The new revolution in publishing is a wonderful thing for writers and readers, allowing good work to get out, and allowing writers, for the first time, to choose how they want to run their career as a business.
It is not a civil war, but many have taken sides-- for either strictly independent (indie) publishing or strictly tradtional publishing. The rhetoric is heated, the vitriol splashing around in insult-laden invective.
Gee whiz, folks, it just means we have more choices. It's not a religion, but some act as if it was just that. They insult people who choose the path different from theirs.
For the record, I've got friends who have published traditionally and done very well with it.
But I've been on the receiving end of abuse from online posters who said that traditional publishing is the only way to go, and that my choice of the indie path is foolish. So I pass along horror stories of traditional publishing gone wrong, to prove otherwise.
Here's an exceptionally good one, which shows one publishing company (one of the supposed best) who doesn't have a clue about business, and who wouldn't listen to the writer who had a marketing plan and knew how to make the book sell.
--"How I got a big advance from a big publisher and self-published anyway"
The fact that these people stay in business despite having no idea what it's about is a testament to readers, who buy books no matter how poorly they're launched or marketed. This is what the indie world is about-- getting the writing published, and letting the readers decide if it's worthwhile or not. It's not a get-rich-quick scheme (like a recent media article thought), it's putting something out so it has the chance to find an audience.