Scott Turow: The Slow Death of the American Author (NYTimes)

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by Sregener

But you're saying that the typical publisher, not counting editing, spends 25 workweeks preparing a manuscript for printing? Maybe an internationally known author, if we're going to talk about all the promotions and stuff they do. But for the average writer? I can't imagine what it is they do, nor do I really care anymore. Call me jaded, but I think the gatekeepers are stupid.

I received as a gift a copy of bestselling, well known author David Baldacci's newest thriller, "The Forgotten". I can tell you that if anyone spent 25 full work weeks editing that turd, they should be fired because it is clear that they would have spent 99% of that time on Facebook. It read like a hastily thrown together first draft. Every other sentence began with the word "and".

Maybe in this case the publisher spent most of its time on marketing, making sure it was another bestseller rather than making sure it was something decent to read.

[fjtorres]

Okay, *this* is the riposte of ripostes:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2013/0...cowardice.html

Amusingly, twenty-four hours ago, I posted this, with a link to Masnick's piece, in the comments section to the Authors Guild link to Turow's New York Times article:

"That Scott Turow refuses to respond to this demolition of his facts, his knowledge of the law, and even his baseline logic tells you all you need to know about his integrity. And about the true function of the "Authors Guild" of which he is president."

I received a message that my comment was awaiting moderation. And not only did the moderators not run the comment -- they then closed the comments section entirely! Ah, the "Authors Guild," such a wonderful forum, where authors can freely express diverse opinions on all the important authorial matters of the day…

In fact, there were no comments at all on Turow's piece on the Authors Guild site. Anyone want to take any bets about how many critical comments the moderators deep-sixed before stepping in to censor debate? Think mine was the only one? Again, what can we conclude about an organization that purports to represent authors, but which is in fact afraid to allow authors to express themselves?

And:

Also, while I certainly understand and respect rushing to the defense of those who have done you a solid (in this case, the publishing industry that helped you earn a lot of money), that should be your agenda as Scott Turow NYT Bestselling Author, not Scott Turow President of the Authors Guild.

The Guild purportedly exists to help authors. For over a year, I've seen you do the opposite, spreading BS that hurts those very authors you and the Guild are supposed to be championing.

I don't expect you to change. Nor do I expect you to step down. But this blog gets more traffic than the Authors Guild website, so my next request is to all Guild members reading this.

Quit the Authors Guild.

Quit right now, with an email explaining that the organization is not looking out for your best interests.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sregener

Back in 2004, when I was actively trying to make it as a writer, I attended a writer's conference. Included was a critique from a publisher. Mine came back, "This is perfect as it is." The manuscript was submitted. The editorial board (the people in the business because they love books) said, "We have to sign this guy now." The publishing board (the people who count beans for a living) said, "We don't know how to sell this. No."

So the answer would be no, you didn't succeed, then. (And if you believe they would have actually printed it verbatim, with no changes of any kind, you're more naive than most. Nobody gets that on their first novel.)

Originally Posted by Sregener

1000 hours was an estimate, and I was being conservative with it.

1,000 hours is six months of 40 hour weeks. The typical time to write a first draft - and that's what you had, not a finished novel - is usually quotes as six months to a year. So you were at the lower end of that. Some writers, especially experienced ones, can write much faster (Walter Gibson signed a contract with Street & Smith to write a The Shadow novel every 15 days - indefintely). Some writers, especially the more popular ones, take longer. (Lois McMaster Bujold takes 2-4 years per novel.)

Originally Posted by Sregener

Writing for me was a particularly painful experience. I agree with the author who said, "Writing is easy. Just sit down at the keyboard and open up a vein." Working a 40-hour week as a writer was impossible for me. I found a 90 minute day of actual writing enough to drain me physically and emotionally.

But you're saying that the typical publisher, not counting editing, spends 25 workweeks preparing a manuscript for printing?

No. I said they spend, on average, as much time turning a manuscript in to a book as the author does writing the manuscript. It's a common misconception that all a publisher does is have someone drag a Word doc in to the print cue, and that's it. All manuscripts get edited - there's always revisions and multiple drafts. Then there's proof reading, type settings (and that's more complicated than you imagine, too), arranging printing, shipping ,etc. And marketing. Because nobody will buy a book they don't know exists.

And I and not the one saying this. Industry professionals are. Again, go read Charlie Stross's blog. He's not the only one, but his blog is the most accessible, and goes in to details.

Originally Posted by Sregener

Maybe an internationally known author, if we're going to talk about all the promotions and stuff they do. But for the average writer? I can't imagine what it is they do, nor do I really care anymore. Call me jaded, but I think the gatekeepers are stupid.

So, if you can't imagine what they do, it must be nothing?

Originally Posted by Sregener

The day may come when I release my work to the world as an ebook. The biggest problem I see is that due to changes in my life, I no longer have the emotional resources to write. So I'm not going to create a brand and be a continuing interest at this point. That day may come, it just isn't now. And when that day does come, it'd be great to have a ready-for-publication work in my pocket to start with.

No doubt. But it's naive to think that your first draft, completely unedited, fits that description. No matter what someone at a company that didn't buy it might have told you.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by taustin

1,000 hours is six months of 40 hour weeks. The typical time to write a first draft - and that's what you had, not a finished novel - is usually quotes as six months to a year.

Thank you for telling me how good my novel is, and how well-written it is. I was unaware you had hacked my hard drive and read it.

"Somebody is wrong on the Internet." - C. Doctorow

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sregener

Thank you for telling me how good my novel is, and how well-written it is. I was unaware you had hacked my hard drive and read it.

And thank you for telling me that you know more about a business you've never actually been in than people who have made their living at it for years.

Originally Posted by Sregener

"Somebody is wrong on the Internet." - C. Doctorow

And you got the quote wrong, too, though Doctorow probably quoted it (since pretty much everybody has, at some point). It's from Randall Munroe's XCDE comic:

http://xkcd.com/386/

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by taustin

And thank you for telling me that you know more about a business you've never actually been in than people who have made their living at it for years.

In the article by your guru, Charlie, about why he doesn't self-publish, he says the following: "So, I estimate a book takes roughly 2 months of publishing company employee labour to produce." Charlie also says he is capable of producing 2 books per year, or 6 months per book. So he is taking 3x as long in manuscript preparation as the publisher does in publishing it. That sounds closer to right to me than your "on average, they are the same."

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sregener

In the article by your guru, Charlie, about why he doesn't self-publish, he says the following: "So, I estimate a book takes roughly 2 months of publishing company employee labour to produce." Charlie also says he is capable of producing 2 books per year, or 6 months per book. So he is taking 3x as long in manuscript preparation as the publisher does in publishing it. That sounds closer to right to me than your "on average, they are the same."

He also talks about how much has been outsourced. Outsourcing isn't free, and doesn't take zero time.

[BearMountainBooks]

No. I said they spend, on average, as much time turning a manuscript in to a book as the author does writing the manuscript. It's a common misconception that all a publisher does is have someone drag a Word doc in to the print cue, and that's it. All manuscripts get edited - there's always revisions and multiple drafts. Then there's proof reading, type settings (and that's more complicated than you imagine, too), arranging printing, shipping ,etc. And marketing. Because nobody will buy a book they don't know exists.

And I and not the one saying this. Industry professionals are. Again, go read Charlie Stross's blog. He's not the only one, but his blog is the most accessible, and goes in to details.

This simply isn't true in more than a few cases. I've talked to multiple, traditionally published authors who have had books submitted directly to copyediting--true, one was 'orphaned' (that means his original editor quit and his book was still going to be published) but at least two others had been told, 'Your other books were pretty clean. We're behind schedule, it will get copyedited only.'

I know of one author who was with a medium-sized publisher who was told, "the copyediting has gotten too expensive. If you want it done, you'll have to pay for a contractor to do it.'

I could go on, but these are writers I have talked to IN person, at length about their experiences. It happens all the time and two that come immediately to mind were with large publishers. Not every book gets tons of vetting. Not every book gets several drafts. Not every book gets a lot of attention. The industry professional are not going to be the ones to tell you this.

[BearMountainBooks]

There is also no way that editors spend the same amount of time editing as the writer does writing and editing. Not even on average. I use 4 to 6 beta readers, plus a copyeditor and sometimes a storyline editor. Even counting ALL that time from each of those people, that process takes two to three months max. My first drafts take 6 months. The editing I do myself (rewrites, rewrites, rewrites) take another 6 to 8. Yes, editing is time consuming and so is the process of going through the various meetings to get approval and marketing this and that. But there is no way that the editing process at a publishing house takes 1.5 years, 20 hours a week.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

This simply isn't true in more than a few cases. I've talked to multiple, traditionally published authors who have had books submitted directly to copyediting--true, one was 'orphaned' (that means his original editor quit and his book was still going to be published) but at least two others had been told, 'Your other books were pretty clean. We're behind schedule, it will get copyedited only.'

I know of one author who was with a medium-sized publisher who was told, "the copyediting has gotten too expensive. If you want it done, you'll have to pay for a contractor to do it.'

I could go on, but these are writers I have talked to IN person, at length about their experiences. It happens all the time and two that come immediately to mind were with large publishers. Not every book gets tons of vetting. Not every book gets several drafts. Not every book gets a lot of attention. The industry professional are not going to be the ones to tell you this.

No wonder most books suck more than they used to.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

There is also no way that editors spend the same amount of time editing as the writer does writing and editing.

Since that's not what I said, what's your point?

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

But there is no way that the editing process at a publishing house takes 1.5 years, 20 hours a week.

This.

Anyone who thinks writing a book is not a tremendously time-consuming process hasn't done it. Publishing is the easy part, the mechanical part. Even editing is a dramatically easier task (and yes, I've done it) than writing.

It's a little like a theory on how life began that starts, "Assume the world. Okay, now, the first step is..." Or a theory on the wages workers deserve that starts, "Assume the factory."

Publishers do add value. They provide a service. But the days of being the gatekeeper are thankfully in the past. And no one but a publisher actually thinks they've got the hard part of the job, or anywhere near equivalent to what the writers actually do.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sregener

This.

Anyone who thinks writing a book is not a tremendously time-consuming process hasn't done it. Publishing is the easy part, the mechanical part.

Only if you want to produce books that suck.

[Catlady]

How many times does it need to be pointed out that publishers do more than just EDIT?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sregener

And no one but a publisher actually thinks they've got the hard part of the job, or anywhere near equivalent to what the writers actually do.

Especially since these days most of the value-add is either deal-making or sub-contracting or just punting a step or three to save money.

The future of traditional publish has been laid bare for all to see in three recent "celebrated" moves:
1- Penguin bought Author Solutions for about what Amazon paid for Goodreads
2- Penguin merged with Random House
3- Random House showed their hand with the Hydra contracts

Once there was a golden age of publisher value-add.
Past tense.
That is not the world authors are facing today or tomorrow.

The traditionalists like Turow simply refuse to accept the reality that the world they grew up with is gone. Publishers, by and by, aren't the good guys anymore (if they ever were); not the big ones like the Random Penguin or the Harlequin network or even the not-so-big Nightshade. What publishers are is a business under technological disruption and, like all business under stress, they are squeezing their suppliers, fighting with their distributors, conspiring against consumers, and whining up a storm of biblical proportions.

The most interesting thing about the Turow op-ed isn't the crap he tried to dish out or that the NYT let such blatant lies and misrepresentations go out under their "storied" banner. It is the crap-storm of pushback that it has raised. And not just from authors and readers and blogs, but from the financial sector, the tech sector, the Librarians, and everybody in between.

The disconnect between the world that was and the reality that is may just have hit critical mass. As I said above: there is a schism building.

B&N vs S&S? Just a breeze.
Pearson bugging out of consumer publishing by dumping it on Bertlesmann? A flash of distant lightning.

There's a storm coming.