He sites a few articles that are bashing Amazon including Patterson's attempt to come to the aid of his publishing house. Wait, I thought I read somewhere that Patterson had a team of ghosts and didn't even write his own books anymore? (Hey Jim! It shows!) I have to wonder; what's the point? Why wouldn't an author want to control his own work? Is Patterson so rich that it doesn't matter anymore?
I went Indy a few years ago and don't have half the stuff up that I should have by this time. I worry too much about the polishing and I'm always working on my next book. There are too many books to write and too little time. There are several reasons I went Indy and none had to do with money. Don't get me wrong, any money would always be nice, but that didn't push my decision. I went Indy because I just want to write. There is where the joy lives.
If I were with a publishing house and scored the contract as a romance writer, I doubt they'd like it if book two of three were a mystery or a zombie book, or that vampire idea I've been cooking. If I had a contract I'm sure I'd lose a bit of control. My work would be a shared decision with someone in an office that makes decisions, not on my work alone, but on several factors. Climate of the industry, length of the book, what's hot, and their own personal preferences.
How many ditched the the Harry Potter book for some of those reasons? Why did they make that decision? The quality of the book was probably not the issue, yet they still rejected it.
One of the criticisms of Indy books is the quality of the book, but that doesn't really fly, does it? I've seen books come from the big publishing houses that had typos and grammatical errors. I've read lots of traditionally published crap. Sometimes my hand itches for that red pen! Then I've read Indies who are outstanding and some with problems. There's really not a big difference in quality between traditional and Indy.
So why go Indy? Or better yet, why not?
Control is an awesome thing when it comes to your own work.