OT-Black Company

[JimMorrison]

Leif_- said:
...practically all of it is overwritten, underedited, badly clicheed tripe...

I see you prefer your cliche'd tripe underwritten and overedited.

Well, Badger beat me to it. It's true for any art form, really. Financial success is not in any way an accurate barometer of skill, talent, or expression. Is there a lot of bad self-published writing out there? Well of course there is! Bad art is everywhere you look. Just because the store has a bestseller list that will allow you to read the same few books as everyone else, which are mostly the same as the books you read before them, but with different authors - doesn't mean that the self-publishing houses won't have a competitive product.


And Reno, I am not sure what you actually hoped to accomplish with that post.

[Leif_-]

JimMorrison said:
I see you prefer your cliche'd tripe underwritten and overedited.

If that's the alternative, yes.

Just because the store has a bestseller list that will allow you to read the same few books as everyone else, which are mostly the same as the books you read before them, but with different authors - doesn't mean that the self-publishing houses won't have a competitive product.

No, of course not. The reason why self-publishing, with rare exceptions, won't have a competitive product is because they'll lack skilled editors, proofreaders and typesetters. Publishing houses doesn't just publish books -- they also make sure the book is publishable, as in worth publishing.

[sum1lost]

Leif_- said:

If that's the alternative, yes.

No, of course not. The reason why self-publishing, with rare exceptions, won't have a competitive product is because they'll lack skilled editors, proofreaders and typesetters. Publishing houses doesn't just publish books -- they also make sure the book is publishable, as in worth publishing.

That might be what they are supposed to do, but they don't always do that well. Not only that, but publishers are not always the best judges of who is and who isn't good. A number of perfectly comptent (in a few cases now famous) authors have had a great deal of trouble getting some of their works published.

[Leif_-]

sum1lost said:
That might be what they are supposed to do, but they don't always do that well.

They're not perfect, no, but overall they tend to do their job competently.

Not only that, but publishers are not always the best judges of who is and who isn't good.

Of course not. They're just much, much better than the authors themselves are.

A number of perfectly comptent (in a few cases now famous) authors have had a great deal of trouble getting some of their works published.

I don't consider that a disadvantage of publishing, quite the contrary.

[HoneyBadger]

crack dealer, in practice.

Publishers, atleast the big ones with the most money, have one purpose, and that is to sell as many books as possible to as many people as possible. That's their purpose. They don't give a flying expletive about quality, if they can sell quantity. That's how they gain their success. They cut down trees, chop them up, smear ink on the wood pulp, and feed it to you. And if you don't believe that, then you're watching, and enjoying, television far too much, and it's brainwashed you.

How anyone could even concieve, let alone announce in public, in this forum particularly, that publishers-by and large-were arbiters and dispensers of only the finest quality literature, refined, weighed, and cut like a pure porcelain cocaine-illicit, and intoxicating-because they had their readers' best interests in mind, instead of being merchants of whatever addictive poison they could get people to pay money for and waste their time on; that here was some kind of happy circle of noble human enlightenment and betterment, where the cream rises to the top, bourne on the wings of our wiser, better angels from the hallowed temples of Publishdom...it's not just beyond me, it's beyond all naivete. Scary-crazy, like people who sell their homes and give the money to televangelists.

Publishing books is a big business, that operates like the gaming industry, like Hollywood, and like television. Why risk thousands and thousands of dollars on something that only a small portion of the population (well educated, discerning, bookworms) is actually going to appreciate, when you can get a higher profit by printing another easy to read schlockfest. And if you have something of quality already, and can make it sell better by tacking on a bunch of stuff that doesn't add to the quality, but DOES add to the appeal, then all the better.

Ever notice how books used to be mostly complete from beginning to end, but then they all turned into trilogies? And now they just go on and on for 7, 8, 9+ books? It's because the publishers know that once they have an audience, they can hold on to a lot of it and sell it books over and over again, until the writer drops dead. And the publishers don't even have to worry about the quality of the books because-guess what?-people will *keep reading them* even if they're awful, because they get hooked. Just like crack.

Ofcourse, I know the end results are better-but if you shoot someone, and they live and go on to win Nobel Prize for Peace because of their outspoken commitment to worldwide gun-control, does that make it ok?

[MaxWilson]

The homogenization of literature is not really the publishers' fault. It's not even really the big bookstores' fault. It is, at least in part, the fault of the Law of Unintended Consequences, stemming from a Supreme Court decision "Thor Power Tool Company vs. IRS Commissioner." http://www.sfwa.org/bulletin/articles/thor.htm

I'm sure technological and social change factors in there too. Anyway, the occasional discussions on self-publishing that I've seen indicate that getting a good editor (and cover artist) are MUSTS if you want to be successful at self-publishing, and self-publishing takes a lot of work. Unlike the music industry, artists in the book industry receive significant value from their publishers and don't tend to view them as antagonists.

Enough OT for me today...

-Max

[JimMorrison]

HoneyBadger said:
...Scary-crazy, like people who sell their homes and give the money to televangelists...

Oh man.

The truth has claws.

I wasn't going to drag this thread around anymore, but thanks for hitting the part about the Reign of the Pointlessly Long Series. If Moby Dick or War and Peace were written today, they'd be split in 3 without hesitation. Then the publisher would ask for more. They would then beg for -anything- with the same characters, or in the same world, rather than get new creation that they would have to go through all the bother of trying to sell all over again.

[Renojustin]

Yeah, and if Tolkien lived back in 1930 or something, The Lord of the Rings would have been finished in 230 pages.

Side Note: scariest aliens ever in a novel = The Mote In God's Eye by Pournelle and Niven