September 2022

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
181920 21222324
2526 27282930 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Monday, November 2nd, 2009 10:51 am
The Google book search settlement is raising yet another fuss over digital distribution, so I've been thinking about it recently. Base assumption: our goal as a society is to encourage quality creative production, but the exact method is irrelevant. I think everyone is focusing on the wrong things. What follows applies to just about everything, but books serve as a convenient example. Let's break it down vaguely in order of controversy...

Production/Distribution: It is, of course, blatantly obvious at this point that distributing data in a non-corporeal digital form beats the pants off everything that came before. It's many orders of magnitude faster and just about infinitely cheaper. Anyone can do it. Everyone can now publish whatever they want to a global audience. No one can claim with a straight face that we need large corporate structures in order to achieve this goal.

Content screening: One of the unsung advantages to the old system was that it provided implicit quality control. Because publishing a physical book was so expensive, publishers wanted to get their investment back. If something was published, it had a fair chance of being decent. Maybe not your cup of tea, but not absolute crap, either. You were protected from the horrors of the slushpile. One concern with the new model is that, omg, how will we ever sort through the tsunami of material available? (Students of Chinese history will recognize this concern -- and the dangers that come from centralized "solutions" to it.) Well, it turns out this isn't really a problem either. We've developed lots of methods for ranking and recommending material. And more importantly, it matters less when these systems fail. If you're not paying for something, you're only out whatever time it took you to realize it was crap before putting it down. How often do you watch the first 10 seconds of a youtube video before going eh and closing the tab? The problem is solved by the same thing that caused it -- massive reduction in costs and even more massive amateur parallelization.

Content creation: This is where discussions start to get all emotional and pear-shaped. The simple truth is, I see no evidence that monetary rewards drive creation. (Except when the production tools are expensive, which was never the case for writing and is true less and less for just about everything else.) How many authors ever make a living at it? And even those that did, how did they manage to write before they were famous enough to make a living at it? The whole argument is ridiculous. It's even more crazy when you look at the unpaid material being posted constantly online. People like to create! (And that's a really good thing. I'd much rather live in a world where we didn't need to bribe people to be cool.) They also like to be famous, which I will argue was always the real external motivator. So, even though I'm going to be accused of wanting authors to starve to death alone in the snow, there just isn't a problem at this step. Things will still get written.

Editing: Finally, at this obscure step in the process, we run into problem. Going from a manuscript to a final book takes editing. (Also typesetting and cover design and other such things, depending on the final target medium. The same arguments apply.) Real effort, doing something boring and tedious and decidedly unsexy. Writing is sexy -- everyone wants to be an author. There are people who want to be copy-editors, but not usually in the do-it-for-free-cause-it's-fun kind of way. No one ever gets famous for being a copy-editor. Despite all the popular hysteria around the previous steps, this is where the new system grinds to a halt.

In the end, the question I'm very interested in right now is how to incentivize this kind of labor. If you're concerned with quality books coming out after the publishing houses finally go bankrupt, this is what needs to be fixed. There is no guarantee that there is a solution, of course. The old model is permanently broken, though. In the long run, selling data is for chumps. It's time to get over that and start making sure the new world order will be as awesome as possible.

(What, you were expecting answers? Solutions? No, just trying to clarify the issues. Sorry.)
Monday, November 2nd, 2009 11:11 pm (UTC)
For editing, it seems like part (but not all) of the work can be shouldered by alpha and beta readers like you see in various online writing communities. I don't think it's sufficient to replace an editor, but it'll get you a good percentage of the improvements needed for a final product. And there's plenty to be motivated by there. Maybe they already know the author personally. Or maybe they don't but get to feel a certain amount of fame-by-proxy by getting to read and comment on it before anyone else does and by getting to communicate with the author in a more direct and professional fashion.
Monday, November 2nd, 2009 11:41 pm (UTC)
Personally, I'm going to be unpopular and call the baby ugly -- most fen writing is shit, and the editing is atrocious, even with betas. And that's just basic grammar -- how do you replace a New Yorker style fact checker? At absolute best, you get wikipedian levels of accuracy, and that'd be a sad, sad fate for the book.
Monday, November 2nd, 2009 11:43 pm (UTC)
Most of all writing is shit. You're just exposed to a wider variety now, if you want to ignore user ratings.
Monday, November 2nd, 2009 11:54 pm (UTC)
Sure. I'm noting that the fen model doesn't do the job of a real editor, and thus seems unlikely as a candidate for replacing traditional editing. Wikipedia's not much better, a lot of the time.
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 02:44 am (UTC)
I spend a lot of time fact-checking and editing wikipedia based purely on my feeling of annoyance when it's either wrong (grammar or punctuation) or non-factual (bad reference, no reference.) I can't be the only person doing this, but at the same time, there are so many more people writing than doing what I'm doing, that my efforts are swamped.
With that said, if people who copy-edit effectively use some sort of moderation system to concentrate their efforts on the better material, that might be worth something.
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 03:01 am (UTC)
There's a startup service I saw recently that was for exactly this sort of thing, letting people post their work for copyeditors to assist line-by-line, but I can't remember the name or good enough search terms to find it now.