BBC R4 programme about the role of the editor

[fugazied]

That is interesting. Most people around these forums (including me) have a dislike for the publishing houses due to their treatment of customers with terrible DRM, poor availability of titles, strange regional licensing, terrible pricing, terrible ebook conversions.

It's good to see the other side. One thing I still think though - is that the publishing industry became complacent and greedy over the last 50 years. They became used to selling billions of paperbacks, and making truckloads of money. Things are changing and mostly they don't want them to change.

They want to remain the top dogs, holding onto ineffective costly practices which they could afford when Stephen King paperback sales bought them new buildings. IMO they don't care about customers or literature, they just want to maintain a profitable model which has worked for them in the past.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fugazied

.

They want to remain the top dogs, holding onto ineffective costly practices which they could afford when Stephen King paperback sales bought them new buildings. IMO they don't care about customers or literature, they just want to maintain a profitable model which has worked for them in the past.

Unfortunately this is true of most corporations in the last half-century. The bottom line/ROI to the shareholder is the only thing that matters.
Not customers, not laws, not society....

[neilmarr]

Hemingway also famously said: "The first draft of anything is shit."

Sadly, with inexperienced writers now able to upload their stuff to automatic 'publishing' sites with zero editorial intervention, the first draft is what you get.

Neil

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Hemingway also famously said: "The first draft of anything is shit."

Sadly, with inexperienced writers now able to upload their stuff to automatic 'publishing' sites with zero editorial intervention, the first draft is what you get.

Neil

Really not funny though. I agree completely. Maybe I should update my sig or avatar title just to remind me - "Hemingway was right!"

[mand]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Still he had editors for his work.

Which says it all, doesn't it?

i think we all write 90% shit and it's certainly the shit-shifting that sorts the greats from the mediocres.

I've seen those 5 rules before, and love them.

And i can now say that radio programme was worth a listen.

[blunty]

Originally Posted by fugazied

They want to remain the top dogs, holding onto ineffective costly practices which they could afford when Stephen King paperback sales bought them new buildings. IMO they don't care about customers or literature, they just want to maintain a profitable model which has worked for them in the past.

I can not agree with this. Editors I know are passionate about literature, even if their employers aren't. Publishers are businesses and have to care about their customers or they do not survive.

There are many things in the publishing model that need to change, like territoriality, but these are not just held onto for the publishers profit. Try negotiating with an Author's Agent for worldwide rights when they think they can make more by selling the same rights many times to different publishers on each side of the Atlantic.

[greencat]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Hemingway also famously said: "The first draft of anything is shit."

Sadly, with inexperienced writers now able to upload their stuff to automatic 'publishing' sites with zero editorial intervention, the first draft is what you get.

Neil

I totally agree with this. Some of the stuff on Smashwords is absolutely awful in this respect - and I suspect the signal to noise ratio is only going to get worse as they get more popular.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by greencat

I totally agree with this. Some of the stuff on Smashwords is absolutely awful in this respect - and I suspect the signal to noise ratio is only going to get worse as they get more popular.

Yep.

[cian]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

After forty-odd years as a professional writer and editor, I can assure you that NOTHING should go to print without serious, pro editorial intervention. Only crass amateurs believe otherwise -- and the result is the deluge of arrogantly self-published nonsense that now confronts someone browsing for a book.

And publishers. Editors are being laid off all over and this has been a general trend as the industry has consolidated and cost cutting (with insane expections of profit margins) has been enforced. Those who remain are being given less and less time to edit books. I don't think this is a good thing, but the arguments for conventional publishers are weakened by this trend.

[neilmarr]

You're right, Cian. Many good, experienced editors must resort to freelancing and charging by the job (something I've so far managed to avoid).

Again, though, it's tough to find these sound operators. The net is also deluged with offers of 'editorial services' that ain't worth the nail their folks use to hang their pointless diplomas on the wall. Some are sheer scams. Many are tied to Publish on Demand vanity press.

Anyone seriously aiming to self-publish a meaningful book should take the time to dig for valuable, qualified help before rushing in and adding to what's becoming the reader's equivalent of a publisher's nightmare slush pile.

Most self-pubbing authors (NOT ALL) are the unspeakable in pursuit of the sale of the unreadable. And that's an insult to the reader. Neil

[random50]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

After forty-odd years as a professional writer and editor, I can assure you that NOTHING should go to print without serious, pro editorial intervention.

The market will let us know whether "serious, pro editorial intervention" is really so important.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by radleyp

The New York Times yesterday published a very good piece by Jonathan Galassi, chairman and editor in chief at Farrar Straus & Giroux on the need for (good) editors. Few writers have what Hemingway once declared a necessity, a "built-in shit detector", so good editors are required.

Galassi is correct but Galassi fails to state that FS&G's attitude towards paying editors is a major reason why FS&G doesn't always have good editors. Like all of the major publishers, the approach to editing is to outsource to a packager who pays virtually nothing for editing because the packager's profit center is the physical production, not the editorial. And for those editors directly hired by publishers, in many cases the pay they are offering today is less than they were paying in 1995.

I just blogged about my experience this week with a packager wanting me to edit some STM (science, technical, medical) books. You can read it at my American Editor blog or at Teleread.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by blunty

I can not agree with this. Editors I know are passionate about literature, even if their employers aren't.

I agree, but even editors need to eat and publishers and packagers just aren't paying for anything more than running spell checking. I related in my blog today my experience this week with one packager. Doesn't matter how passionate I am about editing, I won't be passionate on my dime. (You can read my blog at American Editor or at Teleread.)

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by random50

The market will let us know whether "serious, pro editorial intervention" is really so important.

No, the market won't unless book consumers start demanding refunds. In the United States alone nearly 100,000 books were published last year. Very few of those books became well-recognized bestsellers; very few were reviewed by any reputable, mainstream reviewer such as the New York Times Book Review or the New York Review of Books. And very few sold in any reasonable quantity. Yet in 2010 another 100,000 books will be published. So what message does the market generate?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by rhadin

(You can read my blog at American Editor or at Teleread.)

Interesting blog, and certainly reflects my experience as a consumer.

"Once this the quality issue is laid to rest" - it's a nightmare writing a thoughtful article about editing, when the smallest misteak might creep in for nit-picking readers to draw attention to.