3 ms·

Everyone who voted the parent comment down because it offended their groupthink should read the forwards of a few books. Authors constantly sing the praises of

by tjmc 15y ago

Everyone who voted the parent comment down because it offended their groupthink should read the forwards of a few books. Authors constantly sing the praises of editors who helped them get their books into shape. Good producers do the same thing to music. This meme that there are no benefits to professional production is demonstrably stupid. If you're unable to leave it on Reddit or Slashdot where it belongs, at least have the courtesy not to mod down people who say otherwise.

caf 15y ago
There is no question that services like editing are valuable and necessary. The salient question seems to be why authors don't hire their own editors, rather than overpay for the service as part of an unattractively-priced bundle of related services from a publishing house.
- Turing_Machine 15y ago
  Right. Editors provide a valuable service, but there's no reason that needs to be bundled with the other "services" provided by publishers, most of which have become or are becoming irrelevant, particularly, IMO, the functions of providing capital and risk pooling. A traditional publisher would provide an author with a (usually small) advance on royalties to live on while writing the book (think of it as a payday loan in terms of financial soundness and you'll have the right idea there), front the money to print and distribute the book (a significant amount when you're talking paper), and assume the risk that the book would tank or that the author would flake out and not finish the book. They could do that because they'd pool the risk across a large number of books. If the editorial decisions about what to publish were sound overall, the publisher could make a profit despite losing money on individual books. The cost of "printing" and distribution is headed toward zero and editing, cover art, and services can be purchased. That basically leaves (from the author's perspective) "source of short-term loans under very bad terms" as the only remaining function, but, you know, there are other places that provide those. :-)
  - justincormack 15y ago
    It is more an equity investment in the book product than a payday loan, as there is no obligation to repay if sales are bad. Or you can regard it as the publisher creating a limited liability company for each book that pays the author. It is much like VC financing for a product company in terms of the model, although the payoffs are usually distributed a little differently.
    - caf 15y ago
      So the essential part of the publisher reduces to a provider of domain-specific loan insurance, where their knowledge of the industry and evaluation of the commercial prospects of your writing informs the risk premium that is charged.
akeck 15y ago
Sounds like there might be an emerging market for independent expert editors who work directly for self-published authors. If an author gets 70% back on each Kindle sale, she can afford to send some percentage of that to her editor. The author gets high quality editing and the editor gets a continuous income stream.

by tjmc 15y ago

caf 15y ago

There is no question that services like editing are valuable and necessary. The salient question seems to be why authors don't hire their own editors, rather than overpay for the service as part of an unattractively-priced bundle of related services from a publishing house.

Turing_Machine 15y ago
Right. Editors provide a valuable service, but there's no reason that needs to be bundled with the other "services" provided by publishers, most of which have become or are becoming irrelevant, particularly, IMO, the functions of providing capital and risk pooling. A traditional publisher would provide an author with a (usually small) advance on royalties to live on while writing the book (think of it as a payday loan in terms of financial soundness and you'll have the right idea there), front the money to print and distribute the book (a significant amount when you're talking paper), and assume the risk that the book would tank or that the author would flake out and not finish the book. They could do that because they'd pool the risk across a large number of books. If the editorial decisions about what to publish were sound overall, the publisher could make a profit despite losing money on individual books. The cost of "printing" and distribution is headed toward zero and editing, cover art, and services can be purchased. That basically leaves (from the author's perspective) "source of short-term loans under very bad terms" as the only remaining function, but, you know, there are other places that provide those. :-)
- justincormack 15y ago
  It is more an equity investment in the book product than a payday loan, as there is no obligation to repay if sales are bad. Or you can regard it as the publisher creating a limited liability company for each book that pays the author. It is much like VC financing for a product company in terms of the model, although the payoffs are usually distributed a little differently.
  - caf 15y ago
    So the essential part of the publisher reduces to a provider of domain-specific loan insurance, where their knowledge of the industry and evaluation of the commercial prospects of your writing informs the risk premium that is charged.

akeck 15y ago

Sounds like there might be an emerging market for independent expert editors who work directly for self-published authors. If an author gets 70% back on each Kindle sale, she can afford to send some percentage of that to her editor. The author gets high quality editing and the editor gets a continuous income stream.