[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

Firstly, was this free book a classic PD which you very likely would have had to pay for at time of publication? Secondly, if it wasn't, the fact you have read one book that is now in your top ten doesn't mean a thing. I never said all free content is worse I said in my opinion the vast majority of it is. Your one book aside.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

No insult intended. My point was that any good writer who wants to spend the time going through his/her work letter by letter, word by word could find any and all typos. If a proof reader does it for a living why could not a writer do it themselves. It is not really part of the creative process it is simply a methodical reviewing of the work for any errors.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

They are trained in writing if not in editing specifically. Much like many journalists do a uni degree in media, writing or some other related field, if not in journalism specifically, which enhances their journalism.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

Straw man. I never suggested any such thing.

And even if it wasn't, the fact that two writers you don't care for may or may not have good editors does not in any way mean that any and all writers would be better off without a good editor.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

Yes they can.

My argument, again for the slow ones at the back, is not that traditional publishing is the way to go. My argument is that when you pay peanuts you get monkeys and this idea that the audience should be able to enjoy the work and then pay whatever they feel is right will, by virtue of human nature, result in peanuts being paid in most cases. This will result in a general lowering of the quality of the product because most product does require work outside of the creative process in order to make it of a standard that people would be willing to pay a reasonable price for. This work must be paid for as most of it is done by people who will not benefit directly from the work as the author would.(ie from sales etc of the book)

Do you really think quality people will be willing to do this tedious, non-creative work for free just for the love of it, much like the writer writes for the love of it? If so then I'm the one lost for words now.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

Firstly, what condescension? All I'm saying in the quoted paragraph is that plenty of(I would argue most) good writers still require direction, suggestions, critiques/criticisms and editing of their work. If you think saying that is being condescending then you are the one living in a dream land.

Secondly, what is your point? Publishing today isn't as good as it used to be so the writer should have no say as to the value he/she places on the work. That the audience has a right to everything for free if they so choose and should only be obliged to pay if they think it is worth it? Sure we all hate it when we stump up good money for a poor book but frankly that is the way life is. If you want to read that book you should be obligated to pay what the author wants. If the author wants to give it away for free on the proviso that the reader pays whatever he/she thinks it is worth great. If the author wants someone to pay a reasonable price before they have the right to read it then why should the authors rights be any less respected or worthy than the readers?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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

No, it's the sum of your arguments because you repeatedly disregard anything that holds no interest to you or that you disagree with.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

And your anecdotal evidence is supposed to.....what?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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?

Strange, here in Australia more and more people are signing up to pay tv all the time. Not sure why they are doing it if TV is going to die in less than 10 years.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that with less and less money there will be less and less production. Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

I'm not denying that tv is struggling, I just don't think it will be dead and buried in 10 years. Just like radio isn't dead and buried like everyone thought it would be by now.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

Nope it hasn't answered my point at all.

You find it easy to compare music and books for the reasons you give. Good for you. The fact you are not interested in the comparisons between film/tv and books does not mean those comparisons aren't valid as you seem to be suggesting by your complete disregard for them.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

Firstly, we are a long long way from "everything being free".

Secondly, once again since you seem so slow in picking up on this, I'm not arguing that old ways aren't dying. Nor even that they shouldn't die.

Thirdly, your idea of what is going on may not actually be all that acurate. You see the consumer having the upper hand in having sole rights. Any situation in which one party has substantial advantages over the other will be unsustainable. The idea that the audience will or should have sole rights is no different to the idea that the publishing moguls should.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

*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.

Not even sure what this singularity you keep referring to is. However it seems it is simply some guys idea of what is going to happen at some point in the future. So to argue this and that from the standpoint, and on the basis of, something happening in the future doesn't seem to be very sound reasoning.

Cheers,
PKFFW