Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Ebooks and publishing are a perfect example of this. Those authors and readers embracing ebooks and self-publishing are benefitting, those resisting are getting hammered and, yes, "damaged".
|
Frankly, most self-published books I bought and read were garbage. I love the idea of self-publishing (the freedom, the independence), but it's similar to loving the idea of the microwave, yet being repulsed by the type of food that is usually prepared in it.
The impact of a skilled editor is tremendous, as is the pre-filtering of junk (that which most publishers reject). Yes, there are some noteworthy self-published writers, and there is no hard rule that says self-published books cannot be properly edited, but these are, in my experience, rare exceptions. It's much like print journalism and blogging. Everyone is a journalist now, just like everyone can be a "published" author.
I have neither the time nor the energy or desire to sift through piles of self-published e-books, so my solution is to avoid anything that doesn't come from an established publishing house. Ten years ago, I had a completely different view on this. My appreciation for the concept hasn't diminished, but I'm thoroughly disenchanted by the results.
I disagree that you have to go with the flow or otherwise you're the "problem". Or rather, I don't care if that is the case. I'm not an Amazon customer, which I suppose means I limit my choice (it's largely theoretical, there is no shortage of books, both paper and e-book, that I can get from other places, far more than I can read in a lifetime) and results in slightly higher expenses because not every seller can or wants to price-dump). I still buy books from the few independent bookstores that are left, and yes, that also means I sometimes have to wait 2-3 weeks for the import of a book while Amazon's German warehouse has 20 copies sitting around that I could get the next day. Am I making a difference? I doubt it, but it's all I can do.
To me, a monopoly, quasi or actual, is never beneficial for society. Resisting it and instead supporting local economies or competing businesses does not "kill society". It, quite likely, is the only thing one can do to actually protect diversity and choice. (I realize that on the surface this seems to clash with my take on self-publishing, though again, I don't disagree with the concept.)
I don't subscribe to the belief that everything new is automatically better or superior. It's often more convenient and efficient, and quite possibly more rewarding in the short term. But in the long run? I only need to look at society and the environment to know that many of our improvements have done immense societal and environmental damage.