NYT Op-Ed on ebooks and publishers

[kennyc]

Yep TV killed the radio stars.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by edercito

Found an interesting article in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/op...alassi.html?hpI hadn't given much thought to this scenario before, but if a work that was produced in paper by X publisher and then the rights to publish an ebook are given to Y publisher, this instance does not sound entirely "alright" to me given the contributions from X to the original print version.

The works that are being discussed here, are works that were originally released at least 15-20 years ago, and the author's contract did not include any discussion of ebook rights. I don't believe the publisher has any moral rights to the ebook edition, which is essentially what Jonathan Galassi is arguing in his op-ed piece. If the publishers wanted to ensure that they had the rights to these works, they could have been negotiating for them with the author or author's heirs any time during the last fifteen years or so since ebook rights became part of the standard contract. The fact that they didn't, or only offered the authors a pittance, and they are losing out to Amazon and other e-publishers is too bad, but now they are trying to sway public opinion with op-ed pieces in the New York Times. Random House has already lost this case once (althought I believe they settled out of court with Rosetta books, so it's not binding), and I think the print publishers are going to lose their court case again, despite their public whining.

We all agree that the current publishing model is not going to remain viable. Some publishers will probably not survive, some bookstores will not survive, and a lot of people will switch from reading paperbacks to reading ebooks. All this means is that the publishers need to figure out how to be profitable with the normal manuscript to book workflow figuring hardback edition + smaller paperback runs + larger ebook sales.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

While I agree that editors are, and probably always will be, needed. I don't necessarily agree with the implication (or maybe it's just my inference) that the original publisher is somehow owed something for those contributions beyond the terms of the contract.

I've been through rewrites. The editor suggests changes, the author makes them, or not, or makes some variation on them. Yes, it's an important step in the process, and yes, it sometimes turns good work into excellent work--but it's still the author's work.

As an editor, I agree with you. A good editor can help an author improve his/her book. Styron was only one example of many topnotch authors who recognized the invaluable help their editor gave. (Perhaps the most famous editor in American publishing history was Max Perkins who was credited by many authors for both creating and saving their careers through his editing help.)

I also agree that there comes a time when an author doesn't owe the original publisher anything anymore.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by fugazied

Editors won't be going away anytime soon, they are an essential filter mechanism.

I think that's why a lot of indie works falter - they lack the quality assurance of a good editor going over the work before release. Some of the these editors are very smart people who have extensive literary knowledge.

Absolutely true!!

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Let me address this particular point, because it's made so often by so many different people. I believe the publishing companies are directly responsible for the amount of terrible writing that is self-published, and why? Because they publish so much garbage themselves. The absolutely worst written dreck is a the top of the best-seller lists, . . .

Problem number 1 is defining what makes a great literary work? Problem number 2 is what makes a great author? Problem number 3 is what makes something dreck?

What makes To Kill a Mockingbird a literary masterpiece? (I'm not disputing that it is, but I wonder what makes it so.)

Bald statements are statements of opinion, not fact, which, in the case of literature -- great or not -- complicates things. Without agreed upon guidelines/standards, it is impossible to list the definitive 100 greatest works of all time that 100% of readers will agree upon.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What 'great' novels, and by great I don't mean literary triumphs (there's plenty of them), have been published in the last 20 years?

Define "great novels." Part of the reason it's hard to answer a challenge like that is that the impact of a novel is often removed by a generation or so from its origin--it's only in the lives of the children of those who first read it that its full relevance is noticed.

But if you're willing to say what makes a novel "great," I'm willing to try to find examples. (Or, potentially, concede that I can't think of any.)

Print will die out, it's inevitable. Libraries will close, also inevitable. Everything will move into the digital, there's no stopping that now.

I think print will change, but isn't going to go away anytime soon. (Not within the next hundred years.) Among the reasons:

• There are still plenty of parts of the world that don't have digital tech, and they can use books;
• Print is a *stable* storage medium; it still works 20 years later after everyone's OS has changed seven times and Wordstar isn't available to anyone;
• The format wars and security issues involved in digital content aren't going to settle down for a while, and print will remain the backup format for data;
• Dismantling an industry--several industries--takes time; every time one publisher/printer/paper mill goes under, some new startup is going to try to jump into its niche with a small, leaner, more customized approach to get its customers.

Probably other reasons as well. Print's going to be around for a long time. But it will be changing, and much faster than current publishers like.

The novel, the short-story depend upon a cultural agreement and, let's face it, the paper-bound book to contain the form.

It's possible that the novel as literary form is going to die out; it's been around for a couple-hundred years, and possibly is tied to paper. However, the short story's been around much, much longer, and it adapts very well to the blogosphere internet.

Ten years from now when we have 3D holographic immersion, why would anybody read a book (apart from a romantic notion)? Why stare at text when you can interact with the story?

1) Not rich enough to afford a holodeck; not urban enough to have one nearby.
2) Physical disability: eyes can't focus on holo-images; ears find the high-pitched whine endlessly distracting.
3) Personal belief that holo-images are immoral.
4) Personal belief that self-directed imagery is superior to visual cues (people read instead of watching movies now).
5) Lack of content in the genre of choice; it's easier to create a book than a full-surround multimedia experience that includes all the data in the book.

(Do you really think every novel is going to be a holo-immersion program in 10 years? We can't get Harry Potter in legal ebook form.)

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I believe the publishing companies are directly responsible for the amount of terrible writing that is self-published, and why? Because they publish so much garbage themselves. The absolutely worst written dreck is a the top of the best-seller lists

No, it's not.
Really. REALLY not.

Have you seen the fanfic at Fanfiction.net? Or, godshelpusall, at Quizilla.com? Some of the atrocious blogs at Myspace?

Anyone who thinks the "worst" writing has been published, has not considered the amateur teen & college student writing communities online. And it's that, not great literature of history, that people are comparing to when they say "publishers offer a vital editing function."

[jaxx6166]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

If anything, we are entering an era where people can access far more content, across all kinds of borders, with lower barriers than at any time in history. Even if literature becomes less popular in the short term, there is absolutely no way to know what kind of social pressures will influence various mediums. How many foresaw the cultural impact of music circa 1967, even in the early 1960s? Or the enduring influence of cinema, which was supposed to be utterly demolished by now by TV and/or the Internet? It could even come down to a single individual whose work happens to strike the right chord at the right moment, and voila, a medium can soar in popularity, a rising tide if you will.

I find this one interesting. Followers of the 2012 saga believe that one of two things will happen: Armageddon or renaissance. I've always been leaning more towards the later than the former, though recent world events may lead one to believe otherwise (rant for another thread)

It's believed (new agers correct me if I'm wrong) that 2012 will spell an end to things as we know it. A new digital revolution is under way. If you were to take the advances in technology over the past few years, it seems that may be true. More people are connected to the internet than ten years ago. You may be hard pressed to find someone in any household in a more wealthy country (US/Canada/UK/etc) that does not have some electronic entertainment in their household. I've been in houses that don't have any food in the cupboard or furniture on the floor, but damned if they don't have an LCD and a Playstation 3. Same with an ipod.

It's interesting to think about the new art. It seems that the major and more traditional content providers are losing ground to the internet and the homebrew crowd.

MoeJoe mentioned gaming, so I have to point out that in almost every major gaming publication, indie games (Machinarium, Torchlight, etc) have received editor's choice awards for the 2009 year.

Thanks to the advent of youtube, we now have Jackass Too streaming digitally on youtube. And by that, I mean all the idiots out there who are accident prone for laughs and entertainment. We also have critically respected internet television shows (Dr. Horrible, The Guild)

More people vote in American Idol than presidential elections. Independent authors and musicians are now getting market share they never would have had ten years ago. And it's all for the fraction of the cost. How many musicians would play gig upon gig upon gig and travel the country and the world in hopes for that one drunk music executive to say "Hey! That's pretty cool" and sign them up for a life of wealth and prosperity.

Unfortunately, a lot of people also have gotten big heads with the sudden digital distribution (Robert Stanek comes to mind)

But there's also the MTV Cribs culture coming of age now. These are the kids who think they can rap in the streets and become the next Lil Wayne, or sing in a local punk music bar and become Green Day. Or write and self publish a book and become the next Christopher Paolini. Or have their fiends smack them over the head with concrete blocks and publish it to youtube...only to find out that the brain damage they suffered does not make them the next Johnny Knoxville or Bam Margara.

If only the real world was that easy