What is the greatest threat to the publishing industry?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

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

Most of the functions you're talking about could be performed easily with crowdsourcing. The necessary changes would be, I assume from my own dealings with editors, to make the work more 'saleable' and 'marketable'. And again that's as much a subjective assessment of the quality and worthiness of the author's work as any other decision made during the pre-release of a book. I have never seen a course in all my academic life on editing, as it is done in the industry. Unless you count the many sociological courses that study nepotism and incest

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

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

If you want to insult me, do it plainly, don't coach it in words, it's more insulting that way.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

Actually, in the U.S. there are degree programs that specialize in editing, just like there are degree programs that specialize in accounting. There are also non-degree programs and there are specialized certification programs, particularly in the sciences, that require extensive focused training over months to years. There is a "career path" for editors. Of course, experience helps, too. One can be a great doctor but a poor writer or editor, just as once can be a great writer or editor but a poor doctor. Not everyone has the skillset to be a good editor any more than does everyone have the skillset to be a good writer.

[Dr. Drib]

I voted "Other," meaning a world economic collapse.


Don

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

You are confusing apples and oranges. To be a bestseller a book does not have to be well-written, interesting, well-edited, well-published, or well- anything. Being on a bestseller list simply means that more people bought this book than bought another book.

In addition, you confuse crap and crap. That is, what you consider crap, someone else considers a masterpiece, whereas what someone else considers a masterpiece, you consider crap. I happen not to think very much of Shakespeare; I consider his writing better than other writing from his period of time but not particularly great. However, many people consider Shakespeare to be the greatest author of all time.

I happen to think that one of Sinclair Lewis' greatest books was It Can't Happen Here. Others think Main Street and Babbitt are far superior. I think Joyce's Ulysses and Tolstoy's War and Peace are two of the worst pieces of writing of the 19th and 20th centuries, yet others consider them masterpieces.

Crap is in the eye of the beholder or in the hand of the judger.

[Blue Tyson]

Their own management.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

If you want to insult me, do it plainly, don't coach it in words, it's more insulting that way.

If I wanted to insult you, I assure you I would have.

I chose not to, while still giving voice to my opinion.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Most of the functions you're talking about could be performed easily with crowdsourcing.

Yes.

Poorly.

- Ahi

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by ahi

Yes.

Poorly.

- Ahi

From some of the books I have been getting lately, that is not a change.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by BlackVoid

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

BINGO!

[dmaul1114]

People not reading books/novels/magazines/newspapers regularly in greater numbers as other media continue to explode.

[basschick]

the second i read this thread title, my first thought was "their own idiocy". i see i am not alone in this opinion.

seems like large industries don't want to be flexible. they to keep doing the same old thing, and refuse to see that readers these days want choices and interaction. we want competitive prices - reasonable ones - and we want selection. we don't want a bunch of "marketing speak" - we want sites, publisher blogs and reps who talk to us just like we were all people.

the publishing companies want to keep doing what they've been doing, and they want to spend time telling us WHY they have to do that. the truth is that they don't have to keep doing the same old thing, and telling us they do isn't likely to convince anyone. it IS likely to make us think less of a lot of bigger publishers.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I voted "other."

I think the biggest threat to the publishing industry is free content online. Not "free ebooks," but content: blogs, news, cat macros, discussion forums, email lists, chatrooms...

Publishers don't have a direct problem with people who don't read. Even knowing that 80 years ago, they had a larger percentage of the population to sell to, well, we've balanced out the smaller percentage of readers-for-pleasure with larger numbers of them, with more leisure time.

Which they are often spending reading... blogs.

I think this is a good point, but I'm not sure that I entirely agree with it, because on several occassions I have purchased books after reading stuff on the internet that has peeked my interest in a subject.

My vote went to 'Content not available' because several publishers could have made a sale if the content had been available in an ebook format.

Price is a close 2nd for me. Once again, publishers would be getting a lot more money from me if they would just bundle an author's books at a reduced price. There are a lot of authors whose entire collections I'd like to purchase, but even at $6 a piece for prolific authors like Agatha Christie it is just too much.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Phogg

From some of the books I have been getting lately, that is not a change.

The fact that you and however many other random people are not able to recognize the myriad tell-tale signs of a self-published or author-mill published book, does not mean that it isn't objectively trivial to do so.

The fact that there are bad books published by reputable publishers does not mean that indie books are just as good.

The fact that some books published by large publishers receive careless treatment does not mean that a publisher does not add value the majority of the time.

The fact that many publishers are morally bankrupt does not mean that the literary world would thrive without any publishers.

You can disagree... but chances are overwhelming that your view is rooted in ignorance of a field that is considerably more complex (and deals with a variety of professions that are themselves more complex) than you even realize.

Please forgive the tone... but it is tiring to continue to face the steady stream of nonsense masquerading as sage, if sardonic, observation.

- Ahi

[khalleron]

I'm getting a kind of kick out of this "my crap is better than your crap" argument.

My take: Publishers chasing after the latest blockbuster are quite likely to produce crap. Highly polished crap, maybe, but still crap. Catering to the broadest possible public taste is not the way to produce good books.

I'm not so sure that the complete amateur route is the way to go, either, but I do think we're on the brink of some profound change in publishing - we're almost at the same place with the Internet that publishing was in the 18th century when anyone with a little money and access to a printing press could publish anything. Will 'the crowd' produce better books? Maybe. Could be. I think the idea of doing away with the gatekeepers to be quite exciting. Sure, lots of crap will be produced, but lots of crap gets published every year anyway. <shrug>

The cream should still rise to the top - word of mouth has always been the best advertising anyway.