4 ms·

Internet is not only making it possible for writers to make it without publishers, but without editors too since writers can involve their readers in proofreadi

by avz 12y ago

Internet is not only making it possible for writers to make it without publishers, but without editors too since writers can involve their readers in proofreading and get serious constructive advice this way. This also makes readers more active and involved compared to traditional passive consumption of content. I've seen a number of technical ebooks and short sci-fi stories get very good advice from HN.

kasey_junk 12y ago
I think one of the biggest misconceptions (after cost being driven by printing) about what the editorial process is in the case of large publishers is that it is dominated by proofreading. The traditional publisher editorial process does include proofreading (and other QA processes), but it is more about what we would call project and product management. Like a good product manager, a good editor doesn't get involved with a book after it is written, they are a central part of the writing process. They are the people who understand market trends, and are experts in their publishing niche. They don't just make suggestions about phrasing, they deal with high level complex issues like flow and structure. Can you write good books without them? Of course, you can write good software without product managers as well, but good ones are A) Hard to find and B) very very valuable.
- avz 12y ago
  Good to know, thx. Traditional publishing does indeed seem to require cooperation of a number of different people and organizations to write the text, design the cover, prepare the layout, proofread the manuscript, size the issue, print the copies, market the book etc. Given the complexity of the process and large number of participants the overhead of additional management layer is necessary. However, a lot of these activities are being automated and/or simplified by technology and can now easily be done by the writer herself with a few online self-service tools. Once the process is streamlined and made easier management is no longer necessary.
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    Again, I think you are discounting the part a good editor plays in the creation of the book (and by book I mean the text, not the finished artifact).

by avz 12y ago

kasey_junk 12y ago

I think one of the biggest misconceptions (after cost being driven by printing) about what the editorial process is in the case of large publishers is that it is dominated by proofreading. The traditional publisher editorial process does include proofreading (and other QA processes), but it is more about what we would call project and product management. Like a good product manager, a good editor doesn't get involved with a book after it is written, they are a central part of the writing process. They are the people who understand market trends, and are experts in their publishing niche. They don't just make suggestions about phrasing, they deal with high level complex issues like flow and structure. Can you write good books without them? Of course, you can write good software without product managers as well, but good ones are A) Hard to find and B) very very valuable.

avz 12y ago
Good to know, thx. Traditional publishing does indeed seem to require cooperation of a number of different people and organizations to write the text, design the cover, prepare the layout, proofread the manuscript, size the issue, print the copies, market the book etc. Given the complexity of the process and large number of participants the overhead of additional management layer is necessary. However, a lot of these activities are being automated and/or simplified by technology and can now easily be done by the writer herself with a few online self-service tools. Once the process is streamlined and made easier management is no longer necessary.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  Again, I think you are discounting the part a good editor plays in the creation of the book (and by book I mean the text, not the finished artifact).