![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouA simple example:
It was the first time he’d spent any time alone with Hugh where his own natural shyness hadn’t taken over.
Uhm, "own natural shyness"? As opposed to someone else's?
Or:
He took the keys from his pocket, leaving the house he took the keys from his pocket.
To be honest, I have more than a few of these myself; it takes absolutely fresh and new eyes, totally new eyeballs, to notice such peculiarities. It's not really grammar, or spelling. You need a copy editor: they're trained to notice the absolute tiniest detail, the excruciatingly mind-numbing (to me) proofing details, and it's boggling in some ways (especially since I consider it so mind-numbing) that a copy-editor would be paid only $1 a page. Yes, that may be $400 for a good-sized book, but that good-sized book might be a week's work (or more).
And then there are the complete disasters in plotting, the characterization flaws big enough to topple the Bay Bridge, the fifteen pounds of exposition nailed to a two-by-six: these are the main editor's job to notice. And that, too, is a skill, to be able to both read and yet analyze at the same time, and to understand where the issue is. That is, we can all read and say, "I don't know, it just didn't really work," but can we say why? And more than that, can we suggest what will fix it? Someone who can, who can do all that while still reading, run on those eight levels at once, has the brain to be an editor.
There are far fewer of these brain-types running around than there are writers, and there are even fewer of these brain-types in some of the lower echelons of the writing world, too, it seems. So far, my experience with ePub works has been spotty; I read three more this evening, all by Jules Jones, which were well-written, proofed nicely, characterized well, and maybe a little on the flat side when it came to true plotting complexity; the endings tended to wrap up a little too neatly, and Jones really isn't one for drawing out the angst, but that's a style thing.
Compared to the fact that I've read three or four other ePubs (not all of which I've reviewed), it's pretty much a fifty-fifty thing, it seems. (I don't know if this is endemic of Romance as a whole, however.)
It really seems to come down to this: the likelihood of a higher quality of writing, on average, is in direct proportion to the number of gates through which the story must pass, from author's fingertips to reader's eyeballs. From query-slush reader, to agent, to editorial slush reader, to assistant editor, to editor, to copy editor, to typesetting editor, and so on. (Not all of those are in the same stream, of course.)
With the advent of ePub, yes, more people can be 'published' -- and it is considered by most to be publishing credits, as there are gates barring just anyone, if you go with an established ePub. These gates, however, seem to be fewer and/or of lower quality. You need no agent to deal with ePub; in fact, most agents seem to ignore it completely. The profit is simply too low for an agent to care, though the post-ePub numbers may be of interest to an agent when you switch to traditional print, from what I understand.
I do not believe printed books will ever go the way of the dodo, but I also believe ePub is equally here to stay. The problem is that ePub seems, currently, to be ruled by those genres which don't get a lot of shelf in the local bookstore: peculiar genres, niche markets, and especially erotica or otherwise significantly adult-oriented material. The setup costs are much lower, the schema for publicity is already there: in sum, the barriers are lower, and passing the gates is an easier act from fingertip-start to eyeball-finish.
All of that, to me, adds up to this: until ePub can consistently create works of quality as high as the percentage of quality in traditional printing, it will remain a very secluded, and somewhat ridiculed, part of the overall market.
Yes, yes, yes, I know there are books out there that we all read and bemoan, while fussing at the cost, too, that it's badly proofed, badly written, plotted like a two-year old's bedtime story, and so on. But the overall percentage of books that get this complaint, set against the number in your average bookstore, is really quite low: maybe 3%, maybe 5% if the genre's rampant in low barriers or growing too fast (vampires, anyone?).
But in ePubs, so far, I'm finding that percentage of 'not much good' or even 'horrendous' much higher. Until that percentage comes down, I don't feel comfortable with it as a valid, reputable phenomenom. It's going to keep its stigma as "it's on the net, anyone can do that" because at least half the time you're getting a story that you honestly think anyone really could have written, and probably better. Hell, drunken blindfolded monkeys could do better.
But I do like the idea Konrath presented (link around here somewhere, speech he gave this past weekend) about marketing the two as a combined unit: selling a book that comes with a CD, containing perhaps images, sound, a ready-made site or links to an online site (much as is done for movies), with additional scenes or possibly the entire book in sound-format for visually impaired readers. He's talking about using the power of both media to present a single package to readers as a means to capitalize on the best of both worlds: using the quality from higher gates and the novelty/creativity from the ePub/online world.
What do you think?
It was the first time he’d spent any time alone with Hugh where his own natural shyness hadn’t taken over.
Uhm, "own natural shyness"? As opposed to someone else's?
Or:
He took the keys from his pocket, leaving the house he took the keys from his pocket.
To be honest, I have more than a few of these myself; it takes absolutely fresh and new eyes, totally new eyeballs, to notice such peculiarities. It's not really grammar, or spelling. You need a copy editor: they're trained to notice the absolute tiniest detail, the excruciatingly mind-numbing (to me) proofing details, and it's boggling in some ways (especially since I consider it so mind-numbing) that a copy-editor would be paid only $1 a page. Yes, that may be $400 for a good-sized book, but that good-sized book might be a week's work (or more).
And then there are the complete disasters in plotting, the characterization flaws big enough to topple the Bay Bridge, the fifteen pounds of exposition nailed to a two-by-six: these are the main editor's job to notice. And that, too, is a skill, to be able to both read and yet analyze at the same time, and to understand where the issue is. That is, we can all read and say, "I don't know, it just didn't really work," but can we say why? And more than that, can we suggest what will fix it? Someone who can, who can do all that while still reading, run on those eight levels at once, has the brain to be an editor.
There are far fewer of these brain-types running around than there are writers, and there are even fewer of these brain-types in some of the lower echelons of the writing world, too, it seems. So far, my experience with ePub works has been spotty; I read three more this evening, all by Jules Jones, which were well-written, proofed nicely, characterized well, and maybe a little on the flat side when it came to true plotting complexity; the endings tended to wrap up a little too neatly, and Jones really isn't one for drawing out the angst, but that's a style thing.
Compared to the fact that I've read three or four other ePubs (not all of which I've reviewed), it's pretty much a fifty-fifty thing, it seems. (I don't know if this is endemic of Romance as a whole, however.)
It really seems to come down to this: the likelihood of a higher quality of writing, on average, is in direct proportion to the number of gates through which the story must pass, from author's fingertips to reader's eyeballs. From query-slush reader, to agent, to editorial slush reader, to assistant editor, to editor, to copy editor, to typesetting editor, and so on. (Not all of those are in the same stream, of course.)
With the advent of ePub, yes, more people can be 'published' -- and it is considered by most to be publishing credits, as there are gates barring just anyone, if you go with an established ePub. These gates, however, seem to be fewer and/or of lower quality. You need no agent to deal with ePub; in fact, most agents seem to ignore it completely. The profit is simply too low for an agent to care, though the post-ePub numbers may be of interest to an agent when you switch to traditional print, from what I understand.
I do not believe printed books will ever go the way of the dodo, but I also believe ePub is equally here to stay. The problem is that ePub seems, currently, to be ruled by those genres which don't get a lot of shelf in the local bookstore: peculiar genres, niche markets, and especially erotica or otherwise significantly adult-oriented material. The setup costs are much lower, the schema for publicity is already there: in sum, the barriers are lower, and passing the gates is an easier act from fingertip-start to eyeball-finish.
All of that, to me, adds up to this: until ePub can consistently create works of quality as high as the percentage of quality in traditional printing, it will remain a very secluded, and somewhat ridiculed, part of the overall market.
Yes, yes, yes, I know there are books out there that we all read and bemoan, while fussing at the cost, too, that it's badly proofed, badly written, plotted like a two-year old's bedtime story, and so on. But the overall percentage of books that get this complaint, set against the number in your average bookstore, is really quite low: maybe 3%, maybe 5% if the genre's rampant in low barriers or growing too fast (vampires, anyone?).
But in ePubs, so far, I'm finding that percentage of 'not much good' or even 'horrendous' much higher. Until that percentage comes down, I don't feel comfortable with it as a valid, reputable phenomenom. It's going to keep its stigma as "it's on the net, anyone can do that" because at least half the time you're getting a story that you honestly think anyone really could have written, and probably better. Hell, drunken blindfolded monkeys could do better.
But I do like the idea Konrath presented (link around here somewhere, speech he gave this past weekend) about marketing the two as a combined unit: selling a book that comes with a CD, containing perhaps images, sound, a ready-made site or links to an online site (much as is done for movies), with additional scenes or possibly the entire book in sound-format for visually impaired readers. He's talking about using the power of both media to present a single package to readers as a means to capitalize on the best of both worlds: using the quality from higher gates and the novelty/creativity from the ePub/online world.
What do you think?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2007 02:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Jan 2007 07:28 am (UTC)Or has someone willing to collaborate on it -- writers, as you know, are good with the words and we can visualize and communicate what we're thinking, but we're not always good at the execution. (I can name a slew of writerly webpages that are proof of that.)
I do think more book-based sites would be good, instead of just "here's the cover!" and "here's the first chapter!" but other things, like maps and pronunciation guides and more artwork and deleted scenes or something.
Hrm. Stuff to ponder.