dangerousmeta!, the original new mexican miscellany, offering eclectic linkage since 1999.

Removed a post for the first time.

About how publishers should contemplate “director’s cuts”. I decided my comments and critiques were not phrased well, and offered too wide an opportunity for misinterpretation. My apologies. Sometimes it is indeed better to shut one’s cake-hole and listen a bit more.

07/23/14 • 09:00 AM • ArtsBooksCorrectionsPersonalWeblogs • (2) Comments

Comments:

Interesting…they didn’t strike me as extreme. Fwiw, I agreed. Too much “behind the scenes” bugs me, and director’s cuts are almost always worse (except for Orson Welles!). Otoh, I really like seeing artists’ notebooks, and Guillermo del Toro has taken this to another level.

Books, though…it just gets too complicated to think about. I really just want the finished product.

Anyhow, interesting.

Posted by Will on 07/23/14 at 09:23 AM

It was a business decision more than anything else. After reading my comments, who would seek me out to view their manuscript? Those opinions would scare everyone away. I do a good job getting ebooks and POD books published (one of my many hats ...). Painstaking for format and accuracy. But I also emphasize - to the point of pain - the role of professional editors.

Asking an author to make a longer version of an already-tightened manuscript after publishing success - unless provided for at the time of writing - is a recipe for disaster.  I think it would be more akin to those maze-like ‘extended cuts’ with backlot videos giving endless useless trivia that only dedicated fans would appreciate.  I can see where this might make money for someone like JK Rowling - but a less popular author? 

I doubt. Generously.

Posted by Garret P Vreeland on 07/23/14 at 09:57 AM

 

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.


<< Previous entry: Slate: Almond milk bad for environment? Tom Philpott and Mother Jones are wrong.

Next entry: Bicycling: New Pro Gear at the 2014 Tour de France. >>