[infinii]

Do you value the medium or the content? I can't see why you think 'digital self-publishing' is a bad thing.

If anything, digital publishing where you can circumvent the publishers should allow for more content to reach market (not saying it's all good...see geocities webpages as an example of this) but I'm not sure why you think this would be bad for the Chinese SciFi scene.

[tanilama]

The problem with digital self-publishing in China is a unique one. I don't want to expand too much on this subject because it is pretty complicated, but in short, digital self-publishing is not merely a publishing channel, it has reshaped the fiction genre in return.

The Chinese online fiction is now a rat race, every author is measured by the characters they are written PER day, which ranges like 3000 characters to 10k characters. To output that amount of text per day is not trivial task, it is not writing more like manufacturing. And works that doesn't meet such standard gets no chance to even reach the readership at all, per algorithm.

So, to answer your question, medium and content in this case are intervened. Medium is not neutral, it shapes the content by itself, and sadly in China's case, it opts to optimize for volumes not quality, and changes the readers' taste and expectation along the way.

Tradition publishing has one unique quality to itself that it offers advice and quality control through editorship. Not the case for self-publishing though, the market is flooded with more products with lower qualities, and it makes no easier for real good work to stand out since there is too much noise.

[throwanem]

Sounds a lot like the market for many genres on Amazon.

I will say you’re not wrong about the value of editors in traditional publishing. As far as I know, there isn’t really much of an answer to that in the “new media” world - even if you want to pay someone directly for the work, editors open to such engagements seem hard to find.