The Print Filter
Traditionally, publishing houses are supposed to act like one giant filter. Lots of authors want to get published, but only a few can. There's a limit to the number of trees we can cut down the shelf space at your local Borders.
So Doubleday has to make tough decisions about which books to invest in and which to ignore. At some point literary agents made careers for themselves by acting as the go-between, adding another nightmare layer and barrier to entry.
Now, with self-publishing, what value are they offering to readers?
This probably won't be of interest to anyone who isn't working in the tech industry, but as a web developer, things change quickly, and I'm expected to stay on top of them, lest I fall out of the loop and become unemployable. Despite this, I make an effort not to spend my working life on the "bleeding edge". I know people who are constantly reading the tea leaves, looking for the next big thing so they can build something with it and show it off to other developers.
I'm not an early adopter; I like to wait until things have proven themselves before I commit to learning them. I use this analogy: think of new technology as the sun. If you stare directly at it, you might end up going blind. However, if you watch the seeds that others are planting, you'll see what sources of light are actually enabling things to grow. After so long, you get a sense of which stuff is worthwhile to learn and which was just a flash in the pan.
As it turns out, looking at the books the technical publishers are choosing to print is actually a pretty good filter. They do their research, just like they're supposed to, and they don't invest in a book unless they're pretty sure there's a market for that book. It's not perfect, but I've been deferring to their decisions for a few years now, and it's worked pretty well for me.
So, the print filter actually is a virtue. Are there any other genres for which this holds true?
Publications about medicine and psychiatry, probably. If it's printed in a book, it's mostly a safe bet that it's been peer-reviewed and the contents are written by a real doctor (that asshole Kevin Trudeau notwithstanding.) Major publishing houses that are still relying on printing books to make money have these examples on their side. A medical books implies a sense of authority, and a computer book (at least for me) translates to something worth spending time on.
But there aren't a whole lot of other types of books where this holds true. Books in business, fiction, and the social sciences--in other words, books with value predicated on the ideas of the author--don't really need to be printed. In this realm, it's easier, faster, and cheaper to browse and find new ideas online.
Books will always have their place in the world, but Doubleday can't count on that to hold true everywhere for much longer.
So Doubleday has to make tough decisions about which books to invest in and which to ignore. At some point literary agents made careers for themselves by acting as the go-between, adding another nightmare layer and barrier to entry.
Now, with self-publishing, what value are they offering to readers?
This probably won't be of interest to anyone who isn't working in the tech industry, but as a web developer, things change quickly, and I'm expected to stay on top of them, lest I fall out of the loop and become unemployable. Despite this, I make an effort not to spend my working life on the "bleeding edge". I know people who are constantly reading the tea leaves, looking for the next big thing so they can build something with it and show it off to other developers.
I'm not an early adopter; I like to wait until things have proven themselves before I commit to learning them. I use this analogy: think of new technology as the sun. If you stare directly at it, you might end up going blind. However, if you watch the seeds that others are planting, you'll see what sources of light are actually enabling things to grow. After so long, you get a sense of which stuff is worthwhile to learn and which was just a flash in the pan.
As it turns out, looking at the books the technical publishers are choosing to print is actually a pretty good filter. They do their research, just like they're supposed to, and they don't invest in a book unless they're pretty sure there's a market for that book. It's not perfect, but I've been deferring to their decisions for a few years now, and it's worked pretty well for me.
So, the print filter actually is a virtue. Are there any other genres for which this holds true?
Publications about medicine and psychiatry, probably. If it's printed in a book, it's mostly a safe bet that it's been peer-reviewed and the contents are written by a real doctor (that asshole Kevin Trudeau notwithstanding.) Major publishing houses that are still relying on printing books to make money have these examples on their side. A medical books implies a sense of authority, and a computer book (at least for me) translates to something worth spending time on.
But there aren't a whole lot of other types of books where this holds true. Books in business, fiction, and the social sciences--in other words, books with value predicated on the ideas of the author--don't really need to be printed. In this realm, it's easier, faster, and cheaper to browse and find new ideas online.
Books will always have their place in the world, but Doubleday can't count on that to hold true everywhere for much longer.