I've got a couple of projects going on right now that really have me reconsidering what have become recently accepted publishing facts:
- New "Fact 1": We are better than thee - large collections of authors writing as a group are better than a single talented individual.
That's funny. Because Wrox customers have been telling us the opposite for 5 years, and I suspect they told previous Wrox editors that earlier too. My experience right now watching the opinions 100 reviewers offer on a project tells me there's a limit to how many authors or reviewers opinions can be usefully integrated into 1 book.
And actually this reminds me of my early days in publishing as a college textbook development editor. One of my main responsibilities in that job was to collect reviews from 10-15 professors who were candidates to adopt the book for their class. 2-3 similar comments from that 10-15 person pool on anything was considered a consensus and typically all the "consensus" did was to dull the edges on anything new or different versus the 5 textbooks the pool represented as current users, effectively killing most new opinions and teaching methods. I won't say there's a directly equal result now but the similar pulls in opposite directions from multiple reviews in any large pool are eery.
It also reminds me of a story Richard Feynman told in Surely You're Joking, Mr Feymanin the chapter titled "Judging Books by Their Covers." he recounts how he ended up on a state textbook selection committee for math texts. Here, one of the world's smartest scientists of any type labored over the dozens of books publishers sent him to evaluate, some of the other members on the committee choosing a book ranked and voted for a book that was actually nothing but blank pages between covers. And yet, the votes those people made for other books still counted as much as Mr. Feyman's vote, although clearly their "opinion" of the blank book should have disqualified them. Wouldn't the opinion of 1, maybe 2, really smart authors or editors be much better than a diluted book-by-committee?
- New Fact #2: Book publishing should be more like modern software development, agile and iterated, not a waterfall process..
For me, that idea breaks down in a couple of places. One, have you ever seen a software project run on schedule? Does moving to an agile or iterative development model ever help schedules or does it just mean that developers have an unlimited number of iterations to tweak? It can't be that way in books (and I'm not sure it should be that way in software). There comes a day when done needs to be done (paraphrasing Partick Cauldwell in Wrox's own Code Leader). Paper is the "done" version of most books today. Until that changes, trying to adapt a process that only marginally works when there can be 1.0, 1.01, 1.02, 1.1, etc releases electronically to something that's really physically restrained to 1 release, a printed book, is not a great idea.
So I know these are contrary opinions, but they've really got me thinking lately.
Recent Comments