Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Books have gone for too long without such critiques... maybe because, in the past, quality was generally so high as to make it a pointless exercise. But this is no longer the case, and it should be addressed. Highlighting e-book quality should help the better publishers, and encourage the lesser ones to improve their product.
|
Actually, books have suffered from such critiques when they have been particularly bad. I remember reading a review many years ago where the reviewer started off soemthing like this: "I loathe the editor who was responsible for editing this book and the publisher who published it, forcing me to read it. When I want toilet paper I buy it and use it; this book is too expensive and too rough for that use."
Up until 10 years ago, publishers paid editors and proofreaders relatively well and demanded a relatively high level of both competency and work output. But in those days and before, publishing houses were often family owned businesses, not small cogs in a conglomerate that requires a positive quarterly return.
I've been in the editing business for 25 years and I can tell you that until a publisher looks at long-term results rather than next quarter results, it will only get worse, not better. The whole publishing model has been turned inside-out as a result of consolidation, and there are limited areas where cost-savings can be squeezed -- unfortunately, editorial is an obvious one.