Re: Lulu
- From: constantinopoli@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 13, 11:19 am, Nicky <nicky.matth...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 13, 2:49 pm, constantinop...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:48 am, Nicky <nicky.matth...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:33 am, David Friedman <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<d9411432-ae3c-4cff-908b-01ec0eb6f...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Nicky <nicky.matth...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think the book is
safe for a while too, but in the unlikely event that everyone started
reading on screen I think people would still want books that have been
'published' by someone whose judgement on quality they trust and I
think they would still be prepared to pay for those 'books'. The
mechanics of the industy may change but I still think that producing
content that other people want to read will remain the aim for us
content providers.
I agree with the final bit.
What I'm less sure of is that publishers will continue to provide the
filter, as opposed to some other mechanism.
I don't know either but I think whoever owns or manages the filter,
there will be work for editors and designers and for the content
providers. Changing the medium doesn't really change the need for well
written properly edited work. Many of the key functions of book
publishers could take place in an electronic environment and while
marketing, slaes and publicity may use different channels that
activity too will remain.
Readers may tolerate unedited work. The blogs seem to be well
received. Copyediting and other editing may be partly tied to the
current model of distribution. Note that the more popular writers are,
so it is reputed, subject to less editing. So as the publisher matters
less and the writer matters more, the editing is reduced. Also, the
relative immutability of print means there is more pressure to correct
up front. It is expensive to print thousands of books, so an error
requiring a reprint is expensive.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think most people would rather read properly spelled and punctuated
prose. I don't think that has anything to do with distribution but
with the production of a good quality product.
From what I know, the view that books are no longer edited seems to
be something of a myth. All the working writers I know still get
editorial feedback, copy/desk editing etc. etc
Again I cite the seeming success of blogs as evidence against.
A few points:
1) Automated correction takes care of a good bit of the problem. Not
all, but a good bit.
2) A reader can tell the difference between typos and ignorance, and
it's the latter which I, for one, find annoying. What ignorant writers
need is not an editor, but a teacher.
3) We adjust. Because readers are given a certain level of perfection,
they learn to expect it. They relax their requirements as needed -
e.g. for blogs, and for face to face speech.
4) Production is in fact related to distribution. Consider iPhone
apps. These are updated with minimal effort on the part of the
customer. Consequently many apps are frequently upgraded, and upgraded
responsively to customer input. The end result is significantly
different from what it would be if it needed to be a "finished
product" before the first customer saw it. Apps which are utterly
uninspiring to customers will be abandoned early on - another effect
of distribution on production. I am familiar with apps so I use that
as an example, but surely the effect of distribution on production
does not affect only apps.
.
- References:
- Re: Lulu
- From: Jeff Stehman
- Re: Lulu
- From: charlesrcaplan
- Re: Lulu
- From: Alma Hromic Deckert
- Re: Lulu
- From: charlesrcaplan
- Re: Lulu
- From: Alma Hromic Deckert
- Re: Lulu
- From: James A . Donald
- Re: Lulu
- From: Chuk Goodin
- Re: Lulu
- From: Zeborah
- Re: Lulu
- From: constantinopoli
- Re: Lulu
- From: James Eades
- Re: Lulu
- From: Nicky
- Re: Lulu
- From: David Friedman
- Re: Lulu
- From: Nicky
- Re: Lulu
- From: constantinopoli
- Re: Lulu
- From: Nicky
- Re: Lulu
- Prev by Date: Re: Lulu
- Next by Date: Re: Lulu
- Previous by thread: Re: Lulu
- Next by thread: Re: Lulu
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading