Re: CC filters or Photoshop - Publishing tangent, OT

[Bob Maxey <written_by@xxxxxxx>]

>>>So in what sense has this removed the need to struggle?  As you say,
those works aren't stocked in stores, and aren't accepted by other
authors and editors and publishers as "real" publication credits.  I
have a number of friends in the real New York publishing industry,
including a couple who are making a bit of a personal hobby out of
trying to warn struggling and desperate authors against the scam
artists out there, so "Publish America" is a familiar name, too. >>>

 

In the sense that when anyone can write, publish, list on B&N/Amazon, and deliver a printed and bound book, you must simply assume that most/many of these books might not be worth publishing. If anyone can do something, how much value is there? I recently worked with some publisher's data to confirm product production dates and production numbers. It took me months. PA would never do this or insist upon fact checking. Absolutely anyone, with any skill level, and with absolutely no fear of rejection can be a published author. If you are using a traditional publisher, the work is carefully considered and a barrier is put in place. Not everyone can sell to a traditional publisher.

 

Bad writing is seldom published by the traditional houses. If you suggest (in your book) that The Eastman Kodak Company is owned by Bill Gates and Harley-Davidson is owned by the Koreans, it does not matter, if the book is released by PublishAmerica and some of the others. The book will be listed and sold; hopefully it will be returned to the publisher by ticked off readers.

 

The struggle is in the act of publishing through a traditional publisher, compared to other "publishers" like PA. When you dismiss the occasional lucky writer, traditional publishing is a struggle and it takes time. I can pull a first draft from the hard drive and in a few days, it is published. In my opinion, the difficult nature of landing a contract prevents quite a few poorly written books from seeing print. I am not saying all traditionally published books are great and all self-published books are bad. I am just playing the numbers that seem to suggest it.

> This technology increases the pool of useless works that would never
> be published ten or fifteen years ago.

>>>I guess it's partly technology, but I'm inclined to blame the scam
artists at for-fee reading services and vanity presses. >>>

 

As do I. There is no shortage of scams out there. Writers must never pay for the services most/all such presses often push.

>>>(And since you jumped directly from my mentioning I had author friends
to talking about vanity press publication, I should mention that I
know only two people who admit to having ever used such, and one of
the uses was a counter-scam to see how bad a book Publish America
could be tricked into accepting and how fulsome their letters of
praise would be.  With the exception of the *other* friend who did
vanity-publish a book, the authors I'm thinking of are published by
"real" publihsers.  Most of these people make their living from their
writing.)>>>

 

I am using a service called Lulu Press. I will use it far more, as my need to distribute materials of a specialized nature grows. I am well aware that Lulu Press is not a publisher. I know the differences between self/vanity publishers and traditional publisher. Unfortunately, many new writers do not know the differences.

 

PA was recently tested and it has proven to be quite interesting. And quite embarrassing for a few. Google "Travis Tea" and read the story. Also take note of the name Travis Tea.

 

> I am not sure most editors give the writer a free pass on
> anything. Then again, some might because writing is subjective and
> it is sometimes difficult to tell what is good, bad, or terrible
> dialog. I will admit that I read the "Mac Bolan" and "Overload"
> series. The dialog is often silly, but these books represent a very
> large series of silly books, all traditionally published.

>>>Either you misread me, or this discussion is getting too intense.  I
didn't say *editors* gave anybody a pass on anything; I said, in the
context of a discussion of talent, that some authors *got* a free pass
on some things.  I meant that when they started out trying to write
they *already* had decent abilities in one or (maybe) two of the
necessary skill sets required to be a successful author.>>>

 

If I misunderstood, I apologize. I agree that in some cases, editors will spot talent and they might forgive am iffy plot twist because the rest is outstanding. In most cases, all most editors see are poorly written manuscripts. Thousands of them, over the transom.

 

So list folks, have any of you seen similar scams directed specifically at photographers? There must be a few.

 

Bob

...

 

---

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com