12% of ebooks are self-published; most are rubbish, claims editor

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How do you not get that reading a sample takes time?

A minute, at most. The same amount of time it would take to read the first page of a book in a shop. But the sample only comes into it once you've already narrowed your potential purchase list down, so the time it takes to read a few paragraphs is tiny compared to the amount of time you have already spent getting that far.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I "get" that quite easily. Because it's insanely obvious. I just don't believe that it's time you do not HAVE. It's not like you have to read the whole thing. A paragraph will usually tell you if you're dealing with a hack. How do you not get that?

For me, time is not the problem; patience is the problem.

I work all day editing books on my computer. The absolute, very last thing I want to do is spend more time in front of my computer reading samples in an attempt to find a book to read. I would rather download a complete free ebook that has an interesting description and decent cover and then someday attempt to read the book.

Nearly all of the books I buy, I buy as a result of having read a positive review in the New York Review of Books or having downloaded a free ebook from an author who I discovered I enjoy or a book that is written by an author I have already discovered I enjoy. On occasion I will buy an ebook from an unknown author whose description is intriguing.

I also tend to buy nonfiction hardcover books on what are interesting-to-me topics that I have seen in an advertisement in the New York Review of Books that are published by an academic press whose editorial standards I am familiar with.

But just as I have no patience to watch television, I have no patience to wade through ebook samples on my computer.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The same is true of corporation-published books. Proof-readers were the first to go when they needed to make efficiency savings. All books have been riddled with errors for the last 5 years or so.

In the past few years, editors, too, have joined the exodus. In a recent conversation with an in-house person who is responsible for deciding who will edit a book, I was told that he/she didn't care what an American editor would charge for editing a book because whatever the amount was, it was more than the price for an Asian-based editor. His/her sole concern was price, not quality. Besides, I was told, no one complains about the errors until after they have bought the book and long after the time allowed to return has expired. He/she further said that experience demonstrates that the only one to suffer from really bad editing is the author.

Ebooks and the dramatic rise of self-publishing have had unintended effects on both quality and pricing.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

A minute, at most. The same amount of time it would take to read the first page of a book in a shop. But the sample only comes into it once you've already narrowed your potential purchase list down, so the time it takes to read a few paragraphs is tiny compared to the amount of time you have already spent getting that far.

A minute to read 20 pages or so? Seriously?

[ProfCrash]

I would argue that editing was going down hill long before ebooks. The Publishing houses have been living on thin margins for a while and had started cutting back on editing and proofreades a while back, at least the books I was reading in the early 2000'2 sure seemed like that. Then you have the authos who are cash cows (Clancy, GRRM, Jordon come to mind) who seem to be allowed to write whatever they want with little editing because their fans will buy anything. The Publishing Houses and Authors know that and so the authors say they don't need an editor interfering with their storylines, the Publishers are fine with that because it saves them money, the stories grow in length (more books), and they are bought in huge quantities when they are released. Win Win for all. Except the reader.

I doubt that the rise of self-publication has influenced the Publishers, if anything, the ability to point to eidting and proof reading should improve their sales over the Independent author.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The same is true of corporation-published books. Proof-readers were the first to go when they needed to make efficiency savings. All books have been riddled with errors for the last 5 years or so.

So perhaps they need to compete with the lower-priced garbage--perhaps this is one of the consequences of the flood of self-published books; they tend to lower the standards for all books.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

A minute to read 20 pages or so? Seriously?

I can tell within a few paragraphs if it is well written or not.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I doubt that the rise of self-publication has influenced the Publishers, if anything, the ability to point to eidting and proof reading should improve their sales over the Independent author.

Your doubts are correct.

The corporate publishers began to cut back on the "quality" process well before the rise of indie publishing. I've seen reports that the first wave of big mergers in the 80's is when it started ("eliminating redundant positions" in corporate-speak),p but pretty much every insider reort I've seen says it was in full swing by the turn of the century. The same applies to the noxious contracts with non-compete clauses, rights grabs, and their other predator practices. Those practice *all* predate the mainstreaming of ebooks. Poor corporate book quality predates indies by a *lot*.

So, no, corporate publishing quality isn't being dragged down by the indies, rather it has long been dragged down by the beancounter mentality quoted by Mr Adin, above.

Insightful quote that, no?
"Readers only find the errors well after purchase, when it's too late to return the book."

Tells you everything you need to know about these self-proclaimed "guardians of culture".

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So perhaps they need to compete with the lower-priced garbage--perhaps this is one of the consequences of the flood of self-published books; they tend to lower the standards for all books.

I don't see much competition with lower priced garbage, corporation-published ebooks are still priced around the same level as paperbacks.

And their quality first started to slip long before the Kindle came along and popularised self-publishing. It's down to greed more than anything else.

[fjtorres]

Here's a nice report on the decline of book quality...from 1994:
http://articles.philly.com/1994-03-1...ook-publishing

Is there a crisis in serious book publishing?

Many industry professionals have been saying so lately, especially since the "January Massacre." On Jan. 10, Houghton Mifflin, the distinguished Boston trade publisher, shut down Ticknor & Fields, a subsidiary imprint that specialized in quality literary books.

Later that week, Harcourt Brace, one of the most influential literary publishers, fired half its staff, including Corlies Smith, its widely admired editor-in-chief. Before the week was out, Paramount Publishing, which recently acquired Macmillan, said it would close Atheneum, another esteemed imprint.



For many publishing professionals, the combination of moves raised the question of whether Armageddon had arrived. Is corporate "conglomerization" - the driving force of the publishing world in the last decade, with its bottom-line values and lust for short-term returns - finally kicking in with a vengeance?

Crises, of course, beget panels, and panels on the "State of Publishing" are now everywhere - that is, if you think of Manhattan as everywhere (and publishing people do). On Feb. 28, about 400 interested parties crammed into a midtown auditorium to hear industry notables such as Harry Evans, the head of Random House trade publishing, discuss the matter. Evans galvanized the crowd by illustrating a point with some Random House sales figures, normally not released by the privately held company.

He disclosed that 29 Random House books listed by the New York Times last year as particularly notable lost nearly $700,000 collectively. Fortunately, he went on, that red ink was more than balanced by roughly $1.4 million in profit on two bestsellers he did not name. The message was clear: The ''commercialism" decried by many in the industry was the only thing keeping quality books afloat.

In the end, Glikes and Howard probably came closest to articulating a thought many pros in the hall seemed to share: that it is precisely in their desire to make profit, rather than in any failed wish to create culture, that conglomerates fail so badly when they venture into serious publishing.

"Frankly, I think a lot of corporations don't know a damn thing about publishing," Howard said.

Glikes, who has produced plenty of profit with high-impact political-policy books, called for better thinking in the industry on how corporations are governed.

Sure, it's all the indies' fault.
They're the ones dragging quality down...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I can tell within a few paragraphs if it is well written or not.

Which would be the first fast filtering of a slush pile. But that does not say that it is worth publishing the work of that it is worth reading.

I just do not get it why people in this thread seems to be happy with mediocre books. Why not try to read what you think are really good books?

[fjtorres]

Here's a view of the publishing world from 15 years ago:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Me..._busters.html\

In 1985, before the chain-store expansion began in earnest, the United States led all nations in book title production. From 1986 to 1990, publishers' revenues grew at a 12.1 percent compound annual rate. Shipments of adult trade books-the key book category for bookstores- advanced by 14.6 percent. Publishers' pre-tax operating income grew at a rate of 10 percent, operating cash flow at 13.3 percent, and assets at 9.4 percent.
In the early 1990s, however, Barnes & Noble and Borders embarked upon a major superstore expansion. From 1991 to 1993, the amount of square footage in the United States devoted to the retail sale of books doubled. The major U.S. publishers went all-out in support of this chain-store expansion, giving the chains special terms and lavish promotion (leading to independent bookstore charges of antitrust violations and ongoing litigation). The major publishers cranked up their print runs and title production to meet the business expansion that they all believed would accompany this chain-store growth.
That market expansion never occurred. By 1995, publishers' growth rate was down to 2.1 percent, the lowest growth in 10 years. The increase in outgoing book shipments to the chains simply resulted in an unprecedented level of books returned to the publishers. People in the book industry still talk about the day-perhaps apocryphal, but it has the ring of truth-when more than 60 Barnes & Noble 18-wheelers pulled up to the Random House warehouse loaded with books to be returned.
Within a few years, the market had become saturated and could not nearly fulfill the promise of the superstores' selling capacity. Publishers saw margins fall sharply in 1996, dropping to five-year lows. Operating income margin and operating cash-flow margin each decreased 2.5 percentage points. Compared with 1992, 1996 operating income and operating cash flow margins declined 4.7 percent and 4.4 percent-this in an industry already famous for slim margins. From 1994 to 1997, trade book unit shipments decreased at a 2.1 percent annual rate. By 1997, the sluggish growth of 1995 and 1996 deteriorated to an actual market contraction, as sales of consumer books fell 2.7 percent. Over 1995 and 1996, net shipments of adult trade books dropped 10 percent. Perhaps the most astonishing part of this contraction is that it occurred during an economic expansion.
The ill effects were not limited just to sickly financial reports. By the time the chain-store madness had taken its toll in 1995 and 1996, the United States had dropped from first to fourth in the number of books produced each year.
Worse, perhaps, than the decline in the number of titles published was a dramatic shift in sales among the books that were published. The book business has begun shifting even more heavily towards celebrity-driven bestsellers. The number of bestsellers (books that sold 100,000 or more copies) grew substantially in the 1990s. When that fact is juxtaposed against an the overall decline in book sales, it is clear that mid-list books are falling off the edge. Good fiction, investigative reporting and other quality books are simply being squeezed out of the market.

Sounds awfully familiar, no?
The sky has been falling for a very long time.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Here's a nice report on the decline of book quality...from 1994:
http://articles.philly.com/1994-03-1...ook-publishing

Sure, it's all the indies' fault.
They're the ones dragging quality down...

Shutting down imprints that weren't making money is not the same thing as cutting down on editing/proofing costs.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by tompe

Which would be the first fast filtering of a slush pile. But that does not say that it is worth publishing the work of that it is worth reading.

I just do not get it why people in this thread seems to be happy with mediocre books. Why not try to read what you think are really good books?

I haven't read a mediocre book for a long time. All I can think of is people are just picking books at random without even looking at the cover, blurb or sample. Whoever the publisher is you're likely to be disappointed if that's how you choose what to read.

Self-publishing brought back all the type of books the corporations lost interest in decades ago. I don't see how that can be anything but good.

Also, self-publishers fix their mistakes when they are pointed out to them (with one famous exception, anyway). Corporation publishers never do that.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Shutting down imprints that weren't making money is not the same thing as cutting down on editing/proofing costs.

Uh, it pretty much is just that.
Shutting down an imprint isn't just a branding exercise; it usually involves "pink slips" and people going away.

The process began way back in the 80's, the time when they started firing proofers and editors, after the first big mergers.
(The *real* content editors, not the project managers that now bear that title.)
Here's just one outfit that has been freelancing since then:
http://www.freelance-editorial-services.com/staff.php

More recently, the corporate types have been turning to low-cost bidders globally but that still dates back well before indie publishing. In fact, it is that ready-made pool of freelance pros that the corporate publishers created with the firings that *enables* dilligent Indies to put out a quality product on their own.

Plus as the corporate types made clear, way back; if most of your losses come from the "prestige" titles and all your profits come from the "commercial" titles, any "good" MBA will tell you to put your time and effort into the future "bestsellers". The rest is just window dressing in their eyes.

That mindset has been in place for decades.
"Quality" has been declining for decades.
Scapegoating Indies for what the Corporate Publishers choose to do is going to run into the inescapable fact that the Corporate publishers have been "Devalueing" literature long before commercial ebooks ever existed, much less indies.