The best spotter's guide and explanation I've ever encountered, and full of valuable links too:

http://www.sfwa.org/for-authors/writer-beware/small/

But what else would you expect from the organisation who brought you Turkey City Lexicon?

Emma

That really is comprehensive, and the section on checking out agents is excellent, too.

Emma, I've been a member of the SFWA for about 5 years now. I'm also a member of The Society of Authors. It's probably unfair to compare them but the SFWA seems to offer quite a lot more and for a cheaper annual subscription ($80 against £90). Both do a quarterly newsletter but I have to say the SFWA's is more comprehensive and more fun. Every year, too, you're sent a book containing the contact addresses of every member; plus there are conventions, legal services (which the SoA does very well too) and lots more, including as you say some very valuable writer warning services that are free to everyone. It might just be to do with SF/Fantasy being traditionally based on a well-interconnected network of writers, readers, editors, etc.

On this particular topic, I'm seeing the lines blurring quite a bit in short fiction, too. Writers really do have to weigh up the advantages of placing their story in a magazine, say, that might not be doing too much more than they can do themselves. But it's not just about money: some magazines may not pay much but they know where their audience is and are good at using the internet to promote.

Terry

Another question I'm interested in is when does an independent, left-of-field publisher start to be considered mainstream? Technically, Faber is independent, so is Canongate, Quercus, Tindal Street and Serpent's Tail. But these are now performing so well, that they are genuine competitors for the imprints of major houses.

<Added>

Though of course, they have less money and author advances are definitely lower.

I've mentioned this before, but the two guys who run The Dragon Page podcast have for some years been advocating a quite different model for publishing, one which it seems quite a few self-published authors now aim for. Which is building up a base of 'true readers' - people who like your work, who you sell to directly. If you can build a base of say 3000 true readers, you could possibly make a living from that, or at least a good second income. But when I first heard them talk about this, it didn't feel 'right' to me; didn't seem like 'proper publishing'. The traditional model puts a book out there for anyone to choose to read, which seemed more valid - because free-willed individuals would be finding my book, not just 'fans' who weren't so discerning.

But when I thought about it further, I figured that's a stupid view, really. First, publishers aim for 'true readers' too; why else all the author branding and promotion (such as it is) aimed at specific demographics? But even if that wasn't the case, surely a 'true reader' is as valid, maybe even more so, than a drive-by one? They 'get' you; like your work, not just the genre you write in.

Which maybe leaves the question of what we consider validation. Because there are certain routes probably still only open to writers published traditionally, e.g. teaching, sitting on panels, etc. And maybe the reason that a lot of the new self-publishing thinking seems to go on more with genre writers is that they aren't so bothered about such avenues - having often been excluded from them anyway.