At 3:27 PM +0000 6/28/03, Thomas Larus wrote: >Thanks for the eye-opener. I did not know that many of the errors one finds >in technical books are introduced in the editorial process.
There were two reasons I switched from Macmillan (deceased sister of Cisco Press, but using lots of Cisco Press conventions) to Wiley: lack of marketing (far less true of Cisco Press), and their insistence on using a "development editor". Development editors are _not_ copy editors, but conceptually have the role of "helping poor techies write and express themselves." Well, some of us poor techies already can write -- indeed, some of us have been editors. I found her to be a constant obstacle. For example, she kept insisting, even when three peer reviewers also told her she was wrong, that a "two order of magnitude" increase meant doubling, not going up by 10 to the power 2. Now, there are other people that liked their development editor and found it a useful process. It's really a very individual thing, and one size does not fit all. What works for me is to have a strong technical colleague as reader and sounding board (Scott Bradner for the WAN Survival Guide, and Annlee Hines for Building Service Provider Networks). For the second book, I finally found an editor that added to the process, Stephanie Landis. Officially, Stephanie was the copy editor, but went slightly beyond that to the point I needed -- tell me something doesn't flow, but don't try to fix it. Wherever possible, I have CertZone contract with Stephanie to edit my papers, but also have a technical reviewer. Cisco Press has gotten more reasonable over time, or it may be that I know enough people and have enough track record that I might be willing to do another book with them. At least in the present economy, though, professional web self-publishing may be a viable option. That doesn't mean I won't use editors, graphics people, etc., but they will be people I know will add to the process. Self-publishing also simplifies the update/errata process. >Nor did I know >that the publishers are not strong on things like diagrams and cover art. >It sounds like I might do better working out the kinks in my Visio diagrams >imported into Word, than relying on a publisher to be able to do a better >job. I was thinking of using one of my nice-looking Visio diagrams as cover >art, perhaps jazzing that one up with color. I haven't found a publisher that really redraws -- they do things, instead, such as standardize line widths, page alignment, etc. There have been a few times where I would have liked to work with a graphics professional to work out a very hard drawing with which I wasn't getting the results that I wanted, but, in general, this is something that has to be contracted on a case-by-case basis. The publisher graphics people get involved, typically, only with the finished manuscript. I don't know if there is an industry standard for drawing, although the people I've talked to tend to use Adobe Illustrator. All the publishers I know use Quark for page layout, which has interesting ripple effects on what you can and can't do in Word. > >I don't care about getting an advance up front. If my book of CCIE lab >advice and scenarios with detailed explanations (like Hutnik and Saterlee >CCIE Lab Practice Kit) is of high quality, it will sell pretty well. The >key, for me, is to make sure that it is of high quality. A few errors on >crucial points can render an otherwise great technical book untrustworthy. >I have caught some errors in my first three scenarios, and will probably >find some in the next draft, too. The key to good writing is rewriting, I >have been told. > >The only reason left for submitting a book to a big name publisher is to be >able to say "I have a book published by Big Publisher, Inc." For someone >without an established name or reputation, that is still something, but your >post changes the whole cost/benefit analysis. I will have my hands full >correcting my own mistakes, without having to fix the mistakes of editors. > >Thanks, >Tom Larus, CCIE #10,014 > > > >Oppenheimer"" wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Black Jack wrote: >> > >> > That is very interesting. Can you give us a little more >> > background about how your relationship with your publisher went >> > so badly wrong? >> >> Sounds like I exaggerated a bit. :-) It didn't go that wrong. The >publisher >> says that the problems are all related to the economic downturn. I have my >> doubts, though. >> >> Cisco Press is still doing well. Of course, they have that vendor name on >> their books which helps I'm sure. >> >> People aren't buying books, supposedly. Are you? :-) Just wondering... >> >> > I for one know very little about how >> > publisher-author deals work and would like to hear more, it >> > it's not too painful to relate! >> >> I can't tell you about my specific deal, but I can explain the process a >> little bit. >> >> A writer works with an acquisitions editor. An acquisitions editor is a >> sales person with extremely good negotiation skills. He or she sells the >> author on the idea of working with the publisher. He or she also works >with >> the publisher's legal department to produce a contract that has everything >> in the pusblisher's favor: >> >> * No actual promises with regards to publishing, marketing or distributing >> the book >> >> * Exclusive rights which means that even if they do an awful job, the >author >> can't use the content for anything else >> >> * Requirement that you give your next book to them too (I refuse to sign >> that one, though) >> >> * Royalties that range a lot from publisher to publisher, anywhere from 8% >> to 19% of the sale on each book, based on the price that the publisher >gives >> to the book reseller, which is much lower than the price that the reader >pays >> >> * Gazillions of exceptions to the royalties, with a lower rate for >> internatainal sales, online sales, etc. etc. >> >> * An advance on the royalties, ranging from $1000 to $15,000 for a really >> good publisher (this is one of the good things they do :-) >> >> Of course, as with everything, the author gets what he or she negotiates, >> but a lot of us aren't very good negotiators. That's why many authors work >> with an agent. >> >> Oh, and did I mention that you shouldn't expect the publisher to do a good >> job with the things that you think of when you think "publisher" including >> editing, figure drawing (they insist on redrawing the figures), copy for >the >> back of the book, copy for Amazon and other marketing materials. Many of >> them do an awful job with these tasks. Look at all the mistakes in the >> books. In most cases they weren't introduced by the author. The author is >> supposed to catch them with the "page proofs" but that's much harder than >it >> sounds, and sometimes the errors get introduced after the page proofs. >> >> Just the other day I was reading a really good book about voice. The >author >> said something about the DSPs in Cisco routers that do the >analog-to-digital >> conversion and other tasks. DSP was spelled out as "domain specific part." >> An editor at work. >> >> I had an editor who tried to change "powers of two" to "groups of two?" An >> editor working in the computer industry didn't understand the powers of >> two!? And that is par for the course. >> >> Now, I do have to say that the editors of Top-Down Network Design did a >> great job. The only mistakes that really drive me nuts are in the index, >> which they didn't have me proof. I hate the fact that they spelled on LFN >as >> long filename in the index, when the page that uses the acronym uses it to >> refer to Long Fat Networks. And they put "top-down network" in the index >> with lots of references. What the heck is a top-down network? >> >> With Troubleshooting Campus Networks, a lot of the mistakes were because I >> didn't page proof well enough, I have to admit. I assumed they had done a >> good job, which they hadn't. But they did a great index, on the other >hand. >> >> So there you have way more info than you probably wanted! :-) >> >> Priscilla >> > > > >> > >> > > Obviously I made a big mistake in choice of publisher, but who >> > > could have known? They are one of the most prestigious >> > > publishers. But their motto is: >> > > >> > > "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear >> > it, >> > > it doesn't matter. At least the other forests didn't get the >> > > tree." >> > > >> > > Am I bitter? You bet. I was swindled. >> > > >> > > Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71598&t=71462 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
