Interesting article on book pricing and why it might rise

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by tompe

Because it is extremely hard to see problems in your own text. Also an editor can help an author to get even better.

But it also means that the author doesn't need to try harder. They should print the story they write and rewrite themselves, and if nobody wants to buy it, they should try harder or give up. If they need assistance in that I don't see why they expect to be able to make enough of an income out of writing to do nothing else.

I'm sure that all the people that are pro giving donations to the authors assume that the story was written by the author, otherwise they would also want to pay the editors.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

As a reader I don't have a problem with that, in fact I don't think that there should be an editor in the first place. If you aren't good enough to write a compelling story to begin with, why should you expect to make a living out of writing?

As a working editor, I don't think you quite understand what an editor does for a story. Editors help writers catch the things they missed, and see what's not quite clear.

One issue many writers have with a story is that they will inadvertently leave some minor (but important) detail out of the manuscript. When they read the story their mind automatically fills things in, so they don't see the gap. Editors can highlight these issues and let the author know where they left something out or where they could perhaps say something better.

A good editor is like a really good beta reader, who can not only tell you where they had issues, but also explain what they consider the reason behind the issue and make suggestions of how to fix it.

It's impossible to improve anything without feedback, and that's just one of the things editors provide.

As for copy editing and initial proofs: There are some things which will always need a second set of eyes. The author is usually just too close to the manuscript to catch certain errors.

Unedited books are not something anyone wants to look forward to.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As a working editor, I don't think you quite understand what an editor does for a story. Editors help writers catch the things they missed, and see what's not quite clear.

You don't quite understand my point. Since you are there, ready to do this for them, the authors pay less attention than they normally would.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

One issue many writers have with a story is that they will inadvertently leave some minor (but important) detail out of the manuscript. When they read the story their mind automatically fills things in, so they don't see the gap. Editors can highlight these issues and let the author know where they left something out or where they could perhaps say something better.

And they never learn. It is like having training wheels on a bike: to be able to say that you are cycling, you shouldn't be needing them.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I would encourage you to FIRST try getting the book via the author. Not all of us will point you to the darknets and I would rather 1. sell it to you myself or 2. make sure you have a way to buy it or 3. give it to you outright if need be.

That works too!

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But they only become 90% of the cost of the book by excluding many other things from the definition of cost. And the 90% figure is then used to say that eBooks can't drop in price very much compared to pBooks.

Correct. The variables are what those costs exclusive of things specific to print versions actually are, and what price the publisher needs to charge on an ebook and cover those costs and make enough money to continue as a going concern.

I happen to think those costs and the price required to make money selling ebooks are higher than people want to believe.

If I'm correct in my assumptions, you won't see ebooks from major trade publishers priced at the rate you might like because they can't publish ebooks at those prices and make money.

This is not publisher greed - it's survival. They want to stay in business, and sell you more books tomorrow. There's an amount they have to make to do that.
______
Dennis

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You don't quite understand my point. Since you are there, ready to do this for them, the authors pay less attention than they normally would.

And they never learn. It is like having training wheels on a bike: to be able to say that you are cycling, you shouldn't be needing them.

One important factor you're leaving out is the author's own development. Good editors help authors develop by showing them what to look for. It's common for authors to receive less and less editing as their career progresses (whether it's always for the best is up for debate but that's another issue).

The author won't get better if they can't see their mistakes - it's like learning anything - you can't get better until you learn how to recognize mistakes, and at least at first someone's going to have to point them out to you.

There are reasons why many writers have credited editors as being invaluable in their professional development.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

One important factor you're leaving out is the author's own development. Good editors help authors develop by showing them what to look for. It's common for authors to receive less and less editing as their career progresses (whether it's always for the best is up for debate but that's another issue).

The author won't get better if they can't see their mistakes - it's like learning anything - you can't get better until you learn how to recognize mistakes, and at least at first someone's going to have to point them out to you.

There are reasons why many writers have credited editors as being invaluable in their professional development.

I'm not leaving it out, since my initial comment was on BearMountainBooks saying that another author only got editing on the first book of the series. And in the same way that training wheels need to come off eventually, also the authors need to stop relying on editors eventually.

And my point is that while they are learning, they shouldn't expect to get that much money out of it.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You don't quite understand my point. Since you are there, ready to do this for them, the authors pay less attention than they normally would.

Every working writer I know does pay attention to such things. A lot of attention. After all, they want to submit a manuscript an editor will buy.

But you reach a point of "not seeing the forest for the trees". Every working writer I know also admits that a good editor can help them turn a good book into a great one, and considers having a good editor to be a key part of any success they might have achieved as writer.

A late friend who was an editor once said that a variant of the 80/20 rule rule applied, and might be called 80/10/10.

80% of the manuscripts that came in over the transom were automatic rejects, with the only question whether they got a form rejection slip or something that went into a little more detail about why it got bounced.

10% of the manuscripts were an automatic buy, and publish as is.

10% of the manuscripts almost made the grade, and needed work to get them to publishable state. That 10% occupied the largest part of his time as editor.

He was editing for short story markets, but something very similar happens for novels.

And in many cases, the editorial changes requested have a simple motive: make the book something the publisher can sell. Every line is subtly different in what it thinks it publishes and who it thinks the readers are, and a manuscript may not quite hit the mark that line is aiming for. Consider Harlequin's Luna imprint. They publish romantic fantasy. The fantasy is the dominant element, with romance as a sub-plot. If you submit a manuscript that is a crackling good fantasy but weak on the romance, Luna may buy it, but the revision letter from the editor will make suggestions to boost the romance content, because romantic fantasy is what the line publishes and what its readers expect.

If you think the services of an editor can be dispensed with to give you the book cheaper, be careful what you wish for. You might get it, and I doubt you'll be happy with the result. What you see from a commercial publisher is the manuscript after editing. You don't see it before, and might be unhappy if you did.
______
Dennis

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I'm not leaving it out, since my initial comment was on BearMountainBooks saying that another author only got editing on the first book of the series. And in the same way that training wheels need to come off eventually, also the authors need to stop relying on editors eventually.

And my point is that while they are learning, they shouldn't expect to get that much money out of it.

I wasn't responding so much to your initial comment as to your later blanket comment, "I don't think there should be an editor in the first place."

That's the comment I have the greater issue with.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

80% of the manuscripts that came in over the transom were automatic rejects, with the only question whether they got a form rejection slip or something that went into a little more detail about why it got bounced.

10% of the manuscripts were an automatic buy, and publish as is.

10% of the manuscripts almost made the grade, and needed work to get them to publishable state. That 10% occupied the largest part of his time as editor.

He was editing for short story markets, but something very similar happens for novels.

Except according to the read this and weep link in the useful insight into how a book is made article that the original article on this thread linked to, 95-99% of the submissions are automatically rejected.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If you think the services of an editor can be dispensed with to give you the book cheaper, be careful what you wish for. You might get, and I doubt you'll be happy with the result. What you see from a commercial publisher is the manuscript after editing. You don't see it before, and might be unhappy if you did.

Except according to BearMountainBooks this is exactly what happens. Costs get cut so books don't get edited.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The impression we've gotten from what we've heard of the agency pricing contracts is that no, retailers are not allowed to offer discounts. They aren't paying the publishers (for example) $7 for a $10-retail-price ebook, and have $3 to take as profit or offer discounts from. They are getting 30 percent of the $10 price, which they are not allowed to touch.

Amazon was perfectly willing to sell with lower profit margins, and to lose money on some books in order to encourage people to buy other things from them.

This was not about the publishers insisting on a higher price per book -- it was about trying to prevent the public from thinking $10 was a reasonable price for an ebook. More than one publisher announced that they were very disturbed at the idea of people getting used to $10 ebooks, because then they'd start to demand them, and publishers insisted that they can't make any profit at that price.

I see no problem selling an eBook for $10 when the hardcover is the current version. If we then wait until the paperback and the eBook price to lower, then the publisher makes less money. So why screw up something that works?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Except according to the read this and weep link in the useful insight into how a book is made article that the original article on this thread linked to, 95-99% of the submissions are automatically rejected.

As it happens, Patrick and Teresa Nielsen Hayden are folks I've known for years. Patrick is Senior Editor and Manager of Science Fiction at Tor these days, and Teresa is their former Managing Editor and now a Consulting Editor.

Making Light is an excellent source of info.

But even if the reject rate is higher than the comment I quoted (which was specific to that editor's experience), it doesn't affect my point.

(The editor, BTW, was the late George H. Scithers, who was the original editor at Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine before Gardner Dozois took over, and later was editor for Amazing Stories when TSR Publications picked it up. He was describing what he encountered. I used to live across the street from George back then, and was at a couple of editorial meetings as an interested observer.)

Except according to BearMountainBooks this is exactly what happens. Costs get cut so books don't get edited.

Size matters. This is true in her case, but not necessarily across the board. She's writing from the perspective of an indie publisher, contracting out for services. She contracts out if she thinks she needs to and can afford to.

Large trade publishers have salaried employees on staff that do that sort of things. What they are increasingly not doing to cut costs is copy editing and proofreading, which do tend to be contracted out.

A friend used to be VP of an editorial production house, that provided copy editing, proofreading, and typesetting services to publishers. She lamented on a list I'm on the number of publishers that were increasing not doing such things to save money. An editor for a trade house, who was on the same list at the time, responded "But such things are part of the basic budget of the book, and are always done!" "Maybe they still are at your house", was the reply, "but I'm the one dealing with clients who used to pay us to do it and don't any more!"
______
Dennis

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

But even if the reject rate is higher than the comment I quoted (which was specific to that editor's experience), it doesn't affect my point.

(The editor, BTW, was the late George H. Scithers, who was the original editor at Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine before Gardner Dozois took over, and later was editor for Amazing Stories when TSR Publications picked it up. He was describing what he encountered. I used to live across the street from George back then, and was at a couple of editorial meetings as an interested observer.)

From my point of view, it does, and your comment enforces my point. In the time of George H. Scithers you could find 10% of the authors with manuscripts good enough to publish as they were, but that is gone now.

The situation that is described by Making Light is depressing:

1. Author is functionally illiterate.
2. Author has submitted some variety of literature we don’t publish: poetry, religious revelation, political rant, illustrated fanfic, etc.
3. Author has a serious neurochemical disorder, puts all important words into capital letters, and would type out to the margins if MSWord would let him.
4. Author is on bad terms with the Muse of Language. Parts of speech are not what they should be. Confusion-of-motion problems inadvertently generate hideous images. Words are supplanted by their similar-sounding cousins: towed the line, deep-seeded, dire straights, nearly penultimate, incentiary, reeking havoc, hare’s breath escape, plaintiff melody, viscous/vicious, causal/casual, clamoured to her feet, a shutter went through her body, his body went ridged, empirical storm troopers, ex-patriot Englishmen, et cetera.
5. Author can write basic sentences, but not string them together in any way that adds up to paragraphs.
6. Author has a moderate neurochemical disorder and can’t tell when he or she has changed the subject. This greatly facilitates composition, but is hard on comprehension.
7. Author can write passable paragraphs, and has a sufficiently functional plot that readers would notice if you shuffled the chapters into a different order. However, the story and the manner of its telling are alike hackneyed, dull, and pointless.
(At this point, you have eliminated 60-75% of your submissions. Almost all the reading-and-thinking time will be spent on the remaining fraction.)
8. It’s nice that the author is working on his/her problems, but the process would be better served by seeing a shrink than by writing novels.
9. Nobody but the author is ever going to care about this dull, flaccid, underperforming book.
10. The book has an engaging plot. Trouble is, it’s not the author’s, and everybody’s already seen that movie/read that book/collected that comic.
(You have now eliminated 95-99% of the submissions.)
11. Someone could publish this book, but we don’t see why it should be us.
12. Author is talented, but has written the wrong book.
13. It’s a good book, but the house isn’t going to get behind it, so if you buy it, it’ll just get lost in the shuffle.
14. Buy this book.

Most of the people that belong to numbers 1-10 shouldn't have gotten the idea that they can write. In fact, some of the ones from numbers 1-7 shouldn't have graduated primary school. But here they are, submitting manuscripts. And why? Because they think that they did a good job, and an editor out there can make it great.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Only hardcovers are actually returned, and those go back out again for sales on remaindered tables. Paperbacks have the covers stripped, and those get returned. The bodies of the books should end up as landfill, but often wind up for sale really cheap to those who just want to read the book. Publishers are not happy about this, and PB books tend to have legal notices on the copyrights page about it.

And some eBooks have the same legal notice when the eBook doesn't actually have a proper cover as well (generic cover is not a proper cover) and thus are they legal to sell?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

From my point of view, it does, and your comment enforces my point. In the time of George H. Scithers you could find 10% of the authors with manuscripts good enough to publish as they were, but that is gone now.

It wasn't much better than what you quote from Making Light.

The people submitting to Asimov's and Amazing were all targeting the same limited market, and had at least some idea of what the market was and what they should submit. Back then, submissions were hardcopy (It was the late 60's/early 70's). Email didn't exist, and everyone was at pains to explain the format needed on your hardcopy submission to get it looked at. (Double-spaced in a readable font with decent margins, printed with a fresh ribbon, and your name/address and a word count up top on page 1, and include a stamped, self-addressed envelope with sufficient postage to cover costs if you wanted the editor to return it when it was rejected.) A depressing number failed that first step...

Aside from Asimov's, the SF short story market included Analog also published by Dell Magazines), Fantasy and Science Fiction, Amazing, Fantastic, Galaxy, and Worlds of If. Only Analog, Asimovs, and F&SF still exist.

Most of the people that belong to numbers 1-10 shouldn't have gotten the idea that they can write. In fact, some of the ones from numbers 1-7 shouldn't have graduated primary school. But here they are, submitting manuscripts. And why? Because they think that they did a good job, and an editor out there can make it great.

No, they submit because they think they did a good job and an editor will buy it. Many of those same folks shriek loudly at editorial suggestions for changes. They can't handle the idea that their deathless prose might not be up to snuff as submitted.

I was in various electronic forums back when aimed at writers looking for critiques of works in progress. It rapidly became obvious that 99% of them weren't looking for critiques. They wanted to be told how wonderful their writing was, and would bellow like they were being gelded at any suggestion it wasn't.

Most of them were unlikely to ever be published. Writing requires a thick skin and a tolerance for rejection, because you will get rejected, a lot, before you reach published status, and even when you have there are no guarantees. There was an SF con on the West Coast years back, with a panel whose topic was "How do you know you've made it?", and the panelists were all published SF pros. Each panelist described how he knew he'd arrived. Then the mike went to the late Harry Stubbs, who wrote under the name "Hal Clement". "I still don't know!", said Harry. "I get rejected all the time!" After various hemming and hawing, the other panelists admitted that yes, the occasional rejection slip still arrived. If Hal Clement, SFWA Grandmaster, could admit he got rejected...

(I knew Harry for years before he died of complications of diabetes. There wasn't a pretentious bone in his body. He'd freely admit to still getting rejected because it was the simple truth and he'd see no reason to lie about it. It wasn't like he hadn't proven his worth as an SF writer.)
______
Dennis