Aren't there two pieces of your comment that are contradictory?
But, aside from editing what part of the "book manufacturing" process is actually necessary now
and yet:
But still it remains very difficult for a talented writer to make a living without some kind of brick and mortar publishing house agreeing to represent that writer
How do you reconcile these two statements? Either publishers add nothing of value, other than basic editing (which you should be able to easily purchase yourself by contracting a freelance editor), or publishers do in fact provide a lot more value in the process that helps ensure the success of a book. If publishers provide no value, how could it possibly be that you need to use a publisher to be successful?
It has never been easier in the history of the world to self publish a book. It's naive to think that a publisher's only role is to typeset, edit, and print (or electronically distribute) a book. If that was all there was to it then authors would/should self publish. And yet, as the other part of your comment alludes to, that's not all there is to successfully selling a book.
It could be that the only value added by publishers is that of passing through the barriers to entry that they themselves have erected around the book market. I won't say that this is definitely the case, but it's certainly a way to have publishers still provide an advantage without actually providing value.
But still it remains very difficult for a talented writer to make a living without some kind of brick and mortar publishing house agreeing to represent that writer
is not actually necessary anymore (as it well may be in the world of physical books and brick-and-mortar retailing).
Ah, in that context the comment makes more sense. Then the argument is that because we have these new electronic storefronts, there's no need for the traditional marketing/sales effort that publishers traditionally provide (which used to be necessary for blockbuster success). I guess then it's just a matter of whether or not you believe that. I don't.
Marketing/sales is, of course, a necessary part of success (as are effective editing and, within the limits of the medium, effective design). Simply making the book available for purchase is never going to be enough (unless you're the type who likes to by very expensive tickets in a long-odds lottery). What is not necessarily part of the equation is that the channels for that part of the process be restricted to its traditional agencies and suppliers in the e-realm.
They control distribution. You know, that thing nobody needs? Well, you can't use what you don't need without them.
Of course, each statement is true for different parts of the market. You still need distribution for physical books and you don't need it for e-books IF you can make people aware of your book somehow. Well, that's a big IF sometimes.
But, aside from editing what part of the "book manufacturing" process is actually necessary now
and yet:
But still it remains very difficult for a talented writer to make a living without some kind of brick and mortar publishing house agreeing to represent that writer
How do you reconcile these two statements? Either publishers add nothing of value, other than basic editing (which you should be able to easily purchase yourself by contracting a freelance editor), or publishers do in fact provide a lot more value in the process that helps ensure the success of a book. If publishers provide no value, how could it possibly be that you need to use a publisher to be successful?
It has never been easier in the history of the world to self publish a book. It's naive to think that a publisher's only role is to typeset, edit, and print (or electronically distribute) a book. If that was all there was to it then authors would/should self publish. And yet, as the other part of your comment alludes to, that's not all there is to successfully selling a book.