# At the risk of causing controversy and indignation...



## William Peter Grasso (May 1, 2011)

Believe me, it's not my intention to start a fight here...but I've been drawn to two types of threads on this board (and a few other blogs) lately.

The first bemoans the process of editing--or the lack of it. Reference is usually made to reader complaints about the low-quality of indie publishing.

The second discusses reader-found errors in a published book and the author's nonchalant response: _No problem...I'll just fix it_.

It made me wonder...is the relative ease and accessibility of digital publishing allowing some authors to put up works they perhaps know are _not ready for prime time_, with the thought that _it can always be fixed later? But in the meantime, let's make the rounds of the blogs and ring up some sales..._

While indie publishing has created quite a few new and interesting dynamics for writers, asking readers to be our editors and proofreaders should not be one of them.

Go ahead...feel free to disagree.

WPG


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

I don't know why your post should cause indignation.



William Peter Grasso said:


> It made me wonder...is the relative ease and accessibility of digital publishing allowing some authors to put up works they perhaps know are _not ready for prime time_, with the thought that _it can always be fixed later? _


_

That's definitely a fair question._


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

William Peter Grasso said:


> The second discusses reader-found errors in a published book and the author's nonchalant response: _No problem...I'll just fix it_.
> 
> It made me wonder...is the relative ease and accessibility of digital publishing allowing some authors to put up works they perhaps know are _not ready for prime time_, with the thought that _it can always be fixed later? But in the meantime, let's make the rounds of the blogs and ring up some sales..._


It's not just books, and it's not a new attitude. You see it in everything from software to construction. Ever looked at a homeowner's punchlist for a newly built home? Really? Grounding the outlets is a pretty big "typo" Mr. Homebuilder.

And gee Micr*s*ft, is it really necessary to have to issue 197 patches in the first 3 weeks of a software release?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"While indie publishing has created quite a few new and interesting dynamics for writers, asking readers to be our editors and proofreaders should not be one of them."_

I don't see how readers can ever be an author's editor and proofreader. Readers comment that they didn't like the spelling, format, punctuation, or grammar. They offer a judgement and conclusion.

Editors and proofreaders go through the book in a detailed manner and fix or highlight lots of individual errors or potential improvements. This involves a great deal of labor. That's not what any reader provides.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

I feels like you're right, William. The same trend can be seen in some other "instant edit" industries - games and software, for example.


----------



## William Peter Grasso (May 1, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> It's not just books, and it's not a new attitude. You see it in everything from software to construction. Ever looked at a homeowner's punchlist for a newly built home? Really? Grounding the outlets is a pretty big "typo" Mr. Homebuilder.
> 
> And gee Micr*s*ft, is it really necessary to have to issue 197 patches in the first 3 weeks of a software release?


I wonder if the examples you list are fair comparisons. The output of a corporate project is the result of endless, unsatisfactory compromises between competing fiefdoms. But the indie writer--who does he have to compromise with but himself?

WPG


----------



## mikelewis (May 31, 2011)

I think some of it is the wish to get stuff out quickly knowing you can fix it later.

I wrote computer games when I left college in the 1980s and you put your game out (on cassette tape), had 6 weeks of shelf life and then it was gone - first right time or not at all.

Kids these days...  

Mike


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

We all know about how software is patched all through its life. Many people wait a few weeks or months before they will even make a switch to a new product or release. We make a judgement knowing patches will come. I wonder if that attitude will carry over to books? Will we simply accept that new releases will have problems? 

When people see a review of software that says it has problems interfacing with Adobe Reader version xyz they just figure a patch will be coming down the road. Might they adopt the same attitude with books?

How will we know if this is the case? I don't know it is, but sales will tell us. If people buy new books knowing and expecting errors, then consumer attitudes will have changed. Some will buy the new release, while others will wait.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

William Peter Grasso said:


> is the relative ease and accessibility of digital publishing allowing some authors to put up works they perhaps know are _not ready for prime time_, with the thought that _it can always be fixed later? But in the meantime, let's make the rounds of the blogs and ring up some sales..._
> 
> While indie publishing has created quite a few new and interesting dynamics for writers, asking readers to be our editors and proofreaders should not be one of them.
> 
> ...


Oh, no. Not this again.


----------



## philvan (May 26, 2010)

I don't know about others, but I do know that when my ebooks are published they have been scrutinised a number of times for typos and glitches. But some slip by. Since it is relatively easy to revise an ebook, those mistakes get corrected as they are noticed. If those same books were published by the Traditional route, and printed, I expect similar problems would slip by the editing and proofing, and remain uncorrected.
One concern is that I use British spelling and punctuation in my books, and have had feedback (from a friend) who pointed to a number of instances where I did not place a period after an abbreviated title - eg Mister = Mr in the British style, and not Mr. as in the US style.
Should I place a brief disclaimer at the front of the books, warning readers that spelling and punctuation are British style?
Oh, yes, and so is the language in this post.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Publishing is a new game now, a Pro-Am instead of a Pro golf tournament, duffers all over the fairways. The duffers who take a lot of mulligans won't develop much of a following though.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Let's push the software comparison even further. Will we start to see major revisions to books just like we see with software? New characters, new plot directions? Characters resurrected from the dead? New and improved ending? Will a book become a perpetual work in process?


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I think it's a good question.  I think that it is also probably true.  I know that I have certainly begun taking things more seriously when it comes to making my books ready for readers.  There was a time when I considered the ebooks a kind of throw-away activity and did it just on the off chance someone might read one of my books.  Since my sales have gone up, I suddenly take the editing and rewrites much more seriously.  They are still an agonizing torture for me...but I do them much more seriously.  So...i am serious about torturing myself, I guess.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

What is this unhealthy obsession we as writers have, with the perceived quality of other peoples books? 

There are going to be some stinkers folks. It can't be helped. Remember the early days of the web? Awful, badly formatted web pages everywhere. But over time tools got better, and people became more savvy. Also, services like Facebook and Myspace popped up to help people create better web presences. 

I admit, I experimented at first and I certainly produced some stinkers. And that's ok, I'm allowed to experiment as is every other writer out there. Let it be, the only editing, polishing, and quality we need to worry about is our own. Other people are going to do what they will, and you as an individual have little say in the matter. 

Even if you do say something, most of those writers are going to ignore you anyway. It's a waste of time to fret over it. I also predict new services, and software products will arise to make the editing process easier. We're seeing this already, affordable "indie" cover artists and editors are cropping up everywhere. This is a good thing, especially in this cash strapped economy.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2011)

I've seen more than a few books brutalized by reviews bringing up poor editing. Their sales--and these books are in the top 500--dropped like a stone.


----------



## Evan Couzens (Jul 18, 2011)

Before I say anything, I've been published for a week, have no reviews, and I'm not even sure if I've sold any copies yet because I refuse to check sales before I've been out a month. 

However, I've always taken the track of thinking that no reader owes me anything. I'm an unknown name, I have no publisher's backing, I have no established reader base, and I have no vetting whatsoever. I assume that at the first sign of an error, plot hole, whatever, my reader is going to stop reading and delete my book. No one owes me tolerance for mistakes. 

So I don't understand the mentality of "It can always be fixed later." If I find a mistake in my book, particularly the sample portion, I'd be mortified. I get one first impression. I don't want to blow it on a typo.


----------



## southerntype (Aug 17, 2010)

Vicky Foxx said:


> I also predict new services, and software products will arise to make the editing process easier. We're seeing this already, affordable "indie" cover artists and editors are cropping up everywhere. This is a good thing, especially in this cash strapped economy.


I wish this were true, but language is a human property, and computers have trouble with nuance. Because our language is one endless possibility, computers will never be able to understand it fully. (TIN FOIL HATS ENGAGE) Or maybe they will! But I doubt it.

That's why covers cost $30 and editing costs $300. Editing and proofreading take time, skill, and stamina.

Now everyone take off one shoe and wind up a good throw aimed at my head: An artist must know his/her medium; a writer must know the language in which he/she writes.

Edit to correct a typo because a moron human wrote this gem.


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

philvan said:


> I don't know about others, but I do know that when my ebooks are published they have been scrutinised a number of times for typos and glitches. But some slip by. Since it is relatively easy to revise an ebook, those mistakes get corrected as they are noticed.


THIS.

Believe me, if I could afford a copy editor at this point in time, I would already have one. Right now I do it myself with the help of family and friends, and we just miss stuff sometimes--my brain literally starts filling in the gaps and I read a typo as the correct word at times because I've been over the text so many times. If anyone points out an error I certainly fix it (but am chagrined that I missed the typo in the first place)...


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

"Lovers and Beloveds" went through me, two editors, a 10-person beta group, and an accidental distributed proofreading squad of about 50 other people before it went to press.

A reviewer still found four typos recently that NONE of us caught.

That said, I think people rush stuff to market, whether it's ebooks or houses or news stories. It used to be "get it first but get it right"; now it's just "get it first."

Suddenly I feel a strong urge to say "Get off my lawn!"...


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

southerntype said:


> That's why covers cost $30 and editing costs $300. Editing and proofreading take time, skill, and stamina.


Uh, good covers kinda take that, too. I don't understand how we can berate an attitude of "eh, it's good enough" for editing, yet will readily accept that with covers and cover art.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Because our language is one endless possibility, computers will never be able to understand it fully."_

Sure. That's why it's unwise to rely on them fully. That's the case with all kinds of things where we use a computer for assistance, but don't fully rely on it. But what we can do is push the computer as far as it can go and draw our lines accordingly. When the computers claim another advance, look at it, evaluate it, and decide if the lines can be moved.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

William Peter Grasso said:


> It made me wonder...is the relative ease and accessibility of digital publishing allowing some authors to put up works they perhaps know are _not ready for prime time_, with the thought that _it can always be fixed later? But in the meantime, let's make the rounds of the blogs and ring up some sales..._


There are some people who actually think that way. I've seen them post about it with statements like, "Oh, I know it has errors. I'll get an editor after I make some money from it."

Others really do think that correcting errors as readers point them out is the way to go. I've actually had authors contact me to ask if I "marked" the errors when I read their book so they could fix them.

Then, there are the ones who paid an editor, but didn't realize that either the editor is incompetent or that they need a proofread after the edit, as editing tends to create errors. I've seen authors on these boards recommending new editors. I sampled one book because I thought I might list that editor on my site. The first sentence had an error in it. There were multiple errors after that. I'm not speaking of subjective errors. I'm talking about misspelled words, inconsistent capitalization, and even a chapter opening with a dangling participle. Yet, that author had no idea and thought the editor was wonderful enough to recommend to others.

Last, you have the ones that argue that editing doesn't matter because commercially published books have typos in them. That is the most ridiculous argument of all. That's like saying, "My neighbor only mows his lawn once a month, so it's okay that my yard is littered with empty beer cans, dirty diapers, and any other garbage I don't feel like picking up." When readers complain about lack of editing in Indie books, they are NOT referring to the occasional typo.


----------



## southerntype (Aug 17, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Uh, good covers kinda take that, too. I don't understand how we can berate an attitude of "eh, it's good enough" for editing, yet will readily accept that with covers and cover art.


I suppose cover design is subjective and language is not.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> Uh, good covers kinda take that, too. I don't understand how we can berate an attitude of "eh, it's good enough" for editing, yet will readily accept that with covers and cover art.


To be completely honest, when it comes to Kindle books, I couldn't care less about the cover.

I glance at it when I'm shopping on Amazon. Sure, the covers here catch my eye now and then.

However, a Kindle book is not like a paper book. I'm not carrying that cover around with me. That book is not going to grace a bookshelf in my living room.

Once I purchase, I don't see that cover again until I make a post on the blog, or go to Amazon to review it.

I do appreciate the nice covers I see. I do think they help sell the book. However, I liken having a great cover on an unedited book kind of like putting a spiffy new paint job on a car that doesn't run.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

having the customer do your quality control checking?  Bill Gates would take issue with that...


----------



## ToniD (May 3, 2011)

I think the key thing is respect for your reader. Good writing, good story, good editing, good cover should come before putting a book up for sale.


----------



## Scott Doornbosch (Jun 6, 2011)

Yes, I'm sure there are some writers out there that just want to hurry up and get sales generated, but a serious writer always wants to put out the best product possible.  With that said, even after my writers group went over it several times and I had a professional editor go over the final edition we still found 2 typos in the finished book after it was up for sale.  No one is perfect so typos are bound to happen but only the lazy people put something out there that is not ready for public consumption.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

You guys are missing the dang point. In terms of self-publishing as an author, everything is a total package. Everything involves selling to the reader. Slacking off in one aspect is not a sign of professionalism. And again: Writing = art. Drawing = art. How does someone claim writing is all special and creative and difficult, yet then act like anyone can whip out a great cover without spending a dime? My initial response was to this:



southerntype said:


> That's why covers cost $30 and editing costs $300. Editing and proofreading take time, skill, and stamina.


I'd love to imagine the reactions of people serious about art and photomanipulation upon hearing that what they do doesn't take time, skill, or stamina...but yes, instead just pile onto the completely irrelevant idea of "I'll read a good book with a bad cover". Besides, even a book that's been edited repeatedly can still be boring, lazy, heartless, unengaging, or unbelievable. So would I win any arguments by saying "I'd rather have a great story with typos than a perfectly edited book that's boring" and then using that as an excuse NOT to spend the time and effort to make sure it's proofread thoroughly?

And Red, you might not care about covers, but go through a list of your 1-star reviews and glance at their covers...I think you'll notice a pattern.


----------



## Flopstick (Jul 19, 2011)

Absolutely. A nasty or low-effort cover just suggests to a potential reader that the author either didn't take writing seriously or didn't value their own output. Are they right? Not necessarily, I guess, but it probably works as a rule of thumb and it's an understandable assumption. Apart from anything else, if I'm going to spend several hundred hours working on something, I'm going to shell out what it takes to make it looks as good as I can. To do otherwise would be disrespecting my own efforts.

I think one reason a lot of editing / proofreading errors get caught by readers is that a lot of indie writers finish the book, proof it, edit it or have it edited, do whatever else they feel is necessary and then upload it as soon as they can. At a point where they are still so intimately familiar with the text and what it _should_ say that they don't catch errors. Leaving it and working on something else for at least a few weeks, then coming back and proofing it again is probably a good idea.

Finally, it's not unique to indie readers. Of the last five traditionally-published novels I've bought, three have been absolutely riddled with typos, grammatical errors and other basic things that a competent editor ought to catch. Apart from for the blockbuster authors, editing seems to have become a very perfunctory affair.


----------



## AnnetteL (Jul 14, 2010)

David always has the best comments!

I was just thinking about this the other day when I came across a review blog that featured several other review blogs and whether they did or did not accept indie books and why. The vast majority did not, and they cited quality as the reason--and not blindly. Most said they *used* to do indie books but had too many poor-quality ones and/or had been "burned" so they changed their review policy. 

That pulls down everyone.

Of course it's nice to be able to fix a typo (I have trad pubbed a lot, and found typos OTHERS put in--and have no way to fix to fix them), but the ease of digital publishing shouldn't be a crutch.

Vicki's got a some great blog posts about this--such as finding good alpha/beta readers, getting a professional edit, and so on.


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

Curse you half-orc and your brutal wisdom.



Lynn ODell said:


> I do appreciate the nice covers I see. I do think they help sell the book. However, I liken having a great cover on an unedited book kind of like putting a spiffy new paint job on a car that doesn't run.


I don't think anyone is suggesting you ignore editing and rely on a great cover. It's better to pay attention to all aspects of the book instead of focusing on one or two.

Let's talk about cars. That rusty pickup truck that looks beat to hell might have a good engine but odds are the interior will be in the same shape as the exterior. Unless the truck is being sold by someone I know or is recommended to me, I probably won't take a chance on it unless I check under the hood first. That's only going to happen if I really want that truck.

EDIT: Some cars might look great and run like crap. Also some people try to fake carfax reports and do shady things in the hopes of selling a shoddy product.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

The issue is, we've entered an age..where anyone can publish. I think that's fantastic! It also means, that huge quanity of crap is going to be produced..and that's ok.

If you think this is crazy, wait until '3-d' printing is perfected. And people can manufacture their own real world goods, for world-wide distribution. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print.html

The fact is the world is changing and we're entering an age where everyone will be able to produce art, music, books, videos, etc... The vast majority of these creations will be poor, some will even be failed experiments.

There's nothing wrong with that. The cream will rise to the top, and quality will speak for itself. Spending countless hours worrying about how other people use technology is a losing battle. (*With exception of reviewers..who have the taxing job of worrying about others writing!)

Focus on your own work, its time better spent.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Two decades ago, much shorter and quite thinner, I walked into a library and stumbled across _Dragons of Winter Night_. The cover amazed me. I held the book in awe. I had never seen anything like it.

The cover showed a knight, a warrior woman, and a mischievous looking figure with pointy ears. Behind the three heroes, a dragon crawled over snowy mountains. The artist painted this cover in great detail. Every piece of armor, every pommel of every blade, every strand of hair or item of clothing -- it wasn't photo realistic, but it seemed _real_.

"There's an entire world here," the cover seemed to tell me, "detailed to the level of a vambrace's buckles."

To young Daniel, the cover became _part of the world_ and _part of the story_. As I began to read, I could see those pieces of armor, those swords, the scales on the dragons. Somehow Larry Elmore's artwork blended with the story itself.

This was twenty years ago, long before ebooks. There were no thumbnails then. Covers were big and bold and pretty on your bookshelf. But I think that, even in today's Age of the Thumbnail, covers are important. When I look at the cover for _Night of Wolves_ by David Dalglish, I want to read this book. I want to learn about this knight and this terrifying wolfman. The cover, to me, is not just a little thumbnail on Amazon, but artwork that sets the tone for the story I'm about to read. It's like smelling a delicious meal before eating it.

Your mileage may vary. Other readers have different experiences. Me, I'm a fan of fantasy, raised on Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley, Fred Fields, and the like. Heck, when I was a kid, I'd cut out and collect artwork from Dragon Magazine. So I say -- bring on the great covers. Twenty years later, I'm still a kid, and I still love them.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Vicky Foxx said:


> There's nothing wrong with that. The cream will rise to the top, and quality will speak for itself.


Ok, people keep saying this, while conveniently glossing over the gory details of how this might actually happen. (I'm not picking on you Vicky, this has just been bugging me for a while.)

Cream doesn't rise of it's own accord. It rises because lots of people sort through the crap, and when they find some cream, they set it aside and tell others. (I am going to apologize right now for mixing metaphors in the most unappealing way possible, but I'm sticking with it.) Someone still has to read all that crap. There's a vast amount of human capital involved. So even those people who put themselves at the forefront of the crap tsunami, hoping to find a bit of cream (I am so, so sorry), have to use whatever cues they can to help them sort, because it's basically an impossible task. There's a reason publishers can't afford to have active slush piles anymore, and there's a reason agents don't get to read a lot of the manuscripts they get sent.

I just think it glosses over the difficulty of the situation to be like, eh, it'll sort itself out. No, it won't. People who are willing to do the sorting will. Knowing what you're up against in that situation seems important. So, like David said, you need the whole package. You can't afford to slack anywhere.


----------



## William Peter Grasso (May 1, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> So even those people who put themselves at the forefront of the crap tsunami, hoping to find a bit of cream (I am so, so sorry), have to use whatever cues they can to help them sort, because it's basically an impossible task.


_Crap tsunami_...I love that. Thanks, Genevieve 

WPG


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

I do agree with you, David, on the "whole package" thing.

My point was simply that if you absolutely have to save money somewhere, don't let the content suffer.

I've seen excerpts in those KND ads where the book quite obviously didn't have an editor. It amazes me that someone would pay over a hundred dollars to advertise a book, but wouldn't shell out that money for at least a good proofreader.

I also agree with you regarding the correlation between one-star reviews on and poor covers. However, keep in mind that the poor covers did not cause the low-starred review. The bad cover just kind of helps make the point.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2011)

I don't think it's that the authors are aware their work is not ready and press "publish."  I think editing skills, in both NY and out here in Indievania, are lacking.

I have not purchased a physical book, nor have I purchased a NY pubbed ebook, without errors in years.

Indies are even more likely to be victims of BAD AND CARELESS WRITING.  It's not that they don't care; it's that they don't know.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

William Peter Grasso said:


> _Crap tsunami_...I love that. Thanks, Genevieve
> 
> WPG


I wish I could take credit for it, WPG, but I think it was coined elsewhere. (Konrath's blog? Probably.)

I can, however, take full credit for the disgusting mixed metaphor of cream floating in crap.

You're welcome!


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Vicky Foxx said:


> What is this unhealthy obsession we as writers have, with the perceived quality of other peoples books?...Even if you do say something, most of those writers are going to ignore you anyway. It's a waste of time to fret over it.


What's interesting to note is that a great number of indie authors were baptized in fire long before deciding to publish their own books. I'm referring to the ones who spent years slaving away writing books and piling up the rejection letters. The ones who were determined to break through and were constantly honing their craft. These writers were probably going to be the next wave of traditionally published writers and appreciated the fact that producing quality books was the key to their success. These are the same indie authors who tend to boast the most polished books with great covers and professionally edited books.

At the same time, there are others who haven't swam in the same sea as these authors and have much lower standards for themselves. Some rely on spellcheck to edit their books (a hopeless cause). Others don't bother to even use that feature. They throw together some sloppily photo-shopped cover and hit upload. Those books are featured side-by-side with the better produced books and in some respect probably outnumber them. Hence, the reason for this discussion (which I think is totally legit).

Will this thread or any other like it stop people from throwing up crap for sale? No. But it doesn't hurt to bring awareness to the issue if it helps promote the importance of quality control (especially to new or aspiring authors).


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

Anyone finding even a minor problem in one of my published books is like a spear in my heart, far worse than getting a negative review.  I do my absolute utmost to make them as error-free as possible.  If something has my name on it, I want it to be as good as it possibly can be.  Yes, things can be fixed later, which is fantastic. But this is a bonus, a wonderful advantage of e-books, not an excuse to publish a first draft and expect readers to do your proofing for you.

As for covers, I love a good cover, me, but it won't make a bad book good.  Neither will any amount of editing make poor writing interesting or a dull story compelling.  What a good cover or proper, in-depth editing/proofing can do is put polish on and add interest to a story that's already compelling and well-written.


----------



## ADuncan (Sep 1, 2011)

As an avid reader, a copy editor, and a beta reader for a lot of books I can say that your question is fair to a lot of small authors. But the problem is that you seem to leave out the horrible novels you can find on book store shelves that somehow managed to leave in all the bad grammar and bad spellings. I've read books where whole ends of sentences were left off, where words were horribly mangled, and where the sentence structure was so poor I had to guess for myself who the pronoun was referring to.

No book gets by error free. Humans are not error free creatures. But a well edited book can count on one hand the problems of grammar and spelling. And that is the goal any author should hope to attain.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Ben White said:


> Anyone finding even a minor problem in one of my published books is like a spear in my heart, far worse than getting a negative review.


THIS. When a reviewer found those 4 or 5 errors a few months ago it drove me INSANE, even though she said that was far, far better than any traditionally published book she'd read in years.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2011)

Ah, the angst of writers about quality. It's a stone with many facets. A stone to break your skull on should you slow down past all the accidents on the road of life.

_About Errors on the page_: *Mark Twain * said there never was a perfect book and never would there be one. I believe he was right. Like Christianity, being like Christ is an ideal to be striven for though never to be realized--to be perfectly like Christ. (Don't get me wrong here--I don't believe we can "earn" that salvation; believers are no better, just forgiven.)

_"In the kingdom of the blind a one-eyed man is king." _ How does your fiction stack up against the "blind"? That's what will greatly add or detract to your readership.

And like I used to say to my writing classes, _"if you pick all the flies off of a dead man, you still have a corpse."_ That frail looking David guy (waves), said he'd rather have a great story with typos than a poor one without. Nice try, David, but that's not the choice--it's not an either-or proposition. It's possible to have both, quite possible. Plus, there's that nearly indefinable element called "voice"--that has nothing much to do with spelling, grammar or any other typical error. A stutterer will repeat words. Huck Finn's grammar wasn't up to Aunt Polly's standards. Moby Dick contains an entire chapter on whaling, one whale of an info-dump, and one I skip each time I read the book.

Beware those who discount covers or any other major element of their ebook, for they do not understand the "whole concept" package that starved-looking David was espousing. The cover may not grace a bookshelf but it is *the book's face to the world*, the first thing they see (like the entry of a house for sale), and possibly even the last (if they leave a review). Some writers have an eye for color, balance, relevance and all. Some are even photographers or artists. Others don't know which end of a brush to hold, and should hire cover work done. Personally I enjoy making covers and try to keep my name smaller than any of the other text--and will do so at least until my sales equal Joe K's.

"If all the fools in this world should die, lordly God how lonely I should be." Mark Twain


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

modwitch said:


> Never swam in that sea. And I sure as hell don't have lower standards.


There are plenty of authors who could certainly learn a thing or two from you then.


----------



## HeidiHall (Sep 5, 2010)

oliewankanobe said:


> It's not that they don't care; it's that they don't know.


This sums up my take on the subject.


----------



## Usedtopostheretoo! (Feb 27, 2011)

Honestly, I could care less about finding errors in a book, as long as the story keeps me reading. I recently read and reviewed a book written by a German author (published in English) that I simply couldn't put down. Maybe he had it edited and translated by an English speaking native...I have no idea. It could use another pass...however, the story was so damn good, I blew right through that stuff. I've read a few other books like this. Just so good, that I was more than willing to excuse the occasional dangling participle. This Crap Tsunami stigma was started by the traditional publishing industry for a reason. Desperate psychological warfare to steer readers away from self-published work. Guess what? It's working, on the Indie authors too!

All of that being said, I will pay for professional editing and cover art for all of the books I self publish. I rushed my first book to market, and the only consistent review/reader email critique related to editing. I wrote a story that had captured my passion, and once it was finished, I rushed it onto Amazon...with no expectation of success. Once the book picked up momentum, I panicked. I didn't have a professional cover, and the editing was apparently horrible (I suffered from the inability to see the errors...after the fiftieth time through the book). It still took me too long (in my opinion) to get real about both aspects, but I also had no intention of sinking nearly 1K into editing, cover art, and e-book formatting until the book started generating significant income. Oddly enough, my best sales months were earlier in the spring, with basic editing and a junky Createspace cover. I do appreciate NOT hearing about editing...although some readers will search high and low to find a typo...I think it makes them feel good.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Evan Couzens said:


> Before I say anything, I've been published for a week, have no reviews, and I'm not even sure if I've sold any copies yet because I refuse to check sales before I've been out a month.
> 
> However, I've always taken the track of thinking that no reader owes me anything. I'm an unknown name, I have no publisher's backing, I have no established reader base, *and I have no vetting whatsoever.* I assume that at the first sign of an error, plot hole, whatever, my reader is going to stop reading and delete my book. No one owes me tolerance for mistakes.
> 
> So I don't understand the mentality of "It can always be fixed later." If I find a mistake in my book, particularly the sample portion, I'd be mortified. I get one first impression. I don't want to blow it on a typo.


I'm going to apologize up front because I probably am going to be picking on you, Evan, but it's statements like this that make me cringe. I know your point was that the readers don't owe you anything, but don't you owe something to your readers? To publish something without any vetting at all...well I think a lot of authors do this and then learn the hard way they should have joined a critique group, beta tested it, and then had an editor give it that final polish.

I'm sorry, but we're selling a product, whether we like to call it that or not. If we don't put the work into our product to make sure it's good, we run the risk of making sure our customers will never buy another book by us.

It's cruel, but authors can't judge their own work. We owe it to our readers to get outside opinions, to learn all we can about good storytelling, so we offer a quality product.

Again, I'm going to apologize for picking on Evan. He's not the only author who has published something without any vetting. I just wanted to offer a word of caution to everyone. Critiques are tough, but better to hear it from other authors trying to help you before you publish, than to get it in your poor reviews after you publish.

Vicki


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

I agree with all the sentiments expressed that people should do this that and the next thing. However, the fact of the matter is that none of us gets to set standards for everyone else, so why do we all worry about it so much? The way to stop the "tsunami of crap" is to stop KDP, Pubit, etc., and stop us all. Is that what we want? Do we want new gatekeepers arrogantly deciding who gets to try and who doesn't like the good old days? Who gets to be a gatekeeper? Me? There are professional covers the world swoons over that I don't like and bestsellers that I don't like. So who decides?

There's a humongous thread on the Kindle forum right now about this kind of thing asking why indies keep shooting themselves in the foot by not doing all the things we should do in their elitist opinions. The thread is full of posts by people I see crop up every time there's a discussion like that. They state flat out they never buy indie anything and would ban us all if they could. So why do those people spend their precious time posting in thread after thread on the subject? They don't buy indies. Period. They claim the big reason is it wastes so much of their time to wade through the dreck, but they have time to post and post and post on a thread like that. I have no problem with someone who doesn't want to buy my books, but I do have a problem with someone who says I don't want x; therefore no one should be allowed to have x. I meet Standard X so no one who doesn't should be allowed to try to do what I'm doing.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Steven Konkoly said:


> Honestly, I could care less about finding errors in a book, as long as the story keeps me reading. I recently read and reviewed a book written by a German author (published in English) that I simply couldn't put down. Maybe he had it edited and translated by an English speaking native...I have no idea. It could use another pass...however, the story was so d*mn good, I blew right through that stuff. I've read a few other books like this. Just so good, that I was more than willing to excuse the occasional dangling participle. This Crap Tsunami stigma was started by the traditional publishing industry for a reason. Desperate psychological warfare to steer readers away from self-published work. Guess what? It's working, on the Indie authors too!


I'm not a casualty of some psychological warfare campaign. I'm reacting to having first bought, and then sampled, a lot of subpar books. It happens with traditionally published books, too, but not as frequently, in my experience.

I don't blame the traditional publishers for hyping the tsunami of crap thing as much as possible -- they're floundering, their business model is starting to look less and less relevant, and they have to do something. If it's effective, it's effective because there's enough truth to it for their claims to seem at least plausible.

Do I think it matters, in the end? No, not particularly. New gatekeepers - or, rather, curators; I think that's probably a more accurate term - will evolve, because most people don't want to slog through so much stuff.

(Whether some of those books could have been saved with the help of an editor is another issue. The ones I've seen, that I feel comfortable labeling as "bad" outright? No. Probably not. And maybe this is where we differ, in our estimation of what's included in the crap tsunami. I would tend to agree that fantastic story, told well, in prose that at the very least rises to the level of "inoffensive," overrides everything else. But how often is that really the issue? That's not the sort of book that I think of as crap.)


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I'm at the point where some people are just going out of their way to find faults-- like the people who used to "edit" books in the library.  In ink.  Got an email from Kindle where someone found FOUR errors in a 100,000 word book and went out of their way to notify Amazon about it.


----------



## southerntype (Aug 17, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I'd love to imagine the reactions of people serious about art and photomanipulation upon hearing that what they do doesn't take time, skill, or stamina...


Taken out of context, it might seem like I was dismissing the efforts of cover designers, which I was not. I was pointing out that computers can't edit like humans can. There is no text editing program like the image editing programs available. A photoshop master can potentially whip up beautiful, affordable, and professional covers in little time. It still takes a long time to read a novel and note all the errors. If anyone has ever edited something that is full of repetitive errors, he/she will know what I mean when I say editing requires stamina. Plus, covers are creative acts while editing is a corrective act blahblahblah


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> I agree with all the sentiments expressed that people should do this that and the next thing. However, the fact of the matter is that none of us gets to set standards for everyone else, so why do we all worry about it so much? The way to stop the "tsunami of crap" is to stop KDP, Pubit, etc., and stop us all. Is that what we want? Do we want new gatekeepers arrogantly deciding who gets to try and who doesn't like the good old days? Who gets to be a gatekeeper? Me? There are professional covers the world swoons over that I don't like and bestsellers that I don't like. So who decides?


I think it's fantastic that there are no more gatekeepers. Truly -- as someone who wants to publish some day, and also, just, you know, as a person. The idea that one's access to a market can be blocked by some other entity based on their standards bugs me.*

But it's just not possible for people to sort through all the books available. It's not. So, they look to friend recommendations, or book reviewers, or whatever. I think people who curate the vast amount of books that are available will probably replace the gatekeepers to some degree, maybe more than is comfortable. I mean, I hope not, but as a reader I see the need for curators.

I mean, in practical terms, for an author, how much difference is there between needing to get your MS read and approved by an agent or editor, and needing to get it read and endorsed by a certain number of reviewers or bloggers in order to gain traction and visibility? There is certainly a difference. Just maybe not as much as we'd hope.

*I have different views on this with respect to, like, food, drugs, construction standards, you know, things that aren't just entertainment and can actually kill you. But nevermind, that's for another forum!


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> I'm at the point where some people are just going out of their way to find faults-- like the people who used to "edit" books in the library. In ink. Got an email from Kindle where someone found FOUR errors in a 100,000 word book and went out of their way to notify Amazon about it.


You should have sent him a picture of you playing on his lawn.*

*A photoshopped picture. I'm not advocating creepy stalking, here, just curmudgeon-mocking.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Bob Mayer said:


> Got an email from Kindle where someone found FOUR errors in a 100,000 word book and went out of their way to notify Amazon about it.


Okay, that's just ridiculous. I wouldn't complain of four errors in any size book. I might mention it if I found four errors in a short story, but even that would depend on the errors.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> And like I used to say to my writing classes, _"if you pick all the flies off of a dead man, you still have a corpse."_ That frail looking David guy (waves), said he'd rather have a great story with typos than a poor one without. Nice try, David, but that's not the choice--it's not an either-or proposition. It's possible to have both, quite possible. Plus, there's that nearly indefinable element called "voice"--that has nothing much to do with spelling, grammar or any other typical error. A stutterer will repeat words. Huck Finn's grammar wasn't up to Aunt Polly's standards. Moby Dick contains an entire chapter on whaling, one whale of an info-dump, and one I skip each time I read the book.


I think it's cute you think you're disagreeing with me when you're actually not. I did the whole "story/typo" comparison specifically to point out the absurdity of people doing *the exact same thing* when it comes to covers/editing with comments like "I'd rather have a good story with a bad cover etc" higher up in the thread as if it was an either /or thing. Of course it isn't. I never said it was, and never would. As for the stuff about voice (an odd little tangent...?) uh, I did say you could easily read a well-edited book that's boring, soulless, etc...which almost always comes down to things like talent and voice that no editor will ever fix. Again, not disagreeing here. I'm no magician when it comes to slinging words around, but I do have an incredibly strong voice in my writing, and that's carried a lot of readers through my rough patches.

Oh, and what's with the two little barbs about my weight? Do I need to start scarfing down big-macs? I'd poke fun at you in return, but I don't see an author photo up on the board...


----------



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

I've met so many writers planning to/already have self-publish so that they can get reader feedback on how to improve their writing and then attract an agent/publisher AND make some money in the meantime that I've now lost faith in humanity and have moved into a hut in the desert.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Victorine said:


> I'm going to apologize up front because I probably am going to be picking on you, Evan, but it's statements like this that make me cringe. I know your point was that the readers don't owe you anything, but don't you owe something to your readers? To publish something without any vetting at all...well I think a lot of authors do this and then learn the hard way they should have joined a critique group, beta tested it, and then had an editor give it that final polish.
> 
> I'm sorry, but we're selling a product, whether we like to call it that or not. If we don't put the work into our product to make sure it's good, we run the risk of making sure our customers will never buy another book by us.
> 
> ...


Pretty sure he was talking about never having been published and vetted through a traditional process.

Edit: Seems Debora beat me to it.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> The difference is that you don't need to be endorsed by reviewers or bloggers, though it certainly helps.
> 
> You can get your book on the shelf in every e-bookstore without a single endorsement. The average writer can probably only get on a couple of physical bookstore shelves without an established publisher, unless they drive around the country stealthily planting their books in every bookstore they pass.
> 
> That doesn't mean that people will buy your book, but it does mean that they can buy it.


Right. That is exactly what I said. I was pointing out that there is not much practical difference between being completely invisible on the shelf and not being on the shelf at all, and that the things you needed to do in the old days to get ON the shelf are not that much different from the things you need to do now to be visible on the shelf.

There are differences, they just aren't as big as I'd want them to be, and I think the differences are likely to get smaller in the future.


----------



## Evan Couzens (Jul 18, 2011)

modwitch said:


> Vicki, I *think* what Evan was trying to say when he said he doesn't have any vetting, is that he hasn't been picked by a publisher, or approved/vetted by anyone - so he makes a special effort to make a good first impression. Not that his book hasn't had any vetting .
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying - but at least the way I read it, Evan would be one of the first lining up to agree with you.


Correct. I haven't won the approval of anyone who matters in the traditional sense. The way I see it, if I tell someone I'm published, and they ask "By who?" every response I have makes me sound bad. The fact that my editor thinks BSOH is great, or that my beta readers loved it, or even that someone who's sold over a million books gave me the quote in my signature _doesn't matter_. I don't have a 'deal,' and so at first glance I'm no better than someone who scans their diary and publishes it.

My point was the only thing I have going for me is the book itself. I do not intend to sabotage that with careless errors.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Evan Couzens said:


> Correct. I haven't won the approval of anyone who matters in the traditional sense. The way I see it, if I tell someone I'm published, and they ask "By who?" every response I have makes me sound bad. The fact that my editor thinks BSOH is great, or that my beta readers loved it, or even that someone who's sold over a million books gave me the quote in my signature _doesn't matter_. I don't have a 'deal,' and so at first glance I'm no better than someone who scans their diary and publishes it.


Sorry! I misunderstood what you were saying. 

Not the first time I've stepped in it! 

Vicki


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

I think what most people fail to understand about why people don't edit their books is the economics of the situation.

A-It costs more money to edit a book than most people want to spend.

B-It is extraordinarily time consuming (and possibly expensive) to vet editors on one's own. Anyone can claim to be an editor. So unless you have experience or someone you trust has experience with the editor in question, you have no guarantee they'll do a good job.

C-It does not seem to be true that better edited books make more money than books that are less well edited. Anyone who's sampled heavily in the top 1000 on the Amazon Kindle charts knows this. It may be that sometimes pointing out the fact that book is less than stellar hurts its sales, but I've personally seen many books that are selling very well with several one-star reviews claiming the editing is horrid. In this, like everything else, we are all flying blind as to what makes a book sell well. We know that we like well-edited books, and that many people do, but that does not mean that lots of poorly edited books don't sell well. (Witness our darling Amanda, for example.)

D-Errors are easy to fix, if readers point them out. And spot-checking is less expensive and less time-consuming than paying for an editor.

All in all, people aren't using editors because it doesn't make economic sense. It costs more money than they have, and it doesn't ensure higher profits. Anyone who knows anything about people knows that when you look at us en masse, given options, we will chose the simplest and most gratifying solution to our problems.


----------



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

If one more person confuses "editing" with "errors", I'm going to stab myself with a fork.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> If one more person confuses "editing" with "errors", I'm going to stab myself with a fork.


You'll have to get in line behind me.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> If one more person confuses "editing" with "errors", I'm going to stab myself with a fork.


You know, if you get a wizz-bang editor, you might still end up with errors...

(video of the fork-stabbing, please?  )


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Let's push the software comparison even further. Will we start to see major revisions to books just like we see with software? New characters, new plot directions? Characters resurrected from the dead? New and improved ending? Will a book become a perpetual work in process?


Now this is an interesting question, and I'm looking forward to discovering the answer(s)! Software development has changed a lot over the last decade, and there seems to be a potential for book 'development' to do something similar. I can't yet see how it might evolve, but I think Terrence has a point - it could well change a LOT. In some quarters, at least. I don't think the market for static books will ever go away. *ponder*


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

It's disappointing but unsurprising that many indies don't thoroughly edit their books before choosing to publish. Yes, economics come into play when you're talking about hiring a professional editor...but let's be honest, that's not the only route to a decently-edited book.

What's wrong with _educating one's self about grammar and the craft of writing_? I see lack of editing before publishing as mostly an issue of instant gratification and/or impatience. It used to be that a writer had to attain a certain level of skill and competence before being published (in most cases), because they were competing with countless other wannabe authors for a relative few publishing contracts. Now there is very little incentive to improve one's own skills, because literally anybody can publish. You don't need to be a good writer to publish--or to make sales (how many will vary wildly depending upon other aspects of the book, including voice and story). So if you're short on funds and don't happen to be blessed with a solid grammatical education, it's far easier to just go ahead and publish with the assurance that any issues can be fixed once they're reported to you than it is to put the brakes on your big ambitions and invest effort in the most important aspect of your work--you.

I'm lucky that English was always my best subject in school. I'm capable of producing clean first drafts, and would probably do a decent job of self-editing. And yet having published five novels, I would never make that choice because I know just how arduous a process editing can be. But I'm incredibly grateful to have a solid foundation, because I _can_ recognize big issues, even if certain grammatical nuances may slip my notice. I think a solid foundation is important. I'm consistently shocked by how many writers do not.

You can get away with not being a great technical writer when you're trade published. Regardless of the rumors of all trade published books containing copious errors and unfinished sentences, that's not actually the case with most publishers. They do employ editors. As an indie, you either need a good editor or, at the very least, you need to make the effort to learn those skills on your own.

To be clear, I don't really care what other people do. I don't believe that John Doe publishing his crappy amateurish novel is going to affect my own chance of success. That said, the lack of respect some authors show to paying readers really frustrates me.

At the end of the day, there are two kinds of people--those who care deeply about what they put out into the world, and those who don't (but who still want folks to buy their work). Money is not the only route to a well-edited book. The poor author who cares about producing quality work will find a way not to release something downright embarrassing...whether by recruiting legions of free beta readers, or cracking open a grammar and style book on their own, or...whatever it takes. Me...I would never put out a book that was poorly edited. Thankfully, I have enough basic knowledge of language and grammar that I know how to judge my own work. The sad truth is that some writers don't....and others simply don't care.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Let's push the software comparison even further. Will we start to see major revisions to books just like we see with software? New characters, new plot directions? Characters resurrected from the dead? New and improved ending? Will a book become a perpetual work in process?


I can't think of anything more unappealing than a book I can never finish.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

oliewankanobe said:


> I think editing skills, in both NY and out here in *Indievania*, are lacking.


We're in Indievania? Did we take a wrong turn in Vampirville?

Dangit, I knew I should've written THE BLACK VAMPIRE'S WAR instead.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

flanneryohello said:


> I can't think of anything more unappealing than a book I can never finish.


Yeah, I don't think it's worked out very well for George Lucas.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

I'd also like to log my vote *for* controversy and indignation.

Come on, people. You're in the entertainment business. Let's see some author meltdowns!


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

I'm sure some authors will produce perpetual works-in-progress, but I doubt it will become the norm. Isn't George Lucas continually touching up the Star Wars movies?



genevieveaclark said:


> Ok, people keep saying [that the cream will rise to the top], while conveniently glossing over the gory details of how this might actually happen.


Search engines.

You ever visited fanfiction.net? They have a fantastic and flexible search engine. Find a fandom you like. Pick a type of story you like, along with any rating or language limitations. Hit search. Glance down the titles and mini-blurbs. Believe me, the "crap" ones are obvious at a glance. Skip those, find some you like&#8230; and find a few that are _fantastic_. So fantastic that you have to click the author's username and check out their profile page for more titles.

What, you've already read all their titles? Check out their "Favorite Stories" and "Favorite Authors" list. And, if you've posted a story there, yourself, you can also find more to read by checking out the folks who review you&#8230;

Honestly, it's often _easier_ than sifting through a list of traditionally published titles to find one that appeals to you, because usually the cover and blurb have been done professionally, so you actually have to check out the excerpt to get an idea for the quality.

I'm looking forward to the day when some bright vendor combines DRM-free formatting with good search engine.



Steven Konkoly said:


> the story was so d*mn good, I blew right through that stuff. I've read a few other books like this. Just so good, that I was more than willing to excuse the occasional dangling participle. This Crap Tsunami stigma was started by the traditional publishing industry for a reason. Desperate psychological warfare to steer readers away from self-published work. Guess what? It's working, on the Indie authors too!


No offense intended, but I doubt you've actually encountered any of the true "crap". While some hypersensitive folks will call the occasional dangling participle "crap" writing, and it isn't.


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

ToniD said:


> I think the key thing is respect for your reader. Good writing, good story, good editing, good cover should come before putting a book up for sale.


Couldn't agree more!

However, I do think the ease with which we can correct errors as self published or small presses that primarily deal in e-books makes a difference too. The agility we have to correct that item or two that we missed gives us an edge over the traditional publishers who have minimum print runs of 5,000 books these days.

Even the best editors will miss things, not as much as the novices, but they do and we (the writers) are just too close to the work sometimes to see the errors, because our minds are wired with the story and what we meant to say - to the point that when we proof the final copy it still doesn't leap from the page for us.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> However, the fact of the matter is that none of us gets to set standards for everyone else, so why do we all worry about it so much?


Actually, I suppose this is my point. I could have been succinct, but then I wouldn't be a writer, would I?

Okay, no, I suppose I would be a *better* writer.

If we feel it is important to have our books edited, we should do so. Worrying that others who don't do so will smear our good books by association is an exercise in futility. Even if it does happen, there's nothing we can do about it. And, as my post was meant to show, many people will never start hiring editors.

In the words of a writer much better at being succinct than I am: So it goes.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

valeriec80 said:


> If we feel it is important to have our books edited, we should do so. Worrying that others who don't do so will smear our good books by association is an exercise in futility.





flanneryohello said:


> To be clear, I don't really care what other people do. I don't believe that John Doe publishing his crappy amateurish novel is going to affect my own chance of success.


I think you two and a few others hit the nail on the head. Much of the fuss about the lack of editing in some indie books has to do with a prevailing culture among some authors and readers that automatically lumps everyone into the same boat. I imagine that if someone thinks the successes of other indie authors like Hocking, Morrison, or Locke is good for Indie authors overall, then it must work the other way too. That poorly produced indie books tars and feathers the whole community. In my case, since I don't believe the former, I don't give much credence to the latter either. My books will sink or float by my own efforts and I suspect that, contrary to what some authors believe, the same will hold true for their books as well.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> My books will sink or float by my own efforts. and I suspect that, contrary to what some authors believe, it will be the same will hold true for their books as well.


But... but... but... if my books tank, it's my *own* fault

I'm sorry, I just can't accept that.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

nomesque said:


> But... but... but... if my books tank, it's my *own* fault
> 
> I'm sorry, I just can't accept that.


Why would your books tank? If you keep writing and publishing quality books and market them to your target audience, you'll find a readership (even if it doesn't happen right away). You don't need to sell a zillion books to be successful.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Search engines get gamed. There is an entire industry devoted to this; it runs in cycles, as the algorithms get updated, but google, for example, is great for random knowledge, not so great for commercial results. Because the results get gamed. Facebook is banking on this - they think the future of search will be social, i.e., curated lists. (Even google's initial insight could be interpreted as a method of measuring if something makes a curated list, I.e., how many links it gets from other people, but that is probably a whole other discussion.)

The Fanfic thing you describe is already curated to some extent - it's Fanfic.

And the lists of favorites from authors you like: that is exactly a curated list. Your favorite author is the curator. You trust them because you believe you have similar tastes. That is exactly what I was talking about.



Carradee said:


> I'm sure some authors will produce perpetual works-in-progress, but I doubt it will become the norm. Isn't George Lucas continually touching up the Star Wars movies?
> 
> Search engines.
> 
> ...


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> Why would your books tank? If you keep writing and publishing quality books and market them to your target audience, you'll find a readership (even if it doesn't happen right away). You don't need to sell a zillion books to be successful.


 Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm indicator.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

nomesque said:


> Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm indicator.


Sarcasm? What's that?


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> If one more person confuses "editing" with "errors", I'm going to stab myself with a fork.


The difference between content editing versus copy/line editing is huge.

A book can be completely free of grammatical and spelling errors and still be not ready for prime time.

The best investment I ever made in my own writing was taking a few writing courses and the one that had the most impact for me was a Deep Editing course (http://www.margielawson.com/lawson-writers-academy-courses). It taught me the difference between just narrating a story (telling the reader what's going on) and engaging the reader in the action. These courses also helped me become a stronger editor - identifying what works and what doesn't in both my own work and that of the authors under my publishing label.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

valeriec80 said:


> I think what *most people fail to understand about why people don't edit their books is the economics* of the situation.
> 
> A-It costs more money to edit a book than most people want to spend.
> 
> ...


This is not good business. If one is not interested in being a good business person, then one should probably follow this advice and trust to luck. If a person chooses to be self-published, and desires to succeed, then some effort should be made to follow good business practices. Putting out a shoddy product because to make a good one would cost too much is just not good business.

That's what really blows my mind about this whole conversation. If you are self-published, you are by default a small business. Do you want to give your business every reasonable chance of being successful? Then editing should be considered one of your startup costs. If you can't afford the startup costs, you are not ready to be in business.

(edited for typos. Good thing this isn't my biz.  )


----------



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

Editing doesn't need to cost money. Join a critique group, or get 1-2 beta readers with strong writing skills, and you can nail out a significant number of your content issues just in that process alone. 

Then, even if you do hire someone to do a final proofread, that process is going to cost a lot less than having someone do a full edit.

Plus, this process allows you to grow as a writer as your skills with constantly be pushed and stretched. A piece of feedback as simple as "your plot is too simplistic" can force a writer to grow in many different ways. Of course, I'm starting to discover that plenty of writers have no interest in growing or stretching. So, I avoid them as much as possible.


----------



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

modwitch said:


> O_O
> 
> Who's got the d*mn fork? Hand it over...


I sanitized it for you...


----------



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

valeriec80 said:


> C-It does not seem to be true that better edited books make more money than books that are less well edited. Anyone who's sampled heavily in the top 1000 on the Amazon Kindle charts knows this. It may be that sometimes pointing out the fact that book is less than stellar hurts its sales, but I've personally seen many books that are selling very well with several one-star reviews claiming the editing is horrid. In this, like everything else, we are all flying blind as to what makes a book sell well...


A very keen observation.

B.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> This is not good business. If one is not interested in being a good business person, then one should probably follow this advice and trust to luck. If a person chooses to be self-published, and desires to succeed, then some effort should be made to follow good business practices. Putting out a shoddy product because to make a good one would cost too much is just not good business.
> 
> That's what really blows my mind about this whole conversation. If you are self-published, you are by default a small business. Do you want to give your business every reasonable chance of being successful? Then editing should be considered one of your startup costs. If you can't afford the startup costs, you are not ready to be in business.
> 
> (edited for typos. Good thing this isn't my biz.  )


I completely agree with this. Too many people think that because it's so easy to self-publish, having some amount of interest in writing is all that's required to become a successful author. I think that attitude reveals a lack of long-term thinking on the part of writers who believe they can produce crap, slap a price on it, and somehow con enough readers into buying a substandard book so that they can afford to reward later readers by giving the book the attention it should've gotten in the first place. Sure, maybe that works. But even if you wind up selling a ton of books, your reputation will still be marred with accusations of bad editing. First impressions are everything. Not to pick on Ms. Hocking, but she's a great example...I know she had bad luck with editors and did not release poorly edited work on purpose or due to lack of awareness that her work needed editing, but I think she stands as a cautionary tale that initial reputations have a way of sticking around, since I often see the "bad editing" criticism when people discuss her books.

Also, the earlier comparisons to software (specifically Microsoft) needing patches and getting revisions as justification for not caring about putting out the best book possible is way off base. First, software is far more complex than a novel--there are moving parts and user behaviors whose interactions can be hard to anticipate. If you believe that Microsoft releases ANY software without extensive QA, beta versions with solicited feedback, and peer code review, you are sorely, sorely mistaken. Just as mistakes can slip through in a well-edited book, so can bugs in software (especially because testing software is not as easy as editing a book...simply identifying all possible test case scenarios for a piece of software can be challenging, whereas a book's contents are plain to see). Authors who employed a team of editors and beta readers on par with Microsoft's QA testers and public beta testers would have an extreme advantage over the author who seeks no outside feedback, or perhaps just that of a friend or spouse.


----------



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

Ms. Hocking is a great example of someone that can retire tomorrow; Vincent van Gogh is a great example of someone with a sterling reputation. Only one do I view as a cautionary tale. 

B.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

I had a fun conversation the other day with a woman that refused to ever pick up a book by an Indie. Her argument?

"Anything that cheap is cheap for a reason..."

She had never read a self-published author, mind you. She didn't want to read them on principle. And if she ever would have been forced to read one, what do you think she would have done? She would have looked for any validation of her previous prejudice.

Self-publishers who lack editing are not losing you sales. They're just not selling books. They'll either fix it or they won't, but there will always be a segment of readers that goes out of their way to ridicule independent authors. Just like there will always be that guy who makes fun of you for having a different brand of PC/TV/Furniture/Hairstyle because in his brain, your category is going to define you regardless of whatever you do.

I have spent over a thousand dollars getting my novel ready. And I'm no more likely to make it big than the next vampire/werewolf author that hits the market just right, brands herself well, and creates a story that resonates with a broad readership. That's just the truth of it. We could try to discourage writers from entering the market because they "are not ready to be in business" or we could try to mentor those we see as having potential and try to lift them up.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

flanneryohello said:


> Not to pick on Ms. Hocking, but she's a great example...I know she had bad luck with editors and did not release poorly edited work on purpose or due to lack of awareness that her work needed editing, but I think she stands as a cautionary tale that initial reputations have a way of sticking around, since I often see the "bad editing" criticism when people discuss her books.


So your suggestion is what exactly? That she should not have published at all then? Wow, that would have worked out really well for her...what great advice. 

To be fair, every well known author has similar criticisms thrown their way. In the end, we cannot control what other people do. And it's not up to any of us to decide when someone else is 'ready to publish'. That's a personal decision and the kudos or failures rest squarely on the individual writers shoulders. I've admittedly published some stinkers. And I've unpublished them, with a "oh my god what in the hell was I thinking!". There's nothing wrong with that..its' how we learn.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Mwahahahaha!  What they say is true! My evil minions and I are only here to drag all the rest of you down with our BAD self editing and baaaaad reputations.

I'm a baaaad business person. My books are cheep, cheep, cheep!

Suffer the stigma you indies! Forever!!!

May the cream NEVER rise!

Mwahahahaha!


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Let's push the software comparison even further. Will we start to see major revisions to books just like we see with software? New characters, new plot directions? Characters resurrected from the dead? New and improved ending? Will a book become a perpetual work in process?


That is interesting, but I don't think it'll happen. Different versions can be put out, but they'll be completely different books, as far as Amazon is concerned. The reason I don't see authors doing this is because readers can only buy an ebook once through Amazon, anyway. The only benefit I could see to someone doing that would be for people who had already read the original, and they are curious to see the changes. Since they can't buy the same file twice, they are eliminated as repeat buyers. It would be better for the author do upload it as a different version with a separate file/title/etc.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> But even if you wind up selling a ton of books, your reputation will still be marred with accusations of bad editing. First impressions are everything. Not to pick on Ms. Hocking, but she's a great example...I know she had bad luck with editors and did not release poorly edited work on purpose or due to lack of awareness that her work needed editing, but I think she stands as a cautionary tale that initial reputations have a way of sticking around, since I often see the "bad editing" criticism when people discuss her books.


You're saying that Amanda Hocking represents a cautionary tale, someone that we shouldn't try to be like?

Hey, I was obsessive about getting good editing and proofreading on my novel, but if Amanda teaches us anything it's that editing and proofreading (I haven't read her books, but I'm taking your word for it) aren't at the top of the list for what makes an indie author successful. Her success boils down to things like being prolific in a popular genre, telling great stories, having great covers, and being a nice person.


----------



## Nick Wastnage (Jun 16, 2011)

Yes, they'll be mistakes in Indie books; there's many more Indie books being self published. But there's been more mistakes recently in traditional publishing as the trad publishers have cut back on their proof reading because of costs. 
Indie publishing has allowed thousands of authors to get their work published and read, and because of it more people are reading, many of those young, who'd almost given up on reading. Indie publishing should be applauded. Out of it will come some great new talent, if it hasn't already arrived. Let people write what they want. The quality issue will sort itself out. It always does.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

RexJameson said:


> We could try to discourage writers from entering the market because they "are not ready to be in business" or we could try to mentor those we see as having potential and try to lift them up.


LOL, think of the kittehz!!!

All kidding aside, "not ready" is not the same as NEVER ready. Not at all. And mentoring can certainly give some of the not-yet-ready self-publishers an opportunity to be prepared for a good launch. What I'm talking about is maximizing the chances of success. It's not about discouragement. In this field, anybody who hopes for success is lowering their chances if skip some of the vital steps of reading a product for the market.

Each story stands on it's own. The only self-publisher you (general you) can compete with is you. The "next vampire/werewolf author" competes with him/herself. Since everyone keeps bringing up Amanda Hocking, (a worthy example since she had stated many times that she KNOWS she has problems with her editing,) who knows how much more success she'd have had if the editing had been tight? All of the 1-stars that mention it? What if there was almost no mention of all the editing errors? Who knows what the numbers are, for readers who won't purchase an indie if the credible reviews say it's full of errors?* Who knows if A.H. might have been able to get a traditional contract (before self-publishing) if she could have produced a cleaner manuscript?

So while it's true what about 1/2 of the writers in this thread are saying, that editing will not always stand in the way of a book hitting it big, why would anyone want to take that chance? Editing is a basic "tool of the trade." It doesn't have to cost a lot, it doesn't even have to be perfect. There's such a thing as "good enough," but if the story is constantly interrupted by the reader having to ask "I wonder what this is supposed to mean?" it will hurt your word of mouth.

I've mentioned before (okay constantly,) that I use Goodreads pretty extensively for recommendations. I've picked my contacts pretty carefully so it's actually useful review and commenting coming into my update feed. There are quite a lot of us in my circle who read indies, and you know, we don't mention the editing in a book that doesn't have glaring difficulties with it. We expect the standards to be similar to traditionally published books. Which means, really, that we can overlook quite a bit, because the Book Gods know that perfect editing is an impossible dream, no matter whether it's corporate or self-pub. We don't mention it because, unless it's a big glaring problem, it's irrelevant to the review.

Isn't that what the goal should be? To produce writing such that the editing is a background player, the one that never gets noticed?

*I know, I know, MOST indies have sour grapes reviews that say the editing is terrible, I'm not talking about those ignore-worthy comments, because for those people ANY error in an indie is "full of errors," mainly because they are looking for them, but if the book is from a major imprint they don't see the errors because they already assume they don't exist. It's my personal pet peeve; I also hate when somebody mentions the editing in an indie review just to say it was "surprisingly error free!" or "for an indie, there weren't many mistakes."


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Speaking of editing... 

I recently purchased and read an indie (from one of our KB Authors,) and right around the time I was almost finished with the book, I got an email from the author (and from Amazon,) stating that a newer corrected version was available. The author told me that s/he had "fixed a few embarrassing errors." 

I know for a fact that this book has been through extensive rewriting and editing. 
I noticed a few errors, but not an "embarrassing" number. There were few enough that I only recall a couple of reading blips. 
There weren't even enough to mention in passing when I was talking with a few friends about our latest reads.
I appreciate the author's attention to detail, and am really glad that I don't feel compelled to mention "this book had some editing issues you'll have to read past."

I finished with the original version, never even opened the corrected v.2, it just didn't feel necessary. 

When it's all said and done, I respect this writer as a professional and a good business person.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Speaking of editing...
> 
> I recently purchased and read an indie (from one of our KB Authors,) and right around the time I was almost finished with the book, I got an email from the author (and from Amazon,) stating that a newer corrected version was available. The author told me that s/he had "fixed a few embarrassing errors."
> 
> ...


Not to take away any from your respect for this author, and I'm not saying this person did this, but I've been catching wind of people trying to manipulate this feature to find a way to notify readers of new releases and other things. As you noted, the email only mentions corrections, and thus doesn't achieve the intended purpose.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Ms. Hocking is a great example of someone that can retire tomorrow; Vincent van Gogh is a great example of someone with a sterling reputation. Only one do I view as a cautionary tale.
> 
> B.


I suppose it depends upon your own personal goals. While I would absolutely love to have a pile of money and the ability to retire, I would honestly choose being regarded as a good writer who produces quality books over being considered a mediocre writer who produces poorly edited work. That's just me.

Amanda Hocking is successful in spite of the poor editing of her early work. But massive success on the scale she's seen is hardly a guaranteed result of releasing poorly edited books. Honestly, she wrote a popular series of books that appealed to hungry readers of another, mega-popular series of books, and that is probably the single biggest reason for her success. If she'd written a poorly edited Western, I doubt we'd be talking about her right now.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Not to take away any from your respect for this author, and I'm not saying this person did this, but I've been catching wind of people trying to manipulate this feature to find a way to notify readers of new releases and other things. As you noted, the email only mentions corrections, and thus doesn't achieve the intended purpose.


Seriously? that's kind of stinky, eh? Definitely not what was happening here. This book is a fairly new release, and I think probably a couple of first customer/readers caught a few persistent sneaky mistakes.

How does that work anyways? You can't attach a message to the Amazon notice, and also s/he only was able to email me directly because we had previously had a brief exchange on KB and s/he knew I was reading the book.

Short of having signed up for a mailing list, is there any other way of getting that done (thru Amazon?) No wait, don't tell me... the less it's written on this board the fewer people will see a new method to game the system.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Vicky Foxx said:


> So your suggestion is what exactly? That she should not have published at all then? Wow, that would have worked out really well for her...what great advice.
> 
> To be fair, every well known author has similar criticisms thrown their way. In the end, we cannot control what other people do. And it's not up to any of us to decide when someone else is 'ready to publish'. That's a personal decision and the kudos or failures rest squarely on the individual writers shoulders. I've admittedly published some stinkers. And I've unpublished them, with a "oh my god what in the hell was I thinking!". There's nothing wrong with that..its' how we learn.


I've already stated that I don't care when other people publish. That's their business. Doesn't hurt me.

I'm not suggesting that Amanda Hocking shouldn't have published. I'm simply pointing out that although releasing her books before they were properly edited did not particularly hurt her path to success, it did damage her reputation. Many of her reviews call out poor editing. I've read plenty of forum discussions, blog comment threads, etc. where people specifically mentioned her poor editing. It's something that certain readers think of when they hear her name. And that's a shame. She's an excellent storyteller and deserves her success.

The "cautionary tale", then, is that if you are an author who wants to be regarded as a good writer, making sure that your books are properly edited before you release them is tantamount. Because even financial success won't erase the first impression you made.

Some people don't care about being regarded as a particularly good writer. For some, making money is the only goal.

I'm willing to bet that despite all her success, Amanda Hocking wishes that she didn't have to see the "bad editing" comment that follows her to this day.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> You're saying that Amanda Hocking represents a cautionary tale, someone that we shouldn't try to be like?
> 
> Hey, I was obsessive about getting good editing and proofreading on my novel, but if Amanda teaches us anything it's that editing and proofreading (I haven't read her books, but I'm taking your word for it) aren't at the top of the list for what makes an indie author successful. Her success boils down to things like being prolific in a popular genre, telling great stories, having great covers, and being a nice person.


Absolutely. She is successful. You can try to be like her, but, as you said, her choice of genre and storytelling ability allowed her to overcome poor editing to find uncommon success. Clearly, poor editing does not guarantee that a book won't succeed, but it certainly lowers the odds (particularly if you aren't writing a teen vampire love triangle).

Maybe I'm the only one who considers having a reputation for having poorly edited books, despite financial success, to be a cautionary tale. Again, money is not my number one priority with writing. It's just not.


----------



## Alanboy (Aug 12, 2011)

Does it matter? 
Put your reader hat on.
Read a book with typos, bad grammar, poor formatting etc. What is your reaction?
I know mine. Never touch anything from that author again.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Alanboy said:


> Does it matter?
> Put your reader hat on.
> Read a book with typos, bad grammar, poor formatting etc. What is your reaction?
> I know mine. Never touch anything from that author again.


yup. And it doesn't really matter if it gets "fixed later." My future biz is already lost.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> So while it's true what about 1/2 of the writers in this thread are saying, that editing will not always stand in the way of a book hitting it big, why would anyone want to take that chance? Editing is a basic "tool of the trade." It doesn't have to cost a lot, it doesn't even have to be perfect. There's such a thing as "good enough," but if the story is constantly interrupted by the reader having to ask "I wonder what this is supposed to mean?" it will hurt your word of mouth.


This is exactly how I feel about it. Nobody is claiming that a book _cannot_ succeed despite poor editing, but poor editing will never increase your chances of success. So why not give your books the best chance possible? Besides, do you really aspire to have your name conjure up thoughts of unedited, error-ridden books?


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> Besides, do you really aspire to have your name conjure up thoughts of unedited, error-ridden books?


LOL

Here lies StaceyHH. She was mediocre.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

If a writer has neither the skill nor the necessary craft-pride to see that a minimum level of literary decency, correct spelling and acceptable grammer, is observed, I can't be bothered with him/her/it. (I knew that Amanda Hocking, whom I haven't read and don't intend to as I don't do vampires, would cut it when I caught a piece on her blog where she complained that after she spent good money on several editors, there were still errors. She has the right attitude to her craft, she isn't arrogant, and she doesn't believe that incompetence is the new competence, like too many indies.)

However, there's absolutely no problem working with readers as your copy-editors, as long as you do it in an explicit, structured environment. (Thanks, Jen of The Indie Spot for devising a very workable model!) I've edited or re-edited both of my own books that I have on the Kindle with volunteer help recruited on Amazon and The Indie Spot or ROBUST on Goodreads. I've also edited a whole range of other books by other writers, to be published between now and Christmas by my netside publisher, all with volunteer labor. I've been so impressed by their work that I'm permitting some of them to edit whole books in my protege Dakota Franklin's RUTHLESS TO WIN series by themselves. It has been a riotous success and, nearly a year into the process, we're all smiling and talking about bringing on the next project.

What matters isn't even the leadership or my experience. What matters is selecting your associates right from the word go. From research I did into readership for my novel REVERSE NEGATIVE (thanks to the South Australian Film Corporation for paying for the research) when it was still in manuscript, I discovered that top professionals, including the yes-power levels of literary professionals, are just like me, speedreaders, worthless as copy-editors. The main body of readers for a thriller deliberately aimed at the upper intelligentsia, the people most likely to sort a convoluted plot, are primary school teachers, nurses, secretaries, people who keep the labs of swinging dicks tidy, the competent, polite, charming people without whom no establishment runs long, no matter how many geniuses you have running around being self-important. These *constant readers* are familiar with the conventions of fiction, and that's incredibly important; a guy who will read one book a year on his holiday is useless to the writer as an editor or an advisor; his wife is likely to be far more useful. The constant readers are also death on spelling and grammatical errors, and not afraid to say so. There is one group of senior executive/professional types who make an exception to this rule: topclass civil service mandarins, who generally rose from drafting letters and law clauses for cabinet officers, and who're accustomed to weighing every single comma twice. One of the finest copy editors I ever had was my late friend Stuart Jay, an Australian mandarin, who wasn't afraid to be brutal when it was necessary. For a quarter-century Stuart pre-edited most of my books before I would ever let the editor who commissioned any book see it.

There is a whole class of people I don't want anywhere near my books or those of the writers I've undertaken to edit: MFA grads, for reasons we can go into in another thread.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

There's a scene I left out of Bleeder because the book was already so darn long, BUT I regret it. As someone told me once, who cares how long the book is? I'm going to add that scene in somewhere - either to Bleeder or put it in The Third Dagger, which I won't even start writing for at least six months (Copperhead comes first). 

But if I do add it to Bleeder, I hope readers won't be offended by getting a notice from Amazon about a new version available. I think it's a neat feature of ebooks and independent publishing, that you can make a version 2.0 and etc. 

As some here know, I added +/- 4,000 words to Spiderwork after it came out. I wish Amazon had had this feature available at the time.


----------



## Vanessa Wu (Sep 5, 2011)

Absolutely right, Andre! (I've read one of your books, by the way — long time ago.)

There's a lot writers can do to help each other. There are some very talented ones floating about. 

What I don't understand is why so many good indie writers associate with some terrible ones in the ineluctable blog tour. That is damning them by association.

But indie books are not going to go away. Readers will adapt and so will writers. I am not at all worried for the future of books.


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

It is not really that unusual to make book or other product available and then fix the problems.  Because even the most perfect book in author's wisdom will not be perfect for every reader.

Bill Gates with the most popular software company did the same thing.

Yes, I do believe that author should work as hard as possible to provide the correct information, especially for information based books.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Vanessa Wu said:


> But indie books are not going to go away. Readers will adapt and so will writers. I am not at all worried for the future of books.


Indie books are not going away - and I've found some wonderful writers because of the rise of Indies. I agree with Andre as well -

_"The main body of readers for a thriller deliberately aimed at the upper intelligentsia, the people most likely to sort a convoluted plot, are primary school teachers, nurses, secretaries, people who keep the labs of swinging dicks tidy, the competent, polite, charming people without whom no establishment runs long, no matter how how many geniuses you have running around being self-important. These *constant readers* are familiar with the conventions of fiction, and that's incredibly important; a guy who will read one book a year on his holiday is useless to the writer as an editor or an advisor; his wife is likely to be far more useful. The constant readers are also death on spelling and grammatical errors, and not afraid to say so."_

However, my standards will not be lowered. As a reader, it is not my responsibility to edit books for authors or publishers. I will reject a book out of hand if there are reviews discussing the need for editing and/or a grammar/spell check. I tend to think that I'm less picky about minor errors than many avid readers but if there are enough to move someone to comment on them in a review, my assumption is that these are not minor errors.


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

RexJameson said:


> We could try to discourage writers from entering the market because they "are not ready to be in business" or we could try to mentor those we see as having potential and try to lift them up.


From a publisher's standpoint, I'd rather work with someone to help them raise their game than publish something that isn't quite ready. I know my authors have cursed me to burn in hell at times, but in the end, the product that finally hits the shelf is much sharper than what originally landed on my desk.

But there are also a good number of people out there that when you offer an honest no holding back critique, they close down and ignore anything negative.

For those new writers out there - beyond the courses I highlighted earlier, another great way to gain understanding of what works and what doesn't - see if you can volunteer to be a slush slasher with an e-zine in your genre - or even outside of your genre or volunteer to judge writing contests. It forces you to figure out what works and what doesn't and that bleeds over to your own writing.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> I'm willing to bet that despite all her success, Amanda Hocking wishes that she didn't have to see the "bad editing" comment that follows her to this day.


She listed editing as one of the biggest reasons she signed onto a traditional publishing deal. Yes, it bothered her.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Vanessa Wu said:


> Absolutely right, Andre! (I've read one of your books, by the way - long time ago.)


On my knees, I beg you, Vanessa, don't embarrass we with my youthful indiscretions!



Vanessa Wu said:


> But indie books are not going to go away. Readers will adapt and so will writers. I am not at all worried for the future of books.


Contrary to the constant, justified complaint about the poor quality of a large part of the indies, I think that ebooks, until very recently largely an indie phenomenon, have not only rejuvenated publishing and books and reading, but refreshed it by reaching parts not reached by traditional publishing, and especially not by the idea-less latest version of corporate publishing with its gadarene rush into me-tooism and a hollywood blockbuster mentality. In particular, publishing has been moved out of its self-destructive elitist attitudes, and has found huge new markets. Many of the people who buy Stieg Larsson's "Girl with the..." books, I've discovered, haven't read any other book since they left school. You can think what you want of Larsson (I think that with better editors -- hey, take a photo, I'm on topic! -- he could have been a good writer) but millions of people reading who didn't read before is a win for everyone.

Ebooks have opened up the market for several genre. Romance, for instance, was generally stuck in formula writing, except at the very top (P D James) level. You might object that it still is, in ebooks, with fierce support for the LHEA ending but at least the possibility is there now for someone to break out if she wants, and the further possibility, which didn't exist before, of the rebel reaching a market. Another genre opened up, and brought out of the closet, is erotic writing, no longer an underground activity. And gay writing. Just in case anyone thinks I'm olympian and detached, I'm making a moral judgement here that suppression of free speech, for whatever reason, even by technical quality control as before during the period of the slush pile, is a bad thing.

If the price for greater choice for readers is a few bad indie spellers, so be it. It's just that I didn't think the price would be so high, so many bad indie spellers.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

I look at it this way..I'm a fan of small indie films (Clerks was genius). Sometimes those films have bad editing and awkward transitions. But if the story is good and well acted I'm hooked. I know that indie film makers don't have big Hollywood budgets..so I cut them some slack. However, I have friends who refuse to watch any independent films. They prefer Hollywood blockbusters & consider any Indie film as badly made.

The same with indie books. There may be awkward transitions and some craft issues. But if the story is well-written and engaging...I'm in!

Also, people are confusing *editing *and *proofreading*.

For example, many Indie books are very well crafted, but contain typos. That would explain the need for better PROOFREADING...not EDITING. Often when you see the comment 'needs editing', it means the reviewer found typos. Many of those books have in fact, been professionally edited for story. However, the very process of the author making editorial changes, can create TYPOS.

Unless you hire an army of proof readers, its' nearly impossible to produce an error free book. But many people are happy to find 3 or 4 typos in a 50,000 word book (not even 1%) and label the book as "Needs Editing". Ok I'm off my soapbox on this topic...LOL.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Much of the discussion here presumes the people who upload to Amazon want long term success as writers measured in money, respect, or personal identity. I'm sure that is true for many people, but do we have reason to think it's the dominant attitude? The advice being given, and the pitfalls being identified, only matter to the author if he does share that attitude.

It appears to be true for the sample set that frequents sites like this, but I've seen Kindle ranks on Amazon as high as 2.5 million. I presume that means there are 2.5 million books on their servers. I don't know how many are independents, or how many individual authors they represent. 10k? 50k? 100k? Anyone know? 

So we may have a large cadre of authors who don't care about editing, and never will. Their existence doesn't depend on my understanding of their motivations, but I am open to the idea that there may be thousands of them and they will be around for a long time.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

And more importantly, that the number of indie authors that do not care about editing is only going to get larger as the eBook market expands. The more success stories that go on the news, the more we move up the exponential curve.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Much of the discussion here presumes the people who upload to Amazon want long term success as writers measured in money, respect, or personal identity. I'm sure that is true for many people, but do we have reason to think it's the dominant attitude? The advice being given, and the pitfalls being identified, only matter to the author if he does share that attitude.


If an author does not care about money, respect, or personal identity, then what would you postulate is motivating them to write books and publish? It takes a lot of effort to write a book. Even if your only goal is to "be read", surely you want the people who read your books to enjoy them, and remember them in a positive light.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I don't postulate anything about them. I don't know. But when we observe a phenomenon, it's reasonable to explore different causes. It's often a mistake to think most people share our attitudes, and very little depends on my understanding.

One possible scenario (out of many) is someone who writes a book with errors, uploads, then discovers it's much more work than they imagined to get money, respect, or personal identity. So they wander off to other interests. But the book doesn't. It hangs onto that infinite shelf life we often hear about.


----------



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

flanneryohello said:


> If an author does not care about money, respect, or personal identity, then what would you postulate is motivating them to write books and publish?


1) Fame 
2) Power
3) Vengeance

...but that's just me.

B.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

flanneryohello said:


> If an author does not care about money, respect, or personal identity, then what would you postulate is motivating them to write books and publish?


Aspirations of becoming the author's equivalent of Julius Caesar.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

flanneryohello said:


> If an author does not care about money, respect, or personal identity, then what would you postulate is motivating them to write books and publish? It takes a lot of effort to write a book. Even if your only goal is to "be read", surely you want the people who read your books to enjoy them, and remember them in a positive light.


Art. The act of creation can be it's own reward.

And people do enjoy my books and remember them in a positive light. Not everybody, but ...

The existence of mistakes in a novel doesn't mean an author doesn't care about them. I've had beta readers and have gone over my books many times and still there are errors. I'm spending hours this afternoon and tonight proofreading 'Peregrin' backwards and in a weird font to help me spot issues, and I'm finding little things here and there, a missing quote, 'paints' where there should be 'pants.'

The bottom line is, I've looked into to it and can't pay for an editor right now. I'm sure there are plenty of others in a similar situation. So you're free to blacklist us forever for these faults. It seems silly, but it's your choice. While you're at it, perhaps you can petition KDP to ban all imperfect books.


----------



## Lever1 (Aug 8, 2010)

Evan Couzens said:


> Before I say anything, I've been published for a week, have no reviews, and I'm not even sure if I've sold any copies yet because I refuse to check sales before I've been out a month.
> 
> However, I've always taken the track of thinking that no reader owes me anything. I'm an unknown name, I have no publisher's backing, I have no established reader base, and I have no vetting whatsoever. I assume that at the first sign of an error, plot hole, whatever, my reader is going to stop reading and delete my book. No one owes me tolerance for mistakes.
> 
> So I don't understand the mentality of "It can always be fixed later." If I find a mistake in my book, particularly the sample portion, I'd be mortified. I get one first impression. I don't want to blow it on a typo.


Evan, I couldn't agree more. I want my product to be as close to "perfect," editorially, as possible. If someone tries my book and doesn't like it, I don't want it to be because it was full of typos and other errors...


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> The bottom line is, I've looked into to it and can't pay for an editor right now. I'm sure there are plenty of others in a similar situation. So you're free to blacklist us forever for these faults. It seems silly, but it's your choice. While you're at it, perhaps you can petition KDP to ban all imperfect books.


It seems like every time there's a thread about books with editing issues you pop up to throw a hissy fit about how you can't afford an editor. Welcome to the club. Many of us can't afford editing. But we still find a way to get the job done. Just in case you have a problem comprehending English or just didn't bother to read the thread, I'll say it for the ten thousandth time. No one's complaining about authors who don't pay money to have their books edited. It's an issue of knowingly (or unknowingly) uploading crap for sale regardless if the book has been looked at by a literate human being. Stop making excuses for lazy, unprofessional authors just because you can't or don't want your book edited by someone else. If you have given your book to beta readers and put considerable time into weeding out the mistakes on your own (as you say you have), then this discussion is not about you. Unless, that is, you *have *uploaded unedited crap for sale.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

ASparrow said:


> The bottom line is, I've looked into to it and can't pay for an editor right now. I'm sure there are plenty of others in a similar situation. So you're free to blacklist us forever for these faults. It seems silly, but it's your choice. While you're at it, perhaps you can petition KDP to ban all imperfect books.


Absolutely the same. First I need to sell books to survive, to reach a point where I have a surplus, and then I will pay for an editor and a cover designer. Unless someone is willing to advance me the money to do it right away--in which case, what I need first of all is a professional cover designer, because my typos are rare, and only the result of hurry, fatigue, or imperfect transcription (I tend to print, edit on paper, then type in the corrections--at which point, I often make a new mistake).

Despite my being a complete unknown, I do sell a few books nevertheless, possibly because readers sense that there is something different in my books. I would rather read a book that is different and refreshing, but has a few typos in it, than read one that is perfect and unoriginal.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Richardcrasta said:


> Absolutely the same. First I need to sell books to survive, to reach a point where I have a surplus, and then I will pay for an editor and a cover designer. Unless someone is willing to advance me the money to do it right away--in which case, what I need first of all is a professional cover designer, because my typos are rare, and only the result of hurry, fatigue, or imperfect transcription (I tend to print, edit on paper, then type in the corrections--at which point, I often make a new mistake).
> 
> Despite my being a complete unknown, I do sell a few books nevertheless, possibly because readers sense that there is something different in my books. I would rather read a book that is different and refreshing, but has a few typos in it, than read one that is perfect and unoriginal.


Here we go again.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> Here we go again.


Yep. You can't win.

I think my clients would be absolutely amazed to discover that all I do is "fix their typos."


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Lynn ODell said:


> Yep. You can't win.





Vicky Foxx said:


> Even if you do say something, most of those writers are going to ignore you anyway. It's a waste of time...


Both profoundly true statements. I can see this thread is going nowhere really fast. Lesson learned.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> Both profoundly true statements. I can see this thread is going nowhere really fast. Lesson learned.


Fine, I accept that too, and I ought to have kept my mouth shut. I hadn't read most of this thread, and was just giving a gut reaction to 2 or 3 posts. I have taken on editing jobs too, and I did not just fix typos--but it was somehow the complaint about typos (which I am occasionally guilty of, even in these posts, and in my blurbs at times) which caught my eye. I am not apologizing for bad books, I don't think bad books ought to be inflicted on the rest of the world. I am talking about a theoretical situation in which someone is picky about 10-15 accidental errors in a 50,000 word book.

Now, to get myself a cup of coffee and go out for some fresh air.


----------



## Alanboy (Aug 12, 2011)

Having read through this, and other threads on quality, I am amazed (no, perhaps I'm not amazed - after all, we live in a world of instant crap) that authors try to defend their own and others lack of professionalism.

And I must highlight this:
*That frail looking David guy *(waves), said he'd rather have a great story with typos than a poor one without. Nice try, David, but that's not the choice--it's not an either-or proposition. It's possible to have both, quite possible. Plus, there's that nearly indefinable element called "voice"--that has nothing much to do with spelling, grammar or any other typical error. A stutterer will repeat words. Huck Finn's grammar wasn't up to Aunt Polly's standards. Moby Dick contains an entire chapter on whaling, one whale of an info-dump, and one I skip each time I read the book.
Beware those who discount covers or any other major element of their ebook, for they do not understand the "whole concept" package that *starved-looking David* was espousing.

Why does this person sink to insulting the appearance of a fellow KB member? Surely that isn't what KB is about? Was this picked up by the moderators? If not, it should have been.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

*Yikes, people! What's with the sudden nastiness?*

Okay, some folks are deluded about how perfect their books are, and some are deluded about the quality of a book that hasn't sold much yet. Chill and deal, folks.

I'm a proofreader. Technically, that means I'm just supposed to catch typos, misspellings, punctuation errors, and formatting issues-but I have yet to receive a proofreading job where I didn't also end up catching other things that were missed by the copy editor and/or line editor. A minor character's hair color changing halfway through the book. A wrong name or pronoun gender. A misplaced modifier. And so forth.

We're all human. We all miss things.


----------



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

Alanboy said:


> Having read through this, and other threads on quality, I am amazed (no, perhaps I'm not amazed - after all, we live in a world of instant *doodie*) that authors try to defend their own and others lack of professionalism.


What amazes me is that you are amazed. Not all authors aspire to the same level and or definition of professionalism. The Marquis de Sade, Lydia Ramsey, Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini, and Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi have all been widely read and enjoyed. Sure, what would fly for Snooki would not fly for Lydia, but it would be foolish to judge Snooki based on the standard of professionalism Lydia is held to. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw eye-to-eye on a definition of professionalism, but we have no business intervening, and should suffer no worries, if other authors decide to pursue different tracks.

I also don't agree that we live in a world of instant doodie. I can pound on a 3''x4'' panel of plastic for less than thirty seconds and obtain the proper loading dose for depakote-corrected for both gender and weight-all while listening to "The Greatest Van Halen Mix of All Time," which was kindly prepared for me by some unknown bloke living in Australia. That's not a world of instant doodie. That's a world of instant choices. Sure, some of these choices are doodie, but there are also plenty of Sades.

B.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> Here we go again.


This is exactly what I thought when I saw this thread pop up on the boards.


----------



## PJJones (Apr 5, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> Ah, the angst of writers about quality. It's a stone with many facets. A stone to break your skull on should you slow down past all the accidents on the road of life.
> 
> _About Errors on the page_: *Mark Twain * said there never was a perfect book and never would there be one. I believe he was right. Like Christianity, being like Christ is an ideal to be striven for though never to be realized--to be perfectly like Christ. (Don't get me wrong here--I don't believe we can "earn" that salvation; believers are no better, just forgiven.)
> 
> ...


Uhhhh? WTH? "Believers in Christ are forgiven," says the guy with naked girls on his covers. Rambling on...David is skinny. Rambling on...David is REALLY skinny. Somebody get this guy a donut! Don't really know how insulting David's appearance applies to editing books. More rambling..."Stutters repeat words." Good to, to, to know. Never, never, never could have figured that one out on my own. More rambling..."You should hire cover work done." Great! I done hired cover work, myself. More rambling....Oh, sheesh!


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

ASparrow said:


> Art. The act of creation can be it's own reward.
> 
> And people do enjoy my books and remember them in a positive light. Not everybody, but ...
> 
> ...


One can create art without publishing and selling it. I am not asking what would motivate people to write, but to publish. If you are selling your work to the public, surely you care about money, respect, personal identity, fame, reputation, etc. If you simply cared about creating, you absolutely could do that without feeling compelled to sell your work. Even if you just wanted to share your work with others, there are plenty of places to do so online. Of course, that would mean giving your work away for free. Taking the step to publish and charge money for your work indicates some motivation beyond the desire to create art, or to be read.

You're being extremely defensive when I have, in fact, stated multiple times that I really don't care if other people publish unedited work. I don't believe it affects me. And I certainly never came anywhere close to suggesting that KDP ban "imperfect books". What a silly charge, honestly.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, 

Things seem to be getting a little testy here.  Let's step away from the keyboards and take a deep breath.

A reminder...making personal comments about other members is not allowed...and I'm not talking just about appearance comments.  And let's use our emoticons, folks.  

(It may shock some of you to learn that, with nearly 2000 new posts a day on KindleBoards, our six member volunteer moderating team does not read every post, which is why we rely on the report feature.  If you see any untoward behavior, please use the report feature.  There's a link in every post.)

Thanks.

Betsy
KB moderator


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

flanneryohello said:


> One can create art without publishing and selling it. I am not asking what would motivate people to write, but to publish. If you are selling your work to the public, surely you care about money, respect, personal identity, fame, reputation, etc. If you simply cared about creating, you absolutely could do that without feeling compelled to sell your work. Even if you just wanted to share your work with others, there are plenty of places to do so online. Of course, that would mean giving your work away for free. Taking the step to publish and charge money for your work indicates some motivation beyond the desire to create art, or to be read.
> 
> You're being extremely defensive when I have, in fact, stated multiple times that I really don't care if other people publish unedited work. I don't believe it affects me. And I certainly never came anywhere close to suggesting that KDP ban "imperfect books". What a silly charge, honestly.


1. Check my prices to see my motives.
2. I wasn't responding only to you. These threads tend not to be one on one conversations, and thus some responses tend to address points made by others.

The KDP comment was facetious, but it really is the next step if people really are troubled by the presence of imperfect books sullying the overall reputations as indies and the willingness of the general public to buy indie to the existence of 'crap'. The solution would be gatekeeping, an Amazon slush pile perused by interns or whatever. I'm game. I'd be happy to be vetted for basic quality.

I really do try avoiding these threads, I really do, but they go on and on and it gets to the point where I can't help myself. But it was a mistake, again, to dive in. Some folks seem to derive pleasure in berating those who release imperfect books. I don't know what it is. Insecurities about their own work that cause people to lash out? Obsessive-compulsive disorder? Or simple pride in one's ability to edit or purchase editing services. The intensity of feeling generated tells me that it might make for interesting psychological study.


----------



## davidnwelton (May 2, 2011)

Austin_Briggs said:


> I feels like you're right, William. The same trend can be seen in some other "instant edit" industries - games and software, for example.


As a software guy myself, this one got me going and I wrote a blog post of my own about it.

http://blog.liberwriter.com/2011/09/09/the-perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good/

In short, it's a question of economics: if you want NASA or medical-device quality software, with multiple code reviews, a series of tests, multiple people who must sign off on it, and documentation for every line of code, it is going to cost you *significantly* more than something done with a more "agile" process. It will also have fewer features. Most people prefer "good enough" software with a few bugs to perfect software with few features and a very high price tag, so that's what the market provides. I think publishing is seeing some changes along those lines too.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

davidnwelton said:


> As a software guy myself, this one got me going and I wrote a blog post of my own about it.
> 
> http://blog.liberwriter.com/2011/09/09/the-perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good/


I'm honored  By the way, I'm not offering any judgement on this; who am I to judge?

I've noticed another trend, back when I had time to play PC games. European or American games were reasonably fast to the market, but had many regular patches addressing bugs, crashes to desktop, etc. The Asian games seemed to take longer, but they crashed less; and had almost no bug-fixing patch releases.

I can't recall any examples now, but I just recall being fascinated with the cultural aspects of it. My wife's Japanese, and she never releases anything unless it's near perfect. This means she produces less, but her stuff is fantastic and a pleasure to use. I'm a European, and I launch with much greater ease and adjust as I go with no hard feelings.

EDIT - now that I think about it, she loves imperfection as much as any of us. But her imperfections are intentional. She says that humans can't be perfect, so we must introduce mistakes and defects into our art... I actually love that mindset. Every piece of creative Japanese pottery we have, for example, has a beautiful defect in it.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Forgive me.


----------



## davidnwelton (May 2, 2011)

Austin_Briggs said:


> I'm honored  By the way, I'm not offering any judgement on this; who am I to judge?
> 
> I've noticed another trend, back when I had time to play PC games. European or American games were reasonably fast to the market, but had many regular patches addressing bugs, crashes to desktop, etc. The Asian games seemed to take longer, but they crashed less; and had almost no bug-fixing patch releases.
> 
> I can't recall any examples now, but I just recall being fascinated with the cultural aspects of it. My wife's Japanese, and she never releases anything unless it's near perfect. This means she produces less, but her stuff is fantastic and a pleasure to use. I'm a European, and I launch with much greater ease and adjust as I go with no hard feelings.


In the end, I don't think there's necessarily a "right way" - you have to adapt to circumstances. If you built minesweeper games with NASA processes, they'd cost 100's of dollars and take years to produce. If you built rocket guidance software with a 'try it and see' approach, you'd have Cape Canaveral and the surrounding landscape littered with exploded rockets!

I think the range isn't quite so broad in publishing, but it still may make sense to gauge your investment depending on the circumstances of the book you're working on.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

davidnwelton said:


> In the end, I don't think there's necessarily a "right way" - you have to adapt to circumstances. If you built minesweeper games with NASA processes, they'd cost 100's of dollars and take years to produce. If you built rocket guidance software with a 'try it and see' approach, you'd have Cape Canaveral and the surrounding landscape littered with exploded rockets!
> 
> I think the range isn't quite so broad in publishing, but it still may make sense to gauge your investment depending on the circumstances of the book you're working on.


Absolutely agree.

Continuing with the Japanese theme of my post above - when I lived in Japan, I learned about "TPO": Time / Place / Occasion. It's a concept of appropriateness which makes life easy. All depends on when you do something, where you do it, and why. For example, it's OK to have a few typos in a cheap mass market eBook, but not in an exclusive hard cover.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

ASparrow said:


> 1. Check my prices to see my motives.
> 2. I wasn't responding only to you. These threads tend not to be one on one conversations, and thus some responses tend to address points made by others.


You quoted my post, then addressed "you" within your post. Surely you can understand why I wouldn't have necessarily interpreted your comments as being addressed to a collective "you".



ASparrow said:


> I really do try avoiding these threads, I really do, but they go on and on and it gets to the point where I can't help myself. But it was a mistake, again, to dive in. Some folks seem to derive pleasure in berating those who release imperfect books. I don't know what it is. Insecurities about their own work that cause people to lash out? Obsessive-compulsive disorder? Or simple pride in one's ability to edit or purchase editing services. The intensity of feeling generated tells me that it might make for interesting psychological study.


The most intensity I've seen in this thread has been from you. Why? I'm always surprised when people show up in these threads to defend the practice of selling poorly-edited books. Nobody here has decreed that only authors who can afford expensive editors can publish. The point has been made over and over again that there are plenty of ways to edit your book without needing money, including critique groups, beta readers, fellow writers (work out a trade), etc. There has been no rallying call to ban books or prevent people from publishing. And yet you're clearly upset with those of us who believe that a product you put up for sale ought to be as high in quality as possible.

I have to be honest, this level of defensiveness is very curious.

Nobody is berating authors who release "imperfect" books. A handful of typos does not an unedited book make.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2011)

Any writer who expects their readers to do their job deserves the hateful, visceral, 1 star review they earned when they pressed "PUBLISH."

And those readers deserve-- and should request-- refunds.


----------



## Buffalo Cowboy (Aug 29, 2011)

William, I couldn't agree more. I think there are some major issues with indie publishing, and it is certainly changing the dynamic of the book world. While some great authors that would have otherwise gone unnoticed are now given a chance to have their work seen and appreciated, it has also become a time where authors aren't vetted through publishers or, in many cases, editors. 

It's like having thousands of people in a room screaming at the top of their lungs for someone to read their book. Distinguishing those with talent from those who haven't any becomes exceedingly difficult. 

-Nate


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

Carradee said:


> *Yikes, people! What's with the sudden nastiness?*
> 
> Okay, some folks are deluded about how perfect their books are, and some are deluded about the quality of a book that hasn't sold much yet. Chill and deal, folks.
> 
> ...


Bravo.


----------



## Elijah Joon (Mar 11, 2011)

Austin_Briggs said:


> Bravo.


Cheers.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Buffalo Cowboy said:


> It's like having thousands of people in a room screaming at the top of their lungs for someone to read their book. Distinguishing those with talent from those who haven't any becomes exceedingly difficult.


That'd be more true if you had to do the job all by yourself, but there's plenty of help out there unless something's just been released: blog reviews, reader reviews and ratings from multiple sites, book sales rankings, etc.

Consider by way of analogy that there are millions of web pages, but does it seem difficult to find the best ones for you?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

William Peter Grasso said:


> Believe me, it's not my intention to start a fight here...but I've been drawn to two types of threads on this board (and a few other blogs) lately.
> 
> The first bemoans the process of editing--or the lack of it. Reference is usually made to reader complaints about the low-quality of indie publishing.
> 
> ...


So I'm not quite sure what you are saying? That errors are never found in Legacy published novels? I assure they are. That we indie authors should refuse to fix errors that slip through the editing process which they absolutely will?

Whichever, I have found errors after publication in both models and got stuck with a cover and prices I absolutely loathed. In the indie model, I have fixed them.

Frankly, if you don't like it, I consider that your problem.


----------



## philvan (May 26, 2010)

Let us look at the positive side here. An indie published ebook can be revised after publication, so that those apparently unnoticed typos etc can be fixed. Most of us do try to eliminate those errors before publication, with varying degrees of success.
More extensive editing, to produce a better story, eliminate info-dumps, etc, should have been done before this point, but again, a revision is possible.
Theoretically then, an indie ebook has a better chance of ultimately reaching a high standard than a Traditionally Published printed book, which may have errors which are simply too costly to fix.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"It's like having thousands of people in a room screaming at the top of their lungs for someone to read their book. Distinguishing those with talent from those who haven't any becomes exceedingly difficult."_

That's the nature of the internet. It's full of junk. Yet we seem to be able to find the good stuff. I can't explain exactly how it works, nor is anybody in charge, but it works.


----------



## Flopstick (Jul 19, 2011)

Richardcrasta said:


> I would rather read a book that is different and refreshing, but has a few typos in it, than read one that is perfect and unoriginal.


So would I, but that's a completely false dichotomy.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Eric C said:


> That'd be more true if you had to do the job all by yourself, but there's plenty of help out there unless something's just been released: blog reviews, reader reviews and ratings from multiple sites, book sales rankings, etc.


We do have to do it by ourselves and it is like finding good websites to hang out on. We each have our rules for sites just like we have our rules for books. One of my disqualifiers for any ebook is a review that seems real to me and states there are formatting, grammar or spelling errors. I also disqualify a stand alone short stories or novellas. I'm sure I've passed over things that are good occasionally - but them's the rules.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

If people who have previously recommended books that you enjoyed recommend something new are you going to trust their opinion and give it a shot?

That's how the cream rises to the top.  People like it and tell other people who also like it and tell other people and so on and so on like that shampoo commercial that was on thirty years ago.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> We do have to do it by ourselves and it is like finding good websites to hang out on. We each have our rules for sites just like we have our rules for books. *One of my disqualifiers for any ebook is a review that seems real to me and states there are formatting, grammar or spelling errors.* I also disqualify a stand alone short stories or novellas. I'm sure I've passed over things that are good occasionally - but them's the rules.


Yes, all. In addition, if I DO happen to read a book that has serious problems with formatting, grammar, spelling, editing, _even if I enjoy the story_, I will not recommend it to anyone, because then it's MY reputation, and I don't want any of it to come back on me when a friend reads the same book (on my advice,) and says "wow, that book seriously needed an editor, why would she recommend it?" What do you think my next suggestion is going to be worth?


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

Buffalo Cowboy said:


> It's like having thousands of people in a room screaming at the top of their lungs for someone to read their book. Distinguishing those with talent from those who haven't any becomes exceedingly difficult.


More often than not it's the people who aren't shouting that are worth listening to. And in real life, too


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

Ben White said:


> More often than not it's the people who aren't shouting that are worth listening to. And in real life, too


This is the truth.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Flopstick said:


> So would I, but that's a completely false dichotomy.


Once again, I make no excuses for shoddy books, bad writing, pointless books, or books that are rehashes and repackaging of knowledge available on the Net.

and I was deeply mortified and apologize for errors that I just discovered in "Impressing the Whites" (the result of too many earlier versions hanging around without clear markers), which have been corrected.

But would I read a Thomas Pynchon, Dostoevsky, or Saul Bellow book which had a few typos over a book by Robert Ludlum or Dan Brown that was perfectly proofread? Any day! (And, as a recent New York Times article said, even the top publishers these days send out books with typos in them--as they rush to meet deadlines and cut quality controls.)

It's not so farfetched. I found quite a few errors in the Penguin (first) edition of my book; the book sold nevertheless, and the ones I caught were corrected in the second edition.

All I am saying is that it is a matter of scale and proportion, and each case must be judged on its own merits.

And yes, I believe a good reader and editor can enhance a book and does much more than correcting grammar or spelling (and I too have functioned as an editor for other people's books), but sometimes, a writer has to make do with his/her circumstances. I would forgive a good writer for unintentional errors, and I hope others do too.


----------



## WilliamKing.me (Jul 15, 2011)

> Yikes, people! What's with the sudden nastiness?
> 
> Okay, some folks are deluded about how perfect their books are, and some are deluded about the quality of a book that hasn't sold much yet. Chill and deal, folks.
> 
> ...


This! Very well said!

I've been doing this for almost a quarter of a century now. I've had books that were professionally edited by multiple editors and copyeditors and gone over by a team of test readers and by my agent who was a former editor at Simon and Schuster. There are mistakes in every last one of them. They slap me in the face every time I look now but somehow I never spotted them back in the day. There's no such thing as an error-free book. If you look for errors, you WILL find them in any book. You just won't find all of them. No one ever does. The fact that you really can fix these mistakes is a wonderful thing. It's a new world. Enjoy it!


----------



## wm ollie (Aug 9, 2010)

editing out errors can be extremely hard (to catch them all)... some of that I can forgive, sloppy writing and bad storytelling, not so much


----------



## wildwitchof (Sep 2, 2010)

B. Justin Shier said:


> 1) Fame
> 2) Power
> 3) Vengeance
> 
> ...


 
Put me down for Vengeance at #1.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

B. Justin Shier said:


> 1) Fame
> 2) Power
> 3) Vengeance
> 
> ...


1) Need something to do while sh*tfaced
2) Bored in the Witness Protection Program
3) Committing libel

... but that's just me.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> "Lovers and Beloveds" went through me, two editors, a 10-person beta group, and an accidental distributed proofreading squad of about 50 other people before it went to press.
> 
> A reviewer still found four typos recently that NONE of us caught.


This is the thing. Absolutely none of us is perfect. I don't care if you've been editing for 50 years and you're the top dog at it. You're still not perfect. You're still human. You're still bound to miss things.

Every single major publisher puts out books that are not perfect. Every single major author that is a household name has books out that are not perfect. Even number 1 best selling books are not perfect.

Yes, some indies are far, far less perfect because they are just SO damn sloppy. But, then again, a lot of people go indie and can't afford to hire even a mediocre editor to polish their work.

So . . . then every other person holds that indie author's lack of money or other resources against them. Instead of supporting that author however they can so that the author can improve . . . by earning money and improving their craft.

I know, I'm ranting. I just wish people would accept mistakes in others, since they have mistakes within themselves as well. You want people to accept your mistakes so that you can improve on those weaknesses. Don't shut that same door in someone else's face.


----------



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

*stabs my eye with a fork*

a) This is called proofreading.

People. Come on. I have never, ever, EVER picked up a trade book off a book store shelf and found a typo/grammar issues on every single page. NEVER. Yet, I cannot even begin to tell you how many times this happened while searching for self-published titles _to the point that I no longer even look at them unless I see an online review/referred by a friend/know the author/it's a previously-published item._ My overall experience has brought me to that point.

ETA: There is a huge difference between a couple of typos/missing words in a novel and the huge issues that too many books have out there right now.

(And, yes, there is one particular publishing house who I avoid like the plague because I know I will be thoroughly disappointed with every single female character in the book...I don't believe in wasting my precious reading time).

b) This is called editing.

If a person cannot even figure out the basics of choosing between their/there/they're, I question their ability to figure out complex items like character development, plot, tension, conflict, dialogue, dialogue tagging, setting, knowing when to show vs knowing when to tell, and other things that makes a story great.

*Instead of supporting that author however they can so that the author can improve . . . by earning money and improving their craft.*

I most certainly am *not* a educational charity firm. I read to be entertained, not to support arrogance ("I don't need an editor"), ignorance ("What does point of view mean?"), impatience ("If I don't publish this now, self-publishing will end and I would have missed the gravy boat"), or scam artists ("I know this isn't my best work, but let's see how many people I can sucker into buying it").

I believe someone on Kindleboards called me a hypocrite once for saying the above. Oh well.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> *stabs my eye with a fork*
> 
> a) This is called proofreading.
> 
> ...


I agree with 100% of what you say. Sadly, this thread only proves one thing and it starts with: "You can lead a horse to water..."


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

L.A. Tripp said:


> So . . . then every other person holds that indie author's lack of money or other resources against them.


Wrong. Readers who criticize unedited, unproofed novels (which really should be called "first drafts,") couldn't care less about how much money the writer has, how much they spent, or whether the writer needs to be "supported," we just want to read something that is enjoyable. It matters not one bit if you had 20 of your most grammar conscious friends look at 5 chapters each as friends, and your mother checked your spelling, or if you dropped $2k on an editing package because your rich spouse is bankrolling your hobby.

All readers/buyers care about is that you aren't foisting your first drafts off on us as a salable product. If your product has not been edited and proofed, it's not salable, and anyone who prefers a finished product is entitled to complain, without it being insinuated that they are classist. Last I checked, you didn't have to post either your business plan or your financials before you could self-publish.


----------



## MarieDees (Feb 14, 2011)

> So . . . then every other person holds that indie author's lack of money or other resources against them. Instead of supporting that author however they can so that the author can improve . . . by earning money and improving their craft.


Oh, gods, that has just made my entire weekend!


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

MarieDees said:


> Oh, gods, that has just made my entire weekend!


I finally figured out what's missing from this thread. We need some theme music!


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I most certainly am *not* a educational charity firm. I read to be entertained, not to support arrogance ("I don't need an editor"), ignorance ("What does point of view mean?"), impatience ("If I don't publish this now, self-publishing will end and I would have missed the gravy boat"), or scam artists ("I know this isn't my best work, but let's see how many people I can sucker into buying it").
> 
> I believe someone on Kindleboards called me a hypocrite once for saying the above. Oh well.


Alright. Slow down. I never said nor meant to imply any of those things.

Let's take a breather.

I'm not talking about throwing a true piece of garbage out there and trying to sucker people into buying. I'm not talking about the author that threw their rough draft out there. I agree, if it's a rough draft, it shouldn't be put out. What I'm talking about is the indie author that puts out work that "has" been gone through yet there are still errors that have been missed. They have put effort into it.

Trade houses do have the same problem. I have books by every major author on my personal bookshelves. If you open any of them and try, you can find errors in them. No one is perfect. Yet, "it seems" that some indie authors are discarded when they should rather be supported, not as a charity, Krista, but as an author that "can" improve.

And though, yes, many indie authors truly do put straight up junk out there (rough drafts), I'm just a bit tired of the idea or theory that the big 6 publishers put out stuff that's darn near perfect every time.

That's the point. We are all human. We all miss things. There are errors in everything. Yet people still have the opinion that the big 6 should be supported and indie can just kiss their a**.

The big 6 won't be around forever. What will those readers do then?


----------



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

L.A. Tripp said:


> The big 6 won't be around forever. What will those readers do then?


I can't stop laughing.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

Krista, I know you don't like me, which is fine. I'm just trying to share a bit of reality. 

Laugh or not, the big 6 won't be around forever.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I most certainly am *not* a educational charity firm. I read to be entertained, not to support arrogance ("I don't need an editor"), ignorance ("What does point of view mean?"), impatience ("If I don't publish this now, self-publishing will end and I would have missed the gravy boat"), or scam artists ("I know this isn't my best work, but let's see how many people I can sucker into buying it").
> 
> I believe someone on Kindleboards called me a hypocrite once for saying the above. Oh well.


Who cares about the opinions of "writers" who don't even know what "hypocrite" means? Why should anyone want to spend money and hours on the books of "writers" who don't know what "hypocrite" means?



StaceyHH said:


> If your product has not been edited and proofed, it's not salable, and anyone who prefers a finished product is entitled to complain, without it being insinuated that they are classist.


Since when is craft-pride an elitist occupation? Anyone who can make so perverse an accusation doesn't deserve my money or my time for her book.

I agree with Marie, Kevis and others: Krista and Stacey have it exactly right.

quote author=L.A. Tripp link=topic=83185.msg1321587#msg1321587 date=1315695521]
Laugh or not, the big 6 won't be around forever.
[/quote]

Thanks for the giggle; I do hope you're making a joke. The Big Six will be around long after you're gone, L.A. Tripp, and they won't even remember your name, never mind that you once doubted their longevity.


----------



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

I'm confused how disagreeing with a person means a personal dislike.

Anyway, please provide your evidence that Big 6 "won't be around forever." The corporate world is such that it's more likely they will buy each other out, merge with other houses, and reappear under different names stronger, bigger, and leaner than every before.


----------



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

Overheard on Twitter:

_If you're broke, there's a way to get published w/ an editor. It's an industry called PUBLISHING._


----------



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

Andre Jute said:


> Thanks for the giggle; I do hope you're making a joke. The Big Six will be around long after you're gone, L.A. Tripp, and they won't even remember your name, never mind that you once doubted their longevity.


Out of pure curiosity, what services do you think the big six publishers will be providing when they forget L.A. Tripp's name?

B.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

Yep, the big 6 are so impossibly stable. That's why their advances are now starting to be split up into four installments instead of 3. That's why "typical" advances have gone from $20,000 to $5,000 (ahem, $5,000 split into 4 installments spread out over 2 to 3 years), and some major mainstream authors are now going indie.

Yep, all because the big 6 are so impossibly stable.

Oh, and by the way, some authors are now also getting fired. Or being forced to change their pen names. Or being forced to write in a different genre to keep their jobs.


----------



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

Authors have always been fired, forced to change names, write different genres. That hasn't changed.

The overall royalty amount has generally gotten lower. However, at the same time, it's just a better reflection of the earn out rate. Authors who do well are still going to get paid after earning out. Some of those authors have been able to negotiate for higher royalties, as well, as part of a lower advance.

Yet, people are still trying to publish with them and are being rather successful doing it.

So, again, how is it that they are going to suddenly disappear and not get replaced by anyone else? Or, let's say that those big 6 publishers go. What about the thousands of others that are right behind them? What about my author friends whose royalty cheques get bigger every quarter/half year? etc etc etc

The idea that there will never be giant publishing houses is laughable because it flies in the face of how modern business works. Even if they disappeared, it would create a vacuum that would only get filled in again.

So, let's tie this back. What does this have to do with crappy quality and self-published authors expecting readers to give them cash to get better? (even though, those authors probably aren't going to invest back into their craft or quality since people are giving them money already.) 

Nothing.


----------



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

Krista D. Ball said:


> The corporate world is such that it's more likely they will buy each other out, merge with other houses, and reappear under different names stronger, bigger, and leaner than every before.


The first part of your sentence has already occurred:

Hachette is owned by Hachette Livre which is owned by Lagardere SCA which is owned by MMB (MMB).

Harper Collins is owned by News Corp (NWS:US).

Macmillan is owned by McGraw-Hill (MHP:US).

Penguin is owned by Penguin Global which is owned by Pearson PLC (PSO).

Simon and Schuster is owned by CBS (CBS:US).

Random House is owned by Bertelsmann, which is a giant private company. (Perhaps this is why their releases are my favorites.)

For a grouped analysis of all these holding companies, please refer to:

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?MMB.EU,NWS,MHP,PSO,CBS

And don't go, ah, these companies are doing so well! They shall never fail! Think instead, uh-oh, the publishing divisions of these large holding companies are not yielding the same returns as the remainder of their portfolios. We're already past the mergers and acquisitions phase. The publishing houses have entered the "wet dog" phase of their product evolution. You can examine the fun times that occur next by reviewing the plights of newspapers like the LA Times. And if you really hate BCG-matrix analysis, I'd recommend this 



. Do be sure to watch the European version, in which


Spoiler



Richard Geer's character abandons the call girl on the nearest street corner and sells the old man's under-performing company for parts


.

B.

-apologies for all the edits; my new Honeycomb Nook is trixy.


----------



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

Krista D. Ball said:


> The idea that there will never be giant publishing houses is laughable because it flies in the face of how modern business works. Even if they disappeared, it would create a vacuum that would only get filled in again.


Tell that to Lehman Brothers-and GM and Cadillac if the feds hadn't intervened. Heck, tell that to Greece. Modern business works by being cruel. It doesn't shed a tear while knocking down 100 year old houses. The Big-6's well guarded pipelines have been bypassed by a group of MUCH larger electric fish. Borders is done for. B&N brickfronts are focused on selling Nooks and children's toys. There is no vacuum that needs filling; the distance between author and reader has been shortened.



Krista D. Ball said:


> So, let's tie this back. What does this have to do with crappy quality and self-published authors expecting readers to give them cash to get better? (even though, those authors probably aren't going to invest back into their craft or quality since people are giving them money already.)
> 
> Nothing.


But it has everything to do with this topic. As publishing houses lose more and more of their staff to cutbacks, the quality of their editing-and especially their proofreading-has/is/will decline. So even if an author is signed by a major house, the onus of quality is going to be placed more and more on his/her bony shoulders. Everyone, self-pub and trad-pub alike, is facing the challenge of producing low error rate tomes. A discussion of what error rates our disparate marketplaces will or will not accept-and how best to deliver them a finished product at the required level of sigma-is of great value to us all.

I'm of the "low typo count or I'm not reading it" camp too, but I'm having trouble thinking everyone else shares my absolutist viewpoint when I see so many poorly proofread (but otherwise well-written and well-edited) novels sell like hotcakes on Amazon. It's not my market, nor am I interested in pursuing it, but I'm not about to go bag on those that succeed by chasing that market, and I'm not about to deny its existence.

B.


----------



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

haha That movie always made me chuckle.

They will continue to buy smaller publishing houses, some will go bankrupt and their assets be bought by other publishers, merge, change, evolve. A giant company can't turn around in an instant, like a small publisher or even an individual, but once they turn around, they'll once more roll over everyone in their path. Just look at that Sunshine Sale over the summer. Man, the


Spoiler



bitching


 and moaning that went on here about it. And that was one sale.

But, let's say they disappear. Poof! They're gone. Bookstores will continue to order from small and medium-sized indie publishers, only they'll order more. They'll still only deal with the reps for their large orders, while individual stores will continue to order a few for local authors. Some authors will stop publishing, some will go with small press, some will self-publish.

Then, those medium publishers will have enough money to buy out some of their competition. Grow, expand, and poof! We have a new big 6 yet again.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

BUT

Let's say that publishing dies. POOF! The publishing is dead. Long live the publishing. Now what? Some of those unemployed editors and marketing types still itch to be involved in publishing. They love books and want to continue working with authors and great books. A few of them who worked together team up and create a small, indie publishing house. Since there are no publishers, they are quickly able to lap up authors who don't want to do all of the work that self-publishing requires.

You can see where this is going.

A gross, over-simplification, of course, but the idea that everyone will have to resort to self-publishing because of the imminent collapse of publishing is a little difficult to swallow.

Will the publishing houses of tomorrow look like today? Nah. That's rather different, however, then the idea that they won't be there tomorrow.


----------



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

B. Justin Shier said:


> I'm of the "low typo count or I'm not reading it" camp too, but I'm having trouble thinking that everyone else shares this absolutist viewpoint when I see so many poorly proofread (but otherwise well-written and well-edited) novels sell so like hotcakes on Amazon. It's not my market, nor am I interested in pursuing it, but I'm not about to go bag on those that succeed by chasing that market, and I'm not about to deny its existence.


*stabs eye with fork*

A) There is a different between proofreading/line editing and editing/content editing/development editing, whatever you want to call it.

B) Poorly written crap is still poorly written crap. I'm cool with well-written crap. I own some of it.

C) Lehman Brothers went away. Does that mean every other single financial business went away, too? Does that mean no one else acquired some of their business? Does that mean no other firm will eventually rise back to their level?

_A discussion of what error rates our disparate marketplaces will or will not accept-and how best to deliver them a finished product at the required level of sigma-is of great value to us all._

That's not why we are discussing this. This is why: _The big 6 won't be around forever. What will those readers do then?_

Readers will continue to search out whatever product falls under their spending habits. Some people prefer cheap no matter the quality. Some people want cheap, but also want quality. Some people want mid-range. Some people want speciality. Some people want new and glitzy. Some people want their favourite authors and will pay for it. I can go on.


----------



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

And with that, I am going to head out as I want to get my stuff in on deadline before publishing dies


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

The funniest part about this thread is that there are so many authors who think that what those of us who believe in selling a quality product are criticizing is "a few typos". How many times does this need to be explained? Every book (practically) has a stray typo or three. The issue that we're _actually_ talking about here are books in which _every page_ contains typos, grammatical errors, passive writing, whatever. These books may also suffer from major plot holes, discrepancies, poorly constructed dialogue, etc. In other words, we're talking about *unedited* books. Not books whose proofreading failed to identify a handful of errors.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Seriously.


----------



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

flanneryohello said:


> Why is this so hard for people to understand? Seriously.


*hands over the fork* I'm heading to bed. I don't need it for 8 hours.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> But, let's say they disappear. Poof! They're gone. Bookstores will continue to order from small and medium-sized indie publishers, only they'll order more. They'll still only deal with the reps for their large orders, while individual stores will continue to order a few for local authors. Some authors will stop publishing, some will go with small press, some will self-publish.
> 
> Then, those medium publishers will have enough money to buy out some of their competition. Grow, expand, and poof! We have a new big 6 yet again.


This is why you are laughing at my statement of the big 6 not being around forever. Yet, you're actually backing my statement up. I never said publishing would die. Don't put words in my mouth now, please. But the big 6 that are currently "there", if you can they are really "there" won't be around forever. They are barely hanging on as it is.


> Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...


Right. It definitely won't look like it does today. The big 6 that are in control today won't be in control. Their business model doesn't operate this way. And yes, they could change fairly quickly if they wanted to. But, they don't want to. They'd rather grab onto any string of power that they can to maintain the status quo of what is. And that will end up strangling them for good.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Out of pure curiosity, what services do you think the big six publishers will be providing when they forget L.A. Tripp's name?


Gatekeeping, editorial, proofing, design, layout, marketing, accounting, forward financing of writers.

The forecast demise of the Big Six is pure wishful thinking, with a large dollop of envy and spite. Even the indies don't believe it -- listen to the hysterical tone of these forecasts, ask for the evidence, then ask again if there is any *economic* credibility to these forecasts.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

Not that the NYT has any credibility these days, but this is interesting nonetheless:


> Editors I spoke to confirmed my guesses. Before digital technology unsettled both the economics and the routines of book publishing, they explained, most publishers employed battalions of full-time copy editors and proofreaders to filter out an author's mistakes. Now, they are gone.
> 
> There is also "pressure to publish more books more quickly than ever," an editor at a major publishing house explained. Many publishers now skip steps. "In the past, you really readied the book in several discrete stages," Paul Elie, a senior editor at Farrar, Straus and Giroux, explained. "Manuscript, galley proofs, revised proofs, blue lines. You marked your changes at each stage, and then the compositor incorporated them and sent you the next stage. Now there are intermediate stages; authors will e-mail in 'one last correction,' or we'll produce intermediate stages of proof - the text is fluid, in motion, and this leads to typos."


So, nah, the big 6 aren't feeling any pressure at all.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/the-price-of-typos/?hp


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Andre Jute said:


> Gatekeeping, editorial, proofing, design, layout, marketing, accounting, forward financing of writers.
> 
> The forecast demise of the Big Six is pure wishful thinking, with a large dollop of envy and spite. Even the indies don't believe it -- listen to the hysterical tone of these forecasts, ask for the evidence, then ask again if there is any *economic* credibility to these forecasts.


I have to agree that it's wishful thinking on the part of many to see the demise of the Big Six. This economy has made people more anti-business than I've seen in years and it's blinding them to the transition that's taking place. Traditional publishing isn't going under. It's evolving just like the rest of the industry. Even if the bricks and mortar retail book shops disappear, there's nothing stopping the Big Six from delivering all of their content digitally online and through mobile apps just like Amazon and other online ebook retailers. In fact, they just might become more profitable and even _bigger_ if and when they do.


----------



## normcowie (Jun 21, 2011)

You're totally right. Too many new writers are in a rush to get their books out there and don't do the careful proofreading that traditional publishing would necessitate.  It's just human nature.

Norm


----------



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

Krista D. Ball said:


> *stabs eye with fork*


You've done that twice now, so I doubt you can read this, but...



Krista D. Ball said:


> A) There is a different between proofreading/line editing and editing/content editing/development editing, whatever you want to call it.


I thought we were talking typos. (I was careful to discriminate between editing and proofreading in my comments.) Apologies.



Krista D. Ball said:


> B) Poorly written crap is still poorly written crap. I'm cool with well-written crap. I own some of it.


Exactly. Some are happy to pay for said stuff...which is sort of my point.

Others have made other assertions. Theirs are not mine.



Krista D. Ball said:


> C) Lehman Brothers went away. Does that mean every other single financial business went away, too? Does that mean no one else acquired some of their business? Does that mean no other firm will eventually rise back to their level?


Fair enough. I shall counter with guano trade vs. the Haber-Bosch process.

Guano trade = print literature (requiring traditional publishing channels)
Haber-Bosch = e-readers (requiring ethernet cables, drive, and intellect)



Krista D. Ball said:


> _A discussion of what error rates our disparate marketplaces will or will not accept-and how best to deliver them a finished product at the required level of sigma-is of great value to us all._
> 
> That's not why we are discussing this. This is why: _The big 6 won't be around forever. What will those readers do then?_
> 
> Readers will continue to search out whatever product falls under their spending habits. Some people prefer cheap no matter the quality. Some people want cheap, but also want quality. Some people want mid-range. Some people want speciality. Some people want new and glitzy. Some people want their favourite authors and will pay for it. I can go on.


We were discussing both, I handled both, and apparently, we are now in agreement that some readers will accept lower standards of quality.



Andre Jute said:


> Gatekeeping, editorial, proofing, design, layout, marketing, accounting, forward financing of writers.


Gatekeeping - crowdsourcing manages this (see Goodreads); cream rises to the top

Editorial, proofing, design, and layout - all fixed costs < $500

Marketing - fair point, this can be expensive, but I'd rather do this myself than sign over my rights

Accounting - Amazon sends me my paychecks; the rest I can handle on my own

Forward financing - fair point, but I did manage to write a book and release it for under $500 dollars while attending medical school; it wasn't easy, I asked for and received a lot of help (which I'm eternally grateful for), but point being, it can be done solo and on the cheap



Andre Jute said:


> The forecast demise of the Big Six is pure wishful thinking, with a large dollop of envy and spite. Even the indies don't believe it -- listen to the hysterical tone of these forecasts, ask for the evidence, then ask again if there is any *economic* credibility to these forecasts.


The forecast survival of the Big Six is pure wishful thinking, with a large dollop of envy and spite. Even the trad-pubs don't believe it -- listen to the hysterical tone of these forecasts, ask for the evidence, then ask again if there is any *economic* credibility to these forecasts.

I provided my analysis; I've yet to see yours. I feel my analysis has a reasonable chance of coming true. I worked in business prior to attending medical school. (I was paid to do this sort of thing.) I do not believe I expressed it in a hysterical tone, and I think I provided a reasonable amount of evidence. I'm apologize if I sounded shrill. I do think I'm in good company. But the dollops of envy are making it a bit hard to see... 

B.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

normcowie said:


> You're totally right. Too many new writers are in a rush to get their books out there and don't do the careful proofreading that traditional publishing would necessitate. It's just human nature.
> 
> Norm


I guess you missed my post . . . lol


----------



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

Sorry, did I just read that you are accusing me of envy? Seriously? I self-publish and continue to do so. I also sign with publishers and continue to do so. I'm confused why I am being accused of suffering from envy and spite.

I see your Konrath blog post and raise you a Smith post. Seriously? Is this what we've been reduced to? http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=2400 "Self-publishing writers think that big publishing will collapse because the self-published writers now find it easy to put up their own books."


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

L.A. Tripp said:


> Not that the NYT has any credibility these days, but this is interesting nonetheless:So, nah, the big 6 aren't feeling any pressure at all.
> 
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/the-price-of-typos/?hp


I just sent this to another forum:

We comment often about the atmosphere of fear in indieland, but there has been a terror stalking big publishing since the Night of the Long Knives in 1989 when so many first-class editors were found to be too expensive and fired. The spectre that stalks Madison and Bedford Square is Rationalization.

(post 73 in http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/623372-fuming?page=2#comment_36706322 )

There are always disturbances in big business, always pressure felt by someone. The bosses don't get paid for doing nothing and feeling smug. But that is no reason to forecast the corporation's demise, as you do. What the NYT article describes is just he normal to and fro of business, dressed up a bit to make it sound dramatic.


----------



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

Andre Jute said:


> bosses don't get paid for doing nothing and feeling smug.


I once worked for a person who was paid for doing nothing and feeling smug. God, I wanted her job so bad. I can do smug like nobody's business.


----------



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

Krista D. Ball said:


> Sorry, did I just read that you are accusing me of envy? Seriously? I self-publish and continue to do so. I also sign with publishers and continue to do so. I'm confused why I am being accused of suffering from envy and spite.
> 
> I see your Konrath blog post and raise you a Smith post. Seriously? Is this what we've been reduced to? http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=2400 "Self-publishing writers think that big publishing will collapse because the self-published writers now find it easy to put up their own books."


The quote was from Andre. The reply was to Andre. You (Krista D. Ball) do not appear smug-and there is nothing wrong with a Smith post. I'll be sure to read it.

B.


----------



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

I most certainly AM smug. TAKE IT BACK TAKE IT BACK


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> I just sent this to another forum:
> 
> We comment often about the atmosphere of fear in indieland, but there has been a terror stalking big publishing since the Night of the Long Knives in 1989 when so many first-class editors were found to be too expensive and fired. The spectre that stalks Madison and Bedford Square is Rationalization.
> 
> ...


What the article also shows is that the gatekeepers and "strict standards" of traditional publishing are relaxed now. Don't take that to the other extreme and assume I'm saying there are no standards or gatekeepers, but it's clear that the Great Wall of China of tradi pubs is no longer the great wall when it comes to filtering things out.

This is also a result of the big 6 feeling the pressure, hurting financially as it were.

And yes, Krista, we all know you're smug


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Justin, I'm so entertained by the optimism of "crowdsourcing" sending cream to the top, and the naievety of believing that editing, proofreading, design and layout -- all of them -- are a) fixed and b) available for $500 between the lot of them, that I'll let you discover the hard way that you don't know everything -- on this showing that you don't know anything -- and that you get what you pay for.

I could accede to your demand for analysis but I've been in publishing longer than you're old, and not a single year has passed without some bright young man recently arrived from business school making rash forecasts about the demise of publishing as we know it -- none of which have been borne out yet. Analysis isn't required; experience suffices.

Your pastiche of my paragraph doesn't incline me to share anything else with you.


----------



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

L.A. Tripp said:


> And yes, Krista, we all know you're smug


Thank you. I work hard to be this smug.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

P.S. Andre, I don't have a fear or mania or envy or any other thing about the big 6 demising. I'm merely talking from a POV of looking at what's happening in the world.

We could easily, however, say that you are talking from a fear of indie publishing actually flourishing. Could we not?

Krista . . . you're welcome . . . but eh, you have to work at that?


----------



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

Andre Jute said:


> Justin, I'm so entertained by the optimism of "crowdsourcing" sending cream to the top, and the naievety of believing that editing, proofreading, design and layout -- all of them -- are a) fixed and b) available for $500 between the lot of them, that I'll let you discover the hard way that you don't know everything -- on this showing that you don't know anything -- and that you get what you pay for.
> 
> I could accede to your demand for analysis but I've been in publishing longer than you're old, and not a single year has passed without some bright young man recently arrived from business school making rash forecasts about the demise of publishing as we know it -- none of which have been borne out yet. Analysis isn't required; experience suffices.
> 
> Your pastiche of my paragraph doesn't incline me to share anything else with you.


I've waited 30 years for a reply as awesome as this. Please, no one delete it. This is better than a puppy. Thank you.

William, sorry for hijacking your thread. I'll step out now.

B.


----------



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

I have a fear of badly-written crap flourishing.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I have a fear of badly-written crap flourishing.


Krista, my dear, you should have no fear of that. After all, doesn't the cream rise to the top?


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

L.A. Tripp said:


> We could easily, however, say that you are talking from a fear of indie publishing actually flourishing. Could we not?


What's this, the junior high school debating society, where you tell a silly lie about someone and then demand that he defend himself?


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Oh my God...I've stumbled into the wrong thread! I think I'm one of the ones they are complaining about. I wasn't able to get my book edited...oh God..oh God...where is the door? I've gotta get out of here before they see me. They will eviserate me!!..Somebody help me!!!! Where is the door?


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

Andre, it's no more of a lie than the words you put into my mouth, sir.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

JeanneM said:


> Oh my God...I've stumbled into the wrong thread! I think I'm the one of the ones they are complaining about. I wasn't able to get my book edited...oh God..oh God...where is the door? I've gotta get out of here before they see me. They will eviserate me!!..Somebody help me!!!! Where is the door?


Haha, awesome!


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

L.A. Tripp said:


> Andre, it's no more of a lie than the words you put into my mouth, sir.


I didn't personalize any words to you. It's not my problem if you read a general statement as a personal attack.

By contrast, you clearly personalized your statement to me: "We could easily, however, say that you are talking from a fear of indie publishing actually flourishing. Could we not?" - L.A. Tripp addressing Andre Jute by name.

If you're now claiming that your attempt at a smear job is true, you should try to prove it.


----------



## L.A. Tripp (Jul 18, 2011)

No sir. Not any more than this is an attempt at a smear job towards me.


> Thanks for the giggle; I do hope you're making a joke. The Big Six will be around long after you're gone, L.A. Tripp, and they won't even remember your name, never mind that you once doubted their longevity.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

L.A. Tripp said:


> No sir. Not any more than this is an attempt at a smear job towards me.
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the giggle; I do hope you're making a joke. The Big Six will be around long after you're gone, L.A. Tripp, and they won't even remember your name, never mind that you once doubted their longevity.


Can any writer, of whatever quality, truly be so insensitive that he/she/it cannot see the difference between my statement of facts above (you publicly, repeatedly, doubted the longevity of the Big Six, and common sense tells us they don't know or care who you are) and your accusation below:



> We could easily, however, say that you are talking from a fear of indie publishing actually flourishing. Could we not?


- L.A. Tripp addressing Andre Jute by name.

Since you claim to be ignorant of what you've done, let me spell it out for you in short, numbered paragraphs:

1. This is a board absolutely loaded with indies.

2. The bullying, hectoring tone of "Could we not?" makes quite clear you intend an accusation.

3. You claim it can be "easily" proved.

4. Anyone who harbors "fear of indie publishing actually flourishing" clearly does not wish indies well.

Anyone with manners and sensitivity would have withdrawn the accusation the first time I mentioned it, and further described it as a lie. Instead you tried several times to make out I'm as bad as you, that there's some moral equivalence between us. It's nonsense, as I've again demonstrated on your last effort. On the evidence, you lost an argument and then tried to victimize me by smearing me as an enemy of indies, and now, confronted with a demand for proof, you're weaseling.

Withdraw the accusation, or let's see the proof you claim you can provide "easily".


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, this thread has devolved to two members picking each other's posts apart...  Not the kind of conversation we want to encourage here on KindleBoards.  

Thread is locked; let's move on, lots of other threads to read.  I may do some clean up as it seems some personal comments spilled into the aisle.

*loudspeaker:  mop to aisle three of the Writers' Café*

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

