Random House Explains What Publishers Do

[charlesatan]

Re: editing.

I just want to comment that regarding editing, some people work better with paper (i.e. they can see it better), while others using a screen. I've seen some authors make corrections on printed proofs, while others on PDFs (since it can be annotated by multiple users, etc.).

The "extra" step of editing (i.e. might introduce errors) is moot. I mean yes, there is a chance that a correction might be missed and not inputted (and in fact, it's been my experience working in a magazine that this has happened). But when editing, the editor isn't making those changes directly on the file anyway. It's usually the graphic artist, who's familiar with the program (InDesign or Quark).

Depending on the editing stage of the manuscript, the file might not be in Word, but an InDesign/Quark Express file exported to PDF.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by tompe

So you have made or read about empirical studies. Any pointer to where I can read about these studies? Because without these studies I really do not believe you.

I don't have any studies, just 28 years of experience. When I first began my editing career, everything was done on paper. Paper was great unless you discovered 100 pages later that edits you made earlier need to be revised in light of information subsequently revealed. Then good luck finding those earlier edits without having to go back through the manuscript page by page and increasing the cost. Even then nothing assured that all would be caught.

In addition, editing on paper meant that the human tendency to read what one expected rather than what was actually present often occurred.

Online editing lowered editing costs, speeded up the edting process, and reduced the number of errors committed by authors that were missed by editors. Is it perfect? No, but definitely better. Especially because of the availability of macros and specialized dictionaries that further reduce the errors that are missed by manual editing.

In my experience, editing online has reduced the cost to authors and publishers of the editing process while speeding up the process.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And even more importantly in relation to what brought this up. Apparently RH agrees with me. (not sure I like that, but it appears to be true)

No, RH doesn't agree with you. What you saw in the video is the preliminary review by developmental editors who are concerned with structure, not the copyediting that occurs much later in the production process. RH has for years required that copyeditors, and even freelance developmental editors, edit online and not on paper.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

No, RH doesn't agree with you. What you saw in the video is the preliminary review by developmental editors who are concerned with structure, not the copyediting that occurs much later in the production process. RH has for years required that copyeditors, and even freelance developmental editors, edit online and not on paper.

You don't know that, the video says exactly what I said. They agree based on what is presented there.

And besides, no one said we were subdividing editing into subsections.

[kennyc]

Let's get back to the point of this thread though, dinosaurs defending themselves, building walls and attempting to spread propaganda.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by charlesatan

Re: editing.

The "extra" step of editing (i.e. might introduce errors) is moot. I mean yes, there is a chance that a correction might be missed and not inputted (and in fact, it's been my experience working in a magazine that this has happened). But when editing, the editor isn't making those changes directly on the file anyway. It's usually the graphic artist, who's familiar with the program (InDesign or Quark).

Depending on the editing stage of the manuscript, the file might not be in Word, but an InDesign/Quark Express file exported to PDF.

A publisher who pays a graphic artist to input changes for book production is wasting time and money. Most publishers expect the copyeditor or inhouse production editor to make those changes before the files are sent to the InDesign person.

The InDesign person will enter some corrections following proofreading, assuming the proofreading is not done in InCopy, but the copyedited file for books is provided in final form, usually in Word, and imported into InDesign.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You don't know that, the video says exactly what I said. They agree based on what is presented there.

And besides, no one said we were subdividing editing into subsections.

I do know that by the types of marks that were used by the editor in the video and because I have done work for Random House and been told that the copyediting is to be done in MS Word with Track Changes on.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I don't have any studies, just 28 years of experience. When I first began my editing career, everything was done on paper. Paper was great unless you discovered 100 pages later that edits you made earlier need to be revised in light of information subsequently revealed. Then good luck finding those earlier edits without having to go back through the manuscript page by page and increasing the cost. Even then nothing assured that all would be caught.

Well, I was thinking about the copy editing of a fiction book.

Maybe line editing is a bit different if it includes much more re-writing than copy editing.

But structural editing I assume is best done on paper since this is giving feedback to the author about bigger changes.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Let's get back to the point of this thread though, dinosaurs defending themselves, building walls and attempting to spread propaganda.

Can't agree with you there, Kenny. The video shows just what it is that publishers do that most self-published books are lacking, and that's information that should be valuable to any would-be (or current self-published) author. Publishers do a hell of a lot more than just take someone's manuscript and print it.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by plib

That raises a question. Do you want your lawyer to be a ninja, or a shark?

Whatever WINS!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can't agree with you there, Kenny. The video shows just what it is that publishers do that most self-published books are lacking, and that's information that should be valuable to any would-be (or current self-published) author. Publishers do a hell of a lot more than just take someone's manuscript and print it.

Ah, but you are missing the bigger picture Harry. Every "knows" this, but why this video, now? THAT'S the point.

And no, not all self-published books are lacking these things nor do all self-published books need them. This is just RH attempting to defend the status quo instead of embracing the new direction. This is a propaganda/publicity piece. They've got to try to do something, but this is not it, this is the dying gasps of the dinosaurs.

The issue is that the big houses like RH have been in control without any competition for so long, they don't even see the issue and the literary community is so much like sheep following them around they not only don't see it, but continue to support the status quo when it is actually harmful to their own interests.

This video, this thread is just one more example of that.

[HarryT]

A publisher has made a promotional video explaining what it is they do. Given that many people here (and elsewhere, too) ask "what is it that publishers do", I see that as a useful and beneficial thing. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing sinister conspiracies here. Perhaps that's my loss, but there you have it.

I agree with you that some self-published books are produced to a professional standard, but most, alas, are not.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And no, not all self-published books are lacking these things nor do all self-published books need them.

What do you base this claim on? Concerning structure/developmental editing Ellen Datlow was a GoH at a con in Copenhagen recently and she said that she had seen one manuscript during here career that did not need this kind of editing.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A publisher has made a promotional video explaining what it is they do. Given that many people here (and elsewhere, too) ask "what is it that publishers do", I see that as a useful and beneficial thing. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing sinister conspiracies here. Perhaps that's my loss, but there you have it.

I agree with you that some self-published books are produced to a professional standard, but most, alas, are not.

I definitely agree many self-pub (particularly ebooks) suck big time!

I also agree with the new-found ability to self-publish there is interest in this topic.

I never said there was any kind of conspiracy (I think you are reading that into it yourself. ) but I do think this is an attempt at defending the status quo, as any business under attack would likely do.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by tompe

What do you base this claim on? Concerning structure/developmental editing Ellen Datlow was a GoH at a con in Copenhagen recently and she said that she had seen one manuscript during here career that did not need this kind of editing.

Bad luck?