= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nornagest comments on "Smarter than us" is out! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (56)
Publishers aren't interested in a book's credibility except insofar as it affects its ability to drive sales. Self-publishing or vanity publishing isn't evidence of inaccuracy or lack of intellectual integrity; it's evidence of being boring, niche, poorly written, or otherwise of limited potential. That's definitely not good news but it doesn't qualify as "Dark Arts" by any means.
(Things are a little different in the academic press, but I don't think that applies here.)
Normal publishers filter books for many aspects that would lead a reader to not want to read the book. While it's true that not much filtering is done on accuracy and integrity, the aspects that the books are filtered on are still ones that typical readers care about. Relying on the user's lack of knowledge of the publisher to make him think such filtering has been done, when it has not, is dark arts, deceptive, or whatever other term for bad things you like to use.
In other words, "I'm not tricking a user into reading an inaccurate book, I'm just tricking the user into reading a boring and poorly written book" isn't an excuse.
I don't think this situation can really be described as a trick.
The way I see it, the main services publishers provide are distribution, marketing, and to a lesser extent editing. Self-publish or go with a vanity publisher, and you're going to have a harder time getting into bookstores or other content distributors, because you haven't gone through their filters but also because you're not playing the usual game. But that just means you need to establish the book's worth yourself. The typical reader won't be able to tell the difference, but in order to get your book to the typical reader, you need to jump through a lot of hoops that are more or less equivalent to what a publisher would be doing for you. And popularity of course is a vindication all its own (there have been successful self-published books, albeit not many).
Now, if the question was whether it's ethical to claim the status you'd get from being picked up by a major publisher ("I'm a published author!"), then I'd be right there with you. But I don't think that having a vanity-published book in the wild, or even pointing people to it, is equivalent to making that claim.
Your line of argument looks strange to me. Basically, you are saying that any writer MUST go through gatekeepers to reach his readers and if he bypasses the gatekeepers that's fraud and deceit upon the readers. I don't find this approach reasonable.
Choosing to self-publish your book with the intention of having your readers mistake it for a non-self-published book is deceptive.
This isn't true because publishers will often hire someone to go through all of your footnotes.
Sure, but that's just editing. Which is one of the basic services of a publisher; they have an interest in catching your mistakes and generally helping you not look stupid, because that sells, but that's not the same thing as being nontrivial evidence of intellectual credibility. Obvious bullshit and pseudoscience gets published all the time, because that sells.
It was a lot more than editing on my last book.
I was hoping the link would be to a description of what your publisher did for you.
Sorry. They hired someone to look at every footnote. If my footnote didn't seem justified this fact checker asked me for justification or had me chance it.