Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg
The article seems confused.
Editors and Publishers are not synonyms.
Presenting a case for the need of editing does exactly zero to show a need for publishers.
|
First I think an article that quite clearly mentions other functions of publishing (marketing, promotion) does not equate it with editing merely because it goes on to argue that editing is perhaps the most useful of these.
Second I think presenting a case for editing does show more than zero need for publishers because left to their own devices authors may decide they don't need editors.
Also he's not just making a case for needing editing, by using as an example a self-published author he's in effect making a case for editing being required by a third party (which doesn't have to be a publisher but usually has been).
I've just read a self-pubbed book which was really badly written and all the way through kept thinking how much it needed an editor, only to find when checking the title page again that an editor was credited. Well clearly it had been proof-read but there were other things that I'd expect an editor to spot, inconsistent use of character names, confusing plot structure, plodding language, uneven tone. But if you're a free-lance editor maybe it's easy to point out a few spelling errors and tidy up a few grammatical problems and not risk upsetting the person who's paying you by pointing out the bigger problems?