Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
If you'll look at my argument, you'll see that I'm not arguing that free=better, I'm arguing that free=no better or worse.
|
Your opinion. Mine would be that the vast majority of free is far worse than the vast majority of paid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moejoe
DID cost money, DID cost money. Crowdsourcing is already proving a boon in many areas, and we're not just talking WIKI's here. Look at the foreign language translations of Doctorow's work. Done without payment by volunteers. The filesharers do this also. When they put out a rip of a book, they'll add a note with a version number and if any typos or corrections are made, the next filehsharer along makes that know by adding a new version number.
I know from my own experiences with some typos and spellings that have been caught by readers of my writing, who did this for no money might I add. Were their suggestions any less or any more helpful than a person whose paid to do the same? Will all writing cease because someone isn't making a buck off it?
|
A typo here and there is one thing and any good writer should actually be able to do that him/herself.
Editing is different. A writer will generally feel that what they have written is perfect the way it is when generally it really isn't. They don't have the objectivity to see this. Now, you could trust a bunch of completely unknown readers with no track record and varying tastes and abilities to edit your work and that is your choice. The results would no doubt be varied. On the other hand you could trust a trained professional with a track record to edit it. One vision, someone you trust and possibly have worked with or at least read other stuff edited by them and so know their style and work. Results would more than likely be much better. Again, your choice of course.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moejoe
And lack of money will not make a great writer any less great. Are you honestly saying that money is the only way to make something worth reading? That the traditional process is the only way that writers can better themselves? From good to readable, what does that even mean? Stephen King is possibly one of the worst writers in history, and okay, that's subjective, but everything is when it comes to writing. Good, bad, indifferent, it's all up to YOU. You don't need someone in between to tell you what is worthwhile and what isn't. Gladly, we're living in a time where you CAN make up your own mind, where your choices aren't limited to what the companies want you to read.
|
I stated in the vast majority of cases, not all. I also stated there are those few and far between talents that can do it all themselves. I am not saying the traditional process is the only way to do this. In fact, in a previous thread I did state that I'm all for getting rid of the "traditional process". However, I still think that the input of money can go a long long way to making a book much better than it would be. I am not saying that money is the only way to make something worth reading. I am saying that in the vast majority of cases a good writer will still need some editing, some constructive criticism, some direction in order to make their writing something that is really worth reading.
As for the difference between good and readable........there are plenty of "good" writers out there whose writing in it's raw and unedited form is not really very readable. Along comes an editor who makes suggestions, criticisms and ideas and the writer goes away and incorporates those(or not as they see fit) and the finished work(written by the "good" writer) becomes much more readable and enjoyable in most cases. Get it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moejoe
I've cut the above quote short because I don't really care about TV and I think it's going to die out within ten years anyway. Film as well can't last at current levels. Do I know where its going? Not a clue, as far as I'm concerned TV and FILM are cultural wastelands at the moment and I can 't see that getting any better in the near future.
|
Your arguments generally do come down to dismissing anything you don't agree with so I'm not surprised you simply skip past this. Funny how you are so quick to link the publishing industry to the music industry when it suits you but now are so quick to dismiss a link between film/tv and writing when you don't want to argue the merits.
As for TV dying within 10 years I tell you what................I'll give you a million to one odds against. Care to make a wager?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moejoe
I think your logic is way off. If everything is free then people will still create, if not create more. The barriers of entry are down, so you don't need to worry about the old gatekeepers. You can do it yourself and ask the audience what they think. There will be more cultural creativity in the next ten years than in the last sixty, that's my prediction. More writers, more musicians, all that good stuff. Your choices will be abundant (they are already). You wont have to pay for your culture, but you know what, you might pay anyway just to support people you like. This isn't a UTOPIA, its the pre-wake of the singularity in action.
Welcome to the future, it's happening now  |
Anyone who wants to create now can already do so. There are absolutely no barriers to creation and never have been. The barriers lie in creating something of worth and getting that something out to the audience.
Now I grant you, that in the writing industry only, the barriers to getting the work out to the audience are dropping. The barriers to creating something of worth are still there.
In other artistic and cultural endeavours the barriers to both are still there. The idea that it should all be free because we can now "file-share" it means that these other endeavours at the very least, will become even more of a desolate wasteland than you believe them to be now.
Cheers,
PKFFW