There are suttle differences between the arguments of the writers and publishers presented by New York Times
. One thing that isn't mentioned in their arguments is the distinction between editing and production. Editing deals with the words; clarifying and improving the writers work. Production on the other hands takes care of preparing the work for their next audience. While publishing companies have a hold of the editing process. Amazon, has more expertise in production because of their overpowering market influence. Whatever the particular needs of the author, whether that be in editing or marketing, should be a great factor in choosing which option is right for them.
As I found out when I had to write my paper
on book publishing, we see this difference with the two writers presented here. Glave, who went through a small publisher benefitted by an increased focus on the editing process. He notes how his writing was able to improve with the help of this small publisher. Nevertheless, he does not really touch upon how successful the production of his books were. Saville, instead, went through Amazon publishing. Her needs were for a greater audience that she knew Amazon already had a hold of. originally, Saville attempted to publish her works through smaller companies, but did not succeed. The option of Amazon publishing was what in the end her breakthrough.
Although Amazon's algorithm increases marketability, it may hinder the editing process by taking away the authors voice. One thing that may be in store for the future is a separation between these two processes. While Amazon may gain many writers through their production process, these writers may want to find a place other than Amazon to edit their works. The real question isn't whether or not Amazon will kill off publishers, but rather how it will change the industry. It is evident that the needs of the author dictates what path they will choose in marketing their work. Amazon will simply become another road to take.