably does make me a more foolish one.

I don't know if I can add to what VM and Owen already said, but I can back them up. If you published a book and you didn't do so through a traditional publisher, you are an indie author. There is nothing wrong with a stand alone book. I have several myself and hope that someday there is a way for these to have as much visibility as series books.

Owen, I very much like your honest statement of intending to make a living off your books. There is another thread somewhere where people are discussing giving up their day jobs and it seems that nobody has as yet. One way of looking at it is that once an author is successful he/she is no longer interested in discussing hopes and intentions with others. (I have written to a number of apparently successful people to enquire what it's like to be successful but they don't seem to like the subject.)

Tina wrote: "Owen, I very much like your honest statement of intending to make a living off your books. There is another thread somewhere where people are discussing giving up their day jobs and it seems that n..."

I promise to still comment even when I am successful. 2 years in and that's not happened just yet. :-/

But I write stand alone novels. I got fed up of reading too many series; not all, but a lot seem to have one very good book stretched out too much and make 3 not as good as they could be books.

So, each of mine looks at love from a different angle. My USP is that people can pick any which speaks to their innermost desire at the time.

An indie author to me is simply one that (for whatever reason; and there are many) are not with a traditional publisher. They publish their own work (usually ebooks, but also some are in print too).
It effectively means having to do all the back breaking publicising your work (which, let's face it does get in the way of the actual writing and is incredibly laborious).

I've actually started a blog, and the latest post looks into a day in my life (which is quite dull actually).

I gave myself a pretty descent head start when I decided to become an Indie Author. I had my first two books in their proofing stage. My 3rd and 4th books were at about 80%.

My understanding of things is that "indie author" means an author who is not published by a traditional publisher. Some people extend this to include small press authors as well. Beyond that, all of these things seem to be more related to personal habits than whether or not someone is an indie author.

Am I missing something? (that happens quite often--it's one of my best skills)