The current situation with regard to POD and e-books is very similar to the
paperback original explosion in the 50s. The same arguments were made then
as are being made now. Much of what was published then was terrible, sure,
but that hasn't stopped us all finding the gems. There is a concern re bad
books that if someone reads an extended sequence of one crap book after
another, they may decide to stop reading altogether. The more bad books out
there, the more likely that is to happen. I would suggest, though, that
quality of writing is not paramount in the majority of commercial
publishing. So the situation already exists.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jacquesdebierue" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> --- In email@example.com, "J.C. Hocking" <jchocking@...> wrote:
>> Well, in terms of how a bad book (or a whole lot of them) can hurt, Kevin
>> has a point here...
> How can a bad book possibly hurt anyone? It's no different from a bad
> piece of music or a bad painting... you just move on. There must be a huge
> cemetery for artistic stuff that isn't good.
> The basic fallacy here is that there is a definite number of books and
> that a bad book hurts good books. Where is the evidence to back this up?
> If I write a terrible symphony, how does that hurt Beethoven? If I write a
> terrible novel, how does it hurt Michael Connelly, who only writes very
> good ones?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Nov 2009 EST