Why do ebooks cost so much?

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Plenty of musicians actually *own* their own labels, do their own recordings, and merely use the studios as distributors. In the world of digital, they don't need even that. They control their art, they choose how to proceed.

The same will happen with books.

It's already started although there aren't many examples yet. Bella Andre got seven figures from Harlequin (for her 8? book series) and retained her ebooks rights. They're paying her a boatload of money and are doing the part that traditional publishers still do best, distributing and marketing print books. There have been others, but she's the one who comes to mind. IIRC Hugh Howey did something somewhat similar with Wool.

[derangedhermit]

Originally Posted by ereadingdotcom

Hmmm, can't say that I necessarily agree with that.

First, editorial work is not at all a "fixed cost". It depends on the author, the editor assigned to them, the size of the publisher involved, how many editors and associate editors are involved in a project, etc.

All of those factors (and a whole lot more) greatly affect how the publisher does business, which in turn affects pricing through every level of the pipeline. And that, in turn, most assuredly influences how the market moves as a whole, especially when it is multiplied hundreds of times by the number of titles published domestically each month alone.

Good luck in your new business.

[ereadingdotcom]

Originally Posted by derangedhermit

Good luck in your new business.

Thanks!

[crich70]

Originally Posted by ereadingdotcom

I would agree with that sentiment.

I have been guilty of not employing as much patience as I should; I have also dealt with major writers who are just nearly psychotic in their behavior. Really.

Amateurs I don't understand. My writing mentor, whom I was fortunate enough to meet when I was 13, has gone on to be one of the most respected names in fantasy. However, he coached humbleness into me when it comes to my own writing. If I argue with an editor, it usually winds up being over something dumb that really annoys me, like the choice of a particular word.

But, my good friend and occasional collaborator, best-selling author Ed Gorman, taught me the true value of picking your battles. I wish I'd listened to him earlier than I ultimately did.

I'd guess that that type of problem will continue to exist for as long as writer's are human beings. It's probably part of the nature of the creative process. I mean a lot of books on writing that I've read suggest a cooling off period before doing any editing because the writer is too close to the work to see any flaws. I imagine some of that closeness lingers even after a given work has been sent out. An author invests a lot of themselves in a writing project and it has to be hard to hear that something isn't perfect (in the editor's eyes). I can see the editor' point though. They have to make sure that a book earns money for the publisher rather than losing it. It must be a fairly stressful job.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by crich70

Are big name authors generally more difficult to work with (to get to make needed changes) than new authors?

It depends. Some are, some aren't. In my 30 years of editing, I have edited hundreds, if not thousands, of books and only a handful of authors were problems and of those handful only a very few took the position that their writing required no editing whatsoever.

The very best authors in my experience are those who recognize and understand the role of an editor and choose to work with the editor rather than against the editor. Ultimately decisions belong to the author, not the editor, but a good editor can often offer insights from a reader's perspective that an author may have missed.