What is the greatest threat to the publishing industry?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're right, it won't be the author alone, it will be the community that does this. We're already seeing proofreading as a crowdsourced publishing venture through Bookoven.com (with more community driven options to come), I'm already providing covers for other "unpubbed" authors such as myself. As far as I can imagine, the writer can no longer just sit and write and rely on others to do all the leg work. The writer will have to be part of a community, an active part of that community, not just there to flog his or her wares but to fill in the gaps that others might need. Design, proofreading, editing, all the traditional avenues of publishing are slowly, but surely, passing over into the hands of on-line communities.

I'm sorry... I love your stuff, Moejoe, and wouldn't mind it if you were right... but you need only look at the most random assortment of self-published authors to see how amateur efforts well more than 9 times out of 10 result in despairingly amateurish results.

And the size (or even potential size) of any hypothetical community willing to do such work will never be able to accommodate the number of books that can reasonably be published in a(ny) country in a given year.

I'm not saying such communities can't exist... but at this time I cannot take seriously a suggestion that they'll supplant professional publishers... ever.

Originally Posted by Alisa

One of the possible business models I can see developing as ebooks become more common is one where the author retains the rights to their work and self-publishes but hires a consulting company to help with things like editing and marketing. In this scenario I don't know if I would call those consultants de facto publishers. A nit picky argument to be sure and it has no bearing of the validity of your statement but it just got me wondering what technically defines a publisher. If they're not the gatekeeper to the presses and bookstore distribution and if they're not given any rights to the works, are they "publishers"?

This already happens. And the quality of the work is the reason that it is so simple to recognize (or, some would say, weed out) the works of self-published authors. (Mainly because any such consulting companies don't give a damn whether the book ever sells a single copy, so long as they've already gotten paid... and since mobileread is living proof of how little the average person knows about bookmaking, results that any random author is satisfied with are still far from being guaranteed to be even halfway competent.)

Despite many people's feelings about it, being gatekeepers (that even today hold back a lot of trash, even though they could be doing a far better job of it) is a genuinely worthwhile and useful function of publishers.

Not everything written is worth reading. Not everyone that writes ought to be published. Having individuals who dedicate their whole life to making and selling books try to make the decision what gets sent the public's way and what doesn't, is not a bad system. It's an imperfect system, that is made worse by the fact that western culture downright expects/mandates sociopathic behavior from corporations. But it's imperfections are held increasingly in check by the low barrier to entry for publication.

If you write the greatest novel of this century, and no publisher is willing to take a gamble on you, with a bit of effort you could self-publish potentially for as little as a few hundred dollars. And if your book is as great outside of your head as it is inside of it, you will be able to successfully promote it in cost-free ways to the point where it starts selling and bringing in money.

I don't even see the publishing industry needing to change much at all, even if and when paper books eventually bite the dust.

All that's needed is for individual publishing companies to start acting like they are run by people who aren't morally bankrupt. But then, I don't think that's anything unique to the publishing industry.

---

Just my thoughts. But otherwise, I would be neither surprised nor saddened if 90% of companies that make up the publishing industry today were gone by the end of the next decade. Little of worth would be lost that newer (and hopefully more honest/sane/fair) companies couldn't replace.

- Ahi

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

I'm sorry... I love your stuff, Moejoe, and wouldn't mind it if you were right... but you need only look at the most random assortment of self-published authors to see how amateur efforts well more than 9 times out of 10 result in despairingly amateurish results.

And the size (or even potential size) of any hypothetical community willing to do such work will never be able to accommodate the number of books that can reasonably be published in a(ny) country in a given year.

I'm not saying such communities can't exist... but at this time I cannot take seriously a suggestion that they'll supplant professional publishers... ever.


- Ahi

Seriously, the same ratio of 9/10 could apply to any random sampling from the shelves in your local book shop. I keep hearing about editors and proofreaders and agents and how all these are important to produce the high-quality fiction we get now, but I don't see it in reality. I see endless series set in endless copycat worlds.. I see horror that isn't horrific but is more like a soap opera. Science fiction with no science. Thrillers that aren't thrilling and mysteries with no mystery, apart from the mystery of why the central character is still bothering. Literary novels that are no more literary than afternoon TV movies from the 80's. Adventure novels that would make the writers of the A-Team blush they're that stupid. I see badly edited, sloppily proofread and horribly typeset novels all the time. I see horrifically designed front covers where all they've done is photoshopped a woman with a gun onto a backdrop, or hired some hack to paint a spaceship and that's the end of that, slap on a font and we're all done. I pick up books that are so badly written that I can't believe anybody would buy them, or invest time and money in their production. 9/10 is about average whether I source my reading from the web or from the brick and mortar stores.

Listen, I know I'm starry-eyed and definitely a bit of a romantic. And from time to time I have to let the reality in, and when I do let that reality in I know what you're saying is 100% true. The companies will out after the current upheaval, a new status-quo will come into place and a system will emerge that in all likelihood will favour the companies again and not the artists.

But now, now I can dream, I can do something and make, if not all of what I see for the future, then at least some of it, into a reality. I can put my work out for free, I can be passionate and speak my mind without fear that I'll lose sales, I can produce a cover or two for other writers that may attract more readers for them. All these things I can do precisely because of the upheaval that the web and digital publishing has brought to the brick and mortar world of the trad publishing industry.

For now I am free. Later on there won't be the same opportunities.

[BlackVoid]

Bad poll. I voted other.
The greatest threat is their own incompetence.

With time, this will allow competitors (google?) with a better business model to take their market share.

[Krystian Galaj]

I voted "People don't read", meaning that they already have enough to read (blogs, forums, websites, public domain books that were once bestsellers) without paying a cent for it. The only way I see to overcome this threat is to make the services of publishing industry so convenient that people will e willing to pay for it. That doesn't mean the publishing industry needs to publish anything new, indeed it would probably be cheaper for them to provide content already available for free.

On an unrelated note, the greatest threat for creators is obscurity. In current circumstances they're lucky if their works get chosen to read, from among so many interesting reads, so I don't mention any money.

[Stitchawl]

I voted 'other.' That 'other' being the fact that kids today would prefer their entertainment to be more video and audio oriented. That, combined with the schools (and parents) not giving enough encouragement to reading these days.

Television made a dent in the reading population, and I think computer gaming is doing even more so. Used to be (when I was a kid) that getting sent to one's room would mean nothing to do except read! No TV, no radio, nothing, just a filled bookshelf. (Thank God for the Hardy Boys and Tom Swift!) These days getting sent to one's room is the greatest gift ever rather than terrible punishment. Why read when you can play computer games.

Stitchawl

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're right, it won't be the author alone, it will be the community that does this. We're already seeing proofreading as a crowdsourced publishing venture through Bookoven.com (with more community driven options to come). . . . Design, proofreading, editing, all the traditional avenues of publishing are slowly, but surely, passing over into the hands of on-line communities.

I wonder, however, about the quality of the community work on average. (Please -- as with everything else, there will always be some excellent, high-quality work as well as exceedingly poor, very-low-quality work. But these tend to be the extremes to which most work does not go.)

I wonder because I daily see the difference between good-quality editing and poor-mediocre editing and when I talk to some of the editors of the poor-mediocre work, I discover that the following characteristics describe the editors: (a) low paid to volunteer, (b) American English is not their native language, (c) became editors because they found some errors in a book they bought and thus figured they could do the job, and (d) received little or no editorial training/education.

Many great author's books became memorable because they were well edited by highly skilled, well-qualified editors.

Community skills may matter less in fiction but are of great concern in nonfiction.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ahi

... but you need only look at the most random assortment of self-published authors to see how amateur efforts well more than 9 times out of 10 result in despairingly amateurish results.

I think this is exactly right, but needs one more detail: Amateur results often result in very low to free price because once recognized as amateur, consumers will not pay to read the material. When amateur results become the norm or predominant accepted quality, prices will be depressed for everyone, including the professional results, because consumers will not be willing to pay an author at the higher price. We are seeing this phenomenon at work, albeit in a different context, in the $9.99 price threshold for bestsellers and in the discussions we have here on MR regarding what is an acceptable price for an ebook.

Remember that knowing how to use a word processing program and its spellchecker does not turn junk into art.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I wonder, however, about the quality of the community work on average. (Please -- as with everything else, there will always be some excellent, high-quality work as well as exceedingly poor, very-low-quality work. But these tend to be the extremes to which most work does not go.)

I wonder because I daily see the difference between good-quality editing and poor-mediocre editing and when I talk to some of the editors of the poor-mediocre work, I discover that the following characteristics describe the editors: (a) low paid to volunteer, (b) American English is not their native language, (c) became editors because they found some errors in a book they bought and thus figured they could do the job, and (d) received little or no editorial training/education.

Many great author's books became memorable because they were well edited by highly skilled, well-qualified editors.

Community skills may matter less in fiction but are of great concern in nonfiction.

I would say both fiction and non-fiction can equally benefit from crowdsourcing, as software does from the open-source initiative. The problem is that we're so married to the old-world ideas of the 'editor' and the 'proofreader' as some kind of elevated and knowledgeable position, when in a lot of cases those positions weren't gained by merit but by nepotism and friendship (along with being published), especially within the UK publishing industry, which has always been incestuous. We've elevated these positions, along with the writer, to something beyond and otherworldly. If Kovid, the author of Calibre, has a 'bug' in his software there are hundreds of people who'll immediately tell him what that 'bug' is and a handful more who'll either help fix that bug, or program a patch. Still others will contribute new recipes and code the underlying technologies that help in conversion. Those reporting might not be programmers, yes, but those that help fix the problems, in most instances are.

You take the open-source model and apply it to writing, both fiction and non-fiction, and I think it would work just as well. We've seen how well WIKI works (putting aside the academic whining about authenticity), so why not publishing? What makes a good editor or a proofreader? There's no real yardstick, especially if you look at what is being published at the moment, and if what is being published at he moment is a yardstick then there is no editing or proofreading happening out there. Non-fiction would benefit even more from a crowdsourced environment, because you can bet there'd be a lot of interested parties there to point out factual errors within the speciality of what's being written.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I keep hearing about editors and proofreaders and agents and how all these are important to produce the high-quality fiction we get now, but I don't see it in reality. I see endless series set in endless copycat worlds.. I see horror that isn't horrific but is more like a soap opera. Science fiction with no science. Thrillers that aren't thrilling and mysteries with no mystery, apart from the mystery of why the central character is still bothering. Literary novels that are no more literary than afternoon TV movies from the 80's. Adventure novels that would make the writers of the A-Team blush they're that stupid.

Yes, I see the same things but you mistake who is at fault. Copyeditors and proofreaders have no role in determining storyline, adding science to science fiction, mystery to mysteries, etc. These are the province of the author.

The copyeditor's role is to make sure that grammar is correct, that sentences make sense, and that Joe doesn't suddenly become Joan and that Joan doesn't become "that" (as opposed to, e.g., who).

The proofreader's primary role is to make sure that errors didn't creep in at the typesetting stage.

It is the author's role to create an original work.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I see badly edited, sloppily proofread and horribly typeset novels all the time. I see horrifically designed front covers where all they've done is photoshopped a woman with a gun onto a backdrop, or hired some hack to paint a spaceship and that's the end of that, slap on a font and we're all done. I pick up books that are so badly written that I can't believe anybody would buy them, or invest time and money in their production.

Yes, I see that as well, but I see fewer instances of it (considering the numbers of books involved) when the publisher is a major publisher like Random House as opposed to a publisher that is really the author's self-publishing company. I also have seen more of the poor editing and proofreading as the major houses have consolidated, have become more quarterly profit oriented (shareholder demands), and have cut costs by offshoring production work. (I'm not suggesting that American editors are better than British editors or the editors from any other country. Rather that American editors are better choices for American-audience books, just as a British editor would be a better choice for British-audience books because of familiarity with localisms and style.)

Book production work suffers greatly from the "anyone can do it" thinking process. Everyone with InDesign thinks they are a typesetter; everyone with Illustrator thinks they are an artist; everyone with a word processor thinks they are an editor or an author. It just ain't so!

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Yes, I see the same things but you mistake who is at fault. Copyeditors and proofreaders have no role in determining storyline, adding science to science fiction, mystery to mysteries, etc. These are the province of the author.

The copyeditor's role is to make sure that grammar is correct, that sentences make sense, and that Joe doesn't suddenly become Joan and that Joan doesn't become "that" (as opposed to, e.g., who).

The proofreader's primary role is to make sure that errors didn't creep in at the typesetting stage.

It is the author's role to create an original work.



Yes, I see that as well, but I see fewer instances of it (considering the numbers of books involved) when the publisher is a major publisher like Random House as opposed to a publisher that is really the author's self-publishing company. I also have seen more of the poor editing and proofreading as the major houses have consolidated, have become more quarterly profit oriented (shareholder demands), and have cut costs by offshoring production work. (I'm not suggesting that American editors are better than British editors or the editors from any other country. Rather that American editors are better choices for American-audience books, just as a British editor would be a better choice for British-audience books because of familiarity with localisms and style.)

Book production work suffers greatly from the "anyone can do it" thinking process. Everyone with InDesign thinks they are a typesetter; everyone with Illustrator thinks they are an artist; everyone with a word processor thinks they are an editor or an author. It just ain't so!

EDIT: It may be the author's role to create original work, but where are the publishers and editors who are pushing that work? I'm not seeing it out there on the shelves, are you?

So what makes an editor? A degree in English Literature? A Masters or PHD in the very same? There's no 'career path' for that job as there is for accountancy, no way to tell if one editor's choices are any better for the writer than another - at the very best an editor is an opinion giver, a gambler on other people's tastes (not so much a nurturer of talent any longer) You'll probably say 'it's the experience', but these editors that are around at the moment don't have any experience in the digital (or very little) so there's an even keel for anybody who wants to call themselves 'editor' now.

I know it must be terrifying for anybody in the middlemen positions, the proofreaders and the editors and the agents, even the publishers must be, as we colloquially put it, "cacking their pants". It must feel like when punk came along and the punk bands started pressing their own vinyl. Or when bands realised they didn't need to book studio time and only needed a computer to get a good sound.

Transition and change are scary, but only to those that are entrenched. For the writer there has never been a more exciting time to be creative.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Seriously, the same ratio of 9/10 could apply to any random sampling from the shelves in your local book shop. I keep hearing about editors and proofreaders and agents and how all these are important to produce the high-quality fiction we get now, but I don't see it in reality. I see endless series set in endless copycat worlds.. I see horror that isn't horrific but is more like a soap opera. Science fiction with no science. Thrillers that aren't thrilling and mysteries with no mystery, apart from the mystery of why the central character is still bothering. Literary novels that are no more literary than afternoon TV movies from the 80's. Adventure novels that would make the writers of the A-Team blush they're that stupid. I see badly edited, sloppily proofread and horribly typeset novels all the time. I see horrifically designed front covers where all they've done is photoshopped a woman with a gun onto a backdrop, or hired some hack to paint a spaceship and that's the end of that, slap on a font and we're all done. I pick up books that are so badly written that I can't believe anybody would buy them, or invest time and money in their production. 9/10 is about average whether I source my reading from the web or from the brick and mortar stores.

Listen, I know I'm starry-eyed and definitely a bit of a romantic. And from time to time I have to let the reality in, and when I do let that reality in I know what you're saying is 100% true. The companies will out after the current upheaval, a new status-quo will come into place and a system will emerge that in all likelihood will favour the companies again and not the artists.

In our hopes, we are rather alike... and it seems our objective assumptions about our future are closer than it would first seem too.

Just one point I want to make... while you are right about most of the things you say, there is an obvious, blatant, and usually unflattering quality to the vast majority of self-published works. The fact that otherwise published books can also look bad and be bad, does not alter the fact that there are very specific ways that the majority of self-published works are bad... and might well have been fixed, if a published had bothered to pick it up and put time/money into it.

Nor does any of what I said mean that self-publishing a supremely professional book is somehow unachievable, or even difficult. It isn't difficult. But the fact is that it rarely happens for both psychological and commercial reasons that are unlikely to change...

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So what makes an editor? A degree in English Literature? A Masters or PHD in the very same? There's no 'career path' for that job as there is for accountancy, no way to tell if one editor's choices are any better for the writer than another - at the very best an editor is an opinion giver, a gambler on other people's tastes (not so much a nurturer of talent any longer) You'll probably say 'it's the experience', but these editors that are around at the moment don't have any experience in the digital (or very little) so there's an even keel for anybody who wants to call themselves 'editor' now.

I know it must be terrifying for anybody in the middlemen positions, the proofreaders and the editors and the agents, even the publishers must be, as we colloquially put it, "cacking their pants". It must feel like when punk came along and the punk bands started pressing their own vinyl. Or when bands realised they didn't need to book studio time and only needed a computer to get a good sound.

Transition and change are scary, but only to those that are entrenched. For the writer there has never been a more exciting time to be creative.

Some of the things that make an editor:

- the fact that they aren't the person who wrote the text, and therefore do not subconsciously skip over errors on account of seeing what the text should say as opposed to what it does say
- strong, and I would argue necessarily systemic, knowledge of the English language, typography, and (depending on the type of editing) literature/composition/other works of the same genre
- strong interpersonal skills so they can get the author, who too often believes his writing far better and far more perfect than it is, to agree to necessary changes

These are just the most obvious things that come to my mind.

And while the career path may not be as clear-cut as for an engineer, there are certainly colleges (and universities?) that offer Editing courses in addition to all the other stuff an editor-to-be already would be taking.

- Ahi

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

In our hopes, we are rather alike... and it seems our objective assumptions about our future are closer than it would first seem too.

Just one point I want to make... while you are right about most of the things you say, there is an obvious, blatant, and usually unflattering quality to the vast majority of self-published works. The fact that otherwise published books can also look bad and be bad, does not alter the fact that there are very specific ways that the majority of self-published works are bad... and might well have been fixed, if a published had bothered to pick it up and put time/money into it.

Nor does any of what I said mean that self-publishing a supremely professional book is somehow unachievable, or even difficult. It isn't difficult. But the fact is that it rarely happens for both psychological and commercial reasons that are unlikely to change...

- Ahi

See that's where I most have a problem. If there's so much money and time and expertise invested by the trad publishing industry and it's still producing crap then what is their purpose any longer? Why shouldn't I pick honest and raw crap over polished crap that the industry gives me? Have you seen the best seller lists from the last ten years? Its like a countdown in average IQ of the reader, and this isn't a knock on genre fiction, I happen to love genre fiction, but most of what is published by the majors is very weak. In the unpubs I still might find something daring or challenging, or just plain honest and raw enough to stand out.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I know it must be terrifying for anybody in the middlemen positions, the proofreaders and the editors and the agents, even the publishers must be, as we colloquially put it, "cacking their pants". It must feel like when punk came along and the punk bands started pressing their own vinyl.

This is just silly... to put it far more politely than my initial instinct was.

I think when you say things like this, you have travelled a few dozen miles too far into wishful thinking territory.

If there is anybody in the publishing industry that need not fear even being replaced by upstarts it's proofreaders and editors... and I don't see agents in any worse a position... until the day all the publicity an author needs is to post on Mobileread and put a sample on Feedbooks... along with the other 100,000+ authors doing the same damn thing.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

See that's where I most have a problem. If there's so much money and time and expertise invested by the trad publishing industry and it's still producing crap then what is their purpose any longer? Why shouldn't I pick honest and raw crap over polished crap that the industry gives me? Have you seen the best seller lists from the last ten years? Its like a countdown in average IQ of the reader, and this isn't a knock on genre fiction, I happen to love genre fiction, but most of what is published by the majors is very weak.

It's not the amount of time or money. It's the fact that those people know what they are doing, and amateurs as a rule do not. Nothing stopping them from learning, but they generally don't.

You're frustration with publishing companies churning out crap is perfectly valid... but it is no different than if I were to express similar sentiments about indie authors churning out unprofessional crap.

Both groups could do far better very easily... but they don't, and they probably won't in the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

In the unpubs I still might find something daring or challenging, or just plain honest and raw enough to stand out.

Personally, I think the unpubs just have a despairingly worse ratio of quality to crap. And if you were to assess the number of established authors from whom you have read books in your life, I'm sure you'll agree there's no competition.

It is not to the publisher's merit that they publish crap. But it is to their merit that they publish good books that may well have been crap when the author first finished writing them.

- Ahi