" the editor's job as I see it, that is working with the word "(James Vallcorba)
" very few write for one, as there is no work, and want, and you go, be rewarded, not with money but with seeing and reading their works, and if there is something, might boast "( Lázaro de Tormes )
Reading - No paper - conference today Jaume Vallcorba Zaragoza offered at the meeting of the Ibero-American editorial entitled Crossroads Another look (channel # otramirada twitter) makes me reflect on the passion-that of word-which I share, and the task or job of editing "that I love to share the level shown this professional so far.
But I can not disagree more with some principles and approaches advocated in the document, perhaps because the word love is philology brings me to keep it alive and traveling through the various media that are capable of transmitting , without trying to preserve at all costs in a niche role or another.
First, Vallcorba begins by positioning in a comprehensive manner the threats that hinder the work of the editor. For him, to changing business model and predicted his colleagues Yorkers to glimpse the electronic formats and some permanent changes in habits (not specified), the dangers posed to the editor, in his opinion, piracy, then " discussion about the legitimacy of copyright, without which our business can not exist "and finally the idea advocated by some agents that mediation is unnecessary Editor" between author and reader. I
that on piracy, especially if it relates to digital and is much talk recently, and has become hackneyed topos commercial our late time of printing, but seems to always be fashionable in this type meetings for brushing a speech that takes pride in the public sector so that it evokes a pleasure as a threat alive, eternal, uncertain but omnipresent: the truth is that there should be no more talk of piracy and light when, in the case of most books, a digital product (other than paper) is put into circulation by anonymous editors scan themselves and, in some cases, review the product before distribution electronically for free. It is certainly a serious problem for the author, who was not asked whether to allow this issue, but it should not be commercially for an editor role, even having the rights to publish in both formats, and the media scope, or excuse refuses to serve a digital product of that work. The law protects it, no doubt, but is working against itself and its work, which is connected to a demanding public with an author sued. On the contrary, seeks to kidnap them both to privilege one particular mode of distribution, like a dog in the manger, which lets you edit publish or not. So in many cases, the danger of piracy is summarized in danger of unrecognized editorial competition posed by the editor pirate, whose work is limited in many cases not authorized to publicize an author publishing his text (who bill for publicity if there seems to be the owner of the server). In any case, I do not know what's new in this threat that it was not already in the sixteenth century with the many pirate editions, unauthorized, the Lazarillo, or photocopies of both spoken before the popularization of computer read.
Second, the league closely rapporteur copyright publishing industry, because without those you can not work. I think that question about piracy may itself demonstrates that is, although now illegal, obviously, without acquiring the rights granted by the author seems impossible to issue honestly. But also understand that edit this pre-1931 authors editorial task is not worthy of consideration, as under current legislation in this matter makes them duty free. There should be a rights issue, no. The danger is proposed as threatening is the discussion on "the legitimacy of copyright": it seems that if you ever need not acquire those rights according to the custom , the publisher would have no role for labor death. I do not know. Rather for labor dysfunction. I always thought the job was driving an editor to edit, ie, bringing to light texts of an author to an audience. The rest should follow that. Nobody fights for edit Cervantes when all we can do, and continually publishes a variety of ways, but it seems unthinkable or commercially unviable over an editorial in Castilian, or all they wanted-fiche to last Nobel prize, at a time. So publishers are looking steal each other works, to either edit or stop edit in many cases where the rights are parked without use . Therefore, it seems that the threat is not so much the present discussion on legitimacy, but the consequent difficulty to kidnap back to the author or his work within a single seal, when the author can now be free of it and use, at any given time, as they have some , other distribution channels and other forms of publishing alternatives. Could have done it before and better support infrastructure and editors, but is rarely the case.
Third, to echo the publisher suffers scorn and danger of no longer mediate between author and reader I find unworthy of an editor as risky and solvent to be risked at the time with a project as suicide called Cliff , perhaps if I had to jump to a site after its failure. Cliff has not been a failure, of course, and counts among its catalog magnificent and necessary book. In fact, I do not understand my reading world past, present or future without their editorial work. I think at that time the editor underestimated or overestimated their public role of risk with a habitual pessimism was not necessary as the project flourished and survives. And I think today has also happened again in another look, with the difference that was not designed any new editorial idea or risky. Which invites us to plunge now to reflect on the role of the editor, who may not be required to arbitrate in the same way now, especially not with that attitude and not very porous obsessive about fears or threats of well-known: because in essence, the editor should assume that exists to help the author to get his work to the reader, and investigate a thousand ways to do so if necessary. But not just paper world, but now in a networked world.
I worry about how Vallcorba opposed to the threats some compensation, as the name, referring to some newspapers' role as defending the basic support ", and whose young readers grow in the shade of century-old letterpress and deep dense articles . Stresses that the proud director of a newspaper is not subject to fashion. I infer from this two things: that the publication is not on paper is the result fashions, and that such publication has absolutely no intellectual depth and solvency. With the editor and customs have come across. But with what?
The legitimate question about what should be the role of editor is answered in the presentation with a beautiful and melancholy eulogy to the history of human value and written transmission of the word, which is considered not only the exclusive preserve of men, element that distinguishes it from other living beings are not rational, but raw material editor. Totally agree. But I wonder, then, the parade of words that extol the word itself from its biblical roots as a carrier of creation (let there be light) to the magic summoner the same through the open sesame leads us to the fiction, including in between patients and heroic scribes who changed the logos Greek by Latin verbum to leave a written legacy that they managed to select as demanding editors. A written legacy, but not necessarily printed. And not always on paper. In fact, the creative word, and especially magic, was oral for a long time. So I do not understand the compensation involved in the publication flattering printed on paper of a European Journal. From one perspective can be a risky business, but it is more than innovating digitally publish in other media, used daily and may be fashionable among our readers. I fear that the editor who speaks is trapped in a labyrinth of paper where you catch the word that fed him for decades. Edit or publish or leaves.
For further extol his praise of the word flirt unconsciously seeking dialogue with the printed media that has accompanied the editor for many centuries, the image is attacked, which is seen as a mere word help in the West and sparsely able, such as music, to create a tradition and history themselves apart from the word itself and its bunch of platitudes. All this to finally shore up a critique editorial practice of hypermedia electronic books character, such as a process currently editing the work of Proust, who would take their places and references to music-imagine a variety of other "immediately connected to the passage in question. It seems that with this, we are assured, we lose the power of recall and imagination on the floor, and replace it with a "crude (even if it's good) artwork flat." In short, poor illustrators and photographers, whose arts do not deserve defile the pristine splendor of verbum.
But the printed book has left us before our eyes this written words, not only secretly allied with words that preceded them, but with precise images that reflect original praise is hard to imagine but in his absence and emptiness, freely to evoke. Logically, we lost the rest of the context, the outdated models evoked, and the reading habits have changed. We can only personal imagination-in fact mediated by other patterns and cultural experiences, "which was romantic heritage, but whose movement did not forget to mark your favorite visual references either. In any case, the possibility of creating multimodal environments to the written word but not necessarily limited to the rich. If not done crudely, only thinking of joining a trend or compulsorily market demand. If he recovers the relationship of word and multimodal environment and evokes feelings arise. And to achieve that, precisely, is the work of the editor, digital, as in Proust proposed. Undoubtedly, an editor will not link the reference reminiscent of the first cupcake Flickr image appears, but will link and share with readers what other sensations (an image, video, song, a word) make it past evoke memories and trigger drenched memories, certainly, when Proust quotes a character referred to ride of the Valkyries Wagner hoped that the reader knows and evokes the agency or as soon as possible: in either of these two cases I like to have it right there and , because I know what you hear the character and simultaneously getting lost in his words, or ponder: is a particular piece, it is an evocation that gives free without the reader's imagination and therefore not limited in their reading experience. The writers are more precise, I see what they think of them many of their editors. Of course, I have the right to not want to hear, but that should not be an impossible technology, but a choice of reading. Edit and stop editing. Anyway, I'd like to hear from an accomplished editor who less than a year ago he wished he'd been editor of Borges or Calvino and ensure they do not retire because their job is to play , the virtues of innovative proposals or risk challenging issues where the game suggested by the word incorporated with all the magnificence of your power (without narcissism) to support and digital ecosystem. Play with other modes of narration, as if the word would make the thought, the image adheres to the concept. I would have liked, then another look. A change of habit, not a swan song. The books remind us of the impossible , multimedia objects and libraries infinite designed by Borges or multiple paths crossed destinies of Calvin. It seems that there are no old knights who embody the word of the books of adventure, going off the paper ride, at the risk of sticks, the wider world. O yes.
"There are many types of editor", true. But at this point, not wanting to take responsibility rather than editing made on paper, and only the printed word, it seems more an exercise in self-indulgence of bad logocentrism faced a challenge thrown to the colleagues of a profession with a future. Because among other things, the printed edition, if we want both to relocate to a new model not only business but editing techniques, only need to acquire a status for itself and for the times when you experience all media and channels through which it can spread. Then we will see, once explored the possibilities for what we want and use each bracket. Want to edit and edit. Beyond
no monsters (no more than here and now.) sailed well in a network that just not enough words, either spoken or written. Stormy seas, of course, with a constant roar and some siren song that Ulysses is based bear some tweets to avoid falling into their networks. But it is a dumb book. In line with his words, Petrarch would not hesitate to browse around and talking to other texts, as "passing each other fuels the desire." And perhaps find ways to reclaim his art visual memory mediated by the machine and making it the extension of their memory, the new interface of meditative reading. Because the network is not exactly lacking memory, but active editors that process, organize and take care it, that humanize. Lege memoriter . Since then, perhaps twitter, diametrically opposed to printing on paper, is a fad for many, but today, the word, and the dialogue Vallcorba adjudicated as an essential human virtue of mutual knowledge, is there so that someone to edit.
What will be left alone?
