# PSA for indy writers: PLEASE HIRE AN EDITOR!!!



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

I think it's GREAT that so many folks are self-publishing these days. I've read a number of indy books I enjoyed moderately and a few I thought were truly good.

HOWEVER, I have read far more that I could not finish due to the appalling plethora of spelling and grammatical errors--and a few of those had decent plots and could have been good books had their lack of editing not rendered them virtually unreadable.

Please guys--it is well worth it to pay someone to edit your MS!  If you don't have a friend with a degree in English who will do it for free, post some notices at a local university asking for grad students in English.  Most are desperate for additional income and will edit your book for very little, or at least do a thorough proofreading job.

Please don't make me delete yet another book that has a promising plot simply because I cannot stand reading--yet again--a phrase like "Jim and I's books."  Please.  I'm begging you.  

Thank you!


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2012)

I agree with your sentiment, but just want to point out that your complaint seems to be a lack of proofreading, not editing.  The words "editor" and "proofreader" get used interchangeably around here.  Yes, proofreading can be very inexpensive, but good EDITING is not cheap.  And definitely not something that should just be left to an English major just on the merits of being an English major.  I know plenty of college students who can construct a grammatically correct sentence, but can't write their way out of a paper bag.  

But yes, there is a difference between a few stray typos and something being incoherent.  I do feel your pain.  But I would say "sample, sample, sample."  You can normally tell by the sample the quality of the writing overall.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

There is, indeed, a great deal of difference b/t a professional editor and a proofreader.  It would be great if folks just got good proofreaders--that would be a start! However, a grad student in English is MORE than capable of doing a good job of  editing a text and would not charge as much as a professional editor.  IMO it would be well worth indy authors' $ to spend $500 or so to have their texts edited by someone who, while not a professional editor (b/c I agree that most could not afford one), could make a real difference in the quality of the book and hence, in the sales of said book and in the sales of future books as well.

However, simple proofreading would remove the most glaringly annoying problems in most indy books (which are not great literature and were not intended to be).


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2012)

pawsplus said:


> However, simple proofreading would remove the most glaringly annoying problems in most indy books (which are not great literature and were not intended to be).


Hey! I consider all of my stuff great literature! I am most confident one day people will be studying my writing as a fine example of what to do.  Unfortunately, I will also probably be long dead by then so I won't benefit from any of it.


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

Full disclosure: I proofread for an editor. I second the motion that all books should be proofread by a qualified person. I'll go so far as to state that a book needs at least two independent proofreadings to ferret out the errors. That's no guarantee of perfection, but it should be very close.

I review a lot of books, and I hate to think how many books I've just given up on and quit reading when the typo count got too high.


----------



## StephenEngland (Nov 2, 2011)

I'll never forget a book I read(a thriller), where the weapon brand Beretta was alternately spelled, Beretta, Berreta, Barretta, Beratta.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Yes!  Honestly, good proofreading alone would save many books.  It's often the small stuff, oft repeated, that gets to me.  Misplaced apostrophes make me INSANE--truly insane.  And it's SUCH a simple thing to fix!  Failure to take the time to find someone good to do this work suggests a lack of respect for the reader IMO.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

As someone else mentioned, the best way to avoid poor writing quality or bad formatting is to sample everything before buying, even if it's only $0.99 - those add up. Unless, of course, it's a free book - in which case, samples aren't available.

If you come across formatting problems (not writing quality issues like bad grammar), you can report it to Amazon - scroll down to the bottom of the book page on Amazon and there's a blue box that says "Feedback" and you can choose "Would you like to report poor quality or formatting in this book? Click here".


----------



## Oliver Sands (Mar 20, 2012)

Lewis' quote about the misspelling of the Beretta weapon is funny.  The author could have avoided this problem if he/she has used a good proofreading program.  One of the proofreading programs that I started to use is perfectit (I don't have any relationship with its maker).  It's an add-in to Microsoft Word and it usually catches things like that for me.  Proofreading programs can also be expensive.  There is a free one that is available as a plug-in for Openoffice. It's called After the Deadline.  However you have to have internet access to use it. I never used it, so I don't know how good it is.


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

StephenEngland said:


> I'll never forget a book I read(a thriller), where the weapon brand Beretta was alternately spelled, Beretta, Berreta, Barretta, Beratta.


Oh dear...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I review a lot of books, and I hate to think how many books I've just given up on and quit reading when the typo count got too high."


What happens when the typo count redlines, but the book is too good to drop. (And you are in the privacy of your own chambers.)


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

pawsplus said:


> Failure to take the time to find someone good to do this work suggests a lack of respect for the reader IMO.


This.


----------



## Jerri Kay Lincoln (Jun 18, 2011)

pawsplus said:


> -a phrase like "Jim and I's books."


If someone really has _this_ in their book-they need a LOT more than just a proofreader.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

With all this said, make sure you are actually seeing typos and not different spellings of words. I get dinged fairly often for misspelling colour and defence. And in my world, it's a chocolate bar and not a candy bar. Those aren't typos; those are local flavour


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> What happens when the typo count redlines, but the book is too good to drop. (And you are in the privacy of your own chambers.)


If the writing is good, I won't notice a handful of typos. If I am noticing the typos, it is generally a combination of so many errors that it interferes with the ability to understand the story and poor storytelling. If someone is a great storyteller, your mind goes into "auto-correct" mode and skips a lot of errors. But if the story is poorly told, your bored brain starts looking for something to do: like typos hunting.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> . And in my world, it's a chocolate bar and not a candy bar. Those aren't typos; those are local flavour


Not to sidetrack the discussion...but this got me trying to think of a candy bar not made of chocolate....


Betsy


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Not to sidetrack the discussion...but this got me trying to think of a candy bar not made of chocolate....
> 
> 
> Betsy


Like those Jolly Rancher watermelon and Sour Apple things come in bar shapes, that might count. Also taffy candies, there's one we used to eat as kids that was like white taffy with peanutbutter inside, but I forget the name of that. I might even toss a rice crispy treat in there since they sell those wrapped up like candy bars. Running out of ideas fast though.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Not to sidetrack the discussion...but this got me trying to think of a candy bar not made of chocolate....


Since we are sidetracking, you must not be familiar with the wars over what defines real chocolate. There are actually quite a few candy bars that do not meet the proper classification of chocolate.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Payday.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Not to sidetrack the discussion...but this got me trying to think of a candy bar not made of chocolate....
> 
> 
> Betsy


See, a candy bar is a bar made of candy. A chocolate bar is a bar made of chocolate.


----------



## StephenEngland (Nov 2, 2011)

Colin Taber said:


> Oh dear...


If I could have found the author's mailing address, I would have sent him a subscription to Guns&Ammo.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

How much does it cost to have a 100,000 word book proofread and edited?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

smreine said:


> Proofreading wouldn't be too expensive. If you have close writer friends and your book is fairly clean, you might be able to get away with bribing them with *chocolate* bars.  Quality editing is time-consuming, and you should expect to pay a decent chunk of change for it. This depends on the editor, though.


Yeah, I don't need it for myself. I'm wondering how much it costs. It might help the TS understand why more writers don't hire the work out. It's 'spensive, I imagine.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> See, a candy bar is a bar made of candy. A chocolate bar is a bar made of chocolate.


Yes,  I was just trying to think of a brand name "candy" bar as opposed to a"chocolate" bar...

I guess my love of chocolate has blinded Md to the possibility, as I can't think of any.

Betsy

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

jnfr said:


> Payday.


doesn't payday have some chocolate in it?


----------



## Oliver Sands (Mar 20, 2012)

In my last manuscript, in one place, instead of typing, "her head", I mistakenly typed, "her heard".  I read the manuscript several times and missed it.  Even my wife (she used to be a college English professor) who was doing the editing somehow missed it. Do you know how I caught it?  I heard it when I used a text to speech software for my last review.


----------



## J. Cooper (Mar 18, 2012)

Here's a thought!

What about the differences between UK and US english in literature.....
I live in the UK and i sometimes get american printed books and the spelling of certain words (traditionally printed) are wrong according to my education, if i hired an american proofreader (b/c 70% of all ebooks are sold in the USA) then she would probably have a heart attack upon reading my manuscript... and vice versa for an american author hiring a british editor....

I was going to include some examples, but wikipeida (god bless her) has taken care of that in much more intricate detail than i ever could 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Different_spellings_for_different_meanings


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Yes,  I was just trying to think of a brand name "candy" bar as opposed to a"chocolate" bar...
> Betsy









































Now back on topic, Yes many indie authors need to get their books proofread at a minimum. Knowing how expensive editing is, does not preclude the need to get it done either. There is no excuse for shoddy work.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> How much does it cost to have a 100,000 word book proofread and edited?


 $2000 would be on the low end if you found a deal for a good *editor*, more likely $3,000 or so. It depends on how big and many errors per page, the editor's hourly rate, etc.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm obviously not talking about regional differences! Most folks who are well-read enough to be bothered by what I AM talking about--incorrect punctuation, faulty grammar, and downright incorrect spelling--are well aware that "colour," "grey," and "defence" are perfectly acceptable variations. 

As for sampling--yes, I do it, and that weeds out the TRULY egregious. If I can't get through the first few pages without being annoyed I'm NOT gonna spend real money on it. I.e., if someone needs a complete re-write (and I've seen PLENTY who do!) I won't get past the sample. But plenty of books that aren't _that_ rife w/ error are still darn annoying when you reach your 83rd misplaced apostrophe!

Re: editing costs: I'm well aware that a real professional editor is pricey. But, again, hiring a grad student in English to proofread and make MINOR editing suggestions is what most folks need and IMO most folks can afford that (and if they can't maybe they shouldn't burden us with their literary "gems"!). Write your MS in Word and pass it on to your editor/proofreader, asking him/her to track changes. Then you go through and accept or reject. Et voila!


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

How much? Line edit/proof read was $600 with multiple reads/readers. 2nd level editing for readability, flow, etc. 2K or there abouts with multiple reads/readers. Despite the edits I still have homophone errors that were not caught. "last rights" instead of "last rites". 

The text to speech sounds like a god idea but wouldn't have helped me get the homophones. 

I was initially embarrassed to state how much I'd paid feeling that I'd paid way too much (perhaps I did comparatively). We took our step into self publishing seriously knowing the added "stigma" of doing it yourself. Overall I was happy with the work but also missed the glaring errors myself after I'd accepted the final edits and paid the company. That was on me.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

pawsplus said:


> Re: editing costs: I'm well aware that a real professional editor is pricey. But, again, hiring a grad student in English to proofread and make MINOR editing suggestions is what most folks need and IMO most folks can afford that (and if they can't maybe they shouldn't burden us with their literary "gems"!). Write your MS in Word and pass it on to your editor/proofreader, asking him/her to track changes. Then you go through and accept or reject. Et voila!


The last line of this important. Remember, once you accept the changes, make sure the changes are correct. I have had edits done by authors and they ADD typos.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> How much does it cost to have a 100,000 word book proofread and edited?


I've just gone through the finding editors/proofreaders process. That is such a "depends" question. The price range will vary, but I would say around $600-$2,000 for both. It could easily be a lot more than that, just depends on the editor, the shape of your manuscript, and other factors.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

But think of it this way.... how much is it going to cost you in future sales to NOT have your book proofed?


----------



## wildwitchof (Sep 2, 2010)

J. Cooper said:


> Here's a thought!
> 
> What about the differences between UK and US english in literature.....
> I live in the UK and i sometimes get american printed books and the spelling of certain words (traditionally printed) are wrong according to my education, if i hired an american proofreader (b/c 70% of all ebooks are sold in the USA) then she would probably have a heart attack upon reading my manuscript... and vice versa for an american author hiring a british editor....


Back when I was in college I took a "working holiday" in London as an audio typist. (This was old-fashioned even then.) There I was, an American 19-year old, listening to the dude over the cassette, happily typing out his dictated letters.

I got a call up to the top floor so the old dude could meet the temporary Yank in the typing pool. He was a sweetheart. I still had to retype everything, though.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

StephenEngland said:


> I'll never forget a book I read(a thriller), where the weapon brand Beretta was alternately spelled, Beretta, Berreta, Barretta, Beratta.


This was actually in a news story, not fiction, but I once caught a reporter calling a pistol a 22mm. Fortunately, I was editing the story at the time and caught the mistake. Afterward I had a good chuckle and asked the reporter, "What, were they planning to shoot down an air liner or something?"


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm always a little surprised that folks didn't learn more about proofreading in school. I had a college prof who'd take a grade off for each proofreading error on a paper. So three errors, and that A- became a B- instead. His take was that if you couldn't do basic proofreading on your own work, you didn't belong in a 200 level (sophomore) English class.

Needless to say, my classmates and I got awfully good at proofreading our own work very rapidly. He had the same policy on essay-based tests, too. Spell two words wrong on a 500 word midterm essay, and you were down six points on the midterm. I had him a few more times over my years in school.

The result is, I have a very low rate of errors, even when typing first drafts at 1200 words per hour.

Proofreading, like anything else in writing, is a skill most folks can learn.

_*Editing*_, on the other hand, is something I'd never want to do without on a work I was publishing. Having a second set of eyes helps me improve the writing. In fact, I usually don't even start revising until after I've had a beta reader take a look at the first draft. It's important for me to get an outsider's look, rather than spin my own wheels "improving" things by myself (i.e. meddling and generally messing the work up).


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2012)

Basil Fawlty would file this thread under: The bleeding obvious.

[edited. --Betsy]


----------



## StephenEngland (Nov 2, 2011)

Ty Johnston said:


> This was actually in a news story, not fiction, but I once caught a reporter calling a pistol a 22mm. Fortunately, I was editing the story at the time and caught the mistake. Afterward I had a good chuckle and asked the reporter, "What, were they planning to shoot down an air liner or something?"


  That's a great one. Can you imagine the recoil of a 22mm pistol?!

Back to topic: I think part of the challenge is finding a good editor. I was once given a book to read by a friend and before I read it we had a conversation about how hard it had been for her to find a decent editor. But she finally had, and she was thrilled, despite paying through the nose.
I read the book. _The typos and grammar mistakes were awful_. I took my own red pen to a three-page scene and came away with twenty adverbs modifying dialogue. Sent it back to her and said, "You got gypped".


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Attebery said:


> This seems like a fairly trolly thread. Basil Fawlty would file it under: The bleeding obvious.


Alas, the point isn't obvious _enough_ to many.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

StephenEngland said:


> Back to topic: I think part of the challenge is finding a good editor. I was once given a book to read by a friend and before I read it we had a conversation about how hard it had been for her to find a decent editor. But she finally had, and she was thrilled, despite paying through the nose.
> I read the book. _The typos and grammar mistakes were awful_. I took my own red pen to a three-page scene and came away with twenty adverbs modifying dialogue. Sent it back to her and said, "You got gypped".


This suggests, to my mind, that the author really had no business writing in the first place. It's not for everyone, and someone who can't write well should not expect to have their writing completely re-written by an editor. That is not, and should not, be the editor's job!


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Attebery said:


> This seems like a fairly trolly thread. Basil Fawlty would file it under: The bleeding obvious.


Not sure who you're calling a troll?? I'm a reader (and a writer) who not only does not appreciate having to slog through others' errors but who also feels that indy writers are doing the whole indy scene a terrible disservice by publishing books that are clearly not ready for prime time.

I'm glad you guys are talking about it! Hopefully folks will work even harder to prevent errors in future and make the reading world a better place!


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Um, Paws, *I* wasn't calling anyone a troll....


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Yeah, I don't need it for myself. I'm wondering how much it costs. It might help the TS understand why more writers don't hire the work out. It's 'spensive, I imagine.


Anywhere from .003 (low) per word and up depending on the editor. Also depends on how much editing you need and how clean the MS is. Whether substantial, copy or proof. Some authors do prefer to pay by the hour too. There are some very reasonable and talented editors and proofreaders on KB.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Susan in VA said:


> Um, Paws, *I* wasn't calling anyone a troll....


Fixed it! Sorry. I always forget that this board only quotes the most recent post when one is quoting another.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

And I agree with you that the poorly edited work of some indies reflects badly on the larger field.  It's unfortunate, but that's reality.


----------



## Eliza Baum (Jul 16, 2011)

Oliver Sands said:


> Do you know how I caught it? I heard it when I used a text to speech software for my last review.


This is soooo handy. I often load my WIP and listen on my kindle. I find errors this way that I never see when just reading. It's also good for ferreting out awkwardly-worded sentences. Not a replacement for another set of eyes, but it's extremely useful.

I'm drawing up my production budget for my upcoming summer release, and the numbers are a little daunting, but I know it will be worth it.


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

I got a quote from an editor of $1,000 for a 75K-word book. I'd probably call her level of work line editing--a step above proofreading and a step below substantive editing.

My process for getting extra eyes on my book was this:

1. Write the first draft.
2. Do my own editing pass to create the second draft. Release to beta readers/critique partners.
3. Use reader feedback to create the third draft. Release to an editor.
4. Use editor feedback to create the fourth and final draft.

The process seemed to work great. I've even had compliments on the quality of the editing from other authors.

About half-way through the final draft, I discovered the secret of reading the book out loud, as was mentioned here by others. I plan to use that technique from now on because it was the best way I've found to identify awkward or unclear sentence structure. It also helps you "punch up" the prose, because words that fall flat actually _sound_ flat when read.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

scarlet said:


> But think of it this way.... how much is it going to cost you in future sales to NOT have your book proofed?


Or think of it this way .... how many books will I have to sell at 99c to cover my production budget.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

pawsplus said:


> Please guys--it is well worth it to pay someone to edit your MS!


I've got to give you an amen. Unfortunately, the indies least likely to hire an editor are also the indies least likely to hang out here and see your post. I think most of the writers who spend a lot of time on KB are pretty aware of the need for editing.

ETA: Is it ironic that on a post about editing, I forgot spellcheck?


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Dara England said:


> I've got to give you an amen. Unfortunately, the indies least likely to hire an editor are also the indies least likely to hang out here and see your post. I think most of the writers who spend a lot of time on KB are pretty aware of the need for editing.
> 
> ETA: Is it ironic that on a post about editing, I forgot spellcheck?


I agree! They're preaching to the choir here.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Alan Petersen said:


> I've just gone through the finding editors/proofreaders process. That is such a "depends" question. The price range will vary, but I would say around $600-$2,000 for both. It could easily be a lot more than that, just depends on the editor, the shape of your manuscript, and other factors.


Wowsers. There's your answer right there. A 99-center would have to sell a few thousand copies to break even. Yikes.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

I would absolutely NEVER publish something without first running it by multiple pairs of eyes. As someone mentioned, when you edit/proofread yourself, you tend to read what you _meant_ to write, not what is actually on the page.

However, if you're a decent writer, you may not need to pay an editor. If your story is entertaining enough, you often can recruit a bunch of _literate_ friends as free beta readers, turning them loose on the manuscript with the promise of an acknowledgment in the book, plus a free inscribed copy of the print edition. They'll give you the combined benefit of feedback on the story itself (e.g., where it grabbed them, where it lagged, etc.) plus proofreading. Amazing how many different things each person will catch. Combined, they'll probably find a lot more than a single professional editor or proofreader. Just be sure to give them a deadline to submit their suggestions and corrections.

And I also believe in reading aloud. I try to "write with my ears," and if it sounds good to my mind as I write, it will probably read well, too. But reading a final draft aloud is a great way to test things, and you will definitely catch more errors that way.


----------



## purplesmurf (Mar 20, 2012)

history_lover said:


> As someone else mentioned, the best way to avoid poor writing quality or bad formatting is to sample everything before buying, even if it's only $0.99 - those add up. Unless, of course, it's a free book - in which case, samples aren't available.
> 
> Good advice for most to sample and one would assume you'd be able to point out any glaring problems there, however, I recently read an indy book and it started out great, but then the farther I got into the book the more and more errors that kept showing up. It wasn't till about half way through that they got really bad so I plowed through since I wanted to find out how the book ends.
> 
> I do agree with everyone else on this thread that proofreading is a must, and preferably by more than one person.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Decon said:


> Or think of it this way .... how many books will I have to sell at 99c to cover my production budget.


you aren't going to sell many if people state in their reviews that there are a bunch of typos. and you won't sell any of your next 10 projects to the people who might have bought them if your first work was relatively typo free.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

*^^^
This.*

Authors tend to forget that they are not writing and publishing in a narcissistic bubble. Their works are competing for readers with tens of thousands of other titles in their genre(s), many by authors who have been professionally edited and proofed.

And as he weighs which authors to follow, nothing screams "amateur" louder to a reader than when he encounters a host of typos, spelling and grammar errors, and formatting glitches. These distract him, interrupting the "spell" of the story world, yanking him away from the alternate "reality" in which you're trying to hold him. They are signals of the author's basic indifference to the reader and to the basic requirements of good storytelling -- not a good way to establish a bond or a repeat customer. I have occasionally sampled the published works of KB authors who complain about their poor sales, and in many cases it becomes painfully obvious, within a few pages, exactly why their books aren't selling.

My mantra is: _Honor your craft._ If you aren't up to the challenge of approaching the craft of writing as a professional, then you shouldn't be publishing -- or at least expecting many sales. That may sound harsh, but it is the blunt truth.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Dara England said:


> I've got to give you an amen. Unfortunately, the indies least likely to hire an editor are also the indies least likely to hang out here and see your post. I think most of the writers who spend a lot of time on KB are pretty aware of the need for editing.


I agree! Probably very true. I was just frustrated and I didn't know where else to complain, LOL!


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Wowsers. There's your answer right there. A 99-center would have to sell a few thousand copies to break even. Yikes.


Then stop selling at 99 cents and sell at a price that you can afford to produce the book?

Authors make a choice to sell at 99 cents. That is not the reader's fault if someone underprices their product. It is not the reader's fault that the author didn't think editing or proofreading was important and made a choice to not have it done. It is not the reader's fault an author forgets publishing is a BUSINESS and in business their are expenses associated with producing a product.

I'm not saying people need to spend $1,000 on editing. But damnit I get tired of people using the 99 cent price point as an excuse to not spend anything at all.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think everyone most people know my take on this whole topic, and my lack of patience with excuses for why it's okay to not behave professionally. You go indie, you become responsible for the quality of the work you put out there, and it's part of your job to make sure that you handle what you can and hire out for the rest. 

If you can have a pretty cover, and I'm the first one to say a pretty cover is good to have and sells books, then you can put that money toward quality control. I read writers saying that when they sell enough books they'll get it edited, but they have the cover. To me, that's slapping a fresh coat of paint on a wall that is about to crumble. 

Self-publishing doesn't mean free or almost free. The concept is not that it allows you to get people to pay money for your first draft, but that you get to call the shots, with all the benefits, risks, and expenses that entails. No one cares how you get it done, or how much you pay, as long as it gets done. That means if you do manage to get it all done for a song, and done right, good for you, but it's not acceptable to use the costs as an excuse to throw up your hands and publish anyhow.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Then stop selling at 99 cents and sell at a price that you can afford to produce the book?
> 
> Authors make a choice to sell at 99 cents. That is not the reader's fault if someone underprices their product. It is not the reader's fault that the author didn't think editing or proofreading was important and made a choice to not have it done. It is not the reader's fault an author forgets publishing is a BUSINESS and in business their are expenses associated with producing a product.
> 
> I'm not saying people need to spend $1,000 on editing. But damnit I get tired of people using the 99 cent price point as an excuse to not spend anything at all.


I agree. No excuse at all. Too many with a first book go into self-publishing with their eyes wide closed. Your entire career could stand or fall on publication of your first book. But, as someone has already said, I think you are preaching to the converted for most on kindleboards.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> How much does it cost to have a 100,000 word book proofread and edited?


I just proofed an 80K novel for around $350. Mind you, that was a basic proofread, although I did add some comments and notes in places where something was confusing or not clear. Still, even an edit at that level could help a lot of people, especially if they've already had beta readers, etc. to help with the more content-related issues.


----------



## Darin_Calhoun (Jul 26, 2011)

Having an editor is necessary for producing your best work. They are a partners who are able to see your weaknesses and help you turn them into strengths. A good editor is more than just an investment of money; they are invested in you. They should challenge you and champion you, because they love your work just as much as you do, and they believe in your writing career. That's what a good editor does for me.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

/shameless linkage to my blog

Last fall, after hurting lots of people's feelings about my rant concerning charging for sub-standard work, I did a post outlining five ways to reduce your editing costs.

*taking out my link so that Betsy doesn't hit me*
*putting link back in because I realized the link isn't actually in my signature and I'm too lazy to add it*

http://kristadball.com/2011/09/5-tips-if-you-cant-afford-an-editor/

/end shameless linkage


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> How much does it cost to have a 100,000 word book proofread and edited?


Prices vary, but I would think it reasonable to assume that for an line edit for grammar and punctuation with separate critique notes, followed by a couple of rounds of proofreading, a budget in the region of $1000 should cover it. But as someone has already said, if you can get it done for less, it is better than no editing at all.

My point is that having invested the money in production, why 99c for other than short stories? It doesn't take a genius to work out that you would have to sell over 3,000 books to reach break even to recoup your cover and editing costs.

50 sales at 99p per month return to $1000 costs = 57 months
100 " " " " " = 29 months
200 " " " " " = 14 months


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Decon said:


> I agree. No excuse at all. Too many with a first book go into self-publishing with their eyes wide closed. Your entire career could stand or fall on publication of your first book. But, as someone has already said, I think you are preaching to the converted for most on kindleboards.


Agreed, for the most part. And those here who don't get it yet won't likely be swayed by a generic thread. (_"They can't mean me!"_)

Unfortunately, it's probably going to be up to readers to ding each problem book with enough bad reviews mentioning unacceptable proofreading for that specific author to get the point instead of shouting into the wind.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

J. Tanner said:


> Agreed, for the most part. And those here who don't get it yet won't likely be swayed by a generic thread. (_"They can't mean me!"_)
> 
> Unfortunately, it's probably going to be up to readers to ding each problem book with enough bad reviews mentioning unacceptable proofreading for that specific author to get the point instead of shouting into the wind.


I'm pretty sure that's why the author of my last proofreading project came to me. The book was fast-paced and interesting...but it had some grammar issues, and a review pointed that out. Better late than never, but it just goes to show that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> /shameless linkage to my blog


*sticks head in door to Café*

"Did someone say something?"


Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *sticks head in door to Café*
> 
> "Did someone say something?"
> 
> ...


but but but it was ON TOPIC!!!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> but but but it was ON TOPIC!!!


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> but but but it was ON TOPIC!!!


Not only was it on topic, but there are some good tips in the article.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> but but but it was ON TOPIC!!!


it's the strict talmudic interpretation. doesn't matter if it's on topic, if it's self promotion, it gets dinged.

please note, i am NOT advocating this interpretation, merely stating what I think is the background for the prod.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Y'all...*shakes head sadly*

I think Krista understood that I was teasing her because of the "/shameless linkeage to blog" tag....or at least I think she did.  Too many guilty consciences...  (I mean seriously, if I had thought it was inappropriate I would have removed it.....)

Carry on! 

Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Y'all...*shakes head sadly*
> 
> I think Krista understood that I was teasing her because of the "/shameless linkeage to blog" tag....or at least I think she did. Too many guilty consciences... (I mean seriously, if I had thought it was inappropriate I would have removed it.....)
> 
> ...


I know you were joking. I took it out only because the link is still in my signature for those who want it


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

*psssst Betsy? See the Candy bars? http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,108127.msg1629566.html#msg1629566 No chocolate among them****


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

believe me, i don't have a guilty conscience, i'm just stirring the pot because i think that authors should be allowed to mention stuff that is relevant to the thread....


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

scarlet said:


> believe me, i don't have a guilty conscience, i'm just stirring the pot because i think that authors should be allowed to mention stuff that is relevant to the thread....


I was just too lazy to copy and post. 

I will, however, defend that my post really was as on topic as possible, since the conversation moved to costs of editing and I gave helpful advice on how to reduce costs.

/makes thread about herself, the way God intended.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

/wrestles thread away from Krista



scarlet said:


> doesn't payday have some chocolate in it?





> PayDay (confection)
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> PayDay is a candy bar consisting of salted peanuts around a center of caramel, currently produced by The Hershey Company.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

scarlet said:


> believe me, i don't have a guilty conscience, i'm just stirring the pot because i think that authors should be allowed to mention stuff that is relevant to the thread....


*shakes head sadly again*

Show me where I said she couldn't post it. Can't ANYONE on KB read?  Sigh...



BTackitt said:


> *psssst Betsy? See the Candy bars? http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,108127.msg1629566.html#msg1629566 No chocolate among them****


Saw that. Most of them I've never heard of....some of them, I consider "candy" but not a "candy bar." But it was interesting to see. I guess I never paid much attention as if it's candy and doesn't have chocolate in it, it really isn't worth eating. 

Betsy


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *shakes head sadly again*
> 
> Show me where I said she couldn't post it. Can't ANYONE on KB read?  Sigh...
> 
> Betsy


did i say you said she couldn't post it?


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Not to sidetrack the discussion...but this got me trying to think of a candy bar not made of chocolate....
> 
> 
> Betsy


Payday.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Somebody else mentioned Paydays....I've never had one.  Probably because it doesn't have chocolate in it.    

So if I were drawing a Venn Diagram, "Candy Bar" would be a big circle and "Chocolate Bar" would be inside it.  I'm good with that.


----------



## StephenEngland (Nov 2, 2011)

pawsplus said:


> This suggests, to my mind, that the author really had no business writing in the first place. It's not for everyone, and someone who can't write well should not expect to have their writing completely re-written by an editor. That is not, and should not, be the editor's job!


Be that as it may, she had paid enough money to have the basic mistakes fixed. There's a lot of scams out there.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Can't ANYONE on KB read?


I can't! Don't judge me! Don't judge me!


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Robert Bidinotto said:


> Combined, they'll probably find a lot more than a single professional editor or proofreader.


Now, why d'ya have to go and push the red button? Every day of every week I read stuff that was written and read over by multiple PhDs and it's always filled with mistakes. Even the peer-reviewed material has mistakes in it -- and everything under the sun. The idea that "beta readers" or however many of whomever else are as good as one good editor is crazy talk. Yes, _crazy talk_.


----------



## Robert Bidinotto (Mar 3, 2011)

Depends on the backgrounds and skills of your betas. Some of mine have formidable backgrounds as writers and even editors. They just happen also to be buddies.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

John Daulton said:


> $2000 would be on the low end if you found a deal for a good *editor*, more likely $3,000 or so. It depends on how big and many errors per page, the editor's hourly rate, etc.


Are you talking content edits, line edits, copy edits, proofreading? Honestly, a book would have to be in pretty rough shape to run that much and it certainly wouldn't for line edits. Well, it could. But shop around - there are plenty of good editors that don't charge an arm and a leg. A problem authors are more likely to run into is that the good editors who charge in the .005 - .01 cents range are booked six months in advance.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I can't! Don't judge me! Don't judge me!


*snort*

*cleans screen, looks sternly at Krista*


----------



## William Woodall (Jun 8, 2009)

I really think that if most people spent the time and effort to learn proper grammar and punctuation in the first place, they wouldn't have such need for proofreaders later on.  Proper English really isn't THAT hard, even considering all the acceptable regional variants that are in use.


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

Attebery said:


> Basil Fawlty would file it [this thread] under: The bleeding obvious.


I totally agree. Every indie writer is coming to the table with a different set of skills so inevitably there will be unedited books with typos yadda, yadda, yadda. An untrained writer who has no professional writing experience will probably make more mistakes than someone who has been writing for at least a few years. I don't see that as any different than new visual artists or performers who lack technique. To new writers, I say do your best and keep it moving. If you can't afford a proofreader or an editor, get a style manual, thesaurus and a good dictionary. I've been working as a professional writer for six years now and I've made a ton of mistakes. No one, I repeat -- NO ONE has ever fired me because of it. There is simply no way that you can write perfectly all the time, it's not possible. But what will happen is that you will improve the more you write and your mistakes will be fewer.

[edited] To correct one of my mistakes. See it's not the end of the world, really.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> Every indie writer is coming to the table with a different set of skills


Certainly, and in an impressive range of fields. But I would assume that nearly all of them are writing in their own native language. Having a good command of one's own language strikes me as a very basic skill that every literate person ought to have. If someone can't craft a decent sentence, maybe they shouldn't call themselves writers.

Typos and other accidental errors happen to everybody. But that's what proofreaders are for. Or, as you said, at least some good reference books and a little extra work. There's no excuse for publishing unprofessional work.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I don't see that as any different than new visual artists or performers who lack technique.


If I _paid_ for tickets to hear a new performer who lacked technique, I'd be mightily annoyed. People can practice their craft alone or for friends and family until they're ready for the general public. The paying customer deserves a polished product.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Come on now, Robert. That's like recommending that people get friends to help fix their cars without mentioning that your particular friends happen to be mechanics.


----------



## HeatherVivant (Dec 30, 2011)

Recently, in reading through short stories from the free trial slush pile, I've encountered some otherwise great stories which contained one or two errors. Rather than contact the Kindle police, or leave a negative review on a work that I in fact enjoyed, I took the time to email the author feedback and the list of corrections. It seemed the least I could do since they shared the book for free.

If the goal is to increase the quality of indy writers, I favor coaching the ones who demonstrate the spark of talent in an effort to help them succeed rather than simply make it a policy to punish all without regard to potential or merit.

This is easier to do with short stories. On novel length material, I think it would be more a matter of teaching them what they don't know if there is some common mistake, provided the errors are rare enough and don't show a complete lack of understanding of language. Wading through a novel is a tougher challenge, and I'm not willing to make that much of a detailed investment.

The only exception I've found: James Altucher's self help tome "I Was Blind But Now I See" is full of the most annoying mistakes--he even admits that there will be mistakes, and you begin to wonder whether some of the mistakes are there just to troll a certain type of reader.  However, his voice and honesty override the annoyances, and I could tolerate a frequency of errors which would normally make me give up.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

HeatherVivant said:


> I took the time to email the author feedback and the list of corrections. It seemed the least I could do since they shared the book for free.


I do the same thing for the same reason. But not always. Only if I'm relatively sure the author won't throw a hissy fit (it's purely a subjective judgement on this because I mostly have no idea).


----------



## Gordon Ryan (Aug 20, 2010)

StephenEngland said:


> I'll never forget a book I read(a thriller), where the weapon brand Beretta was alternately spelled, Beretta, Berreta, Barretta, Beratta.


Stephan, were they all different caliber?

Cheers,

GR


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Gordon Ryan said:


> Stephan, were they all different caliber?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> GR


LOL No fair making me choke on my tea


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

Susan in VA said:


> Certainly, and in an impressive range of fields. But I would assume that nearly all of them are writing in their own native language. Having a good command of one's own language strikes me as a very basic skill that every literate person ought to have. If someone can't craft a decent sentence, maybe they shouldn't call themselves writers.
> 
> Typos and other accidental errors happen to everybody. But that's what proofreaders are for. Or, as you said, at least some good reference books and a little extra work. There's no excuse for publishing unprofessional work.
> 
> If I _paid_ for tickets to hear a new performer who lacked technique, I'd be mightily annoyed. People can practice their craft alone or for friends and family until they're ready for the general public. The paying customer deserves a polished product.


Well, I actually try to avoid making assumptions. I certainly wouldn't presume to know the native language of any writer, especially if he can't structure a sentence correctly. That said, the original poster's headline read: "PSA for Indy Writer: Please Hire an Editor!!!" I am saying that no writer, should avoid publishing their work simply because they don't have an editor. I'm sure many people don't agree with me. However, I want writers to know that there are some of us who think it's okay to practice in the public space. I have paid money to see amateur performers who lacked some technique AND I enjoyed the performance. Ever attended a high school talent show or watched one of those amateur nights on TV?  I am NOT saying that a writer should not hone their craft or that they should not do their best to produce a quality product. They should. However, unskilled writers will make mistakes and many of them can't afford editors or proofreaders (who also make mistakes).

On the point of what "paying customers" deserve. Let's all be honest with ourselves. Many of these so-called paying customers really aren't paying at all or they are paying a pittance. Not only that; but they fail to read the description, which usually gives a clue about the quality of the work. So when one of these customers downloads a crappy book without even reading the description, maybe they are getting what they deserve. Because really, how many of the writers selling their works for "free" or .99 cents can afford an editor?

I hope this doesn't come across as mean because sometimes I can be a bit direct. However, I must honestly say I am offended when I see these types of shouting headlines targeting indie writers. We're not stupid. We know it's best to hire an editor. But we also know that we're not all cut from the same cloth. Some of us are professionals with fat bank accounts and others are just newbies working at the local bookstore making minimum wage. Newbies will inevitably produce bad books (some with typos and grammar errors), it's just part of the process. And they too deserve to be called writers. If you want to avoid these error riddled books, take care in what you download. Just my two cents.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I agree with your sentiment, but just want to point out that your complaint seems to be a lack of proofreading, not editing. The words "editor" and "proofreader" get used interchangeably around here. Yes, proofreading can be very inexpensive, but good EDITING is not cheap. And definitely not something that should just be left to an English major just on the merits of being an English major. I know plenty of college students who can construct a grammatically correct sentence, but can't write their way out of a paper bag.
> 
> But yes, there is a difference between a few stray typos and something being incoherent. I do feel your pain. But I would say "sample, sample, sample." You can normally tell by the sample the quality of the writing overall.


^^Yes.

I feel we as indie authors have nothing to lose and everything to gain by hiring a real editor as well as proofreaders. Yeah, it can be expensive. But, you have a better chance of earning back that investment if you have the cleanest, most readable text possible.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> On the point of what "paying customers" deserve. Let's all be honest with ourselves. Many of these so-called paying customers really aren't paying at all or they are paying a pittance. Not only that; but they fail to read the description, which usually gives a clue about the quality of the work. So when one of these customers downloads a crappy book without even reading the description, maybe they are getting what they deserve. Because really, how many of the writers selling their works for "free" or .99 cents can afford an editor?
> 
> ............... If you want to avoid these error riddled books, take care in what you download. Just my two cents.


INCOMING!!!!


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> If you want to avoid these error riddled books, take care in what you download. Just my two cents.


Care to share your wisdom as to how we can do that?

Even if you sample every book before you buy it, you will still find books that are riddled with errors after the first few pages?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> However, I want writers to know that there are some of us who think it's okay to practice in the public space. I have paid money to see amateur performers who lacked some technique AND I enjoyed the performance. Ever attended a high school talent show or watched one of those amateur nights on TV


In every case where I attended an amateur performance, even if I paid to see it, I knew in advance what to expect. Are you suggesting I should assume that indie books I purchase are going to be "amateur performers who lack some technique?" Or that the author should publish their book saying "I'm practicing in the public space until I get it right" so that I can be forewarned as to what to expect? 

I'll go on record that the indie books I've read have been, on average, pretty good; some not as good as others, some pretty darn good. But I pick most of my indie books based on author conversations and member recommendations here on KB; I rarely buy an indie book cold.

Betsy


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> On the point of what "paying customers" deserve. Let's all be honest with ourselves. Many of these so-called paying customers really aren't paying at all or they are paying a pittance.


Yes, a lot of indie books are incredibly inexpensive. And for many, 99 cents for a book won't begin to cover the initial expenses. But as a reader, I'm not going to start paying ten bucks for every indie book in the _hope_ that the authors will then start hiring editors. Selling books is a business. Business owners have to invest time and money to get things rolling. Show me that you can publish a professional-looking book, and_ then_ I'll pay more for the next one. Not the other way around.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

If someone wants to "practice in a public space" then I wish they wouldn't charge me for their practice time.  I can forgive quite a few errors and realize there are some in just about every book, traditionally or indie published, but is anyone really ready to shout out that the amount of poor writing, lack of proofreading and editing is equally prevalent between the two?

I, a reader only, don't set the price for the books that are sold or choose whether they are offered for free.  Am I supposed to make the assumption that if it is offered free or for .99 cents then it is just practice material?  I thought indie authors were trying to overcome that stigma.

Sure, I could send an author an e-mail or a PM if they are here on kindleboards and list locations and errors that I find so they can make corrections (strictly the proofreading kind, I don't have editing skills), but why should I pay someone to proofread their book?  Like Susan said earlier, "The paying customer deserves a polished product."


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

by the way, just for the record, i'm not going to pay to proof someone's work.  i get paid to do that.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

scarlet said:


> by the way, just for the record, i'm not going to pay to proof someone's work. i get paid to do that.


Actually, I've paid for books and then proofed them, in those cases where the authors clearly had done everything they could and still half a dozen or so typos slipped through. I think in a case like that, it's a kindness to PM the authors and let them know. Why not help to make a good product even better? But when someone hasn't even bothered to use spellcheck before publishing....


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'll go on record that the indie books I've read have been, on average, pretty good; some not as good as others, some pretty darn good. But I pick most of my indie books based on author conversations and member recommendations here on KB; I rarely buy an indie book cold.


Inevitably most indie books will be bad because anyone can publish anything, but I've found that if the first two pages make me want to read the third, then it's almost certainly a book that I will at least finish.

The two e-books I've paid for that I struggled to finish were both previously published by a small press in print. I think they particularly stood out because the writing was good but the plot wasn't; the publisher had presumably helped them edit the writing, but left in the blatant plot holes. As a result I felt let down, because from reading the first few pages I'd expected them to be great and was sorely disappointed; had I expect them just to be OK I wouldn't have cared as much.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I rarely buy an indie book cold.


Isn't that what the quilt's for?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

CB Edwards said:


> Isn't that what the quilt's for?


  Indeed.

Since you bring up quilts, if I made a quilt that fell apart the first time someone hung it on a wall (I make art quilts--quilts for the wall) because of my poor technique, the purchaser would be justifiably unhappy, even if they bought it at a good price. And one or two experiences like that, the purchaser would give up on art quilts. Just sayin'. I spent a lot of time and yes, money developing a skill set so that I could be comfortable charging what I do. I have that same expectation of any professional.

Betsy


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Edward M. Grant said:


> The two e-books I've paid for that I struggled to finish were both previously published by a small press in print. I think they particularly stood out because the writing was good but the plot wasn't; the publisher had presumably helped them edit the writing, but left in the blatant plot holes. As a result I felt let down, because from reading the first few pages I'd expected them to be great and was sorely disappointed; had I expect them just to be OK I wouldn't have cared as much.


Hmmm. I hadn't considered this angle. So yes, apparently there's something to be said for copious typos, bad grammar, and crappy formatting, because then a reader will know not to bother because the plot is likely to be crappy too.  Is that what you're saying?


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

I don't need an editor because I don't maket ypos.

...

Oh god I do need one. GO, ASHLEY CASE! SPIN MY STRAW INTO GOLD...!


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Susan in VA said:


> Hmmm. I hadn't considered this angle. So yes, apparently there's something to be said for copious typos, bad grammar, and crappy formatting, because then a reader will know not to bother because the plot is likely to be crappy too.


Yes, so they'll know not to read past page two . But if your novel is well written at the start, don't have a deus-ex-machina at the end, or monsters who can kill six soldiers simultaneously in chapter three but are killed by one blow by the protagonist in chapter six and twice knock him unconscious but don't rip his head off.

I'd much rather read a good story with weak writing than good writing with a weak story, and when I open a book that's well written I've come to expect that the story will probably be pretty good too... so if it's not, that's a serious disappointment.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> However, I want writers to know that there are some of us who think it's okay to practice in the public space. I have paid money to see amateur performers who lacked some technique AND I enjoyed the performance. Ever attended a high school talent show or watched one of those amateur nights on TV?


I think a lot of us are okay with writers, and other artists, practicing in the public square -- as long as they make it clear that this is what they're doing. I haven't seen too many authors planting that info right in their book blurbs. Why is that? One reason might be that Amazon might not be cool with that, but another is because they don't want the reader to know that.

When I go to a talent show, or watch "Idol" or "The Voice," I go in knowing these people aren't usually professionals yet. I also know that after a certain point, most are talented. That is a far cry from authors misleading readers into acts of charity, and pretending to be professionals.

You're right that there ARE people who'd like to read early drafts of books. It's not about that. It's about disclosure and suitable venues.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I am NOT saying that a writer should not hone their craft or that they should not do their best to produce a quality product. They should. However, unskilled writers will make mistakes and many of them can't afford editors or proofreaders (who also make mistakes).


Can't afford editors and proofreaders means, to me, cannot afford to publish under the pretense that your work is ready. Find the venues where it's okay, inform the readers, and that's fine. If you want to sell your books and not disclose, that's the issue. I believe that there are some people who legitimately cannot afford editing right now, I also think there are some people who just don't consider it a priority. Doesn't matter, though -- whatever the reason that the person cannot or will not get it done, that's not for the reader to understand, unless the reader is a good friend or someone you might see at a family reunion -- or the writer wants to be upfront.

Life is full of stuff you need to do or have in order to do or have other stuff. Just because there is no law saying this for every activity doesn't make that any less true. Self-publishing isn't truly meant to be without gate-keepers or standards, it's supposed to allow you to be your own gate-keeper and to get your own stuff to a reasonable standard.

I can have all the sympathy in the world for people struggling, but my sympathy ends when I'm swindled. Ask me for a buck, I'll probably give it to you -- don't tell me that you are going to sell me a dollar's worth of fruit, hand me a rotten and wormy apple, and then tell me that I'm the one in the wrong.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> On the point of what "paying customers" deserve. Let's all be honest with ourselves. Many of these so-called paying customers really aren't paying at all or they are paying a pittance. Not only that; but they fail to read the description, which usually gives a clue about the quality of the work. So when one of these customers downloads a crappy book without even reading the description, maybe they are getting what they deserve. Because really, how many of the writers selling their works for "free" or .99 cents can afford an editor?


This is really what you want to say to readers? Essentially that there is a sucker born every minute, and too bad, so sad? Oh, and don't expect much. Not to mention that people with all different price points do have editors.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I hope this doesn't come across as mean because sometimes I can be a bit direct. However, I must honestly say I am offended when I see these types of shouting headlines targeting indie writers.


This is a board filled with indie authors. Indie authors are the flavor of author needing to take care of their own editing. Who would you suggest the reader address/target when they come here?



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> We're not stupid. We know it's best to hire an editor.But we also know that we're not all cut from the same cloth.


No argument there.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> Some of us are professionals with fat bank accounts and others are just newbies working at the local bookstore making minimum wage.


How do you think someone becomes a professional? Not all professionals have huge bank accounts, or start out that way, not all minimum wage workers are incapable of being professionals.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> Newbies will inevitably produce bad books (some with typos and grammar errors), it's just part of the process.


Sure, that part of the process is called a first draft.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> And they too deserve to be called writers.


You write, and feel like a writer, I'll call you a writer. Hey, you write, and DON'T feel like a writer, I'll still probably call you one. What does that have to do with the matter at hand?



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> If you want to avoid these error riddled books, take care in what you download. Just my two cents.


Okay, and what happens when the writer uses, say, a free sample edit to make sure that their downloadable sample looks professional? Is that still the reader's fault?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CB Edwards said:


> INCOMING!!!!


Something about this, combined with a Lincoln avatar -- not sure what to say.


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> In every case where I attended an amateur performance, even if I paid to see it, I knew in advance what to expect. Are you suggesting I should assume that indie books I purchase are going to be "amateur performers who lack some technique?" Or that the author should publish their book saying "I'm practicing in the public space until I get it right" so that I can be forewarned as to what to expect?
> 
> I'll go on record that the indie books I've read have been, on average, pretty good; some not as good as others, some pretty darn good. But I pick most of my indie books based on author conversations and member recommendations here on KB; I rarely buy an indie book cold.
> 
> Betsy


When any writer creates a book, they are practicing their craft; but I don't mean that they are giving less than their best or purposely producing shoddy work because "they're just practicing." This is the definition of practice I'm using, "To perform an activity or skill repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency. To do something habitually or regularly or to exercise a profession." I think it's important for new writers to practice their craft and to get it out there in the public eye. They should not let the lack of an editor stop them. They can use a style book, thesaurus and a good dictionary as a starting point. I also think they should get someone they trust to check for errors. However, they will never improve if they don't actually practice their craft in the public sphere. This is true for indies and traditionally published writers. I stand by this statement 100 percent. I don't want any writer to feel they can't publish their novel or poetry or whatever because they don't have an editor. I also don't want them to be afraid of making mistakes. Mistakes are a part of life and they can't be avoided. I am not talking about careless mistakes.

Hahaha! Holy smokes! Just tried to post this reply to Betsey and saw all the additional posts. I knew my mouth would eventually cause me trouble.  But hey I never shy away from a little friendly tug-of-war.  I do want to clarify one thing, I don't think all professionals have fat bank accounts, nor do I think the amount of money someone makes determines their professionalism. I'm completely against that type of thinking. Btw, I don't have a fat bank account!  I was simply pointing out that there are all types of writers at different levels in terms of skills and finances.

I knew that most people would disagree with me; but I don't mind that. On that point, I will just say that I agree that we disagree. Oh, did I mention that I offer editing services? Just kidding. 

[edit] Just want to add that I was so tired when I wrote this post and I didn't have an editor look over it, so please forgive any typos or other errors.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Self-publishing isn't truly meant to be without gate-keepers or standards, it's supposed to allow you to be your own gate-keeper and to get your own stuff to a reasonable standard.


No, self-publishing makes the reader the gate-keeper, as they should be.

Another of the self-published e-books I own is, by my standards, poorly edited with some big plot holes, but it's also a great idea and generally good fun despite the flaws. Last I heard it had made over $100,000 for the author even though it hadn't met what trade publishers would consider a 'reasonable standard'.

I've also been reading through a trade-published novel from the 1990s on days when I have to take the bus, and it has a ton of typos and incorrect words and other editing problems. But it went on to spawn four sequels.

So one person's 'reasonable standard' is another person's crap, and vice-versa. There is a level below which no-one is going to want to read the book, but that should be obvious from the first two pages.

None of that is meant to imply that you shouldn't release a book that is as good as you can reasonably make it, but nothing is perfect and it doesn't have to be. If it's truly bad no-one will read it and if the story is good many people will look past its flaws.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

@SunHi
I don't get your continued insistence that anyone is claiming writers cannot share their work, at all, unless the work is edited. No one is saying that. 

@Edward
My point is that an indie writer is his or her own boss, and the person who ultimately makes sure the QC is there, somehow. The fact that no one else will do it for them doesn't mean that it doesn't need doing.


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

MichelleR said:


> @SunHi
> I don't get your continued insistence that anyone is claiming writers cannot share their work, at all, unless the work is edited. No one is saying that.
> 
> @Edward
> My point is that an indie writer is his or her own boss, and the person who ultimately makes sure the QC is there, somehow. The fact that no one else will do it for them doesn't mean that it doesn't need doing.


I never claimed that anyone said writers can't share their unedited work "at all". I know they can share it in workshops and other venues and they should. But I also think it is okay to publish as long as they do their due diligence to correct errors.

I have a soft spot for new writers (actually all writers) and I feel that now is a great opportunity for them to get their work out and really practice their craft. I don't want them to get discouraged by the "get an editor" mantra. Many of them are not ready for an editor. No editor can save a badly told story.

I do understand what you and others are saying -- you don't want to read these rough works. I understand, believe me I do. And I agree people should at least check for typos; but they can do that without an editor. It's a tough situation because I know indie writers want to keep quality up; but the truth of the matter is that we don't have control of what is put up on the kindle.

Looking back at my earlier post I realize it was kind of a crappy thing to say "readers are getting what they deserve" when they download bargain books riddled with errors. I apologize. Unfortunately, I sometimes put my foot in my mouth when talking about certain things. So it will probably happen again.  But just know it's never malicious, I'm just a bit...uhm...what's the word...feisty.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> But I also think it is okay to publish as long as they do their due diligence to correct errors.


Unfortunately, this is a meaningless phrase. I don't mean that it doesn't have meaning for you, because I'm pretty sure that it does. It doesn't mean that doesn't have meaning for me, I _know_ it does. The problem is that this thread exists, and thrives, because it has no agreed upon meaning, no meeting of the minds.

It sorta means that the writer should put in the right amount of effort and expense. What does that mean? We'd all absolutely agree with it, 100%, and in agreeing with it, still have no actual agreement.

The OP, and various other posters, think due diligence should involve an editor. Other posters say that it means at least a proofread. Others think it means that an author just does his or her personal best. I think that it depends on the forum or venue, but that selling on Amazon carries a different standard than posting on a board on writing.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I have a soft spot for new writers


Who here doesn't?



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I (actually all writers)


Still pretty much with you, but in a more general sense. 



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I and I feel that now is a great opportunity for them to get their work out and really practice their craft.


Okay, yeah. Agree. There are all sorts of places for that where they can do so honestly, surrounded by support and constructive advice.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I I don't want them to get discouraged by the "get an editor" mantra.


I don't want them to be discouraged either, at least not from writing -- from publishing a book with so many errors that a good number of readers will feel cheated? Okay, maybe. If a writer is going to quit entirely, that makes me sad, but it seems to me that a discussion on a message board with well-meaning advice, and some reader advocacy, is a really low hurdle to get over. If this is what makes someone quit, I just cannot imagine what the rest of their experience would have to be like to keep them writing.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I Many of them are not ready for an editor. No editor can save a badly told story.


Guess what? I completely agree. But not ready for an editor, to me, means not ready to put it up for sale, let alone doing so without a huge warning. It means write some more, learn, grow, write some more, take what advice you can, read a lot, and start paying attention to what you read, write some more ... try again at some point in the future.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I I do understand what you and others are saying -- you don't want to read these rough works.


I wouldn't say that. I just don't want to read them without at least a warning, and probably not for free. And if I've paid the person for the "honor?" (I need a moment.)



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I I understand, believe me I do. And I agree people should at least check for typos; but they can do that without an editor.


For sure. Editing and proofing, as mentioned, are two different things. It is also conceivable that a writer will stumble upon one or both services from a qualified Good Samaritan. However, in lieu of that person falling into their lap, they don't get to just toss it up there, or count on their own eyes being good enough -- unless they've illustrated/been told from more than one person, that they have a knack for seeing their own issues.

Most people don't see all the mistakes they've made. This is before we take into account the whole "you don't know what you don't know" thing. Writers tend to be insulted by being told they need an editor, and there is nothing inherently insulting about it.

I believe that everyone has areas of ignorance. Not just whole topics, but little portions of topics. Doesn't matter how smart they are, doesn't matter how well-read, or well-educated. They were absent the day the thing was covered, they managed to not be in the room every time a topic was discussed, they didn't happen to tumble across a bit of knowledge, or they had it explained but didn't grasp it, or thought they did, but misunderstood...

There is no shame in it, because it happens to us all. (Yeah, editors, too -- but they still bring a tighter focus of knowledge, and another pair of eyes.) And sometimes the gap is something that your average less-educated, generally dimmer person, considers common knowledge. It's the great humbling experience of life.

I once bet my husband a friendly act if he knew the answer to a trivia question. I'd never heard of the movie in question, and I tend to have more general movie knowledge. I read him the question, he grinned, and unzipped his pants as he answered. (After that, I started seeing mentions of this movie constantly.)

Yeah.

So, a writer gets help to get his or her book in shape, and they learn from the process, and the next time they need a little less help, or at least the helpers weep a little less. But the fact never changes that none of us don't know what we don't know.

A writer counting on his own knowledge and eyes and doing it all alone almost guarantees a missed opportunity at best, and a train wreck at the worst.



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I It's a tough situation because I know indie writers want to keep quality up


This is like due diligence -- I agree, I believe -- and what does it mean?



SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I Looking back at my earlier post I realize it was kind of a crappy thing to say "readers are getting what they deserve" when they download bargain books riddled with errors. I apologize. Unfortunately, I sometimes put my foot in my mouth when talking about certain things. So it will probably happen again.  But just know it's never malicious, I'm just a bit...uhm...what's the word...feisty.


If you're apologizing to me, you don't need to do so. I do think it showed a lack of respect, treated readers like easy marks, but I get why some writers would have that belief, and I get the sense that you're a decent person.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Dear PawsPlus,


You kinda stepped on a landmine with this topic, especially by assuming that most indies don't use an editor to begin with.

A bit about me, my background:

I am currently an indie novelist, but I've been on the other side of the editorial desk, too. I've spent time in traditional publishing environments, newspapers, Web publishing, and more. Sometimes in writer positions, sometimes in editor positions.

Currently, I have a side-job where I do contract work in the book formatting field, both eBook and print, as well as writing my own novels.

Given all that background, there are a few relevant observations I can make. And the intent here is to show the complexity of this issue.

1) Indie writers vary in skill level. Sometimes dramatically.

2) Editors also vary in skill level, and the price paid for their services is no guarantee of their skill level. I've had people offer to edit/proof manuscripts for me for free who had far better "eagle eyes" than people I've paid significant sums to.

3) One doesn't always get a great editing or proofing job, even when they pay for one, because due to the freelance/indie nature of all this, there's no one to set standards.

SIDE-NOTE ON POINT 3:

In the trad-pub world, the publisher set the standards for editing. They would declare which dictionary to use, which style manual to abide by, and what exceptions to make for the sake of internal consistency. (Ex. a "house style guide" ... Marvel Comics, for example, might insist on "always Spider-Man, never Spiderman.") And everyone involved went by the publisher's standards, like it or not. There was no such thing as an author overruling a publisher on elements of style, unless a change made something clearly wrong.

For example, if an editor changed Han to hand, that is something a writer could point out and the publisher would listen.

But if a writer said, "I want this book of mine edited to the AP Style Manual because I used to be a journalist," the publisher would say, "We use the Oxford Manual on all our books. Be grateful we're publishing you and get back to work on MOSTLY HARMLESS, Mr. Adams."

But in the world of self-publishing indie authors, authors themselves are all in charge, and some of them have a clue as to such issues while others are... resistant to feedback, even from an editor whose services they are hiring.

I could spin tales about folks going rounds about whether a book should be formatted with indented paragraphs, or in un-indented block style. Such things were unheard of before the current era.

And because the writer hires the editor, if they refuse to listen to the editor, the mess left behind is not the fault of the editor/proofer, right?

It used to be, writers were overjoyed to get published and have their manuscripts edited. Now, they'll go 12 rounds on whether there should be periods on the copyright page after the phrases:

Copyright 2012 by Author X

All rights reserved

Of course there should be periods. But if an author hiring an editor decides there shouldn't be because "they don't like how it looks to them," then you can cite chapter and verse from the Chicago Manual of Style till you're blue in the face, and all the editor gets for that effort is... blue in the face. And maybe a hasty, "I won't be using you as editor on my next novel" email from the author, because they bothered to point out, "you know, you really should make that change." All this drama over this minor stuff that an author really shouldn't be sweating bullets about to begin with.

(Insert forest/trees analogy or "majoring on the minors" cliche here, LOL.)

Which leaves said editors looking silly because they'll be listed as the book's editor, but if their client didn't take their advice, it's the editor who gets blamed, even though it's the writer who was stubborn and didn't listen.

Thank heavens I'm currently just doing formatting contract work.

But even that can inspire drama when certain "new to eBooks" clients find out that much of formatting is in the hands of the end-user's Kindle, Nook, or iPad, because eBooks use "scale-able text" that puts control of the display font, and the display font size, in the hands of each user... so trying to exercise supreme control over line breaks, page breaks, and such is useless, because if an end-user sets their Kindle to display a font that's bigger or smaller than is common, all that will get wonky anyway.

The last thing some newer, less experienced authors are able to adjust their expectations to are the "we can't do that" chorus.

Such as "Small caps? eReaders can't really do that."

"You want drop caps displayed exactly like they are in your print book? Sorry to tell you this, but..."

"We can try doing a table for your fiction novel if you insist, but if it's a .jpeg it won't be scale-able, and if you do it in HTML, it may come out very unlike what you envisioned because of scale-ability. And, oh, by the way, tables can sometimes cause problems with Meatgrinder, Auto-vetter, approval for premium distribution, and other assorted headaches."

That sort of thing.

I mean, it's not the client's fault. They're new to this world of eBooks. There's a lot to adjust to. And the abilities of eReaders constantly changes each year.

Then there's the whole question of, "Do I format my book so it can only display properly on a Kindle Fire, Nook Tablet, or iPad 3? Or should I remember there are tens of millions of eReaders that were built to an earlier standard, most are still being used, and I don't want to alienate those potential customers who don't have the latest/greatest eReader tech?"

People who put up a shingle for editing, proofing, and formatting all vary in skill level. As do writers.

But even if you hire great help... that help is only useful if:

1) The hired help really does know their stuff (regardless of what they charge because that's no guarantee) and;

2) The hired help's advice and suggested changes are actually IMPLEMENTED by the author.

So, when you read an eBook, there are often many factors that resulted in an error in editing, proofing, or formatting showing up in the final product.

And you never know where in the system the break-down occurred.

So it's best not to assume that it's all one person's fault, whether they are the author, the editor, the proofer, or the formatter.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

You make some good points, Craig.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> You kinda stepped on a landmine with this topic, especially by assuming that most indies don't use an editor to begin with.


Craig, I don't see it as an assumption that most indies don't use an editor. I see it as a simple plea to the general indie populace.

Honestly, I would say that the quality of most indies here on KB is of much higher quality than that of the general, "Oh I can write a story fast and put it on Amazon and make a fortune," or, "lemme grab a bunch of news articles about subject N, slap them together with a few of my own comments about how subject N is morally/ethically/humanly wrong, and sell it to make a fortune because it's a hot topic."


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2012)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> When any writer creates a book, they are practicing their craft; but I don't mean that they are giving less than their best or purposely producing shoddy work because "they're just practicing." This is the definition of practice I'm using, "To perform an activity or skill repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency. To do something habitually or regularly or to exercise a profession." I think it's important for new writers to practice their craft and to get it out there in the public eye.


Until certain entities in the indie world convinced authors they otherwise, there WAS a "safe place" to practice where you could hone your craft AND get free editing. They were called publishers.  Even rejection letters can be learning experiences.

I honestly believe some of the issue is raw pride. Authors want to sell their books "unmolested" without having some evil editor "destroy my voice" because they have been fed too much BS about how evil publishers are. But there are still thousands of small presses, magazines, journals, and micro presses happy to nurture new writers. 40% of the stories I publish in the Bards and Sages Quarterly are from rewrite requests. Even if we reject a story, we'll provide a full critique upon request and point out problems and concerns (we used to do so automatically, but too many writers got angry that we were "picking" on them for no reason )

Practice is only valuable if you are working toward improvement. If you just continue to make the same mistakes over and over and never bother to correct them that is not practicing. That is being selfish and stubborn.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I use two editors (both with degrees in journalism and one works as an editor for a print magazine) and four beta readers, and still minor irritations slip through. Sigh. Book 3 (Actually, the fifth book written) is taking four months longer because I'm waiting on edits, so I can release the best rendition of my eBook possible.


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

scarlet said:


> by the way, just for the record, i'm not going to pay to proof someone's work. i get paid to do that.


That's kind of hard to believe, considering the sentence structure and capitalization of the above!


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Until certain entities in the indie world convinced authors they otherwise, there WAS a "safe place" to practice where you could hone your craft AND get free editing. They were called publishers.  Even rejection letters can be learning experiences.


Except there are plenty of e-books on Amazon which sell well to readers but were rejected by publishers.

That said, there are at least two kinds of rejections: 'this is a piece of crap' and 'we don't know how to market this', and I suspect most of those books were the latter kind.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I agree with your sentiment, but just want to point out that your complaint seems to be a lack of proofreading, not editing. The words "editor" and "proofreader" get used interchangeably around here. Yes, proofreading can be very inexpensive, but good EDITING is not cheap. And definitely not something that should just be left to an English major just on the merits of being an English major. I know plenty of college students who can construct a grammatically correct sentence, but can't write their way out of a paper bag.
> 
> But yes, there is a difference between a few stray typos and something being incoherent. I do feel your pain. But I would say "sample, sample, sample." You can normally tell by the sample the quality of the writing overall.


You're right on, Julie, as usual. But as to the OP = I have an editor and a proofreader, and proofing systems and many fine toothcomb passes at my many works. However, the day I author books for grammarians and non-readers (those who beachcomb works, but can never truly enjoy them) is the day I hang it all up. Grammar has its place in fiction for legibility; however, there are some who will never recognize the glory of fragmentation, the iconoclastic joy in splitting an infinitive, the horripilation in dangling a participle and the rollicking fun in a Virginia Woolfian run on sentence of longitudinal proportions. Proofing assures legibility and an editor helps with authorial integrity, but those who read to dance the tarantella on perceived wrongs to the language are much like the spiders that inspired the dance. 

Miss Chatty Patterson


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

pawsplus said:


> That's kind of hard to believe, considering the sentence structure and capitalization of the above!


Yo, folks, people are posting on all sorts of mobile devices.  I know scarlet posted frequently from her DX...

Just sayin'.

Betsy


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Funny, this whole thread seems like preaching to the choir.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

xandy3 said:


> Funny, this whole thread seems like preaching to the choir.


Hallelujah! The day of the split infinitve has arrived, and it's come in David Copperfield - a work that needs a good editor and a proof read, have mercy on our souls.   

The Reverand Chatsworth


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Something about this, combined with a Lincoln avatar -- not sure what to say.


OUTGOING!!!!


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I agree with SunH somewhat. I would much rather read a story that really captures me with some typos and grammar mistakes than a well edited story that is boring. 

I've read a number of indie books which I thought were really good fresh stories with a few bumps in the road, like typo's etc and as long as they don't jolt me out of a good story I don't have a problem. For the 99 or 2.99 or 3.99 I am spending I am not expecting a perfectly edited book. But I do expect that story and editing perfection from a 9.99 or 14.99 ebook and I don't always find it.

For 2.99 I expect a few bumps in the road and an enjoyable read, for 12.99 or 14.99 I expect a great story with precise editing.

Too many bumps in the road make it a more difficult read, so the author should do all they can to allow the reader to have the smoothest non-jarring ride possible, within their budget. Then the market decides, not the grammarians. I think there are some  who read a book hunting for errors.

Of course there are some indie books that should never see the light of day and I'm not typing about them. Or maybe Cormac McCarthy needs an editor?


----------



## ChadWilliamson (May 31, 2011)

For what it's worth, I seem to keep finding typos in LEGACY publishing (you know, the guys with THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars to spend on editing and proofing). It's just sloppy stuff that should have been caught by a professional, and instead was caught by a recovering journalist/copy editor during his night time reader. And both books are best selling novels.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2012)

ChadWilliamson said:


> For what it's worth, I seem to keep finding typos in LEGACY publishing (you know, the guys with THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars to spend on editing and proofing). It's just sloppy stuff that should have been caught by a professional, and instead was caught by a recovering journalist/copy editor during his night time reader. And both books are best selling novels.


At the expense of repeating myself (but this thread IS six pages now, so we can't expect people to go back and read the posts ) the issue is not stray typos per se. I don't think anyone here has said "Oh God if I find four typos in a book I will never read anything by that author again!" The problem is when there are so many problems that they get in the way of reading the story. There is a world of difference between reading:



> As I drove down the road, I had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting the deer.


and



> I drove down the road and their was dear in the road and to avoid hitting them i hit the brakes and swerved and the dear didn't move but i managed not to hit them.


The first case is a common error you will find in both trad and indie books. But in a lot of cases your brain will skip over it and know what was meant and just continue on. The second issue is a situation unique to indies (and actually a real sentence from a story that was submitted to the journal!). Those type of sentences are found in a lot of indie books. It is hard to even understand what is being said in the second case.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The second issue is a situation unique to indies (and actually a real sentence from a story that was submitted to the journal!).


That reads like James Joyce on a good day.

Ultimately if the book is that bad and the writer isn't already famous so literary experts can argue for decades about whether they've written a work of genius or a piece of junk, then most readers who find the book on Amazon won't read past the first paragraph. And if the book is that bad, then the blurb probably is too, so very few people will get as far as reading the first paragraph.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Edward M. Grant said:


> That reads like James Joyce on a good day.
> 
> Ultimately if the book is that bad and the writer isn't already famous so literary experts can argue for decades about whether they've written a work of genius or a piece of junk, then most readers who find the book on Amazon won't read past the first paragraph. And if the book is that bad, then the blurb probably is too, so very few people will get as far as reading the first paragraph.


Every week I sample ten or so new books on Smashwords to get an idea the state of this issue. There's no denying it's an issue for some authors and their readers. But even the ones that raise my eyebrow are voices to be heard, and every book deserves a hearing, even if the room empties and the building is condemned. Such is the human condition.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> That reads like James Joyce on a good day.
> 
> Ultimately if the book is that bad and the writer isn't already famous so literary experts can argue for decades about whether they've written a work of genius or a piece of junk, then most readers who find the book on Amazon won't read past the first paragraph. And if the book is that bad, then the blurb probably is too, so very few people will get as far as reading the first paragraph.


_"I drove down the road and their was dear in the road and to avoid hitting them i hit the brakes and swerved and the dear didn't move but i managed not to hit them."_

A good read of the description, blurb and sample would show anyone this book was probably not for them and had problems. I never did finish Ulysses.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> At the expense of repeating myself (but this thread IS six pages now, so we can't expect people to go back and read the posts ) the issue is not stray typos per se. I don't think anyone here has said "Oh God if I find four typos in a book I will never read anything by that author again!" The problem is when there are so many problems that they get in the way of reading the story. There is a world of difference between reading:
> 
> and
> 
> The first case is a common error you will find in both trad and indie books. But in a lot of cases your brain will skip over it and know what was meant and just continue on. The second issue is a situation unique to indies (and actually a real sentence from a story that was submitted to the journal!). Those type of sentences are found in a lot of indie books. It is hard to even understand what is being said in the second case.


YES YES YES

I got a review that said:

_I found a few typos throughout the book which surprised me and jarred me out of the story a bit. But, not for long. _

I had an editor, a proofreader, and a proof-checker. Does it actually have typos or is it just the jargon and accent that came across as typos (i.e. "Where you to?"). Either way, she still gave it 4 stars because the story was where it was at. It was clearly readable and enjoyable enough for 4 stars.

However, if every page was unreadable, if every page was typo-ridden, if every page has sentences that made no sense, then I'd have a problem.

DIYers need to stop the focus on "typos" and get it through their thick skulls that is is about _craft_.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> but this got me trying to think of a candy bar not made of chocolate....


If it's not chocolate, it's not candy IMHO!


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Just to let you know, fellow KBer Richard Krasta just proofed my latest manuscript for me and he did an incredible job. We did a deal -- he proofed my manuscript in exchange for me redesigning some of his covers. He is very highly qualified and is interested in doing more proofing jobs. Just so you know...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

If a consumer wants to avoid the risk of finding errors in independent books, he can easily avoid independents and focus on established publishers.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

Indy writers? I thought it was indie writers. Mebbe u need an edittor uself?

Annyhoo. My speeling is purrfect and I dun't kneed anyboddys help with my work.

Annnywon who sajs differentlee will geett a soc on the jaw.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Dear PawsPlus,
> 
> You kinda stepped on a landmine with this topic, especially by assuming that most indies don't use an editor to begin with.
> 
> ...


This was interesting to read. I'm glad you took the time to post it.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Every week I sample ten or so new books on Smashwords to get an idea the state of this issue. There's no denying it's an issue for some authors and their readers. But even the ones that raise my eyebrow are voices to be heard, and every book deserves a hearing, even if the room empties and the building is condemned. Such is the human condition.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


I agree with this. And I trust reviews and the "read inside" feature to separate the wheat from the chaff. If readers want to guarantee they'll never read a poorly edited book, don't take a chance on indies. If indies think they're gonna put the genie back in the bottle and somehow "close off" publishing to those who are unwilling to pay or barter for editing, I don't see how they're any different from the gatekeepers of yore.

Just as everyone has a right to create a web page and be soundly ignored, every aspiring writer should be able to put their e-book out there for nobody to read. I firmly believe this as a matter of principle. And I say this even though editing is a high priority for me. I do 8 or 9 revisions of every work and two or three read-throughs afterward. I write like crap (I'm assuming I have ten errors in this post), but I'm diligent. Still, I don't demand this of others. To each their own. Buyer beware. Welcome to the internet, where nobody can spell (including me) without squiggly lines offering guidance.

Like someone else said, if you want to make sure you don't see poorly constructed sentences, stick to the overpriced $14.99 crap that reads just like everything else you've ever read. Enjoy. Aren't those sentences breathtaking? And aren't those characters doing the exact same thing they did in the last book by that author with the same name who doesn't even write his or her own prose anymore?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Edward M. Grant said:


> No, self-publishing makes the reader the gate-keeper, as they should be.


No, self-publishing makes the WRITER the gate-keeper. As THEY should be. The reader has no obligation to the author. They have an obligation to other readers, however, and that is why they will comment in their reviews about typos, formatting, etc.

Ultimately, it is the "self-publishing" writer who has to decide how to present their book. We can make all the suggestions that we want, but at the end of the day, YOU are responsible for your product.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Like someone else said, if you want to make sure you don't see poorly constructed sentences, stick to the overpriced $14.99 crap that reads just like everything else you've ever read. Enjoy. Aren't those sentences breathtaking? And aren't those characters doing the exact same thing they did in the last book by that author with the same name who doesn't even write his or her own prose anymore?


And just like that, you offended all of the readers who enjoy commercial, trad books who poke around in there looking for a possible DIYer to buy...and then you insult them.

I don't really believe you are so unread as to think everyone in traditionally publishing writes the same. Let's look at your genre. Rob Sawyer? Hayden Trenholm? Orson Scott Card? Jules Vernes? Douglas Adams? Kris Rauch? Harry Turtledove? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Come on.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

scarlet said:


> No, self-publishing makes the WRITER the gate-keeper. As THEY should be.


No-one is going to read a book just because you wrote it and uploaded it to Amazon. Readers decide which e-books are successful, not writers or publishers.

I can only presume we're using different definitions of 'gate-keeper', so arguing about it seems pointless.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

pawsplus said:


> That's kind of hard to believe, considering the sentence structure and capitalization of the above!


when i type on here, i don't capitalize. call it laziness. or my rebellion against having to follow the rules when proofing.



Edward M. Grant said:


> No-one is going to read a book just because you wrote it and uploaded it to Amazon. Readers decide which e-books are successful, not writers or publishers.
> 
> I can only presume we're using different definitions of 'gate-keeper', so arguing about it seems pointless.


i'm gonna agree with the last part of this.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, if that's your definition of "gatekeeper," then readers have always been the gatekeepers, because no one is going to read a book just because a trad publisher prints and publishes a book and gets it on booksellers' shelves.  The remainder tables are full of books rejected by the "gatekeepers" in this sense.

On the other hand, if the term "gatekeeper" as I've seen it applied to trad publishers in past discussions means "the individual or business who decides what gets published" then I guess I have to agree with Scarlet's definition....

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Like someone else said, if you want to make sure you don't see poorly constructed sentences, stick to the overpriced $14.99 crap that reads just like everything else you've ever read. Enjoy. Aren't those sentences breathtaking? And aren't those characters doing the exact same thing they did in the last book by that author with the same name who doesn't even write his or her own prose anymore?


Ah yes. And indies are always so original and groundbreaking. Why, just look at all the groundbreaking indie paranormal romances on the bestsellers' list. Yep. Truly nothing cliche in those at ALL.

It really is a comment like this that simply reinforces the stereotype of self-published authors are nothing more that trad rejects with chips on their shoulders. A reader who buys indie books lamented the serious lack of poor editing he has come across, and the best we can do is take a slap at the trad industry and pretend we are the last line of defense for "true" literature?

Come on, gang. It isn't a crime to acknowledge that there is a lot of bad writing produced by indies. We should be working to improve the quality for all of us, not justifying the bad based on cliched attacks on trad books.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

pawsplus said:


> I think it's GREAT that so many folks are self-publishing these days. I've read a number of indy books I enjoyed moderately and a few I thought were truly good.
> 
> HOWEVER, I have read far more that I could not finish due to the appalling plethora of spelling and grammatical errors--and a few of those had decent plots and could have been good books had their lack of editing not rendered them virtually unreadable.
> 
> ...


Listen, I'm not trying to justify sloppy work and typos galore but I've seen a lot of "traditionally published books" in my lifetime that have a few mistakes and they have been through editors, proofreaders and lots of eyes. Indies doe it all so sometimes no matter how many times we read and reread our work, a reader is bound to find something. My rule of thumb is "if the book is good, if it doesn't bore you" make a few allowances and don't judge the whole work as "no good." Hiring someone is expensive no matter how you look at it, and most of us are not at the level of "great success yet" to be able to afford it.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

*sigh* This thread isn't about a few errors. This is about a lack of comprehensible work. No one really cares if page 9 has a missing word and page 88 has a double word. No one cares beyond that one sad lady in her PJs at home with the highlighter waiting to count the errors. 

However, when pages 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21 all have errors, um, there is usually an even bigger issue than just typos and missing words. 

I can defend #1. Number #2? Bah. You deserve what you get.


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

Seriously, how MANY editors and proofreaders do we need to hire, is the question.

I've had my book go through an editor and SIX proofreaders, and I'll still occasionally get dinged with editing comments. It drives me crazy.

Although the problem with utterly unreadable material is different, I'll grant you.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> *sigh* This thread isn't about a few errors. This is about a lack of comprehensible work. No one really cares if page 9 has a missing word and page 88 has a double word. No one cares beyond that one sad lady in her PJs at home with the highlighter waiting to count the errors.
> 
> However, when pages 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21 all have errors, um, there is usually an even bigger issue than just typos and missing words.
> 
> I can defend #1. Number #2? Bah. You deserve what you get.


Well, that's a completely different story. I stand corrected. I would delete something like that too. I take a lot of pride in my work and I would be mortified if readers found all those errors.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Ah yes. And indies are always so original and groundbreaking. Why, just look at all the groundbreaking indie paranormal romances on the bestsellers' list. Yep. Truly nothing cliche in those at ALL.


bahahahahah



> It really is a comment like this that simply reinforces the stereotype of self-published authors are nothing more that trad rejects with chips on their shoulders.


Yup. There's nothing wrong with just wanting great fiction. We all define that our own way, and find our own means of acquiring it. Let's not insult anyone.



> Come on, gang. It isn't a crime to acknowledge that there is a lot of bad writing produced by indies.


Especially a frustrated reader who has been giving different people and stories a chance. Cutting them down doesn't help the discussion.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Beatriz said:


> Well, that's a completely different story. I stand corrected. I would delete something like that too. I take a lot of pride in my work and I would be mortified if readers found all those errors.


Beatriz, I write in Canadian English. I am constantly dinged for it (less now that I've added a note at the front). I'm dinged a bit in my latest novella because of the accent (i.e. "Where you to?"). But, I knew that going in. That book, in fact series, is really a project of love for me. It's ok if it doesn't make me money. I love it because it's from my heart about a place that I'm from.



> Seriously, how MANY editors and proofreaders do we need to hire, is the question.
> 
> I've had my book go through an editor and SIX proofreaders, and I'll still occasionally get dinged with editing comments. It drives me crazy.


Sophrosyne, I can only imagine how frustrating that can be. I think it depends on what people mean by "editing." I've been very fortune as I've fallen in with a great beta group plus two editors. One is through my trad experiences, so she cuts me a nice deal. The other is through my internship at Bards and Sages, who has great rates and who helps me clean things up and put them into normal English.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Well, if that's your definition of "gatekeeper," then readers have always been the gatekeepers, because no one is going to read a book just because a trad publisher prints and publishes a book and gets it on booksellers' shelves.


But they're a heck of a lot more likely to read it than a book that's not on the book store shelves. And they're a heck of a heck of a lot more likely to read a book that's piled up on tables in every book store on the planet because the publisher wants it to be a best-seller.

In the past the publishers controlled which books could become popular with readers, because a book that was rejected or a book that got a small print run with no marketing would never be popular. Today the readers do.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Beatriz, I write in Canadian English. I am constantly dinged for it (less now that I've added a note at the front). I'm dinged a bit in my latest novella because of the accent (i.e. "Where you to?"). But, I knew that going in. That book, in fact series, is really a project of love for me. It's ok if it doesn't make me money. I love it because it's from my heart about a place that I'm from.
> 
> Sophrosyne, I can only imagine how frustrating that can be. I think it depends on what people mean by "editing." I've been very fortune as I've fallen in with a great beta group plus two editors. One is through my trad experiences, so she cuts me a nice deal. The other is through my internship at Bards and Sages, who has great rates and who helps me clean things up and put them into normal English.


It's all very subjective but I think they are referring about overt errors in grammar and a total lack of proofreading. Our work is not easy and most of us do it because it's our passion, but if we expect to be read by thousands, I think we owe it to the reader to be as conscientious as possible so they believe our stories and don't focus on our glaring errors instead. I think they lose respect in a story full of typos and somehow we can't blame them. I thought if they found one typo or one grammatical error, they dismissed the whole work as trash but I was set straight on that one and that's why I made my comment. I think different cultures express themselves in different ways but I don't think they're referring to that. They are talking about a poorly written book that would have never passed muster in the traditionally published world.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Beatriz said:


> They are talking about a poorly written book that would have never passed muster in the traditionally published world.


Oh, I know all about those, sadly.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> And just like that, you offended all of the readers who enjoy commercial, trad books who poke around in there looking for a possible DIYer to buy...and then you insult them.
> 
> I don't really believe you are so unread as to think everyone in traditionally publishing writes the same. Let's look at your genre. Rob Sawyer? Hayden Trenholm? Orson Scott Card? Jules Vernes? Douglas Adams? Kris Rauch? Harry Turtledove? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Come on.


I've read Orson. I assumed all those others are just like him. 

I don't mean to insult readers. I totally feel their pain. But I think the expectations are unreasonable. Anyone and their distant cousin can publish these days. There's no undoing that. It would be more constructive to come up with a plan for sorting the well written from the poorly written. From what I understand of this thread, the complaint is more about rubbish writing than locating typos. Most of us (I'm assuming, here) think of editors as typo-finders. We take this craft seriously and can toss a sentence together, but we need help finding the mistakes that our eyes leap over but that readers' eyes pounce on!

The TS seems to be talking more about editors who will fix poor writing. Those are 'spensive! It's not going to happen. I work with kids every year for Jr. NaNo who publish their work on the Kindle store. It's fun for them. They enjoy it. The prose is almost unreadable, but hey, they're 12-17 years old! I'm so happy for and proud of them.

My advice: Read samples. Read the reviews. Keep in mind that there are lots of shenanigans out there with paid reviews and friend/relative/sockpuppet reviews. Trust word of mouth. Look at the price and the sales ranking. Do some combination of these things.

But don't expect that every person who wants to toss a book on the Kindle store is going to fork over $300 or $1,000 to make their writing shine. It's a silly request. Not silly in that the hope is a dreary one, but that any expectation of outcome is.

I say all of this in defense of the aspiring writers who don't have access to editors and betas like I do. I strive for perfection in my works. I know that I won't come close, but I have the same standards as the TS. I just don't have the same expectations. Perhaps because I know some of these writers and know they can't afford the sort of editing they would need. But I still value their contributions and think they should be free to write and publish whatever they want.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Most of us (I'm assuming, here) think of editors as typo-finders.


Oh Lord.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Gatekeepers allocated available funds to books. The constraint on publication was money. Authors lacked the money to produce, distribute, and retail their books. Venture capitalists stepped in to finance books in expectation of a profitable return in the future. We call these venture capitalists publishers. We call the retailers bookstores. Both invested their own money to make a profit from the book.

With KDP, the financial constraint is far lower than it once was. Hence, there is no need for anyone to allocate money to the production of the book. Amazon is the retailer, and has invested to create the retail operation.

Amazon is the sole gatekeeper. Writers are not gatekeepers because they have nothing to do with any book other than their own. Readers are not gatekeepers because they have no control over what is produced and offered for sale on KDP.

Amazon has chosen to open its gate. It can choose to restrict entry to KDP at any time it chooses. Writers can't do that. Readers can't do that.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> No one cares beyond that one sad lady in her PJs at home with the highlighter waiting to count the errors.


I don't really think you should be spying on me like that.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

jnfr said:


> I don't really think you should be spying on me like that.


Then turn off your webcam.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Then turn off your webcam.


Oops!


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I've read Orson. I assumed all those others are just like him.


Just like how we need indie publishing for another Fallout fanfic piece, or a another Twilight clone. Indie publishing really is unique. My bad.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> Newbies will inevitably produce bad books (some with typos and grammar errors), it's just part of the process. And they too deserve to be called writers.


Back before the indie phenomenon became wide-spread, these 'bad books' would have been called trunk novels - those bad practice stories that beginning novelists write before they get good enough to be published. And of course newbies deserve to be called writers, but, IMO, they shouldn't charge readers for the privilege of being subjected to their practice efforts.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

John Daulton said:


> This was interesting to read. I'm glad you took the time to post it.


Thanks, John.

My hope wasn't to make excuses for mistakes in books, just to point out that how some mistakes slip through is more complex than the average reader might be aware of.

And yeah, trad-pubbed books are susceptible to all this, too. They have many more levels of people involved than indies as well as longer timetables to find them, and while that means that more mistakes are caught, it also means more chances for new errors to creep in.

One of the advantages of being an indie is, you can be much "quicker to print" than trad-pubs are.

One advantage of trad-pubbed books is, during that one-year delay between manuscript acceptance and publication, they're running "author's galleys" not only past the author, but past early readers at trade shows, acquaintances in the review field and press, their old college English profs, and whoever else they've come to trust as "first readers." And all those galleys have notices in them that say, in effect, something like this:

"The book you have in your hands is an early reviewers galley. The text is not yet in its final, fixed form and may be subject to change. If you notice any errors, please notify Editor Jane Smith at Big 6 Press, 101 First Street, New York, NY 10019. Thank you."

And a lot of people who receive early galleys do find errors that they send in, and Ms. Smith (example name) manages the versions as they trickle in. But sometimes changes are submitted that not only correct one set of errors, but somehow add new ones.

It's inevitable that sometimes, errors slip through, even at the trad-pubbed level.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Minor correction: it was also Twilight fanfic.


I didn't realize this. I should have, but I've not been keeping up with the current fanfic trends. My bad.


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> Back before the indie phenomenon became wide-spread, these 'bad books' would have been called trunk novels - those bad practice stories that beginning novelists write before they get good enough to be published. And of course newbies deserve to be called writers, but, IMO, they shouldn't charge readers for the privilege of being subjected to their practice efforts.


I recently read an old interview with John D. MacDonald where he talked about being lucky enough to write during the last days of the pulps and thus being able to "earn while [he] learned". In a sense, that's what indie publishing allows one to do, too - put your "trunk novels" out there and make a little dough while you learn your craft. When you improve enough to want to disassociate yourself from your early works, you can just change your pen name and relaunch.

Does this cheat readers? One person's "trunk novel" is another person's cheap (maybe even pulpy) entertainment.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

EresWilliams said:


> When you improve enough to want to disassociate yourself from your early works, you can just change your pen name and relaunch.


If something is bad enough that you're going to want to dissociate yourself from it later, why would you want to be associated with it now?


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> If something is bad enough that you're going to want to dissociate yourself from it later, why would you want to be associated with it now?


So you can earn while you learn. Was that not clear?


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

EresWilliams said:


> So you can earn while you learn. Was that not clear?


I guess we're all earning while we learn, but if we know it's _bad _when we click "publish" then I'm not sure that's fair to the readers.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

MichaelWallace said:


> I guess we're all earning while we learn, but if we know it's _bad _when we click "publish" then I'm not sure that's fair to the readers.


Traditional publishers do it all the time.


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> I guess we're all earning while we learn, but if we know it's _bad _when we click "publish" then I'm not sure that's fair to the readers.


Agreed! But I was simply pointing out that once upon a time writers could publish in the pulps and "earn while [they] learned" (John D. MacDonald's words). Now Amazon offers writers the same opportunity. In "On Writing," Stephen King talks about finding an old story he'd written during his teens that had been rejected and polishing it up a little and resubmitting it; he implied it was probably accepted because he had become known. If a writer likes it enough to publish it, it may be a "trunk novel" in the sense that a traditional agent and/or publisher would reject it as not ready for prime time, but it might be a money-earner on Amazon. So why not earn some money while you keep writing and improving?


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> *sigh* This thread isn't about a few errors. This is about a lack of comprehensible work. No one really cares if page 9 has a missing word and page 88 has a double word. No one cares beyond that one sad lady in her PJs at home with the highlighter waiting to count the errors.
> 
> However, when pages 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21 all have errors, um, there is usually an even bigger issue than just typos and missing words.
> 
> I can defend #1. Number #2? Bah. You deserve what you get.


*bless you evil Krista!

If there are just a few typos in a book, I will quietly PM the author (if they are a member of KB).

BUT!! There was a member of KB (who hasn't been around in a while) and I read two of their books. TWO. (Mainly because Lynn said I HAD to because she couldn't)

It went WAY beyond Krista's #2 description.

Here is the last half of one of the reviews I gave.


> This story would have benefited greatly from having an editor, or even just a second set of eyes to read this manuscript before publishing it. Normally, I use the highlight function on my Kindle to take note of errors in a book. However, this book was so rife with errors in grammar, punctuation, and typos that I finally just gave up bothering.
> Example:
> "I'm getting Quite fond of you"
> 
> ...


I couldn't count the number of errors per page, seriously.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

EresWilliams said:


> So why not earn some money while you keep writing and improving?


Of course, it depends on how far you have to go. If your writing is fairly craptastic because you're impatient/lazy/delusional/etc, you run the risk of hurting your career. Many writers get one shot at a reader. If you put out sub-par books, you're just making harder to re-earn readers' respect. IMO. YMMV.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> *bless you evil Krista!
> 
> If there are just a few typos in a book, I will quietly PM the author (if they are a member of KB).
> 
> ...


And that's why I stopped doing reviews. I would PM folks like that and tell them I couldn't do their book because A,B,C and they'd yell at me and accuse me of working for the evil publishing world.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I know indie writers want to keep quality up; but the truth of the matter is that we don't have control of what is put up on the kindle.


I don't want to argue but I don't understand what you mean by this. Who else would have control?



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Come on, gang. It isn't a crime to acknowledge that there is a lot of bad writing produced by indies. We should be working to improve the quality for all of us, not justifying the bad based on cliched attacks on trad books.


<sigh> Can we please put Julie's comment in neon lights? Instead of complaining and blaming and passing the buck, how about living up to the standard set by those indies who already take responsibility for their work? _Take pride in your craft. _ Whatever steps that requires.


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

Monique said:


> Of course, it depends on how far you have to go. If your writing is fairly craptastic because you're impatient/lazy/delusional/etc, you run the risk of hurting your career. Many writers get one shot at a reader. If you put out sub-par books, you're just making harder to re-earn readers' respect. IMO. YMMV.


I wonder whether an unseasoned author is capable of determining whether his or her work is craptastic.  If you are impatient, lazy, and delusional, I'm guessing you won't have much of a career to hurt.

Most writers probably have little or no idea where their early efforts will eventually rate compared to their later efforts. Some may produce a "1" book and only ever work their way up to "2.5". Others may start with a solid "7.5" and make their way to "10".

If a writer produces a book that *they* feel is "bad" or "sub-par", of course they should trunk it and try again. However, if you produce something publishable - even if it's your first, second, third book - why the heck not put it out there and earn money off it? I love Martin Cruz Smith's Arkady Renko books but have you ever read his first effort, "Canto for a Gypsy"? It doesn't compare to his later work. But everyone has to start somewhere.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Susan in VA said:


> <sigh> Can we please put Julie's comment in neon lights? Instead of complaining and blaming and passing the buck, how about living up to the standard set by those indies who already take responsibility for their work? _Take pride in your craft. _ Whatever steps that requires.


Julie's comment will never be in neon because the DIY movement is stuck on "we're all in this together" and "evil evil publishers!" The vast noise coming from the DIY camp is heard as something between crap, a get rich scam, and a cult. Julie's message doesn't jive with that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

EresWilliams said:


> I wonder whether an unseasoned author is capable of determining whether his or her work is craptastic.


And hence the need for a set of unbiased eyes to look at your work.

Betsy


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> If there are just a few typos in a book, I will quietly PM the author (if they are a member of KB).


Ditto. I'm more than happy to PM / email someone privately to say "hey, I caught these" and I've never had another author be anything other than gracious about it.

Of course there are limits. There's a difference between "hey I caught these 10 errors in your 400 page book" and "Hold on, I'm not being paid to copy edit this thing"


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

EresWilliams said:


> So you can earn while you learn. Was that not clear?


Earning while you learn is one thing (I think we all continue to learn as we go, right up until the day we stop writing anyway). But I think a story needs to be at a certain level of quality before the writer should expect someone to pay them to read it. And - again, this is only my opinion - but if something is so badly written that I know I'm going to feel the need to divorce myself from it in the future, then I shouldn't be putting it out there and asking people to pay me for it.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Absolutely. I sure as heck hope my next book is better than the ones that came before. We're always learning. Well, most of us. 

And, yes, there will always be some Dunning-Kruger authors out there. 

There is no easy answer, but someone who wants to write well needs to learn from their mistakes and those mistakes have to be pointed out to them. Readers may or may not do that. Editors will. If you are as poor as a church mouse, there are ways to get eyes (from people you do not know and who know a little something about writing) on your manuscript for free. Many have been pointed out before, so I won't go into them again. It's not as fast and it's sure as shootin' not as easy as just pushing the button, but it's usually a better choice in the long run.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Julie's comment will never be in neon because the DIY movement is stuck on "we're all in this together" and "evil evil publishers!" The vast noise coming from the DIY camp is heard as something between crap, a get rich scam, and a cult. Julie's message doesn't jive with that.


There's a movement? And there's a camp too?

Can I have the top bunk?


----------



## ETS PRESS (Nov 4, 2011)

One of my fourth graders showed me something in a Newbery award winning book (a book that has been on the market for a few years, so it was edited back in the Big 6 hey day). The dialogue was dropped to a new paragraph with quotation marks in the wrong place. This is a rare error. I am quite certain this book went through several editorial reviews, copy editing, and proofreading. In the past few years, I have noticed an increase in typos, formatting issues, missing words, additional words, grammatical errors, and spelling errors. I have seen these errors in both indie and traditionally published books. I recently read a book by one of my favorite NYT authors that was published by one of the Big 6 publishers. I was shocked at the number of typos, errors, and formatting issues in this book. Yesterday, I was reading some of the reviews for a book that I was considering purchasing. I noticed a comment that said, "This book needs an editor." I scrolled back up and saw that the book was published by a major publishing house. Editing and proofing is no longer an indie problem alone, but it's often assumed that if the book is poorly edited or formatted, then it must be indie published. 

So...

PSA for ALL publishers (traditional, small press, and indie): Please hire a content editor, copy editor, and proofreader! 

My point is that everyone, even the publishers are on a tight budget.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Julie's comment will never be in neon because the DIY movement is stuck on "we're all in this together" and "evil evil publishers!" "


There may be a subset of independent authors who think that. If so, I don't know how to estimate what percentage of all independent authors they represent. However, there is also a subset that really doesn't care what other independents or publishers do.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Monique said:


> There's a movement? And there's a camp too?
> 
> Can I have the top bunk?


No, because you don't belong to it. We are outside, looking in, pointing and laughing. GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!!


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> And hence the need for a set of unbiased eyes to look at your work.
> 
> Betsy


Mmm, but would those "unbiased eyes" be a copyeditor paid by the writer? I'm thinking finding truly unbiased eyes would be a serious challenge. Agents and publishers have skin in the game (and definite opinion and bias), writing groups/critique partners have their own prejudices/strong opinions, and so on. The person most likely to freely tell you that your work is craptastic might be your brother-in-law. And he might be wrong. 

I think we might be talking about two different things, though - the hard-to-pin-down quality of writing in general (me) vs. "too many errors per page" (you?).


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

genevieveaclark said:


> Possibly the only time I have agreed with Betsy. But she's really, really right.


 

I'm marking my calendar...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

EresWilliams said:


> I think we might be talking about two different things, though - the hard-to-pin-down quality of writing in general (me) vs. "too many errors per page" (you?).


Did I say "too many errors per page?" I thought we were talking about "craptastic?" No, I don't equate "craptastic" with "errors per page."

And I don't consider any relative to be unbiased, based on my relatives. My parents (both deceased now) would likely consider anything I wrote to be craptastic and always seemed slightly surprised when something I did was successful. And all my in-laws would be way too cheerleader-y. 

Betsy


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Did I say "too many errors per page?" I thought we were talking about "craptastic?" No, I don't equate "craptastic" with "errors per page."
> 
> And I don't consider any relative to be unbiased, based on my relatives. My parents (both deceased now) would likely consider anything I wrote to be craptastic and always seemed slightly surprised when something I did was successful. And all my in-laws would be way too cheerleader-y.
> 
> Betsy


I was unsure whether we were incorporating what was being said earlier in the thread about the number of errors in indie books being too high and etc.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

EresWilliams said:


> I was unsure whether we were incorporating what was being said earlier in the thread about the number of errors in indie books being too high and etc.


No, "we" weren't. 

Betsy


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> There may be a subset of independent authors who think that. If so, I don't know how to estimate what percentage of all independent authors they represent. However, there is also a subset that really doesn't care what other independents or publishers do.


But some people prefer making huge generalizations about thousands of other authors than discussing the subject.

By the way, I sold my first novel; in fact, I had two small publishers interested in it. It's not bad although I do think I've improved a bit since then. If we can't learn while we publish, I suspect we're all in trouble. I feel a bit sorry for people who don't start out working with editors though. I LOT of what I learned about writing I learned from being edited.

People who are really craptastic authors rarely recognize it in my experience. A lot of people who wouldn't recognize typos when they bite them in the arse are aware of it.


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> No, "we" weren't.
> 
> Betsy


Just making sure "we" were both on the same page. Pun intended.


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Like someone else said, if you want to make sure you don't see poorly constructed sentences, stick to the overpriced $14.99 crap that reads just like everything else you've ever read. Enjoy. Aren't those sentences breathtaking? And aren't those characters doing the exact same thing they did in the last book by that author with the same name who doesn't even write his or her own prose anymore?


I have found some very original fiction written by indies. My kindle is full! I think the beauty of an open gate system where anyone can publish is that writers can take risks that might not be profitable to a big publishing house. Now, are many indies taking those risks? I think some are. For example, it was only after buying my kindle that I was able to find contemporary dystopian fiction written for adults that I actually like. I had been complaining to a local bookseller that it was difficult find books written for adults that were dystopian minus all the fantasy elements. An open gate publishing system allows for more diversity. Hopefully, that diversity will only increase.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Traditional publishers do it all the time.


Umm... no, they don't.

I'm not the world's biggest defender of trad-pubs, but this suggestion is just outright false. Sorry.

Trad-pubs almost never publish stuff they don't consider "ready" for consumer eyes. Do they publish stuff where a few errors per 100,000 words slip through? Sure.

But multiple errors per page? No.

By comparison, some indies do treat customers as beta readers, publish stuff with multiple errors per page, and ignore hired help pointing such things out to them prior to publication, going so far as to libel said givers-of-feedback as "people trying to get in the way of my success" and sometimes... as Julie/Bards and Sages might attest to, even sending such folks who are only trying to help protect the author from themselves/their own blind spots, harassing phone-calls, emails, cyber-stalking and more.

Are all indies like that?

Heavens, no. Many of us, and there's probably a bigger "sane" percentage here on KB, are professional in our demeanor.

But there are more "less than sane/professional" indies out there than you might think.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Umm... no, they don't.
> 
> I'm not the world's biggest defender of trad-pubs, but this suggestion is just outright false. Sorry.


^^what Craig said


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

"I guess we're all earning while we learn, but if we know it's _bad_ when we click "publish" then I'm not sure that's fair to the readers."

Hugh responded to that. I don't think he was saying that traditional publishers put out books filled with typos. I think he was saying that traditional publishers put out books they know are bad. Having known someone who left an editing position at a big house because he couldn't stand putting out bad books anymore, I don't think anyone would argue with the claim that big houses publish bad books just because they can sell. I think that's a universally acknowledged truth about American publishing.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

SunHi Mistwalker said:


> I have found some very original fiction written by indies. ... An open gate publishing system allows for more diversity. Hopefully, that diversity will only increase.


That's been my experience as well. It helps to find original indie work if you're actually looking for originality. I find works on places like Authonomy and Smashwords that are startlingly different from things I find in book shops. Even when they're flawed, some of them can be very interesting. I'm not sure that you're doing readers any favors by by telling these people not to publish because they're not 'ready.' Diversity makes the literary world a richer place.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I don't think anyone is against diversity. And no one is saying "bring on the gatekeepers". It's a just plea for some editing on books that need it and a little respect for readers' time.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

What I've mostly noticed with traditionally published work is what I'd call OCR errors, often a lot of them. Stuff that isn't caught by a spell checker, but shows that no human eye has carefully gone over the material. I recognize it because I've worked with OCR'd material and I know what the regular errors are. 

It doesn't stop me from picking up the old Anne McCaffrey books I really want, but I always notice.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Umm... no, they don't.


Ahem. You're wrong. Yes they do. They actually they do, sometimes. Lots of deeply flawed books get published. Usually the proof-reading is up to a high standard but lots of other editorial problems seem to slip through.

Case in point: I'm reading a best-selling Viet Nam war novel write now that is chock full of problems. If I would have seen it in manuscript form I would have assumed it was in a relatively early draft.

1) Typos - these are the least of its issues.
2) Redundancy - the authors retells things constantly and reuses different versions of the same descriptive paragraphs over and over, especially in the beginning, as if he had forgotten what he had already written. It reads like a manuscript that was written piece-meal over many years. 
3) Head hopping - Every paragraph is seemingly in another character's POV. It gets really maddening at points and has a really amateurish feel.
4) Inaccuracies - Certain medical and natural history aspects of the story are false (particularly one part about malaria transmission).

I have other criticisms but they fall more in the stylistic realm. And this isn't the only book that I've seen this kind of thing happen. I've got a bunch on my bookshelves that make cringe, with some big name authors among them (Stephen King, for example)

And yet, I like this deeply flawed war novel. I shrugged off its issues and found things to enjoy. The book has lots of other redeeming qualities despite these problems, which is probably why it got published.

Why should indies be held to higher standards than the trads?


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Monique said:


> I don't think anyone is against diversity. And no one is saying "bring on the gatekeepers". It's a just plea for some editing on books that need it and a little respect for readers' time.


Well, this is long thread and not everybody on it is limiting their plea to your relatively modest, reasonable and sensible demands. I'm responding more to the extremists.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> Case in point: I'm reading a best-selling Viet Nam war novel write now that is chock full of problems. If I would have seen it in manuscript form I would have assumed it was in a relatively early draft.


What is the name of the book?


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)




----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Steve Silkin said:


> "I guess we're all earning while we learn, but if we know it's _bad_ when we click "publish" then I'm not sure that's fair to the readers."
> 
> Hugh responded to that. I don't think he was saying that traditional publishers put out books filled with typos. I think he was saying that traditional publishers put out books they know are bad. Having known someone who left an editing position at a big house because he couldn't stand putting out bad books anymore, I don't think anyone would argue with the claim that big houses publish bad books just because they can sell. I think that's a universally acknowledged truth about American publishing.


Precisely. Go read the reviews of the latest Star Wars book, or George R.R. Martin's latest. Or even the disgruntled Stephen King fans. Some authors and franchises get so big they aren't edited at all, they just get a once-over for glaring mistakes and then it's out the door. Or they get rushed because of the 1-year publishing cycle, and it shows.

My favorite authors publish stuff that should have been stopped, but the publisher knew we would buy it anyway, so out the door it went.

Edit: Chelsea Cain is one that comes to mind. I adore her books, but there was one that must've been in the 40K to 50K word range. The whitespace, outrageous margins, and the padding from the excessive chapters still couldn't push it much over 250 pages in hardback. That book stunk of being rushed out the door to meet a false publication cycle. And it cost $26.95 or some-such. Criminal. I find this much more egregious and insulting than an indie author who has a great story to tell but uses some clumsy tools to cobble it together.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

You really have a hate-on for publishers and authors' work by them.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Some authors and franchises get so big they aren't edited at all, they just get a once-over for glaring mistakes and then it's out the door.


I have to say I don't think this is a terribly common problem with traditionally published books, but one that does leap to mind is Jean Auel's _Land of the Painted Caves_. Read the reviews for a litany of problems that should never have been allowed into a "professionally" published book. So yes, it does happen, but I don't think it's a frequent issue. Anyway, just because traditionally publishers sometimes let this stuff through doesn't justify poor editing by indies or small presses.

And yes, I stuck my nose into this thread after I promised myself I wouldn't, and now I'm going to bow back out and head for bed. Enjoy the popcorn.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

EllenFisher said:


> Enjoy the popcorn.


I got out my knitting, in the spirit of the tricoteuses....


----------



## Elaine Ash (Mar 22, 2012)

I confess, I'm an editor. What hasn't been discussed hiring the right editor for your genre. If you've written a thriller, you want someone who knows the genre. Likewise a self-help book, or a memoir. I'd break it down further by saying that just about any good proofer can proofread any book. But when it comes to editing, the elements of style can change drastically from genre to genre.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

I may be willing to concede that traditional publishers are made up of imperfect people who make mistakes sometimes if the other camp is willing to concede that indies can write good stories and get them professionally editied.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

It's a pointless exercise to argue whether or not tradbooks have more typos than indie books.

Easiest way to solve this problem:

1) Avoid buying books that don't pass the Sample test
2) If you find out after purchasing a book that it's poorly edited, refund it or delete it from your Kindle.
3) Put the author on your DO NOT BUY list.
4) Leave a scathing one star review to warn other readers that a book is poorly edited.

When the author gets enough negative reviews and his/her sales tank, I'm sure the guilty author will get the message eventually.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> It's a pointless exercise to argue whether or not tradbooks have more typos than indie books.
> 
> Easiest way to solve this problem:
> 
> ...


Agreed with most of it. It's actually getting easier to use the Blurb Test to save time from sampling everything. If the blurb itself is full of badness, the book probably won't be a whole lot better.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> 4) Leave a scathing one star review to warn other readers that a book is poorly edited.


Some have been known to throw hissy fits on the grounds that a review should only address the content and that it's unfair to rate a book lower simply because it's unedited and unproofed.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

BrianKittrell said:


> Agreed with most of it. It's actually getting easier to use the Blurb Test to save time from sampling everything. If the blurb itself is full of badness, the book probably won't be a whole lot better.


Right on the money. 



Susan in VA said:


> Some have been known to throw hissy fits on the grounds that a review should only address the content and that it's unfair to rate a book lower simply because it's unedited and unproofed.


That's what those wonderful two star ratings are for.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

B.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Some well-selling authors have been known to respond to every 1 star review they get and mouth off the reviewer. Keep it classy, writers. Keep it classy.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Some well-selling authors have been known to respond to every 1 star review they get and mouth off the reviewer. Keep it classy, writers. Keep it classy.


Some have even been accepted into the Amazon publishing imprints. lol


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Witers whom dont re read and proof read the stuff they write deserve what they get if they get bashed for puting up content thats wrote bad.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

BrianKittrell said:


> Some have even been accepted into the Amazon publishing imprints. lol


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

John Daulton said:


> Witers whom dont re read and proof read the stuff they write deserve what they get if they get bashed for puting up content thats wrote bad.


There was an author here who once posted that she had uploaded all of her books to Amazon minutes after she had finished writing them. She admitted she hadn't re-read them to check for errors or even bother to use spell check. Not surprisingly, her books were shredded by the readers who purchased them and her sales rank went into the abyss. The author is no longer active in this business.

The moral of the story? No one cares if an author hires ten editors or asks ten monkeys to proof your books. Just don't throw crap together, upload it for sale, and think anyone's going to give you a free pass because you want to earn while you learn. The final product is what matters, not how much money you spent or didn't spend producing it.


----------



## HeatherVivant (Dec 30, 2011)

Hypothetical question time about a model of shared risk.

Assume that Amazon could devise a system such that when you publish a book, you could allocate a percentage of royalty to the named editor.  Say you had a KDP book at the 70% royalty rate. If you were an editor, at what royalty rate would you take it upon yourself to go at risk and edit a book? If you were the author, how much would you be willing to give up in exchange for no upfront cost?

For instance, let's say your debut 100,000 word masterpiece is priced at $4.99, earning $3.50 royalties per copy.  With what some are paying, a flat rate editing job could be anywhere from $600 to $2000, which would suggest that the author and editor would have to see enough potential that reasonable rates could be worked out.  Say you decided 80/20 was fair--the editor getting $0.70 and the author getting $2.80 (56% rate). For an editor to accept those terms, he or she would have to see at least 858 sales before reaching $600, and 2858 sales before hitting $2000, with the author earning $2400 and $8000 respectively.

It's interesting to think about this because as an editor, you would definitely choose your clients more carefully (and you would have to have enough faith, just as a traditional publisher does, to go at risk with your labor).  Newbie indies would definitely find it more difficult to recruit editing talent used to charging a flat rate.  And as an author, you would really have to have a sense of what your sales potential is to pick the right royalty split.

It sure seems like if you're starting out, you almost have to bootstrap unless you have extreme faith you're going to reach enough sales to achieve the equivalent of a sensible royalty split.  I would estimate that 900 sales a year probably equates to a steady top 30,000 paid list book, and 3000 sales a year something closer to top 10,000. Looking at this purely from an economic standpoint, that's a bit of faith, but perhaps not as much as I might have thought before I looked through the numbers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Assume that Amazon could devise a system such that when you publish a book, you could allocate a percentage of royalty to the named editor."


They could devise such a system, but there is no incentive to do so. That kind of revenue split would be the responsibility of the author and editor.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

HeatherVivant said:


> Hypothetical question time about a model of shared risk.
> 
> Assume that Amazon could devise a system such that when you publish a book, you could allocate a percentage of royalty to the named editor. Say you had a KDP book at the 70% royalty rate. If you were an editor, at what royalty rate would you take it upon yourself to go at risk and edit a book? If you were the author, how much would you be willing to give up in exchange for no upfront cost?
> 
> ...


An interesting idea, but there would have to be a cutoff. If a book sold 1,000,000 copies, I hardly think the person who proofread it for typos and some line editing deserves $700,000.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> *sigh* This thread isn't about a few errors. This is about a lack of comprehensible work. No one really cares if page 9 has a missing word and page 88 has a double word. No one cares beyond that one sad lady in her PJs at home with the highlighter waiting to count the errors.


::Looks down:: Dammit. But they're cool pajamas -- strawberries and cherries. 

I think it would be interesting to have a thread about errors in indies without someone pointing out that it happens in traditionally published books, too. It's such a misdirect from the point. As you say, few people care if there are a small amount of errors in any book, and no one is alleging that traditionally published books are always pristine.

When I'm proofreading, I AM the crazy pajama lady, because that's my job. When I'm reading for fun, the most 1 or 2 errors will get from me is a half-formed thought of "awww" for the author, because that will drive him or her more bonkers than it will the reader.

Acting as if people are grousing about a handful of errors makes me wonder if the person really reads indies. There are a lot of very good books out there, no debate, but it's not like a reader has to look hard to find a sample that will make their jaw drop at the steady stream of mess-ups. Or one mess-up done repeatedly. A reader who points that out is not uber-picky, not the bad guy.

They're someone who wanted to love a book, and couldn't, and they took the time to say it -- meaning that for every one, there are a dozen (random number that feels right) that just silently right off a book, a writer, or a way of publishing.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I think it would be interesting to have a thread about errors in indies without someone pointing out that it happens in traditionally published books, too.


OK. Forget traditional. Let's acknowledge there are errors in independent books. That is a simple observation. What is the significance of the observation?

Let's further acknowledge some people will write off a book, author, or way of publishing because of the errors. OK. People will gravitate to the products they prefer, just like with widgets. The market is large enough that consumers can find what they like. The market works.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

EresWilliams said:


> Mmm, but would those "unbiased eyes" be a copyeditor paid by the writer? I'm thinking finding truly unbiased eyes would be a serious challenge. Agents and publishers have skin in the game (and definite opinion and bias), writing groups/critique partners have their own prejudices/strong opinions, and so on. The person most likely to freely tell you that your work is craptastic might be your brother-in-law. And he might be wrong.


You think skin in the game is a bad thing? You think that makes someone _less_ likely to be honest? The person who has an investment in you doing well has more reason to say what doesn't work, but I don't think skin in the game is needed -- I think a certain personality type is helpful, though. 

In your example, the brother-in-law might be the unbiased one, and this might be true. He could also be the guy not wanting to see you sulking across from him over Easter dinner. Or he might take his apathy -- what does he care? -- and just humor you rather than have to deal with the thing for one more minute. Or he might be a really insightful guy. Depends, doesn't it? Unbiased can be complete honesty, but it can also be that the person's give-a-d*mn is busted.

When someone is invested, their give-a-d*mn is probably working at optimal levels. Investment could be financial motivation, could be appreciation of the genre, could be a desire to help someone, could be a love of the creative aspect. I've been invested on all these levels at one time or another, and I'm pretty sure no one ends up thinking they would have been better off finding someone who cared less.

We're talking about the freelance model here, and no writer wants to feel he didn't get his money's worth. There is no profit in the copy editor just praising him, no profit for either party.

Author: I paid money for someone to tell me I rock? When someone strokes me like this, I prefer nudity. What can I do with this? How am I better off than before? What about ... (And all writers, I believe, suspect some of their weaknesses.)

So, the author has no proof the person they hired did more than skim, they have nothing they can use, and then the reviews show up that mention the specific issues they'd suspected. Do you think they're going to be a return client?

And this is presuming it doesn't go to a copy editor next, who might be more about the mechanics, but can see perfectly well that needed advice wasn't given.

I've been telling people what I think, really think, of their writing for a long time. I'm more honest than ever, but getting told off a lot less often -- never, actually -- than I had been in the past.

I think it's the money.

When someone asks you to read a story as a favor to them, they're often satisfied with validation, possibly want that most. When someone pays you, I think they want you to earn the money. If I don't give someone solid and ideas and suggestions, I've wasted my time and their money. When someone pays you, the more you honestly critique them, pick apart their story, point out continuity issues, and give them stuff they can use, the more they love you.

That's what a little skin in the game -- wanting to be paid, have the writer get reviews, and then get hired again -- does. More skin doesn't exactly lessen the reasons a person might want a writer to do well.  I think you believe it makes this person want to make the writer make the book over to the editor, publisher, agents preferences, but it actually makes these people more likely to look at the big picture of what others might like or want.

As for being wrong, that's always possible. I mentioned above how writers tend to know their own weaknesses. They also tend to know good advice when they receive it. It feels right, and it makes sense. That's not to say there will be total agreement, but the person who can tell you the flaw that you'd wondered about as you wrote it is probably not wrong. It's the difference between the false validation that comes with undiluted praise, and the real validation that comes with someone taking you seriously as a writer, and helping you trust in the things you already know.

In short -- okay, way to late for that -- being biased toward wanting a writer to do well actually lends itself to you having a reason to give an unbiased opinion.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> It's a pointless exercise to argue whether or not tradbooks have more typos than indie books.
> 
> Easiest way to solve this problem:
> 
> ...


How long after they start the thread here about mean reviewers? And several people jump to the author's defense, and go off on a mission to discredit the reviewer or reviewers? Not that that would in any way slow down their getting the message.












Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> The moral of the story? No one cares if an author hires ten editors or asks ten monkeys to proof your books. Just don't throw crap together, upload it for sale, and think anyone's going to give you a free pass because you want to earn while you learn. The final product is what matters, not how much money you spent or didn't spend producing it.


Well said, well spoken.

I think many writers are under the impression people who complain are trying to get them to spend money they don't have. No, they're just trying to get them to end up with a good final product. While people suggest ways to arrive at that, no one much cares how someone gets there. If you have the maiden aunt who is a retired librarian helping you out, and she gets you to where you need to be, yay!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

ASparrow said:


> Ahem. You're wrong ... blah blah blah ...
> 
> 1) Typos - these are the least of its issues.
> 2) Redundancy - the authors retells things constantly and reuses different versions of the same descriptive paragraphs over and over, especially in the beginning, as if he had forgotten what he had already written. It reads like a manuscript that was written piece-meal over many years.
> ...


Typos are often what people mean when they suggest a book is not "well-edited." By which they actually mean not "well-proofread."

Redundancy: Some authors repeat stuff for a stylistic effect. Others are clearly lazy. But this is a content-editing concern.

(Aside: A mystery writer whose books I generally deeply enjoy, Max Allan Collins, is particularly guilty of this. In his long-running series of QUARRY novels, about a hit man, he wrote in the first book a very effective chapter explaining how and why Quarry became a hit man. It had to do with him being trained as a sniper and being a Vietnam vet... and coming home to find his wife or girlfriend or whatever cheating on him... and how he proceeded to kill both his wife an her lover, including dropping a jacked-up car on the lover. The chapter was gritty and well-written. So well written that in the second novel, when time came in the narrative to re-explain Quarry's origin story, he used the exact same chapter again. And did so for all six books he wrote up until the one that he published in 1986 or so, PRIMARY TARGET. After a 15-year absence or so, Collins has brought Quarry back and is doing new novels with him as the main character. Is he still reusing the same chapter? I suspect so, but as I haven't read them, I can't confirm. Collins is a career novelist, but not a superstar. He's a solid mid-lister. Writes a lot of CSI novelizations and such, too. Does Collins hold readers in contempt? I doubt it. Is he lazy to keep reusing that same chapter over and over in every Quarry book ever written... so far as I know? I'd suggest that's true. At the very least, it's a shortcut that shortchanges the reader.)

Head-hopping: A stylistic concern that mostly only writers care about. Does avoiding head-hopping result in a more readable book? Yes. But if an author wants to attempt to pull off a "third person omniscient" narrative stance, that's not an unheard of approach, though it has fallen out of style in recent years. But is it bad writing/bad editing? Not necessarily. Poorly done, anything can be bad writing/bad editing. Well done, what some call head-hopping is actually just the "third person omniscient" approach. Out of style? Mostly. Bad? That's a question of taste and skill.

Inaccuracies: Again, a content-editing concern and usually not what people mean by "poorly edited." Annoying? Sure. Though it depends on the type of fiction. If one's attempting a realistic medical drama or war story, details on malaria transmission need to be accurate. But if there's a fantasy element? Then it just needs to be internally-consistent.

If you think flaws like this are a recent invention, however, you've never read James Fennimore Cooper, or Twain's essay on his literary offenses...

But content editing concerns and stylistic preferences, while legit issues, are not necessarily what most people mean by "poorly edited."


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Precisely. Go read the reviews of the latest Star Wars book, or George R.R. Martin's latest. Or even the disgruntled Stephen King fans. Some authors and franchises get so big they aren't edited at all, they just get a once-over for glaring mistakes and then it's out the door. Or they get rushed because of the 1-year publishing cycle, and it shows.
> 
> My favorite authors publish stuff that should have been stopped, but the publisher knew we would buy it anyway, so out the door it went.


Okay, I can accept something isn't up to snuff in your view, depending on what you're looking at. But by and large, this needs to be said:

Were you there at Simon and Schuster when the manuscript for 11/22/63 came through the door (just as an example)? Were you aware of the state it was in before S&S editors ever took over? Were you present in the room to see what their editors did or didn't do?

No. Of course not. And therefore, you can't possibly know that it was "just a once-over for glaring mistakes and then it's out the door." All you're really aware of is the end result... the rest is a rather ego-driven assumption on your part.

There are stories of some writers of huge repute who have to be heavily edited just to be legible. Big names. (Tom Wolfe, for example, has been cited by others in the position to know.)

And it can become like this: a manuscript comes in looking like the result of a human colliding with a speeding bus. Editors involved put it on life support, re-set the bones, do the microsurgery necessary to reassemble shattered spinal discs, etc., and generally getting it to look human and not a human-bus collision victim.

And then? They've spent so much time getting the life-saving work done, some of the cosmetic surgery gets overlooked. Because of the amount of issues dealt with to get it THAT good. And even big-name authors are limited by a publisher's book budget of "the amount of hours we can put into a book, and still publish it without going over budget."

So please... you're just repeating "facts" you've heard other people cite, and they weren't "in the room" either to know.

So let's be a little humble and admit that "we don't always know how much we don't know."

One pass-through for glaring errors and out the door it goes is most certainly an assumption, not a fact.



Hugh Howey said:


> Edit: Chelsea Cain is one that comes to mind. I adore her books, but there was one that must've been in the 40K to 50K word range. The whitespace, outrageous margins, and the padding from the excessive chapters still couldn't push it much over 250 pages in hardback. That book stunk of being rushed out the door to meet a false publication cycle. And it cost $26.95 or some-such. Criminal. I find this much more egregious and insulting than an indie author who has a great story to tell but uses some clumsy tools to cobble it together.


And this blows your argument to shreds. Because that's not an editing issue. It's a marketing issue, primarily.

An author delivers a short manuscript. The publisher sees no reason to force a longer length on it. Marketing comes in and says, "This needs to be 250 pages for us to sell it." Editor says, "It's only 50K at most." Marketing says, "We need 250 pages or sales take a huge hit. Puff it."

(And yes, I've been personally privvy to conversations along this line in my distant background.)

James Patterson's books are often treated the same way. He might write an effective Cross novel at a length that merits 300 pages, but "Alex Cross novels need to be 400+ pages or more."

So they're laid out with tons of white space.

That's not "poor editing" per se. It's not the writer's fault, or the editors.

Marketing contributes to it. It's an area where we as indies maybe have a leg up on trad-pubs, because if our book runs 185 pages, many of us indies would prefer to tighten it up to 165 pages to charge $1 less, rather than puff it to 225 and sell it for $2 more.

But again... these are not something a "good editor" can fix, or even has final say over. It's a marketing concern.


----------



## twg144 (Jan 16, 2012)

I usually just read and stay quiet on threads like these, but maybe I have too much morning coffee in me. 
Some things do have to be taken in proportion.
_*I agree and heartily second the need for both Edit & Proofread. I think this is critical.*_

However, I think we should all take into account that readers sometimes take it upon themselves to edit books while they are reading, _even though they are not editors_. And sometimes readers actually do not have an inkling what should or should not be written. I will just give you an actual scenario.

A reader of one of my books wrote me an email. In the email he stated at the very top, he is not an editor or proofreader, (of which I have had 2 editors and 3 proofreaders), but he wishes to point out some "mistakes" he considered to be big flaws. Then he went into editor mode and gave me a list of what he considered to be flaws.

He started with telling me, because he was familiar with the setting in the story, what was a "flaw" in the actual setting. *In each case he was wrong,* (even though the word "fiction" does imply just that - fiction.) In one case I had to send him a google map to prove my point. (I did this simply out of respect for someone who wrote an email.)
Then he listed things he wanted to know which were not in the story. For instance: Why I named a dog a certain name in the story? (Not kidding!)

After reading through this list and wanting to tear my hair out in frustration, I read at the very bottom of the email that he only read the book because he wants to write along a similar vein and he thought he should be nice enough to point the flaws and cliches in the book. (Think he had an agenda?)

I sent the list of 9 points to my editor. My editor wrote back in 10 minutes, "Everyone wants to edit. Leave it to the people who know how to edit and proofread. That list is B***".

Okay. You know what? Some books are horrible and I have blogged about it over and over again. Sometimes even after proofreads mistakes creep in. (This happened to me once.) _*Sometimes, maybe often, the readers are totally right in saying this is horribly edited. *_

But I get hives thinking about this guy getting into Amazon and trashing the book based upon his "considered" flaws. So I am not so much for trashing books. 1 star reviews can be devastating and I think perhaps just being silent and not leaving a review accomplishes the same point. A 2 star review is fine _*but when you do decide to point out editing mistakes please make sure you are qualified to do so*_.

There are so many opinions all over the map, that sometimes I wonder how anyone buys any book. I have seen people all over many forums and threads say they wont touch a book with all 5 stars because they feel such a thing is impossible. Just one 1 star review can ruin a lot for an author. And everything in-between. Sometimes, it is just an opinion you have of the book, or it rubs you the wrong way. *This is legitimate. It is not legitimate to call personal likes or dislikes "editing & proofreading mistakes".* And since every single reader has an opinion this is a very common scenario.

So based upon experience I would personally rather be incredibly sure of my golden editing skills before commenting on someone else's book and the editing/proofreading therein. Maybe this is not a popular opinion but if I wanted to be and editor or proofreader then I would not have chosen to write.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

HeatherVivant said:


> Hypothetical question time about a model of shared risk.
> 
> Assume that Amazon could devise a system such that when you publish a book, you could allocate a percentage of royalty to the named editor. Say you had a KDP book at the 70% royalty rate. If you were an editor, at what royalty rate would you take it upon yourself to go at risk and edit a book? If you were the author, how much would you be willing to give up in exchange for no upfront cost?
> 
> ...


A few critiques of your suggestion here.

First, you're assuming that "the higher the compensation/potential compensation, the better the editing delivered." That's just not so. All editors do some things well, and do other things less-well.

And even when you have an editor performing their job at all levels of editing, at the top of their abilities, and possessing a very high level of skill to begin with... you then assume that every writer would take the sage advice/manuscript changes suggested by their editors, and that said writers would not go twelve rounds about whether it's more proper, in dialogue, to write:

"Go 12 rounds"

or

"Go twelve rounds"

Or even more trivial matters...

No matter how good the editor, their advice must be heeded (except when wrong, because even editors can make mistakes... they are not flawless) for their work efforts to actually improve the book.

Get a stubborn, hard-headed, "I'm write and don't you dare suggest anything I do is wrong" sort of writer in the mix, and even the best editor in the world can't help them... because they won't make the changes and, as self-publishing indies, they are in charge, ultimately, of the final product.

I've worked with a pair of good editors who helped me improve my novels in significant ways. In neither case, even after I implemented all their suggested changes, did I end up with a flawless manuscript.

I had to put on my publisher hat for those books, and even after the editors were done... I found at least two-dozen things they missed... and readers found maybe a dozen things that were missed after that, but quickly corrected by me when they were pointed out.

We all have blind spots. We all strive for being as mistake-free as possible. I can't remember many books I've read, indie or traditional, that actually were.

(Historical fact: the 1611 King James Bible, first edition, had something like two dozen translators, some of the finest of their era, produce the translation that religious folks are so familiar with and love to this day. Even that book contained some errors (later corrected) when it first went to press. And not just the KJV. Here are some examples:

A Bible printed in 1562 contains the following mistake in Mark 5:9 - "Blessed are the placemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." The correct word, of course, is "peace-makers."

A Bible printed in 1653 reads: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdom of God?" The passage, Corinthians 6:9, should read "shall not inherit."

A Bible printed in 1862 botched a passage in Revelation, recording the number of the Beast, or Antichrist, as "999″ instead of "666"

A Bible printed in 1914 listed "Thou shalt kill" as one of the 10 commandments. The correct commandment, of course, is "Thou shalt not kill."

Oddly enough, a Bible printed in 1631 blew another commandment, which led to the most famous typo of all: "Thou shalt commit adultery.")

Anyway, the point is, no matter how well-paid an editor is, each has an upper limit on their skill-set. No one is flawless. Offering an editor profit-sharing won't automatically result in a better manuscript.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

twg144 said:


> But I get hives thinking about this guy getting into Amazon and trashing the book based upon his "considered" flaws. So I am not so much for trashing books. 1 star reviews can be devastating and I think perhaps just being silent and not leaving a review accomplishes the same point. A 2 star review is fine _*but when you do decide to point out editing mistakes please make sure you are qualified to do so*_.
> 
> There are so many opinions all over the map, that sometimes I wonder how anyone buys any book. I have seen people all over many forums and threads say they wont touch a book with all 5 stars because they feel such a thing is impossible. Just one 1 star review can ruin a lot for an author. And everything in-between. Sometimes, it is just an opinion you have of the book, or it rubs you the wrong way. *This is legitimate. It is not legitimate to call personal likes or dislikes "editing & proofreading mistakes".* And since every single reader has an opinion this is a very common scenario.
> 
> So based upon experience I would personally rather be incredibly sure of my golden editing skills before commenting on someone else's book and the editing/proofreading therein. Maybe this is not a popular opinion but if I wanted to be and editor or proofreader then I would not have chosen to write.


I'm not so sure I'd say "make sure you are qualified to do so," but I will say that the old credo, "You can't please all the people, all the time," is a truism that applies to this topic.

In one of my books, three different reviews expressed three starkly different opinions of my narrative-to-dialog balance. One called it "too much dialog," another called it, "too much description," and a third called the mix "just right." (Yes, I felt like I was stuck in Goldilocks and the Three Bears-land, there.) And they were all reviewing the same book.

Were any of them wrong? No. They were responding based on how the same book lined up to their individual tastes. So... you can't please all the people, all the time.

As for calling things mistakes that aren't mistakes, I've had that happen, too. It's inevitable.

For example, I had a reviewer take me to task for a "fatal error" that made me "look completely amateur" in his opinion.

The "fatal error" was the fact that on my book covers, my cover designer and I decided to keep my name in all lower-case. Look at the first two books in my signature and you'll see what he meant: my name displays as "craig hansen" not "Craig Hansen" and he thought that was an accident, not a design decision.

Well, he's free to hold his opinion and free not to like it. But does that make it a mistake? No.

And it wasn't worth commenting on, so I never did. I figure as my brand grows and more books are put out there with my name displayed that way, people will realize it's intentional eventually. Most probably figured that out long ago.

But, heh, if that's "completely amateur," I guess e.e. cummings and I will never ever amount to anything.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

twg144 said:


> 1 star reviews can be devastating and I think perhaps just being silent and not leaving a review accomplishes the same point.


In what way?


----------



## -alex- (Jul 12, 2011)

smreine said:


> I'm all about the DIY approach to publishing, but there is absolutely no replacement for outside eyes when it comes to this. None. You can help by reading the book aloud, and in various formats (in print, on the Kindle, etcetera), but you will always read what you EXPECT to be there rather than what is actually there. So proofreaders. An army of them, if you can manage it.


 Amen to this.


----------



## twg144 (Jan 16, 2012)

MichelleR said:


> In what way?


I am not really sure how to phrase this answer, but I think sometimes silence on something despite what our personal feelings are, is a much wiser path to choose. Writing a scathing review of someone else's book due to the fact that one feels *or actually knows* the editing is horrible and the book is horrible, may be doing a justice to those who come to buy that book. *Or it may just be that you are wrong.* A possibility which should always be taken into account. If you feel the book was just bad it is one thing. If you are going to comment on the editing/proofreading, maybe if you are an editor such a review would be warranted (but I do not think any editor worth the title would ever do something like that.)

The author though, may see your review, and may either take it to heart, shrug it off or even get angry. However, too much pain in this world for me to want to add just another bit of pain to someone else. To be honest, if I truly look at it, I would always prefer to err on the side of compassion. I do not see it as my job in life as trashing books even if I do think it is horrible. I leave that up to professional, qualified book reviewers. And even they are wrong many times.

I do not find or think of myself as judge and jury. If I dislike a book I put it down and go on to the next one. But that is me. Shrugs.


----------



## Katy (Dec 16, 2010)

Head-hopping is not, _not, NOT_ the same thing as third-person omniscient.

It's just NOT.


----------



## Paul Dale (Feb 29, 2012)

smreine said:


> I've found I need at least 2-3 proofreaders for a manuscript. I am wholly convinced typos breed like frisky bunnies when my back is turned.
> 
> I'm all about the DIY approach to publishing, but there is absolutely no replacement for outside eyes when it comes to this. None. You can help by reading the book aloud, and in various formats (in print, on the Kindle, etcetera), but you will always read what you EXPECT to be there rather than what is actually there. So proofreaders. An army of them, if you can manage it.
> 
> (I'm especially terrible about dropped punctuation. I type too fast.)


Can't argue with this. I find it excruciating when a proofread error is pointed out to me. I curse our highly developed brains and their 'fixing' what we read. I am confident in editing, and felt the same about proofreading until some kind readers pointed out errors.

I would add that if editors are beyond the pocket of an Indie then why not take a class? They are often cheaper and you get to edit other people's work. We all know we can spot other people's mistakes more easily than our own, but I do think it helps you avoid the same mistakes. A class can be a good environment for learning these polishing skills, both proof reading and editing.

p.s. is everyone else replying to this thread highly conscious of not making any errors in their reply?


----------



## Katy (Dec 16, 2010)

twg144 said:


> 1 star reviews can be devastating and I think perhaps just being silent and not leaving a review accomplishes the same point.


Nope, not in any way. 
Unless the writer KNOWS you just read the book, and you said you'd leave a review if you liked it, and you don't leave a review. So the writer knows you didn't like it (but he still doesn't know _why_).

I certainly don't sit around thinking, "OMG, I didn't get a 1-star review today. I guess the person who read it today didn't like it! OMG."

And it's better to leave a review pointing out all the mistakes and saying why you didn't like the book, as long as it's a 2-star? That makes it okay, but leaving a 1-star with the same points is not okay?

IMO, the writers who get numerous 1-star reviews saying the editing is bad are not at all devastated by them. They just shrug it off and assume those people are wrong, because looky, they also have some 4 and 5-star reviews saying the book is great! So, no real problem, right? 
(And a 1-star review will often get a comment from another reader chastising the reviewer for being mean, and it's a great book, and if the reviewer had ever tried to write a book he'd know how hard it is and would cut the writer some slack, and why can't the reviewer just ignore the mistakes and enjoy the book anyway?)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Katy said:


> Head-hopping is not, _not, NOT_ the same thing as third-person omniscient.
> 
> It's just NOT.


Head-hopping is what happens when someone attempts third-person omniscient and pulls it off poorly. Or when someone doesn't understand POV and tries to incorporate some TPO into FP or TPC... unskillfully.

Digest that PDQ, OK? LOL... it's attack of the abbreviations!

But yes, third-person omniscient DONE WELL is not head-hopping, that much is true.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

twg144 said:


> The author though, may see your review, and may either take it to heart, shrug it off or even get angry. However, too much pain in this world for me to want to add just another bit of pain to someone else. To be honest, if I truly look at it, I would always prefer to err on the side of compassion. I do not see it as my job in life as trashing books even if I do think it is horrible. I leave that up to professional, qualified book reviewers. And even they are wrong many times.
> 
> I do not find or think of myself as judge and jury. If I dislike a book I put it down and go on to the next one. But that is me. Shrugs.


I believe in compassion, too, and I don't think the people who read reviews in order to decide are excluded from that. Every time someone acts like critical reviewers are heartless, and elevates themselves in comparison, it says that they believe that some people in the equation matter more than others.

I've never been into sports, so I don't understand the need to pick a team, and I've never been an old boy and so special clubs are not my thing. Because of this, it never occurs to me, no matter how much I like, respect, and value writers, that I have to put their needs over the needs of the single mother with little time and a small book budget -- or any reader.

I have an overly active empathy mechanism. I don't like to see writers hurt. I didn't like to be hurt when I was actively writing -- although ego is a good buffer. I have trouble watching someone be embarrassed on TV. I don't see an honest discussion of books as an unmitigated act of cruelty -- I see it as part of an important dialogue that honors literary culture.

What do you think will be the long term result of choosing to never be publicly honest about a book? My guess is a system where reviews don't unsell books, but they don't sell them either, and a lot of writers living in a vacuum.

And yes, there are factually wrong reviews, there are poorly written reviews, there are deliberately cruel reviews -- and there is a button to label them unhelpful, and a button to report if a line is truly crossed, and new books to be read and written.


----------



## twg144 (Jan 16, 2012)

Katy said:


> Nope, not in any way.
> Unless the writer KNOWS you just read the book, and you said you'd leave a review if you liked it, and you don't leave a review. So the writer knows you didn't like it (but he still doesn't know _why_).
> 
> I certainly don't sit around thinking, "OMG, I didn't get a 1-star review today. I guess the person who read it today didn't like it! OMG."
> ...


Like I said. I have no idea if above is true or not. Probably depends upon the people involved. I am not a reviewer either 5 star or 1 star. But you gotta do what you gotta do. You may be correct. You may be wrong. I have no way of knowing. I just read. I do not like, I move on. I like... I finish, and I move on. To each their own way I guess. The one thing I do agree, is that every work, should be edited and then proofread. And even then mistakes will creep in. Nothing is flawless or perfect.


----------



## Katy (Dec 16, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Head-hopping is what happens when someone attempts third-person omniscient and pulls it off poorly. Or when someone doesn't understand POV and tries to incorporate some TPO into FP or TPC... unskillfully.
> 
> Digest that PDQ, OK? LOL... it's attack of the abbreviations!
> 
> But yes, third-person omniscient DONE WELL is not head-hopping, that much is true.


I expect that most head-hopping occurs because the writer doesn't realize that it _isn't_ 3rd person omniscient. Yeah, that "doesn't understand POV" thing.


----------



## twg144 (Jan 16, 2012)

MichelleR said:


> I believe in compassion, too, and I don't think the people who read reviews in order to decide are excluded from that. Every time someone acts like critical reviewers are heartless, and elevates themselves in comparison, it says that they believe that some people in the equation matter more than others.
> 
> I've never been into sports, so I don't understand the need to pick a team, and I've never been an old boy and so special clubs are not my thing. Because of this, it never occurs to me, no matter how much I like, respect, and value writers, that I have to put their needs over the needs of the single mother with little time and a small book budget -- or any reader.
> 
> ...


*Everything you wrote above is true and correct. The bold in your quote is mine.* It happens to be the one thing that bothers me to be honest. I have in my short few months as an Indie, and not hanging on to my agent, read quite a few reviews which seem to be deliberately cruel or have another agenda. It truly irks me that some people would do that, and waste their time trashing someone else just to be cruel. But again I repeat, I actually never review except on my blog when I am asked to. And tbh, if someone asks for a review and I am totally put off by their book, I just do not put the review up. When I start reviewing for the NYT Book Section I will have fun writing such reviews.  But until then, those who want to review will do so, either honestly or with an agenda. However, in the end I heartily agree that we all need professional editors and then proofreaders. That is a given.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Katy said:


> I expect that most head-hopping occurs because the writer doesn't realize that it _isn't_ 3rd person omniscient. Yeah, that "doesn't understand POV" thing.


Head-hopping or 3rd person omniscient is a valid POV; however, like split infinitives, has been outmoded. Victorian authors favored 3rd person omniscient and split infinitives infinitum. Personally, I feel 3rd person omniscient disengages the reader. Whether using it is conscious or the result of ignorance, should be left to the POV police, of which there are many among the grammar and style beachcombers who are on the beach with metal detectors rather than enjoying the sea and sand. The sun rarely shines to their satisfaction, but they'll need to take that up with a higher authority than Dickens.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Head-hopping or 3rd person omniscient is a valid POV; however, like split infinitives, has been outmoded. Victorian authors favored 3rd person omniscient and split infinitives infinitum. Personally, I feel 3rd person omniscient disengages the reader. Whether using it is conscious or the result of ignorance, should be left to the POV police, of which there are many among the grammar and style beachcombers who are on the beach with metal detectors rather than enjoying the sea and sand. The sun rarely shines to their satisfaction, but they'll need to take that up with a higher authority than Dickens.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Wow, that's too bad because I ADORE 3rd person omniscient and don't feel it is outdated/outmoded at all. In fact, I wish more people would use it. What I can't abide is present tense, which I feel completely destroys the story except in small patches. It has all the finesse and feeling of a "Dick and Jane" story, to my ear. LOL But I realize I'm in the minority there.

My point is that what one person loathes, another person loves. 
There is room for all and I sincerely hope no one hires an editor who edits the heck out of their story and tries to remove things like 3rd person omniscient "just because". If it doesn't work then fine, remove it. If it works (it's usually used in either a humorous way or a "if she'd only known" way, both of which work GREAT) then wonderful, leave it in.

I just read a book, "Dead Man's Grip" where there were often 3rd person omniscient bits, often at the end of the chapters. It was fine. It was commercially published, not an indie or self-pubbed, so thank goodness at least the publishing world isn't trying to hold to that sort of nonsense.

There is only what works and what doesn't work.
And of course, good grammar.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Amy Corwin said:


> Wow, that's too bad because I ADORE 3rd person omniscient and don't feel it is outdated/outmoded at all. In fact, I wish more people would use it. What I can't abide is present tense, which I feel completely destroys the story except in small patches. It has all the finesse and feeling of a "Dick and Jane" story, to my ear. LOL But I realize I'm in the minority there.
> 
> My point is that what one person loathes, another person loves.
> There is room for all and I sincerely hope no one hires an editor who edits the heck out of their story and tries to remove things like 3rd person omniscient "just because". If it doesn't work then fine, remove it. If it works (it's usually used in either a humorous way or a "if she'd only known" way, both of which work GREAT) then wonderful, leave it in.
> ...


It rarely disengages me. However, you'll hear readers complain about it. As for present tense, I find is distruptive when I read, but can get used to it. King's Dark Tower series uses it to distinguish between voices and parts, and he uses it in Black House exclusively. However, when Meyers combines it with 1st person in her vampire romp, I had to toss the book aside. But that's just me, I guess.

The use of various POVs is an art and is manipulative. If done correctly, the reader is not conscioius of the shifts as it should be, much like sensing key changes in musical compositions. You know something happened, but can't put your finger on it unless youhave a score in front of you. BTW, the much spurned 2nd person POV I use to refresh the reader (like sherbert between course), especially useful in 500 plus page epics.

Readers Rock.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2012)

I once had someone tell me I had typos in my book because in my bio I referenced Stephen King's _'Salem's Lot._ The person said I had an extra apostrophe in the book title. The person didn't know that WAS the actual title, and that 'Salem was an abbreviation for Jerusalem, which is the "real" name of the fictional town.

I've had people point out "spelling errors" that weren't spelling errors...they just lacked the vocabulary to recognize the word and thought it was something else.

I've had arguments with people over the usage of the serial comma who didn't quite get that the serial comma is not an "absolute" but rather a tool to remove ambiguity in lists.

If only one person trashes a book about poor editing, chances are you are dealing with the proverbial Grammar Nazi or someone who perhaps doesn't understand what was actually being done.

If, on the other hand, every single review is calling you out for editing you have a problem that cannot be sugar-coated by hiding behind the "BUT TRAD BOOKS HAVE TYPOS TOO" statement.

I think this is the point being missed. It really isn't fair the the general public to make them have to jump through hoops to find good books.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I once had someone tell me I had typos in my book because in my bio I referenced Stephen King's _'Salem's Lot._ The person said I had an extra apostrophe in the book title. The person didn't know that WAS the actual title, and that 'Salem was an abbreviation for Jerusalem, which is the "real" name of the fictional town.
> 
> I've had people point out "spelling errors" that weren't spelling errors...they just lacked the vocabulary to recognize the word and thought it was something else.
> 
> ...


Hallelujah - 'Salem's Lot - a Queen of Mean who deserves to rule and who knows the canon of canons. Your first runner up bows under you Sithian sceptor.

Blanche-the-all-witherng


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> If only one person trashes a book about poor editing, chances are you are dealing with the proverbial Grammar Nazi or someone who perhaps doesn't understand what was actually being done.
> 
> If, on the other hand, every single review is calling you out for editing you have a problem that cannot be sugar-coated by hiding behind the "BUT TRAD BOOKS HAVE TYPOS TOO" statement.


I think this pretty much summarizes the issue. Lots of us have gotten reviews complaining about something fairly superfluous (I've griped before about the reader who found it necessary to complain to Amazon I used two hyphens instead of em dashes in one book). One review that criticizes your British spelling or your word choice or your punctuation is probably not worth worrying over. But if you have numerous reviews complaining about editing, then you may well have a problem, and whether or not other books have similar problems is not the issue. You can't control what other people produce. You can only control what you produce. And we should all be striving to produce the absolute best work we can.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Just because a single customer says a book has typos or needs editing means little to me if I am browsing an indie book. I think some just want to leave a bad review and some think UK spelling or phrase is bad grammar. 

I have read some customer reviews that make no sense at all too. Recently read a 1 star review where the review slams the book for editing, bad story, poor plotting, weak characters, typos, violence and "needs an editor." It was so bad the customer quit the book before finishing the first chapter. I don't pay that much attention to customer reviews. 

If a book has 20 reviews and a few that say "needs editing" I don't pay any attention to them. If 10 say "needs editing" I will probably look closer if interested.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

HeatherVivant said:


> Hypothetical question time about a model of shared risk.
> Assume that Amazon could devise a system such that when you publish a book, you could allocate a percentage of royalty to the named editor.





Terrence OBrien said:


> They could devise such a system, but her is no incentive to do so. That kind of revenue split would be the responsibility of the author and editor.


That happens all the time for translations -- because a translation can easily cost up to ten times what editing costs might be, depending on the subject matter and source/target languages. So I don't see why it wouldn't be a realistic possibility for editing and/or proofreading work. My concern (if I were the editor in such an agreement) would be more that not everyone would report sales honestly.



John Daulton said:


> An interesting idea, but there would have to be a cutoff. If a book sold 1,000,000 copies, I hardly think the person who proofread it for typos and some line editing deserves $700,000.


Ah, but it's not about the work they did. It's about the fact that they were willing to take that chance. That's no different from publishers, really, who put more or less the same amount of work into each book they prepare for publication, and on some they take a loss but on others they make a fortune.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I've read Orson. I assumed all those others are just like him.
> 
> I don't mean to insult readers. I totally feel their pain. But I think the expectations are unreasonable. Anyone and their distant cousin can publish these days. There's no undoing that. It would be more constructive to come up with a plan for sorting the well written from the poorly written. From what I understand of this thread, the complaint is more about rubbish writing than locating typos. Most of us (I'm assuming, here) think of editors as typo-finders. We take this craft seriously and can toss a sentence together, but we need help finding the mistakes that our eyes leap over but that readers' eyes pounce on!
> 
> ...


Very well said. And a sample carries a lot of pages and will usually tell the reader if the book is well written or not. This is a great field for readers, greater than for writers I think. They have so many options. They can return the book and get their money back, they can give the book a lousy review, they can get lots of books for free with the promotions. The ball is really in their court but I think a lot of them are really bothered that some of these writers dare to publish, but hey what harm do they really do? If their books are poorly written they won't get any sales, that's all. The competition is this field is so fierce that even the good books don't get many sales.


----------



## dknippling (Nov 9, 2011)

...Or check out my editing series. Not for the faint of heart. http://blog.deannaknippling.com/?category_name=editing


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> You think skin in the game is a bad thing? You think that makes someone _less_ likely to be honest? The person who has an investment in you doing well has more reason to say what doesn't work, but I don't think skin in the game is needed -- I think a certain personality type is helpful, though.


I wasn't saying that at all.  I was merely pointing out that publishers and agents have skin in the game and therefore their opinions are not unbiased.



MichelleR said:


> In your example, the brother-in-law might be the unbiased one, and this might be true. He could also be the guy not wanting to see you sulking across from him over Easter dinner. Or he might take his apathy -- what does he care? -- and just humor you rather than have to deal with the thing for one more minute. Or he might be a really insightful guy. Depends, doesn't it? Unbiased can be complete honesty, but it can also be that the person's give-a-d*mn is busted.


I just said he *might* be wrong. I didn't say he was wrong. 

Again, my point was that unbiased eyes are hard to find.



MichelleR said:


> *eing biased toward wanting a writer to do well actually lends itself to you having a reason to give an unbiased opinion.
> *


*

Mmm. We've wandered far afield from where I was sharing a quote about writers "learning while they earn" and suggesting it's okay to publish your early work even though you have an expectation and/or hope that you will eventually significantly improve.

Still, I don't agree with what you've said here.  In the interests of full disclosure, I've worked in publishing for many years, starting out as a professional copyeditor. The terms that are used on this board don't quite match up with how I'm used to using them professionally. For example, I might toss a letter to someone and say, "Proofread this for me, will you?" and I mean "Please read through this and let me know if you see any errors." But in the publishing world that I am familiar with, a "proofreader" is someone who compares two sets of copy and marks any errors they find. If someone is simply reading copy and marking errors they see on their own (not comparing, say, an original manuscript with a typeset one), then they are a copyeditor. But I may be getting into a candy bar/chocolate bar area here. 

In my experience, in publishing, there is no unbiased opinion. Being "biased toward wanting a writer to do well" does not mean you bring to bear an unbiased opinion. Quite the opposite. The agent, the various editors, the marketing people - they all bring their experience and opinion and even gut feeling to bear. Traditional publishing is a team approach. Maybe the team improves the final product. Maybe they don't. Maybe they make it more ordinary in an attempt to make it easier to sell. Maybe they champion it as is. But everyone brings bias to the table. Presumably, that's what the author was looking for when he sought publication. Or maybe that's just what he had to settle for. But either way, it's bias.*


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> You really have a hate-on for publishers and authors' work by them.


It's a recent thing. I'm sure I'll go back to normal soon.

At least, I hope. 

Can we hug and make up? I like disagreeing and discussing, but it feels like this is getting more vehement than I like to get on the internet (or anywhere, really).


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

jackz4000 said:


> ...and some think UK spelling or phrase is bad grammar.


But... but...

British/UK spelling and grammar IS bad spelling and grammar.

The worst!

Don't you chaps know how to speak good AMERICAN English?

God bless the USA... LOL....

Which just goes to prove my old theory...

Germans LOVE David Hasselhoff!










SILLINESS: The cure to heated discussions since... 12 minutes from now.


----------



## Katy (Dec 16, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Head-hopping or 3rd person omniscient *is* a valid POV; however, like split infinitives, has been outmoded.


Again, here you seem to be labeling the two as one and the same. (bolding mine)
3rd person omniscient is a valid POV. 
Head-hopping is misunderstanding the use of POV. 
The two are not the same thing.

Next you'll be saying it's okay to write an entire book without quotation marks.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

dknippling said:


> ...Or check out my editing series. Not for the faint of heart. http://blog.deannaknippling.com/?category_name=editing


Great stuff! (Though that rabbit is just... strange. )


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Katy said:


> Next you'll be saying it's okay to write an entire book without quotation marks.


They do... in the UK! It's nothing but apostrophes over there, not a double-quote-mark to be found, eh, wot-wot, cheerio ol' chap, fir auld lange syne!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

They come from Bath and Wales
and they come from London Underground,
Beat up grammar with with bad teeth and crumpets
going wot-wot-wot

Chorus
Bad grammar in the ol' UK
Bad grammar in the ol' UK
Bad grammar in the ol' UK, Yeah, Yeah!
Bad grammar in the ol' UK!

Said goodbye to dictionaries,
Said goodbye to spell-check!
With no CMS in their heads
and very little self-respect...

Some are black, but most are white.
Time lords and Gordon Ramsey? That just ain't right!
Singing God save the queen, but at her age, odds are low that He might!
Bad grammar in the ol' UK!

Hey!

(With deepest respect and sincerest apologies to Mr. Mellancamp.)


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Just getting caught up on the thread I spawned.    I have to say that it's fascinating reading everyone's takes!

I thought a little more about what bugs me--what I am objecting to and asking folks to fix. It really is NOT poor writing.  That is Unfixable IMO and should not be attempted.  And I can tell easily (within 45 seconds, really!) when reading a sample if the writer writes Unfixable prose--in that case, I will simply dump the sample and avoid the author like the plague.

What I'm talking about is error, but most particularly repeated error of the same ilk.  IMO that kind of error suggests that the writer truly does not KNOW that he/she is making a grammatical mistake, b/c if he/she did, the error would not repeat. Instead, it happens every time, or close to it, indicating that the writer thinks that this is, in fact, the correct grammatical norm.  Examples of this that have bugged me exceedingly include apostrophe placement errors, errors in tense or agreement, and colloquialisms that the writer seems to have normed (for instance, "should of" instead of "should have," used not as a character's jargon but in the voice of an omniscient narrator).  

It gets to me when, after a few repetitions, I know that it's going to happen again, and I become distracted waiting for it.  Additionally, the fact that I have now ID'd the author as someone who has no clue about correct apostrophe placement lowers him/her in my estimation (and this is also distracting). IMO it is also a CLEAR indication that either no one other than the author read the book prior to publication or, if someone else did, he/she was an extremely poor choice.  Most decent readers would catch these kinds of errors, particularly when they predictably repeat!

Hope that clarifies. I'm enjoying the discussion!


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

pawsplus said:


> It gets to me when, after a few repetitions, I know that it's going to happen again, and I become distracted waiting for it.


I suspect this is the part that some people aren't understanding. Almost nobody (except that little old lady) is going to complain about an occasional typo or grammar glitch. But when we rant about_ excessive_ errors, it's because for many of us those spoil the entire story, no matter how fascinating the plot might be. They distract, they slow down, they cause irritation. Too much of that and the fascinating plot becomes not worth the frustration.

Now, what's _excessive_? More than one per page? More than one per chapter? More than ten in a book? I'm sure we each have different limits. But the point is that we're not being the grammar police, we just want to _enjoy the darn book. _


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

Susan in VA said:


> Now, what's _excessive_? More than one per page? More than one per chapter? More than ten in a book? I'm sure we each have different limits. But the point is that we're not being the grammar police, we just want to _enjoy the darn book. _


YES. That's it!

[Although I admit to having worn the "Grammar Police" badge a few times in my life. ]


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think this is the point being missed. It really isn't fair the the general public to make them have to jump through hoops to find good books.


Sad but true. However, there's no putting that cat back in that raggedy old bag now (pardon the cliche' ).

Likewise, it's unfair to indie authors who spend their hard-earned money on editing, proofreading, formatting, etc. And, then wind up having their books ignored because readers come across a few bad indie books and then adopt the "all indies are bad" stance and refuse to ever read an indie book again.

All we can do is make sure our books are the best that they can possibly be. Hopefully it will get noticed and appreciated for being a good book (not a good indie book, or a good book for an indie author, but just a_ good book._)

We _are_ our own quality control. True, commercially published books have errors too, but the blame doesn't lie with that individual author. It lies with the editor(s).

Last year, I read a mystery written by a now deceased author. The story was very intriguing, but the last two chapters were full of errors and not just typos, but continuity errors, plot holes, etc. I felt that the publishers were doing a huge miss-service to the work of the now disceased author.

If our books have errors, then we have no one else to blame but ourselves...and I think the general reading public knows that.

I've seen a lot of "the copy editor should be fired..." reviews for TP books, and "The writer needs to hire an editor/proofreader" reviews for indie/SP books.

However, some authors just hire/barter with bad editors...I've been guilty of that.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think this is the point being missed. It really isn't fair the the general public to make them have to jump through hoops to find good books.


No one is being forced to jump through any hoops. Readers jump through as many or as few hoops as they wish in order to find the work that interests them.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "That happens all the time for translations -- because a translation can easily cost up to ten times what editing costs might be, depending on the subject matter and source/target languages. So I don't see why it wouldn't be a realistic possibility for editing and/or proofreading work."


I agree it happens. I agree it is a possibility. I agree Amazon can do it. However, Amazon has no business reason to manage the payables system for its vendors.


----------



## Lee Lopez (Jan 19, 2012)

I do agree you need a editor, but-there is a lot of crack pot editors out there taking money, and not doing the job. Don't just rely on the editor. Even tradi, there is mistakes. The Beta Readers aka proofreaders are the best source to find problems in a book, such as spelling, sentence structure, and what have you. I have five beta readers, each with a different background. They help me tremendously!! And see things I don't...But a Beta Reader has to be reliable and big readers. With editor, writers feel obligated to do what the editor says, after cutting that big check. I had one that changed my voice completely. He wanted out of the book what he 'didn't like', it changed everything including my voice. I'll never use him again. I have a great editor now, who listens to me. We communicate well. The key is you have to agree with the changes, and know it will better the story's readablity. Just don't jump in there blindly trust completely.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I once had someone tell me I had typos in my book because in my bio I referenced Stephen King's _'Salem's Lot._ The person said I had an extra apostrophe in the book title. The person didn't know that WAS the actual title, and that 'Salem was an abbreviation for Jerusalem, which is the "real" name of the fictional town.
> 
> I've had people point out "spelling errors" that weren't spelling errors...they just lacked the vocabulary to recognize the word and thought it was something else.
> 
> ...


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> No one is being forced to jump through any hoops. Readers jump through as many or as few hoops as they wish in order to find the work that interests them.


I'm not forced to jump through hoops when browsing for a book on Amazon. It is so easy.. I can't think of anywhere more reader friendly. Genre, cover, desc, blurb, reviews, and sample may take a full 5-6 minutes, less than I would spend in a store checking out a book.

If the book has too many errors I will usually know it from the sample and the same with the flow of the writing. Usually if I make it to the sample I can tell the author/publisher has put some real effort into the book, but I have read some terrible samples. A comma doesn't bother me at all, but continued bad spelling and wrong words and poor grammar/writing does--takes me out of the story.

I think ALL authors should have a second set of eyes check their books for typo's, spelling, simple grammar and punctuation. This makes it easier for the reader to read and easier for the writer to sell their book. The writing ability is another can of worms.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I agree it happens. I agree it is a possibility. I agree Amazon can do it. However, Amazon has no business reason to manage the payables system for its vendors.


Sorry -- with "it happens" I was referring to your comment of it being the responsibility of the author and editor. I quoted the earlier comment as well only so that the context of the quote from your comment would be clear.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

James Patterson.

Not the exact words, but a general idea on changing POV.

He could be forgiven for not noticing someone was following... Followed by a description of someone the character couldn't see. 

Not sure if this is the sort of POV that you are talking about.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I read and reviewed a book in which a  guy is in a car, driving, and we're firmly in his head, and then we're told about the car following him, which we're informed he doesn't notice. That was the same book in which the author duplicated character names twice -- once for a male and once for a female -- and seemingly didn't notice, but confused the heck out of me. How does she live in X state, but is married to this guy in Y state? Is it a commuter thing? Oh, wait, different Candace.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Can we hug and make up?


Touching people makes me uncomfortable. I have a reputation to maintain. You understand, of course?


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2012)

Funnily enough, I sometimes have this same thought about traditionally published books LOL I've had good luck with indie books so far, but I think that DOES mostly come from buying books I know have been well-edited. Good tip. I hope people listen


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> I read and reviewed a book in which a guy is in a car, driving, and we're firmly in his head, and then we're told about the car following him, which we're informed he doesn't notice. That was the same book in which the author duplicated character names twice -- once for a male and once for a female -- and seemingly didn't notice, but confused the heck out of me. How does she live in X state, but is married to this guy in Y state? Is it a commuter thing? Oh, wait, different Candace.


I had a similar problem with names in one of my Chinese Historical works. A principle character's name is K'ang Yu-wei, and the Prince (who eventually becomes the Emperor Kao-tsung) is named Prince Kang. All well and good, until I had the two men traveling together for a few chapters. Now in the following book the Prince Kang disappears for His Majesty - and Emperor Kao, but when he was a prince what a headache. And since these were historic figures I was loathed to change the names. My editor laughed her *ss off (and so did I) when she scrawled in red across the first of those chapters "TOO MANY KANGS." Well, it goes to your point that I was conscious of the issue and the reference you made was to an writer (not necessarily an author) was apathetic to the issue. I finally solved my problem by relying on titles and physical attributes when the two Kangs (K'ang and Kang) had dialog together. Fortunately one was a young man of 20 and the other an old man of sixty-three. But sometimes these thing creep up on you. I won't even go into the solution for what to call a Chinese Emperor when they are alive as opposed to their reference in History non-fiction when they're dead. 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Based on what I’ve read, the number of typos and purely grammatical errors in indie books is a minor distraction when compared with the more common crimes of poor syntax and bad word choice. I include under the latter (unintentional) miasmic expressions, mixed metaphors and malapropisms. 

The former is a little too varied to categorize, though I have to think some writers never bothered getting someone else to read the book aloud—which, by the way, is an even better guide to cadence than text-to-speech software. 

Now, don’t bother accusing me of saying you have to know every word in the dictionary to write a book. But you dang well should know the meaning of every word you use; and since almost every expression ever uttered can be googled, there’s no real excuse for getting idioms wrong either. “Like a crap on a hot tin roof” is funny when an idiot says it, far less so when it comes out of the mouth of the heroic protagonist in the midst of a gunfight.  

As for the syntax (and cadence) problem, reading good books out loud would go a long way toward solving this problem too.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Touching people makes me uncomfortable. I have a reputation to maintain. You understand, of course?


No, I do NOT understand! You will hug me or we're coming to blows!!


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> No, I do NOT understand! You will hug me or we're coming to blows!!


Soon, you will come to agree with me and then you can get support from JR Tomlin's I Agreed With Krista and survived barely Support Group (tm, all rights reserved)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hugh Howey said:


> No, I do NOT understand! You will hug me or we're coming to blows!!


I'm not sure but I think this might be against Forum Decorum. 

Betsy


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm not sure but I think this might be against Forum Decorum.
> 
> Betsy


We'll get a room. Padded, hopefully.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I charge for that. FYI.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> though I have to think some writers never bothered getting someone else to read the book aloud


That bad? Say it ain't so...


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

If I had to read my books aloud, I'd probably never write again.

I will say that it was enlightening proof-listening to my audiobook, because I always thought I was strong on dialogue. Turns out that I'm really strong on dialogue. Thank heavens. It made the audiobook interesting to listen to


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> I had a similar problem with names in one of my Chinese Historical works. A principle character's name is K'ang Yu-wei, and the Prince (who eventually becomes the Emperor Kao-tsung) is named Prince Kang. All well and good, until I had the two men traveling together for a few chapters. Now in the following book the Prince Kang disappears for His Majesty - and Emperor Kao, but when he was a prince what a headache. And since these were historic figures I was loathed to change the names. My editor laughed her *ss off (and so did I) when she scrawled in red across the first of those chapters "TOO MANY KANGS." Well, it goes to your point that I was conscious of the issue and the reference you made was to an writer (not necessarily an author) was apathetic to the issue. I finally solved my problem by relying on titles and physical attributes when the two Kangs (K'ang and Kang) had dialog together. Fortunately one was a young man of 20 and the other an old man of sixty-three. But sometimes these thing creep up on you. I won't even go into the solution for what to call a Chinese Emperor when they are alive as opposed to their reference in History non-fiction when they're dead.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


I can't tell you the annoyance that half the women (or so it seems) in medieval Scotland were named Christina. Half the men were named Robert. And every male head of the Bruce family for SIX GENERATIONS was named Robert. Even the historians confuse them.

Countenance of War has three characters named Robert and they are frequently in the same scenes. Talk about a pain keeping them straight.


Krista D. Ball said:


> If I had to read my books aloud, I'd probably never write again.
> 
> I will say that it was enlightening proof-listening to my audiobook, because I always thought I was strong on dialogue. Turns out that I'm really strong on dialogue. Thank heavens. It made the audiobook interesting to listen to


I hate doing that but it works. Really, really hate it. I hate editing in general.

Edit: No, I'm not doing journalism these days, Krista. When the THIRD newspaper I worked for went out of business, I decided it was me that was killing newspapers rather than that interweb thingie. So now I get paid for making up fiction. Or... was I always paid for making up fiction?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I can't do it. My cats start meowing when I do


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I will say that it was enlightening proof-listening to my audiobook, because I always thought I was strong on dialogue. Turns out that I'm really strong on dialogue. Thank heavens. It made the audiobook interesting to listen to


Now, *I* want to hug you.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> I can't tell you the annoyance that half the women (or so it seems) in medieval Scotland were named Christina. Half the men were named Robert. And every male head of the Bruce family for SIX GENERATIONS was named Robert. Even the historians confuse them.
> 
> Countenance of War has three characters named Robert and they are frequently in the same scenes. Talk about a pain keeping them straight.I hate doing that but it works. Really, really hate it. I hate editing in general.


Pretty much everyone in the Ptolemaic line was named Cleopatra, Berenice, Ptolemy, or Arsinoe, and since they were even incestier than most...

I also love Tudor England, but it's all Henry, Edward, Thomas, Catherine/Katherine, Jane, Anne, Elizabeth, Mary, Margaret. Henry VIII had a pretty good chance of calling out the wrong name, at the wrong time, and still having it be right -- he married three variations on Catherine, 2 Annes, and 1 Jane. His mother, grandmother, and one of his daughters were all Elizabeths. The other grandmother, and one of his daughters, were Margarets. He had a sister, a daughter, and at least one mistress named Mary.

These people needed a baby name book.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2012)

MichelleR said:


> I also love Tudor England, but it's all Henry, Edward, Thomas, Catherine/Katherine, Jane, Anne, Elizabeth, Mary, Margaret. Henry VIII had a pretty good chance of calling out the wrong name, at the wrong time, and still having it be right -- he married three variations on Catherine, 2 Annes, and 1 Jane. His mother, grandmother, and one of his daughters were all Elizabeths. The other grandmother, and one of his daughters, were Margarets. He had a sister, a daughter, and at least one mistress named Mary.


My grandmother named two of her sons James, the oldest son (who everyone calls "Buster" and the youngest son "who everyone calls "Jimmy." (My mother is the youngest of thirteen children). The joke is that by the time she got around to giving birth to Uncle Jimmy, she was so tired she had forgotten she even HAD a kid named James already.

Of course this is the same woman who, according to family legend, was out in the garden picking weeds when she went into labor with my mom, came into the house, gave birth, and then went BACK out into the garden to finish her weeding.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> My grandmother named two of her sons James, the oldest son (who everyone calls "Buster" and the youngest son "who everyone calls "Jimmy." (My mother is the youngest of thirteen children). The joke is that by the time she got around to giving birth to Uncle Jimmy, she was so tired she had forgotten she even HAD a kid named James already.
> 
> Of course this is the same woman who, according to family legend, was out in the garden picking weeds when she went into labor with my mom, came into the house, gave birth, and then went BACK out into the garden to finish her weeding.


I always find it engaging to provide nicknames and/or titles for my characters to distinguih and vary. Most of the Chinese characters in the five book Jade Owl series have nicknames or even English names. I use both in tagging and narrative. IE: Huang Li-fa and Ch'u Ch'ang-wang are young male lovers. I use their Chinese names sometimes, but Huang is a CTS Guide and is nicknamed by the protagonist Little Cricket or Cricket. Cricket always refers to Ch'u Ch'ang-wang as Charlie (as in choo choo Charlie). Their personalities contract as well. In my 12th Century China series, this is harder. Americanisms are anachronistic, but nicknames are often used and titles or offupations. My gay themed novels are easy along those lines (although their ae more gay Scotts and Dougs than you can shake a stick at, no pun intended). Still there's a tendancy in the gay community to label things, so in Look Awaty Silence the two main characters use endearing names - Cowboy and Pumpkin. As for the military novels, that's easy, because everyone gets a nickname when their in a military unit.

Edward C. Patterson
In the military I was PAT - In the gay community I'm Blanche - in China I'm Sung Yi-di


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> These people needed a baby name book.


I didn't think that anything in _this_ thread would make me spit tea....


----------

