View Single Post
Old 08-05-2010, 02:55 AM   #16
Poppa1956
Evangelist
Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Poppa1956 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Poppa1956's Avatar
 
Posts: 487
Karma: 344188
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Device: Verizon Ellipsis Tablit w/Kindle and Nook apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lake View Post
Someone brought up an interesting point in another thread that, at least according to them, about 98% of all manuscripts submitted to publishers are complete crap and have no right being there. Having done tech editing for 5+ years I can completely relate. I've definitely seen my fair share of "OMGWTF!?" type submissions that are so bad it's a felony to burn them because you'd be releasing toxic pollution on an epic scale. :P (lol, just kidding guys, don't everyone suddenly grab pitch forks and start attacking the castle. hehe)
Long ago, I became convinced that most tech manuals were written and edited by persons that either
  1. did not speak English at all fluently,
  2. Did not understand that hardware/software about which they wrote
  3. both of the above
  4. were seeking revenge for something westerners had done to their ancestors
  5. were such a bunch of greedy proctologists, that they took up writing just that sort of manual to generate more patients.

Quote:
But seriously, in all abject honesty, of all the manuscripts submitted to most publishing houses, how many do you truly believe are viable manuscripts? IE, manuscripts that are of sufficient quality to be worthy of publishing. And I'm not saying that anyone should run around saying "all manuscripts, except mine" or anything like that. I'm simply looking for an objective, realistic estimate. Would the 98% figure be accurate (ie, 98% of manuscripts are either insufficient or complete junk vs 2% that are quality, or at least good enough to publish), or is that too high, too low, or just right?

I'm interested in hearing your opinions. And please, keep it civil, as I'm more than certain that some comments in a thread like this could easily step on some toes, so play nice.
Sports analogy warning!This may be akin to the number of people trying to get into the NFL/NBA/NHL or whatever national/international sports league as opposed to those that actually get in, and those that achieve some celebrity and wealth because of their talents and skills in the sport of their choice.
Poppa1956 is offline   Reply With Quote