‘There will be no more professional writers in the future’

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ficbot

I find that, when I want an alternative to big pub these days, I am going back to the classics. They've had a hundred years to find the errors in Dickens

Not in most of the public domain versions, regretably. I corrected 3000+ errors in my recent proofing of "Our Mutual Friend", for example. When I proof a classic novel, I routinely find 3-5 errors per page.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The gentleman who wrote that interesting article (and thank you for posting the link!) is clearly a professional who's doing things the right way; he stresses how absolutely essential it is to employ a good copy editor. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of independent authors' books have never gone near an editor - and it shows.

What about the ones I posted the mistakes from in the errors in ebooks thread, would you say those had ever gone near an editor? None of those were self published, and several of them were from large corporation publishers.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

The kind of mind that goes; "162 pages ago X did Y, it doesn't make sense that X is doing Z now, especially since there is no reason to change".

Happens to me all the time, but I'm too chicken to point it out, so perhaps some genuine courage is needed as well?

It's different when you're being payed to do it, but when you just send them a list of mistakes they've made in their mass-published book some writers can react a bit unexpectedly. All part of the fun

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bigjantailor

Right now we are a few years into new world that has not been mapped.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.
We are in the *middle* of a tech disruption.
(Or if you prefer bloody metaphors, a revolution. A real one.)

The entrenched powers, like the french aristocrats, are seeing their power and perks vanish before their eyes. Some are wise enough to understand what is going on and are taking steps to adapt and/or protect themselves.
Others whine to their friends in the media. Who promptly slide in the old soapbox to give them a bit of visibility.

The problem with passing judgment, pro- or con- on the new post-revolution world is that the dust hasn't settled, the bodies haven't been buried and the guillotine is still chopping away. (Not often, but once in a while a sacred cow gets turned to hamburger.)

Too much content to find your way to what *you* might consider good?
A problem.
But problems = opportunity = money to be made.
Wait a bit; a solution will emerge.
(There is money to be made, after all.)
Somebody in SiliValley will figure it out.
(It's a techie world now, gnash your teeth all you want; it won't change a thing.)

Right now we are watching the breakdown of the old structures that served the ancien regime, yet the new ones are not yet in place.

In fact, the reactionary remnants of the old school are still fighting a rear guard action to try to preserve as much as they can of *their* era. Fair enough; it's in *their* self-interest. They will succeed to some extent. But not completely.

At the same time, the fire-breathing advocates of the revolution are all over, scouting the terrain as they preach the gospel of the revolution. A lot of what they say makes sense (otherwise there wouldn't be a revolution ongoing) but that doesn't mean that their vision of what is to come will totally prevail.

The nature of *this* revolution is that it opens up the market and removes constraints; it makes room for many visions, many approaches. Instead of a small collection of walled markets, the new game is global and open to all comers. There won't be just one winning solution but many.

It is still early in the new era.
The walls are done, the gatekeepers milling about, dazed, trying to figure out where the cannons came from, and the one-time serfs are trying to figure out how to take care of themselves.

But if you look past the dust and the whining and the self-interested spin of the old guard and the true-believers, you can see glimmers of what is to come.

If you are irrevocably wedded to the old ways you will be (rightfully) terrified because those days are done.
If you are totally committed to the gospel of the revolution, be prepared for disappointment. Revolutions never erradicate the old lords completely. They usually resurface as politicians or used car salesmen.

But if you are flexible enough to keep an open mind, you will like what is coming.

Truth is, the carnage has been and will be minimal but the level of whining is just starting to go up.

Lots of defrocked aristos have yet to be heard from.
The Morrisons of the world need to vent, after all.

[bigjantailor]

fjtorres, said it better and with more flare than I did.

It's like one of those snow globes with water, a little house in winter scene, and white fake snow stuff. It just been shaken up and it look chaodic with snow flying everwhere. But in time it will all fall to the ground. First one down gets the best spot.

Have fun, Jan

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

What about the ones I posted the mistakes from in the errors in ebooks thread, would you say those had ever gone near an editor? None of those were self published, and several of them were from large corporation publishers.

From what I could tell in skimming through that thread, most of the errors looked like OCR errors. Yes, they're still errors and they shouldn't be there, but they're introduced in a different step in the process. They're not mistakes that the editor or copyeditor would ever see. They point out the need for a proofreader.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

From what I could tell in skimming through that thread, most of the errors looked like OCR errors. Yes, they're still errors and they shouldn't be there, but they're introduced in a different step in the process. They're not mistakes that the editor or copyeditor would ever see. They point out the need for a proofreader.

What OCR program adds apostrophes to plural words, deletes apostrophes from posessive or contracted words, and introduces homophones? And why would they be using OCR on something published in the last couple of years anyway?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

What OCR program adds apostrophes to plural words, deletes apostrophes from posessive or contracted words, and introduces homophones? And why would they be using OCR on something published in the last couple of years anyway?

I said I skimmed. What I saw were added hyphens (probably line breaks that changed), and things like Ferns wheel instead of Ferris wheel or thc for the. Those are likely OCR errors.

As to why they'd be using OCR, or when the material was published, how should I know? Clearly they are using OCR, and they're not proofing the output.

Even though there is a lot of truth to the notion of tech disruptions, the reality is much more mundane than the hyperbole. What we usually see is a shuffling of players, but very little change in the structure. So the end result may include different publishers, but we will still have publishers. The end result may have different authors dominating the best sellers list, but we will still have authors dominating the best sellers list (and chances are the composition of authors overall will be remarkably similar to what it is today).

The thing is, substantive change (the great equalization that technology can enable) requires a change in human psychology. Changing the tools simply isn't enough.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

What OCR program adds apostrophes to plural words, deletes apostrophes from posessive or contracted words, and introduces homophones? And why would they be using OCR on something published in the last couple of years anyway?

One simple reason for OCR on relatively recently produced books - when book goes to print, it is still common practice to only retain the final print files which are usually pdf files for print not generally suitable for casual reading or easy conversion due to extensive print formatting, key marks etc for plate output or direct printing. Due to this, some people actually think it is easier to OCR the pdf rather than re-edit the printing pdf for ebook output... OCR must be better because the computer does it... whereas re-editing and formatting for ebook requires people...

Never give credit for intelligence to people and companies unless they have proved they have it...

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Even though there is a lot of truth to the notion of tech disruptions, the reality is much more mundane than the hyperbole. What we usually see is a shuffling of players, but very little change in the structure. So the end result may include different publishers, but we will still have publishers. The end result may have different authors dominating the best sellers list, but we will still have authors dominating the best sellers list (and chances are the composition of authors overall will be remarkably similar to what it is today).

The thing is, substantive change (the great equalization that technology can enable) requires a change in human psychology. Changing the tools simply isn't enough.

I do not see an end result resembling what you forsee more than superficially.

I think best seller lists will generally have to now compete with dozens of other best seller lists.
I think that those lists will each cater to constituencies with different outlooks on politics, religion, sexuality, family, general philosophy, etc. They will overlap about as much as Horror and Romance genre lists overlap now. And adherents to each list will extole the list of their patronage while excoriating lists diametricaly opposed to their preference.

Thats where we are headed in my view.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by elcreative

One simple reason for OCR on relatively recently produced books - when book goes to print, it is still common practice to only retain the final print files which are usually pdf files for print not generally suitable for casual reading or easy conversion due to extensive print formatting, key marks etc for plate output or direct printing. Due to this, some people actually think it is easier to OCR the pdf rather than re-edit the printing pdf for ebook output... OCR must be better because the computer does it... whereas re-editing and formatting for ebook requires people...

Never give credit for intelligence to people and companies unless they have proved they have it...

I doubt they think it's better. What it probably is, is cheaper.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I do not see an end result resembling what you forsee more than superficially.

I think best seller lists will generally have to now compete with dozens of other best seller lists.
I think that those lists will each cater to constituencies with different outlooks on politics, religion, sexuality, family, general philosophy, etc. They will overlap about as much as Horror and Romance genre lists overlap now. And adherents to each list will extole the list of their patronage while excoriating lists diametricaly opposed to their preference.

Thats where we are headed in my view.

And, each new release in those categories will have to compete with pretty much every successful release ever made in that category.

It will take a while to get there but the eternal backlist by itself will be far morendisruptive to traditional publishers that self-publishing. So no, the mainstreaming of ebooks will *not* be a shallow facade change leaving the old overlords still in charge; on the contrary, it will be a fundamental change.

To see which way the winds are blowing among Established Professional Writers, try this, the Keynote Speech at the annual conference of the Romance Writers of America:

http://www.stephanielaurens.com/rwa12keynote.html

Which transition? You might think I mean the transition from print to digital, but no - while the shift from print to digital consumption is a major driver contributing to the critical transition that's causing the upheaval in our business, it's not the critical transition itself - which is the migration of readers from buying offline to buying online. Whether they buy print or digital doesn't matter - it's the fact that readers access our works online that's key, because once a reader is buying online, the author can reach that reader directly, and that alters one critical segment of our business irrreversibly.

Very much worth reading, as are the comments at The Passive Voice:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/07/20...ing-the-faith/

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I doubt they think it's better. What it probably is, is cheaper.

Which is what I said... well I admit not word for word but I thought that the majority would get a touch of ironic humour...

Correcting that error:
"OCR must be better because the computer does it... " = cheaper
"whereas re-editing and formatting for ebook requires people..." = more expensive.

[charlesatan]

It's OCR'd because it's the most reliable way of obtaining the final text, especially when it comes to last minute changes on proofs.

And either way, the output to the printer is likely a PDF file, so that's not as useful either.

The other problem is that they're backlist titles, so the publisher won't necessarily have updated files, nor do they do the conversions themselves. It's optimal for them to outsource the conversion and give the converter a copy of the print book as the source.