[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Your opinion. Mine would be that the vast majority of free is far worse than the vast majority of paid.

You're looking in all the wrong places then. I've already read this year a book that is now in my top ten of all time list. That was completely free.

A typo here and there is one thing and any good writer should actually be able to do that him/herself.

I think that's a veiled insult, a really trite one too. Typos are natural elements in writing, they are missed all the way into traditionally published books.

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.

Who are these professionals actually trained by? I'm curious because, unlike the film industry, there's not really say, the equivalent professional qualification of A.C.E that a film editor might have. And if we're talking track record, well their track record is mainly in taking a gamble on the product they chose to represent. And lest I forget, but the editors in publishing now pale in comparison to the editors of ten years ago, and are nothing compared to the editors who worked with Hemmingway or Bradbury or any of the greats in the golden age of publishing. The editing of books, that kind of nurturing is hardly done anymore.

If you're seriously suggesting that Stephanie Meyer or Dan Brown has a good editor (and you must be based upon your statements) then I don't know what to say. I really don't. I'm lost for words.

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.

And all of these things can and will be done outside of the structures of traditional publishing. And again its all subjective. Just because I think Kelly Link is one of the greatest short story writers I've ever come across, doesn't mean anything.

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?

What I get (your condescension aside) is that you're looking at an industry that existed thirty years ago, with editors who groomed writers work and prepped them and nurtured their talents . That's not publishing now (unless you're talking about small press). Big publishers don't give a shit about their talent. It's a conveyor belt with Harvard graduates and the cousins of the CEO running the show. It's a bottom line business that relies on marketing and brand recognition. If you think that any of modern publishing is about nurturing talent and making them better writers, well, I'd say you're quite deluded.

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?

I skipped over one of your points because I found it irrelevant and now that's the total sum of all my arguments?

Okay, lets get a few things clear. I worked in the industry, I have qualifications that got me into that industry. Even back when I worked in TV, you could see the end coming a mile off.

There's very little quality to TV, never has been. It's a medium of advertising (apart from the BBC and public funded stations). The programs exist to sell advertising. But now there's less and less advertising selling because there's less and less people watching. So there's less and less money. Ergo, there's less and less money for production....you see where this downward spiral is going?

In the face of the web, new and zero-cost interactions, social networking and all the other goodies that a PC offers you, the TV just can't compete. Especially to a younger generation. If you can tell me how they're going to survive the next ten years with ever dwindling audiences, well... you shouldn't be telling me, you should be telling CBS and NBC and ITV, because they're all scrambling to know, and they'll pay you a pretty penny to find out.

Now, lets take your other point about me making comparisons between music and publishing. Yes, of course I did, they're easy enough to link together and very similar in the way they work. There are agents in both (they call them AnR in music) there are editors in both (studio producers in music) and there are publishers. Both industries rip off the artist by offering crappy monetary incentives and ridiculous percentages on sales. And the products of both industries are low bandwith and easy to reproduce on a modern PC in a digital form (music file / ebook).

I hope that has answered your, frankly, quite ridiculous assumptions in full.

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

It's not the idea that everything should be free, its the burgeoning reality of that situation that cannot be changed or should be changed. The word Free itself isn't even warranted any longer when everything is free (and we're very close to that point). You want to ignore what's going on, fine? Ignore it. You want to shout against what's happening, go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that it is happening, that the old models are dying, that the old ways of the entertainment conglomerates are coming to an end.

RIP Old Media.

*And yes, TV/Movies will become a wasteland soon enough (if they're not at that point now). Unless the nearness of the singularity brings about technological change that makes the production of movies/tv to a level of ease that music and writing have reached -- this is a highly probable happening.