<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Multi-Branded Victorian Cliche Book Swap Shop</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.litopia.com/podcast/the-multi-branded-victorian-cliche-book-swap-shop/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.litopia.com/podcast/the-multi-branded-victorian-cliche-book-swap-shop/</link>
	<description>Intelligent listening 24 hours a day!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:51:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard L Sutton</title>
		<link>http://www.litopia.com/podcast/the-multi-branded-victorian-cliche-book-swap-shop/comment-page-1/#comment-500</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard L Sutton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.litopia.com/podcast/?p=2974#comment-500</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m surprised and not surprised.  First, I&#039;m not surprised that Litopia A.D. in its discussion of Independent Publishing/Indie Authoring has once again stressed the importance of the agent/publisher &quot;Gatekeeper Effect&quot; in preventing the wholesale distribution of rubbish on an unsuspecting world.  

I was surprised at the brevity that the discussion was given.  A single comment from each panel member is not a discussion, it is a statement.  Yet after such a fast overview airing the same-old, same-old, the panel turned to a spirited discussion on the market fact of author branding creating rubbish.  

Where is the &quot;Gatekeeper Effect&quot; so proudly touted just a few moments before? What could have been added to the discussion is that indie publishing may prove to provide new voices to readers who are tired of the &quot;rubbish&quot; that no-risk, immediate R.O.I, no-future publishing churns out.  If the gatekeepers will only support the work of the proven brand, even if the brand is rubbish, then where will writers go from here, but to indie publishing. Or to churning out market driven garbage. 

Either the publishing industry needs to return to the grand old days of having some pride in what they do -- willing to risk on the side of quality -- or they will crumble under their own weight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m surprised and not surprised.  First, I&#8217;m not surprised that Litopia A.D. in its discussion of Independent Publishing/Indie Authoring has once again stressed the importance of the agent/publisher &#8220;Gatekeeper Effect&#8221; in preventing the wholesale distribution of rubbish on an unsuspecting world.  </p>
<p>I was surprised at the brevity that the discussion was given.  A single comment from each panel member is not a discussion, it is a statement.  Yet after such a fast overview airing the same-old, same-old, the panel turned to a spirited discussion on the market fact of author branding creating rubbish.  </p>
<p>Where is the &#8220;Gatekeeper Effect&#8221; so proudly touted just a few moments before? What could have been added to the discussion is that indie publishing may prove to provide new voices to readers who are tired of the &#8220;rubbish&#8221; that no-risk, immediate R.O.I, no-future publishing churns out.  If the gatekeepers will only support the work of the proven brand, even if the brand is rubbish, then where will writers go from here, but to indie publishing. Or to churning out market driven garbage. </p>
<p>Either the publishing industry needs to return to the grand old days of having some pride in what they do &#8212; willing to risk on the side of quality &#8212; or they will crumble under their own weight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
