Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
When it comes to what makes for a great book, it will indeed always be a matter of opinion. But, while unproven, I think there's lots of evidence, found in any big library, that Random House titles are typically better written than narratives on the same topic from top academic publishers.
I find considerable doubt. The big publisher editor has power to insist on changes because the author is under contract. While authors takes a financial hit when refusing structural edits, regardless of what type of editor is being dissed, the publishing company editor has more power.
There may be titles where the big publisher editor used his or her greater power to ruin a potential classic. But most I'm seeing go the other way.
I realize that my evidence, such as it is, focuses on narrative nonfiction. I'm less sure that there's the same dynamic with fiction.
|
I think that Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books are the poster child for what happens when the editorial loop gets short circuited. The first book is one of the better books that I've read, fast paced and interesting. I suspect that it is not a coincidence that the quality of the books started to go downhill after Jordan married his editor. (note, I know that Jordan isn't his real name, I use it because that's the name most will recognize).
It's really not all that unusual to see the quality of work of some very, very talented people go downhill once they have more editorial say.