Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
Yes, definitely. Because enhancing the totality is one of the most important functions that a good editor contributes to.
And I do not read books in a way that I enjoy part of it and that is enough. I enjoy the whole book or I do not enjoy the whole book. I enjoyed a lot of episodes of Battlestar Galactica but the ending made these episodes bad retroactively and I really think the hours spent watching them was totally wasted and I felt cheated since I could have wathed a series that was good instead.
And we also have the case that the totality is OK but it could have been brilliant. Which is also bad since I do not want to read books that are just OK but also that I missed a potentially brilliant book.
|
I fail to see how self- vs. traditional-publishing has any bearing on your logic or apprehensions. Not trying to be difficult. I don't particularly like bad endings either... I just don't think traditional publishing brings anything extra-special to the table that would ensure "better," more satisfying endings. Nor do I think traditional publishers provide continuity editors whose job it is to scour earlier chapters (or books in a long series) for every niggling little inconsistency that a later passage (or book) might introduce. I believe those days are long gone. Big picture/plot continuity... maybe... maybe... for-their-highest-profile-authors maybe.
"You described your sidekick's laser blaster as having a green beam in chapter 1, but in chapter 21 it's described as red" kind of continuity... not so much. Plus, you've very casually dismissed the possibility that a self-published author could have a "good editor." Why?
Frankly, I think you're trying a bit too hard to dismiss books/authors that clearly have no bearing/effect on your personal reading choices. You don't really
get any say about the quality of books/endings you've already decided you can't risk reading.