There's a difference between covering expenses, e.g. of giving advice and organising conferences, and making a profit. I welcome this alliance, which comes none too soon, and wish it well.

Orna Ross would do well to reflect on what publishers do, rather than treat them as robber barons. If she doesn't do that, she is in danger of understating the scale of the task for self-publishers.

Publishers finance and filter. Although the printing costs have theoretically dropped out of the "finance" part, there's still the matter of marketing finance, editing etc. It's non-trivial.

The filter part of the publishers job has not disappeared. While some corners of publishing are highly cynical, it's still true that most of what is published, both fiction and non-fiction, is of high quality and written (in non-fiction) by experts in the field.

It's a myth that there's loads of high quality material that goes unpublished. Most of it is rubbish and even the promising stuff has flaws which a publisher would have to put a lot of effort into sorting out.

I say all this as an unpublished writer myself. I am not a publisher and have no axe to grind.

To begin with: I work for a non-profit. The organization doesn't make any money from its activities, but people still collect salaries, which come in part from fees that may be charged for certain services. The fact that it's a non-profit won't prevent people from collecting salaries. The person setting this up can pay herself a salary. This is a payday for someone.

I'm not sure why it's news to begin with. Lots of people have found ways to rip-off writers interested in respectability. Most of the rip-offs involve the neo-vanity model which charges fees upfront for "author services" -- editing, cover design, digital set up, etc. in return for the "publishing house" name. What people fail to realize is that those names -- Xlibris, I-Universe, etc. aren't respected, and the work offered by these "houses" often isn't very good.

Most of the better writers self-publishing these days aren't amateurs. They may not have published much, they may not have previously published books, but they include journalists, copy writers, grant writers, MFAs, people who've sold a story or two, and even mid-list authors dropped by their publishers and/or agents in a tight market. They certainly include lots of people who almost had a deal and didn't want to start that process all over again when it fell apart, as well as savvy authors who understand how publishing works and why their agent wouldn't be interested in pushing their genre-busting novella, even though it may have been the best thing they've ever done.

There are also, of course, the clueless and the desperate, people who don't know how to tell a story, but are somehow convinced despite rejection that self-publishing offers them, if not a shot at the big time, at least the chance to make a little money to sock away.

There are plenty of people in between.

Self-publishing in the digital age may not offer everyone an even playing field, but it offers everyone a chance to get into the game. As someone who has self-published, I can't imagine why I would join this group. Associating myself with anyone who can pay a fee to join a club won't buy me credibility. That comes from building a readership by writing reasonably well-edited books that appeal to an audience.

"indie authorship is about meeting the publisher as a partner"

I have to say I don't really understand this article and this phrase typifies what I don't understand. "Indie" authorship to use that much-abused (though this context clearly identifies it with self-publishing) word is surely about *not* meeting "the publisher" in any context.

I agree with Helen that a very useful function could be served by putting self-publishers in touch with editors, proof readers and cover designers and ensuring equity on both sides of ensuing negotiations.

It seems to me, though, that this is simply a further example of how self-pubslihing has been hijacked by those seeking a way into a mainstream contract or seeking the so-called "hybrid model" whilst those who choose to self-publish because they want to self-publish have their creative rationale for doing so whitewashed away and their genuine needs (for example, to be taken seriously by the reviewing media, to be considered for events on the literary festival circuit and not simply as a token self-publisher) unmet. One of the most pressing of those needs is a collective voice to lobby prize committees against exclusions of self-published writers.

Sadly the media coverage of self-publishing focuses almost exclusivly on the financial incentives or the so-called success stories, and as a result incredibly vibrant communities of handmade, print-on-demand, and e-publishing writers go largely ignored, and the public is fed yet more myths about where creative boundaries lie owing to the media conflation of creative output and means of distribution. Any media coverage of this newe development will only further obfuscate things and it will be left to a few of us to introduce corrective comments in the hope of encouraging aspiring readers and writers that there's more out there - and in the process we will inevitably come across as being overly critical - but when an organisation that speaks in our name effectively corrales us into a particular ghetto I'm not sure what the choice is.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I realise that diminishing margins have created a climate in which perfectly good authors are failing to get a foot on the ladder, but on the other I still believe that publishers play an essential role in separating the wheat from the chaff.

I agree with Helen Hollick - an author's journey towards being in print should never circumvent the editorial stage.

It's not always a case of, "Oh, I can't get a traditional publisher to accept my book, so I'll just publish it myself." Prior to e-books and the widespread application of POD technology, that was largely the case. And yes, it still is the case for many indie authors ("indie authors" - that's what self-published authors call themselves these days, probably to try to shake off the stigma of the "self-published" tag).
But now, a lot of authors who have been traditionally published are turning to self-publishing as a way to maintain more creative control over their work and to maximize their share of the profits. Along with all the horror stories about shoddy self-published books, there are plenty of tales from the trenches about traditional publishers marketing books in ways that do not sit well with the vision or intent of the author, creating inappropriate or misleading covers, not paying royalties, contracts signed and then imprints go under or change hands and books get lost in the shuffle...
Perhaps a strong, well-run and well-supported independent authors association is just what the industry needs. Bring in some standards and make adhering to those standards part of the conditions of membership. Perhaps the badge "member of the AIA" will be one way that readers can assure themselves that the self-pubbed book they are about to purchase is of sufficient quality (well, that and the "Look Inside" facility). It might be too much to ask of a voluntary organization...
Or it might not.

"I've sold over 47,000 copies so far, and I'm far from unique. Lots of writers self-publish successfully now the technology is available"

Sorry to pick you out personally Lexi, but you say that you have sold 47,000 copies. Would it be fair to say that 90% plus of those sales are of the 99p (and 99c) kindle editions? If you take off the VAT and Amazon's 70% that's leaving you somewhere in the region of £11,000 of income. For four novels - over how many years, and with what kind of expenditure by you?

I'm not sure we share the same definition of success. And what's more, do you ever wonder if your willingness to sell your own books at 99p - because this is is a hobby for you - is helping push publishers and independent bookshops out of business by driving down the price of books and directly contributing to their loss of revenue?

Not a reason for you to stop perhaps, but before you trumpet your 'success' you might reflect that not everyone can afford to do what you are doing and that not all of the consequences are beneficial.

Well done!! can't wait to join this society. I was a POD author when it was 199,-USD with iuniverse, so that's a long time ago. I consider myself a bit of a pioneer, I and a group of others who then promoted our work on Yahoo reading rooms.

Boy, we had to earn it that people took us seriously, but I am proud to have taken the plunge.

This is marvellous progress!

My instinct is to support Charlotte's initiative. I speak as one who is in a not untypical situation and one which, if it hasn't already, will become almost a standard career pattern. I've been a writer published by mainstream publishers since 1962. From 1974, when my first novel appeared, onwards to 2008, I was published by the likes of Andre Deutsch, Scholastic, OUP, Franklin Watts and Walker, in the US by Dell and Candlewick, in Germany by Arena and in Italy by Mondadori. Spain, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Thailand as well. You don't have to do much maths to work out therefore about how old I am. I never made a fortune but I did all right. I was a member of that once-respected, now obsolete, category, the 'mid-list author'.

I now find that for the last four years publishers have gone very cold. I've been promised one contract which mysteriously disappeared before I received it. It's obvious why: no publisher is going to invest in me now simply because I'm too old. It's new writers who have to be encouraged. Yes, that's a fact of life and I only hope they will be, with the time and talent which was invested in me by highly professional, wise editors. I have an immense respect and admiration for all the publishers I have ever worked for.

They might not want me any more but that doesn't mean I don't want to write any more, or that I will write any less effectively. That's why I'm such a supporter now of indie publishing and ebooks when only three years ago I abominated both. (No, that's not quite true: I had for some years been re-issuing o/p books on PoD with a marvellous firm, Solidus Press, run by the great Helen Miles. Sadly, rising costs have put paid to it). That's why I'm putting my toe in the water with, first, o/p books, then new work, on Kindle. That's why I and some writer friends are planning a small publishing co-operative to carry on producing our paper books. I'm excited by this. I feel like a farmer shuffling off his ruinous contract with Tesco and opening his own farm shop instead. I'm not here to make money, though it would be nice: I WANT TO BE READ. That's every writers' ultimate ambition.

I've been a member of the Society of Authors for thirty-six years. I think that a parallel indie society can only be good for us all: there's no conflict of interest. I think some contributors above have missed the point completely. 'Indie' doesn't mean 'going it alone'. That's the whole point of this initiative. We need a collective voice: we need, if you like, the security and validation of something like a publisher's list. Yes, we also need the professional, editorial input. I know how and where to get it for myself. I'm lucky. Others won't know. Another reason for the intitiative; a big self-help group.

I'm all for it. 'Indie' needs to be synonymous with 'strength'.

Self published authors are taking serious legal risks too, from what I can see. All of the books I'm reading seem to quote song lyrics, and this can only be done legally by asking the music companies for permission. They will usually let authors quote lyrics, but it's expensive and it's rate charged per book sold and per song quoted. You even have to get this permission and pay for it if you quote just a few words. Usually authors are advised to cut the song lyrics if they possibly can, and it's ok to quote song titles so that can be a way round it. But for the novels already self published and sold, the music companies will catch up and it's going to be expensive. It's generally about 50p per book and they expect you to get written permission from them at the outset and to pay an amount based on your estimated sales. If you quote a few lyrics and need to approach a few different music companies they will each charge you this kind of amount and expect you to get written permission. They also need to be credited in the copyrights section of the book. There are other legal problems I can see authors are facing, but the quoting of lyrics is a basic pitfall publishers avoid or work around and it's so much a part of our culture to be thinking of song lyrics that they do turn up in most books unless the author is aware of the legalities.

I'll also disagree with myself slightly here, because I think there are novels that could be written without an editor and without much more than a proofread by friends.

I publish literary fiction and poetry, and literary fiction has to be of an incredibly high standard. By literary fiction I also mean excellent crime fiction so it could be page-turning and popular but the standard of the writing is exceptional. The approach is also original in each book. I really think a good editor is needed to work with the author on this kind of book.

However, I know many authors who write novels that are a great read and could work without this kind of editing. The association being set up must advise these authors on the main legal pitfalls, such as using song lyrics, and also using real names of companies where the characters work, especially if a location is also named. Or even just names of bands and organisations the author thinks are invented but Google reveals that they aren't.

Some romance authors I know have to turn out novels incredibly quickly for major publishers - as often as one every 6 months. Crime and other genres can sometimes be the same - although they can also be at all levels including literary fiction.

But I think you know if you're writing in a style that you can self publish with a bit of help and feedback from friends or a community of other authors. I have this kind of community on writtenword.ning.com where we provide each other with critique, so I do know there are authors who can do it. It's hard to find really good novels though, even when looking among the ones recommended and doing well. I'm curious to know how the ones succeed that do surface and sell well.