And this brings up another point. In this world of ever-growing self-publishing, who will QC the content that is "published," whether to the web or to POD? Traditionally there are editors, copy editors, and proofreaders to do so, and often this entails two to three different set of eyes reviewing the content at least two to three times. If the author can skip the publisher, will he/she also skip the QC?"Dilbert" Embraces User-Generated Content
"Dilbert" creator Scott Adams and his distributor, United Media, are supporting user-generated content through Dilbert.com. Visitors can rewrite captions and redistribute the results, and the full "Dilbert" archive will eventually be available for free. From Webware:
I asked Adams why he and United Media are opening up the Dilbert intellectual property like this, and he sent me a response by email: "We're accepting the realities of IP on the Internet, and trying to get ahead of the curve. People already alter Dilbert strips and distribute them. If we make it easy and legal to do so, and drive more traffic to Dilbert.com in the process, everyone wins. Plus it's a lot of fun to see what people come up with in the mashups."
Personally, I hope not but I haven't picked up any self-published books for that reason. As my friends know, after having been on the managing editorial side of the business for over ten years, I have a mental red pencil that does not quit even when I'm reading for pleasure. And if a book is too error-ridden, I will return it on principle.
But I am far from the average reader, and if the authors succeed in cutting out the publishers, it will be up to the readers to demand quality. It wil then be up to publishers to adapt and work with the authors, perhaps as co-partners...perhaps as HarperCollins is trying with its new imprint?
Until next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment