# Julie’s Vent for the Day: Publishing is Not a Charity



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

OK, so I’m ticked off about a couple of posts in different threads.  And I didn’t want to get into it in those threads, because anything I said in those threads would have been construed as a personal attack.  Then Betsy would have thrown one of her hats at me, and nobody wants to see her do that (it would be horrible if one was damaged).  

It seems a whole lot of people have mastered the “self” but not the “publisher” in the term self-publisher.

I am speaking, not as a writer or editor or publisher, but as a CONSUMER.  YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MY TIME OR MONEY.  Period.  End of Story.  Your desire to be read does not trump my desire to read a quality book.  Particularly when it is my money we are talking about.  When I read statements like “I can’t afford to get an editor so I have to wait until I make some sales” what I actually hear is “I could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME.”  But it isn’t about you.  It’s about the readers.

As some of you might recall, I’m working on a little project on indie ethics.  And I’ve been conducting various surveys gathering data.  I conducted a survey of just readers at Goodreads and, not surprisingly, almost 95% of them expect a book to be properly proofed and edited before they buy it.  Only 2% were willing to turn a blind eye to bad editing (and only then if the book was free or cheap).

You are free to write whatever you want.  You are free to post it on your blogs.  You can make it a free download.  I don’t care.  But the very second you ask for money, you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to make sure what you are selling is actually worth buying.  You have no right to demand that I spend even 99 cents on your book if you don’t care enough to make sure it is edited and proofed first.  You have no right to request that I spend five or six or twelve hours of my life reading your story when you couldn’t be bothered to make sure it was worth my time first.

Nobody here is a unique little snowflake.  Each of us is one of a million authors with a book to sell.  None of us are automatically deserving of a “chance.”  You earn that chance by producing a good product and giving a damn about the needs of the reader.

If you can’t be bothered to figure out a way to make sure your book is proofed and edited, you have no business being a publisher.  There is no Constitutional right to sell a book on Amazon.  That is an opportunity, but not a right.  

Imagine you go to a restaurant and order a steak dinner.  The waitress brings out the dinner on a plate that is still covered in dried pasta sauce on it from a previous meal.  You complain to the chef, who replies “forget about the dried sauce.  What do you think of the steak?”  You wouldn’t even TOUCH the steak. It might be the best tasting steak in the world.  But all the leftover food from the previous meal has killed your appetite.

It’s the same thing with your book.  You might have the greatest book in the world, but if you louse it up with crap editing and proofreading, nobody is going to want to read it.

If you cannot afford an editor and proofreader, you need to think outside the box on how to get one.  As a public service, I offer some suggestions.

Check your community college:  When I was a college student, I did a lot of comp work for businesses in the area.  Why?  Because I had no practical business experience and it was a way for me to build up a portfolio of professional work.  I was designing brochures, flyers, ads, writing press releases, and all sorts of little projects.  That gave me ammo that landed by first job with the City of Bridgeton’s Public Relations department.  I have real world stuff in my portfolio, not just class projects.  That gave me an advantage in the marketplace.

You can place a classified ad in the college newspaper looking for an English major to serve as a volunteer editor for an independent book project.  In college, the practical work experience is more important than a few bucks, because they are looking at an ugly employment marketplace when they graduate.

Swap services:  Are you an artist?  Are you good at formatting?  Can you do research?  Ask around for a service swap.  I suspect a lot of folks would trade editing services for a free piece of cover art.  

I have a friend who found an artist by placing a classified ad in the paper offering to swap his services (he’s an electrician by trade) for some artwork.  He got five different offers from artists in his area.  He picked one and he did some wiring for the guy (I believe it was installing some ceiling fans) and the guy did some interior art for his RPG project.

I also know someone who pays his artist with homemade pies.  The artist is a bachelor and doesn’t cook well, so the guy’s wife makes him homemade pies (she owns a small bakery).  

Join a Writing Circle in your community (or start one!):  Find writers in your area and work to help each other.  Sure, some of these groups can get pretentious.  But that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  We all need someone around us willing to say “no” once in a while.  If you only surround yourself with the proverbial yes-men, you never improve.  You can edit and proof each others work.  With multiple sets of eyes on a project, you will catch more issues and get a wider range of voices.

So lack of money is not an excuse to not have a proofreader or editor.  There are ways to find competent proofreaders and editors without spending a small fortune.  But you need to care enough about your readers to do that.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Amen.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Word.


----------



## Sara Pierce (May 15, 2011)

A-freaking-MEN, preach it!!!


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

I knew there was some reason I liked you!   

This is an excellent post!


----------



## ashleygirardi (Apr 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I am speaking, not as a writer or editor or publisher, but as a CONSUMER. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MY TIME OR MONEY. Period. End of Story. Your desire to be read does not trump my desire to read a quality book. Particularly when it is my money we are talking about. When I read statements like I can't afford to get an editor so I have to wait until I make some sales" what I actually hear is "I could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME." But it isn't about you. It's about the readers


I do agree with you that ensuring a quality product is the responsibility of the producer. However, I think your conflating the ideas of price and value. An author post any old piece of writing up on Amazon and slap a $.99 price sticker on it, but that doesn't mean the book is actually WORTH $.99, it could be more and it could be less. That's ultimately for the market to decide. Producers vote when they set the price for their work and consumers vote with their wallets and feedback in the form of reviews and word-of-mouth recommendations.

And let's make something clear: the reader is no more entitled to purchase work for INSANELY bottomed out prices than the author is to their money. I personally can't stand the $.99 price point. It's unfair to the author because it severely undervalues their hard work and it gives the reader the false idea that $.99 is what a full-length novel is worth (talking about value here). But that's what the market has come to and for right now we have to deal with it.

It's pretty much a constant of the free market that you sacrifice quality for lower prices. You can go to Banana Republic and buy a shirt that you know is stitched well and made of quality fabric OR you can go to Walmart and get something for a fraction of the price made from polyester and produced by Chinese orphans--you as the consumer decide which is the better value for your money. But, you don't get mad at Walmart for not making better shirts and still selling them for five dollars.

The $.99 price point can't support the team of personnel necessary to produce a high-quality product, especially not at first. If you don't like the crap being produced for cheap then vote in the only way that matters. Don't buy Indie books priced at $.99 because you're only supporting the idea that that's what their worth. Seek out the authors who've managed to find a sweet spot between price and quality (reviews are helpful and Amazon allows returns).

Your time and money are your own--no one is responsible for them but you. If you buy a book that ends up being horrible, return it and leave a review saying so. Maybe us authors will wise up and realize we're only hurting ourselves by undervaluing the importance of a quality product at a realistic price.

Bottom Line: Yes, authors should _care_ enough about their readers to produce a quality product. BUT, readers should care enough about their favorite authors to pay what their books are actually worth.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

ashleygirardi said:


> I do agree with you that ensuring a quality product is the responsibility of the producer. However, I think your conflating the ideas of price and value. An author post any old piece of writing up on Amazon and slap a $.99 price sticker on it, but that doesn't mean the book is actually WORTH $.99, it could be more and it could be less. That's ultimately for the market to decide.


Readers have not set the 99 cent price. Indie authors do that to themselves. And one of the big reasons they do is because they hope the 99 cent price will convince people to give them a chance. Many price low specifically because they have not paid for proofing and editing. This is a discussion that has been going back and forth on this forum for a while now. The 99 cent price is not a creation of readers, but indies who want the quick boost in sales rank. Readers can and do pay more for books. Just check out the bestsellers' lists.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

ashleygirardi said:


> The $.99 price point can't support the team of personnel necessary to produce a high-quality product, especially not at first. If you don't like the crap being produced for cheap then vote in the only way that matters. Don't buy Indie books priced at $.99 because you're only supporting the idea that that's what their worth. Seek out the authors who've managed to find a sweet spot between price and quality (reviews are helpful and Amazon allows returns).


I agree with this in principle, and yet I have a couple of books that took months of labor and represent my highest quality work that are 99 cents each. I notice that your book is also 99 cents. And there are a bunch of people now _giving _their books away on Amazon by the thousands. Some of those books are darn good and worth a lot more than free. And yet, from the individual writer's viewpoint, isn't giving away a book for free worth it if it means you might get readers for your other novels?

I don't know the answer to this question, and I don't know whether free is simply the next logical step in the 99 cent race to the bottom. It may be that a year from now, 90% of indie books are "sold" for free, another 10% go for 99 cents, and traditional publishers still get $12.99 and dominate the top 100.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

The price is set by the author. No one is forcing an author to price their book at $.99.

Generally, an author who knows they have a quality product will put their book up for sale at $.99 for a short time to garner interest and reviews, then raise the price when they feel they have enough of those.

I recently told one of my clients NOT to price at $.99. They put money into the book, it's a quality product, and they should get money out of it. (It's a sequel, so the first has shown the interest is there.)

However, it's not just books at $.99 that are unedited. Some think nothing of pricing their books at $2.99 and up, whether it's edited or not.

Price has nothing to do with this discussion.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

Definitely understand where you're coming from.

And I should also mention that I'm actually doing something your post suggested: one of the professors at my university is editing my book for me for free. I do care about what I'm putting out there, but I knew I couldn't afford a huge editing package (which was what I wanted). So, my teacher is going to edit, as is an English major I know at my school. He's considering this his first professional job.  

Then another friend of mine, an avid reader of my genre, wanted to help out too. She isn't good with the whole grammar aspect, but I told her that I would appreciate her acting as a beta-reader and telling me about certain things: character development, unclear description, story progression, etc etc.

So even though I couldn't afford to hire an all out editing service, although I really really wanted to hire RedAdept (sigh), I just couldn't do it. I was going through it really tough with Crohn's, and had to cut back on my hours at work. But I'm fortunate to have found so many people willing to help! Hopefully, if I can afford it, I'll go with Arkali's OOPS detection. Hopefully I won't have too many OOPS problems, and it won't cost a lot. 

In any case, I agree with your post. It CAN be done, even if you aren't working with a very large budget. =]

sidenote:// my status now says "Lewis Carroll"! ALLELUIA! lol


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

ashleygirardi said:


> And let's make something clear: the reader is no more entitled to purchase work for INSANELY bottomed out prices than the author is to their money. I personally can't stand the $.99 price point. It's unfair to the author because it severely undervalues their hard work and it gives the reader the false idea that $.99 is what a full-length novel is worth (talking about value here). But that's what the market has come to and for right now we have to deal with it.
> 
> It's pretty much a constant of the free market that you sacrifice quality for lower prices. You can go to Banana Republic and buy a shirt that you know is stitched well and made of quality fabric OR you can go to Walmart and get something for a fraction of the price made from polyester and produced by Chinese orphans--you as the consumer decide which is the better value for your money. But, you don't get mad at Walmart for not making better shirts and still selling them for five dollars.
> 
> Bottom Line: Yes, authors should _care_ enough about their readers to produce a quality product. BUT, readers should care enough about their favorite authors to pay what their books are actually worth.


I get so tired of this discussion, but (sorry Julie for dragging this off-topic) here goes again. I canNOT pay you what your book is worth. A book is not like your Banana Republic shirts which cost $X to produce and are then sold at a markup, making a small profit with each shirt bought. It makes a profit by selling copies and earning a percent above the total that went into it. If I were to ask Victorine if she made any money off a single sale, I'm pretty sure the answer would be no. That book has earned her over $35,000, though. I'd bet money she's made a profit.


----------



## ashleygirardi (Apr 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Readers have not set the 99 cent price. Indie authors do that to themselves. And one of the big reasons they do is because they hope the 99 cent price will convince people to give them a chance. Many price low specifically because they have not paid for proofing and editing. This is a discussion that has been going back and forth on this forum for a while now. The 99 cent price is not a creation of readers, but indies who want the quick boost in sales rank. Readers can and do pay more for books. Just check out the bestsellers' lists.


Readers don't set the price, you're right. But when an author posts a book for more (usually $2.99 because that's the cutoff for the 70% royalty) and doesn't sell anything for months, then lowers the price and sells a hundred copies there's a lesson in that. Readers are voting with their wallets.

Granted, writers should be more patient. I think being able to check your sales numbers twelve times a day does more harm than anything else. Garnering interest is a slow-build, especially at higher price points, but all of us want a bit of instant gratification.


----------



## ashleygirardi (Apr 3, 2011)

RedAdept said:


> Price has nothing to do with this discussion.


I think it does. If an author knew they could price a book at five dollars and sell enough to make back their investment, it'd be a lot easier to invest $2,000 for editing.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

PMartelly said:


> So even though I couldn't afford to hire an all out editing service, although I really really wanted to hire RedAdept (sigh), I just couldn't do it. I was going through it really tough with Crohn's, and had to cut back on my hours at work. But I'm fortunate to have found so many people willing to help! Hopefully, if I can afford it, I'll go with Arkali's OOPS detection. Hopefully I won't have too many OOPS problems, and it won't cost a lot.
> 
> In any case, I agree with your post. It CAN be done, even if you aren't working with a very large budget. =]


Well, I appreciate that you wanted to use my service.  I understand completely. Hopefully, your current book will have enough sales to help you to afford me for the next one.  

I love editing. I once told one of my clients that if I won the lottery, my price would go down to "FREE."  Unfortunately, I still have to eat occasionally. 

It sounds like you have it all under control, though. And Arkali is a great backup service for edited books.


----------



## TheSFReader (Jan 20, 2011)

I personally find it allright for someone to sell a product in an "incomplete state"   (unedited ebooks for example) (discounted or not) ... provided it's STATED in the description. If it's NOT discounted, I'd expect the seller to provide a finished version when complete. But again, while the customer must KNOW before buying what he is buying ...


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

ashleygirardi said:


> I think it does. If an author knew they could price a book at five dollars and sell enough to make back their investment, it'd be a lot easier to invest $2,000 for editing.


$2,000?! 

Have you not noticed the number of Freelance Editors cropping up willing to help Indies get books ready for publishing for far less than that?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

As I said in my original post, if every self-pubbed author hired an editor and a graphical designer for every book they published, 99% percent of them would be in a financial hole they would never get out of.

Ultimately, it's the readers who decide whether a book is worth the money being asked for it.  And there are plenty of self-edited books out there that are being enjoyed by readers.  Some aren't, and the writer will eventually learn they have to do a better job.

I've self-edited every book I've published, and I haven't had a single complaint from a reader about the editing of any of the books.  Not one.

If you only want to buy ebooks that have been professionally edited, that's your prerogative.  But don't expect everyone to live by your rules.


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

It comes down to personal choice, and here I am talking at a consumer level only.

There is no rhyme, reason or lightning in a bottle you can catch that will bring a Reader to your book, it could be the best edited book in the world and not catch a spark, or it could be a pile of poop and sell like golden Goose eggs. 

In all my years of marketing, direct selling and retail it has clearly been shown the Consumer makes the choice what will be successful, not the manufacturer.

A good product will speak for itself, but sometimes a bad one sells better... Yes silly bands I'm looking at you!
Arigato,
Nick Davis


----------



## ashleygirardi (Apr 3, 2011)

Arkali said:


> I get so tired of this discussion, but (sorry Julie for dragging this off-topic) here goes again. I canNOT pay you what your book is worth. A book is not like your Banana Republic shirts which cost $X to produce and are then sold at a markup, making a small profit with each shirt bought. It makes a profit by selling copies and earning a percent above the total that went into it. If I were to ask Victorine if she made any money off a single sale, I'm pretty sure the answer would be no. That book has earned her over $35,000, though. I'd bet money she's made a profit.


I guess I just don't understand how it's different. The producer decides how much that markup above cost will be. If they thought the market could stand it, they charge more.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

RedAdept said:


> Well, I appreciate that you wanted to use my service.  I understand completely. Hopefully, your current book will have enough sales to help you to afford me for the next one.
> 
> I love editing. I once told one of my clients that if I won the lottery, my price would go down to "FREE."  Unfortunately, I still have to eat occasionally.
> 
> It sounds like you have it all under control, though. And Arkali is a great backup service for edited books.


Haha, well I hope I'll be able to use your services on the next one! I'm pretty much going to use any money I make on this book to produce the next one. So all my money is going to be stashed away for editing, ads, etc. Luckily, Dara had a GORGEOUS cover in her "clearance section" that was only $15, so I pretty much have book 2's cover ready to go. I always was a good bargain shopper ;] In any case, everything else will come from any book 1 sales I make. And since I can't afford your editing services this time around, I'll definitely be asking to be put it in your queue (when you open it back up, of course. I can't even FATHOM having 900 books in a review queue).


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

I think the main point of the post is this: If you are going to charge someone for something, you need to make sure that it's a quality product. We go into a bookstore, pay $15 for a hardcover (and that's on the low end, mind you), and EXPECT that there isn't going to be a ton of issues when we read it (grammar, etc). As indies, we have to hold ourselves to the same standard. This is why indies get those reviews that say "This is why I don't read indies", etc. Because a lot of us get so excited to press the "publish" button, that we don't take the time to sit back, and make sure that our product is TRULY ready. 

I get angry when I read work that has a ton of errors. Why? Because I PAID for the product. Whether or not it I paid $.99, $2.99, $5.99, is irrelevant. Reading a ton of crappy $.99 books adds up. I would gladly pay a higher price, if I knew I was getting a quality book in return. I do it regularly for JR Ward, Karen Moning, and several other authors without so much as a blink.

Traditional publishers have a ton of resources at their fingertips. The author doesn't have to worry about finding someone to edit -- the editor is appointed for them. As indies, we still need to take a lot of steps that traditional publishers take (except we just do it ourselves), and that includes editing.


----------



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

No one is entitled to sales. I shake my head when I read threads like "It's been a month and I only sold 30 copies, what am I doing wrong" It is even worse when I see grumblings like "I gave away 200 copies and no one gave me a review yet, why not?" I know there's plenty of self-entitlement here. We all can self-publish, and (most) have chosen to do so. But the entitlement to _sales_ is sometimes stunning. Not everyone is going to succeed. It sucks, but that's how it is. Yet for awhile, how many dang threads did we have of people dropping their prices from 2.99 to 99 cents and then wondering why they didn't suddenly emulate Not What She Seems? Are there people out there that really think it is that easy?

Self-publishing is hard. You need luck, timing, skill, and flat-out stubbornness. Oh, and yes, money. If you don't have it, find a way around. Critique circles, teachers, friends, ads online: you can find ways to get what you need on dirt cheap. It'll take time, effort, and patience. If you don't have that before publishing, trust me, you aren't going to have it when it comes crunch time, your book is for sale, you need to garner reviews, hit up some blogs, and plant your butt in a chair to write another book.



ashleygirardi said:


> I think it does. If an author knew they could price a book at five dollars and sell enough to make back their investment, it'd be a lot easier to invest $2,000 for editing.


Ignoring the many, many cheaper alternatives people have brought up (pretty sure Julie is talking about getting ANY work done on a manuscript, even something as basic as Arkali's "oopsie" service), there are still plenty of books selling at higher prices than 99 cents. (Heck, I have six). But in any business _you can't know in advance how your sales will be._ You can estimate. You can theorize. You can look at similar products. But you will never 100% know for certain. To decide before ever starting that you cannot sell at a price higher than 99 cents is mind-bogglingly stupid, as well as restricting. I've given away thousands of free books, and sold thousands of books at $4.95. I've walked all sides of this fence, and there are ways to get sales for any price point. Granted, it might not be easy, or guaranteed, but what the heck is?



ashleygirardi said:


> I guess I just don't understand how it's different. The producer decides how much that markup above cost will be. If they thought the market could stand it, they charge more.


The producer would sell the product at the price _that makes the most profit._ Vicki made more profit at 99 cents than 2.99. That's it. Others may make far more profit at 2.99, or maybe even 9.99. But in most things, a price so low will gain nothing because of raw materials. e-books do not have that restriction. It is solely a sales vs earnings comparison, which means discussing the books "value" is just ego grumbling. And again, there are many, many books that make their most profits at higher prices. The higher sellers just get the attention and rankings.


----------



## JMelzer (Mar 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If you cannot afford an editor and proofreader, you need to think outside the box on how to get one. As a public service, I offer some suggestions.
> 
> *Check your community college*: When I was a college student, I did a lot of comp work for businesses in the area. Why? Because I had no practical business experience and it was a way for me to build up a portfolio of professional work. I was designing brochures, flyers, ads, writing press releases, and all sorts of little projects. That gave me ammo that landed by first job with the City of Bridgeton's Public Relations department. I have real world stuff in my portfolio, not just class projects. That gave me an advantage in the marketplace.
> 
> ...


What...no Kickstarter?


----------



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

JMelzer said:


> What...no Kickstarter?


rofl


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

ashleygirardi said:


> I guess I just don't understand how it's different. The producer decides how much that markup above cost will be. If they thought the market could stand it, they charge more.


Because with items like shirts, toys, cars, etc., you're looking at a single item. This coffee cup costs me $2 to produce, I'll mark it up to $5 and make $3 profit per mug. (The actual equation is more complicated, but you get what I'm saying). On the other hand, a book (especially a digital one) doesn't have a per unit cost of production. If it cost you $1,000 to produce it (editing, cover, etc.) then that is your cost, whether you sell one or one million. A single consumer is never going to be able to pay you enough to reimburse you plus give you profit on your book (assuming you have any money invested in it). As I said, I doubt that .99 is what Vicki's book is worth, but I would imagine she came out on top having cleared over $35,000.00.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

ashleygirardi said:


> Readers don't set the price, you're right. But when an author posts a book for more (usually $2.99 because that's the cutoff for the 70% royalty) and doesn't sell anything for months, then lowers the price and sells a hundred copies there's a lesson in that. Readers are voting with their wallets.


Well, this isn't going to make me popular, either. But if you're pricing a book and not making any sales at all for months, something is probably turning off readers. There are really only a handful of possibilities.

1. The blurb.
2. The cover.
3. The sample.

I know unedited samples don't attract me as a reader. The other thing that doesn't attract me is boring samples. If I read two pages of your book and nothing has happened, I'm going to press delete.

This is going to sound harsh and mean, but if you aren't selling at $2.99, it could be because the readers who happen on your book is worth $2.99 to them. I can really only think of three ways to fix that problem:

1. Make your book worth more.
2. Make your book cost less.
3. Convince more readers to look at your book.

That's pretty much it in terms of options. All three are probably going to cost you money--either through direct expenditures in capital outlay, or in indirect loss through lower pricing or the opportunity cost of your time.

But people sell tens of thousands of books at $2.99--and $3.99--and $4.99--and $7.99--and even $9.99. So you can't tell yourself that nobody is willing to pay that price. They are. They're just not willing to pay that price for your book. I don't want to sound mean, but don't tell yourself that people are only going to pay at the $0.99 price point. That is demonstrably untrue.

So I completely agree with Julie. You want to make money? Act like you're in business. Don't fail because you're so undercapitalized that you can't put out a quality product.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

ashleygirardi said:


> I think it does. If an author knew they could price a book at five dollars and sell enough to make back their investment, it'd be a lot easier to invest $2,000 for editing.


I price my books between $2.99-$5.99. I have never spent $2,000 on editing a single book. They sell just fine. But I never walked into this thinking I was guaranteed customers. I bust my butt building my niche. And I lost money the first three years. *I EXPECTED TO.* Because that is how things work in the real world. I knew I would need to make an investment in my time and resources to build my credentials. Publishing is a business, not an entitlement. You don't need to spend two grand on editing, but you will need to spend SOMETHING in terms of time and money.

Some markets are more forgiving than others, sure. Some people might claim they get away with not editing or proofing: but look at the markets they are in. Those markets may be more forgiving of editing and proofing than others. If your target market is teenagers, they have a much different tolerance level for typos and errors than 50 year old readers of literary fiction. I don't dump the same resources into a 5 page game supplement as I do a 200 page novel, because the market for the five page supplement is more forgiving about minor issues than the novel reader market. So you need to do enough proofing and editing to meet the norms expected of your market. But you still have to make the effort to meet those norms, not expect people to coddle you until you get around to it.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

I will second the writing community.

I have a doctorate and I've always written clean.  When I was working for newspapers they joked about it.  But NOBODY is perfect.  So I give my husband, my mom, and a few of my writing group friends the final draft, and tell them to red-pen the crap out of me.  For me?  That's all I feel I need.  I may pay a friend who is a very good editor for my "big launch" this summer.  But really... if you belong to a writing or crit group, you should be doing this for one another.

I'm always happy to do so for a friend.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

JMelzer said:


> What...no Kickstarter?


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

PMartelly said:


> Haha, well I hope I'll be able to use your services on the next one! I'm pretty much going to use any money I make on this book to produce the next one. So all my money is going to be stashed away for editing, ads, etc. Luckily, Dana had a GORGEOUS cover in her "clearance section" that was only $15, so I pretty much have book 2's cover ready to go. I always was a good bargain shopper ;] In any case, everything else will come from any book 1 sales I make. And since I can't afford your editing services this time around, I'll definitely be asking to be put it in your queue (when you open it back up, of course. I can't even FATHOM having 900 books in a review queue).


Do you have a link for Dana? I'd love to check out the artwork. Thanks.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

JMelzer said:


> What...no Kickstarter?


:smacks James: That was bad... but funny as hell


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

DChase said:


> Do you have a link for Dana? I'd love to check out the artwork. Thanks.


Just to be clear: Dara's cover is on my website (under "books"), not what is in my signature (That one certainly DID NOT cost $15, although a girl can dream ;]). My signature cover was done by Claudia McKinney at Phatpuppy Art (www.phatpuppyart.com).

Dara is a kindleboards member here. The cover I purchased from her was a real steal, and I absolutely love love love it. Did I mentioned that I loved it? Ok, good. ;] Anyhoo, her services are listed here: http://mycoverart.wordpress.com/


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

PMartelly said:


> Just to be clear: Dana's cover is on my website (under "books"), not what is in my signature (That one certainly DID NOT cost $15, although a girl can dream ;]). My signature cover was done by Claudia McKinney at Phatpuppy Art (www.phatpuppyart.com).
> 
> Dana is a kindleboards member here. Her services are listed here: http://mycoverart.wordpress.com/


Thanks. I did read your post to mean your second book cover was by Dana. I thought your signature cover looked like Phatpuppy's work.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

DChase said:


> Thanks. I did read your post to mean your second book cover was by Dana. I thought your signature cover looked like Phatpuppy's work.


haha, ok good!  I don't want to mislead anyone lol


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Our society is caught up in an epidemic of entitlement. There is no reason to expect it to pass over authors.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

ashleygirardi said:


> And let's make something clear: the reader is no more entitled to purchase work for INSANELY bottomed out prices than the author is to their money. *I personally can't stand the $.99 price point.* It's unfair to the author because it severely undervalues their hard work and it gives the reader the false idea that $.99 is what a full-length novel is worth (talking about value here). But that's what the market has come to and for right now we have to deal with it.


If so, why did you price your book only $0.99?

The market hasn't come to that, and I know a lot of self-pub authors selling lots of books at $2.99 or higher.


----------



## DonnaBurgess (Jan 1, 2011)

@ Julie-- Sing it, sister. I always love your posts!


----------



## JRainey (Feb 1, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Our society is caught up in an epidemic of entitlement. There is no reason to expect it to pass over authors.


Yes, yes, and yes. I was just discussing this epidemic with someone the other day.

Also, a big thumbs up to Julie's post, too!


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

ashleygirardi said:


> I think it does. If an author knew they could price a book at five dollars and sell enough to make back their investment, it'd be a lot easier to invest $2,000 for editing.


My book is 4.95 and the editing bill was no where near $2000. There are good indie editors too, you can find ways to be edited, for free, or for a lot less than $2000.


----------



## William Peter Grasso (May 1, 2011)

I got a bit disheartened--but not surprised--when this discussion quickly turned to price theory. I don't think that was Julie's thesis at all. I believe it can be summarized this way: no artist is entitled to your treasure merely for showing up.

I'm very new at this game (even though I'm an old hand at life), so my opinions on publishing may not be very seasoned, but I know what drives me to write...and it's certainly not that I expect lavish financial reward. But I do need to break even...I can't afford another expensive hobby. Fortunately for me, affordable editing and artwork is within easy reach, so yeah...I'm breaking even at this point.

I admire those of us out there who sell gazillions of books...but it's certainly not a 99 cent price tag driving those sales. It's the fact that you managed, somehow, to push some button the reader possesses in common with you.


----------



## matt youngmark (Jan 11, 2011)

William Peter Grasso said:


> I got a bit disheartened--but not surprised--when this discussion quickly turned to price theory. I don't think that was Julie's thesis at all. I believe it can be summarized this way: no artist is entitled to your treasure merely for showing up.


That's exactly what I was about to say -- I read Julie's post this morning before I left for work, and thought it was pretty much tough love about the need to focus on quality.

Seriously, does every thread have to degenerate into an attack on / defense of 99 cent ebooks?


----------



## Steven R. Drennon (Mar 12, 2011)

There are SOOO many good points here I'd like to quote, but I think instead I'll just comment on the original post. As a reader, I very nearly chose NOT to become a self-published author after reading my first three indie books at the incredibly low price of .99! It turned out that all three were poorly edited, fraught with story holes or bad grammar, and/or formatted very badly. I was sincerely afraid that I would be ignored out of a case of "guilt by association"! 

I'm happy to say that I have seen that improve considerably over the last six months, and as a result, I feel a little less concerned about those types of perceptions. However, I do still come across a LOT of indie books that are guilty of all the points listed above. 

As a reader, I tend to read at least one book a week, and here lately I've chosen to focus exclusively on indie books. I have read books by several authors who appear regularly here in Kindle Boards, and I have to say there are some I would not recommend to friends because of their lack of editing. Some of you had excelelnt stories that I truly enjoyed, and so I may have sent you a message indicating the issues I found. If your story wasn't good enough to make me care, I didn't bother to waste my time, because you obviously didn't bother to waste YOUR time!

The whole point in the original post is that you SHOULD take the time to produce a quality product. You OWE it to the readers, and if you don't feel that way, they will eventually show how little THEY care! I loved the suggestion to trade services, and since so many of us are on VERY tight budgets, that makes perfect sense. 

Bottom line, there is NO excuse to produce a shabby product. I will NOT buy a book that is priced at .99, but I WILL buy a short story or even novella at that price.  Eventually the market will correct itself, and we'll see more standard pricing, but first we need to see a more standard product!


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

William Peter Grasso said:


> I got a bit disheartened--but not surprised--when this discussion quickly turned to price theory.


I almost expected it, to be honest. I only mentioned price because too many authors use it as an excuse. _"I can't afford an editor because my book is only 99 cents!"_ Well, guess what, honey? You (royal you, not you personally ) should have had working capital* BEFORE* you published in order to pay for an editor, and then properly priced your product to reflect your costs. If you are going to use a loss-leader pricing structure to drum up business, you need to remember why the industry calls it a "loss leader" in the first place. *Loss leaders LOSE money! * _The whole point_ of loss-leader pricing is to take the hit on profits up front on product A in order to build a sales base for product B. You go into loss leader pricing assuming it will NOT cover your costs, but will build your market share. You then charge more for future/other products.

If you find that people buy your first book for 99 cents, but won't spend $2.99 or $3.99 or whatever on the second or third book, the problem is NOT that you priced the second book higher and people won't pay for quality. The problem is the first book was crap to begin with, and you build zero value in your brand. You didn't make the investment in the first book, and now you reap what you sow with future books.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

It should also be noted that these days, you're expected to turn in an almost perfectly edited book to even get looked at by an agent or an editor.  They don't want to do your clean-up either.  Most agents aren't going to give a poorly edited book a chance.  They don't have to--there are plenty in the pile that are near perfect grammatically/spelling/formatting/edited.  It's your book--whether you are shopping it to NY or readers.  If you can't afford an editor, then you better learn the skills of a copyeditor.    It is not rocket-science and it can be learned.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I'd suggest price is vital to the discussion. If authors were posting at zero price, would they have the same obligations to readers that have been discussed above? Why?


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If you find that people buy your first book for 99 cents, but won't spend $2.99 or $3.99 or whatever on the second or third book, the problem is NOT that you priced the second book higher and people won't pay for quality. *The problem is the first book was crap to begin with*, and you build zero value in your brand. You didn't make the investment in the first book, and now you reap what you sow with future books.


This!!!!

I bought a cheap $0.99 ebook. It was the 1st in a series. I loved it, and bought the rest at $6.99 - 7.99 because I thought they were worth the price. And the rest were just as good as the 1st. That author's on my auto-buy list, and her books get bought the moment they get released.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

NadiaLee said:


> I bought a cheap $0.99 ebook. It was the 1st in a series. I loved it, and bought the rest at $6.99 - 7.99 because I thought they were worth the price. And the rest were just as good as the 1st. That author's on my auto-buy list, and her books get bought the moment they get released.


Yes, exactly this! I've had the same thing happen with me with cheap/free books, too. Naomi Novik sucked me in with a freebie, and now I'm buying the new ones at full agency price--gah! I can't speak for others, but I value having readers over sales. A sale is just change in your pocket. A reader is someone who will keep on clicking "buy" and will recommend your book to others.

If your loss leader strategy is to get people to buy your other books, your $0.99 book has to be good enough to convert sales to readers. And that's why everything you put out should be of professional quality--because otherwise you're sending the message that you're not a professional. And that's the danger. You can convert someone to being an anti-reader too. If someone buys your book and decides you're not a professional, you've had your chance with them. They're never going to buy a book by you again, no matter where you price it.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

*standing up and applaudly wildly*

Well done, Julie.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Steven R. Drennon said:


> There are SOOO many good points here I'd like to quote, but I think instead I'll just comment on the original post. As a reader, I very nearly chose NOT to become a self-published author *after reading my first three indie books at the incredibly low price of .99! It turned out that all three were poorly edited, fraught with story holes or bad grammar, and/or formatted very badly*. I was sincerely afraid that I would be ignored out of a case of "guilt by association"!


Oh gosh, isn't that the truth! The only books I sample before buying are indies, because I want to know upfront, if the author decided not to professionally edit the precious before selling it. (I want to know, so I can AVOID BUYING IT.) It has absolutely nothing to do with $.99, and everything to do with being professional - at any price point, even FREE.

I didn't start out sampling indies before buying, it was only after getting burned a few times. In the beginning, I expected a quality product. It was okay if an indie book wasn't as tight as an established author; neither are traditionally published debut novels. I read them anyways, even if with slightly different expectations. I do expect the writer to have their homonyms sorted, decent punctuation, etc... don't be sloppy. I don't want your sloppy work.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If you find that people buy your first book for 99 cents, but won't spend $2.99 or $3.99 or whatever on the second or third book, the problem is NOT that you priced the second book higher and people won't pay for quality. The problem is the first book was crap to begin with, and *you build zero value in your brand*. You didn't make the investment in the first book, and now you reap what you sow with future books.


This comes up on Goodreads discussion threads once in awhile. Someone will say that they sort of enjoyed the first book but won't be buying the sequel because there were just too many technical errors.

Authors have got to know that lots of technical errors will result in audience lost. Most of the lost audience will never say a word about why they won't buy another book from that author, they just won't buy another book. They won't recommend it to friends, in fact, they won't even let anyone know they read it. The author will never get any feedback stating that this is the problem, those potential readers just disappear.

Of course, it's like that with any industry. I have a very dear friend who is in my same field of work. He has been struggling to build his business for over 5 years. I keep telling him that he needs a website (or at least a webpage,) because that is how people find us - by searching online for local services. His answer is always the same: He can't afford a website, because he's not making enough money yet to justify that expense. For a writer, editing is one of those expenses that should be as essential as writing the original manuscript. It doesn't matter how you accomplish that task, only that it be done.

I don't believe that the price is relevant at all. If you are trying to find readers, that means you are asking your potential audience to make an investment of their time. Time they can spend doing other things - like earning money, being with family, writing a book... If you value your audience's time, you will not waste it by expecting them to give it to you for your poorly edited (unfinished) novel. If you expect your audience to just overlook the technical problems with your book, that sends a pretty clear message that you think the value of your time and resources trumps theirs, and you expect your potential audience to also feel your time and resources are more important than theirs.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> And that's why everything you put out should be of professional quality--because otherwise you're sending the message that you're not a professional. And that's the danger. You can convert someone to being an anti-reader too. If someone buys your book and decides you're not a professional, you've had your chance with them. They're never going to buy a book by you again, no matter where you price it.


Not to mention there's a good chance it will also convert them to being an anti-reader of all OTHER indie books.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

StaceyHH said:


> Of course, it's like that with any industry. I have a very dear friend who is in my same field of work. He has been struggling to build his business for over 5 years. I keep telling him that he needs a website (or at least a webpage,) because that is how people find us - by searching online for local services. His answer is always the same: He can't afford a website, because he's not making enough money yet to justify that expense. For a writer, editing is one of those expenses that should be as essential as writing the original manuscript. It doesn't matter how you accomplish that task, only that it be done.


Yes, every business has startup costs and overhead....you can't skip the startup


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

PMartelly said:


> Dana is a kindleboards member here. The cover I purchased from her was a real steal, and I absolutely love love love it. Did I mentioned that I loved it? Ok, good. ;] Anyhoo, her services are listed here: http://mycoverart.wordpress.com/


Her name is Dara, actually.  But close enough. And I agree...she's super talented, and her prices are very reasonable. If you luck out and find something in her clearance bin on her website, it's a true steal, but even her custom-designed covers are extremely reasonably priced.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Meh.

I'm of a completely different mind. Technical errors (typos, formatting) don't bother me as much as bad or malformed ideas (defined as unoriginal, clueless, boring) and execution (clunky phrasing, cliched situations, etc.). I am more easily offended by perfectly polished books that offer only pap. On the other hand, on occasion I have been totally enthralled by indie books that are riddled by typos and omissions. Yes, little mistakes can be annoying but no more so than the occasional mosquito while hiking. I don't let a few bugs get in the way of a beautiful vista. I don't understand how people could be so upset by errors in one indie book that they would ban all indie books from future consideration. That sounds like a mental disorder to me.

As a writer, I try my best. I check carefully. Then I check again, backwards, upside down, using different fonts, printed out, enlarged. And then I use beta readers. When I (we) discover something wrong, I fix it. This process is not perfect, but I can't afford a real editor (not that they're perfect either based on the errors I find in supposedly 'edited' books. I even found a typo once in Sol Stein's book on editing). On top of that, I make my work available for free more often than not. But I would gladly pay for an imperfect book if it achieved something visceral for me at its core.

I guess I'm just charitable.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'd suggest price is vital to the discussion. If authors were posting at zero price, would they have the same obligations to readers that have been discussed above? Why?


Pride?


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

Amanda Brice said:


> Her name is Dara, actually.  But close enough. And I agree...she's super talented, and her prices are very reasonable. If you luck out and find something in her clearance bin on her website, it's a true steal, but even her custom-designed covers are extremely reasonably priced.


[face palm] I would do that. -_____- 
In any case, yes, DARA (lol), has amazing stuff! Mine came from the clearance bin! whoo!

now off to go edit my original posts to fix my major typo. I really hope she isn't easily offended, because this is another one of those moments I will never live down. lol


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'd suggest price is vital to the discussion. If authors were posting at zero price, would they have the same obligations to readers that have been discussed above? Why?


Wasting a reader's time may be worse than wasting their $0.99. I've seen several movies where I said "I'd like that 2 hours of my life back." But I've never said anything about the money I had just spent (waaaay more than $0.99).


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

A post from nine months ago:



amanda_hocking said:


> I need a new one. I have one, whom I like and gave money to, and I was like, "Yay! Now nobody can complain about errors in my books! Woot!"
> 
> And I just got a 2-star review on Wisdom because of the editing. It's not a bad review at all, and I think that it would've been a 4 or 5-star if editing weren't an issue.
> 
> But the point is - I apparently need a better editor. Any suggestions?


Seems that Amanda started publishing as a self editor, and then switched to paying for an editor when she was making money off her books and saw readers complaining about it.

It's obvious that readers saw past her editing mistakes and enjoyed her stories despite them.

So, it looks like Amanda 'demanded' that people spend 99 cents on her book, even though she "didn't care enough to make sure it was edited and proofed first." She "requested" that readers spend five or six or twelve hours of their lives reading her story when she "couldn't be bothered to make sure it was worth their time first".

I guess she had "no business being a publisher."


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

JM Gellene said:


> Wasting a reader's time may be worse than wasting their $0.99. I've seen several movies where I said "I'd like that 2 hours of my life back." But I've never said anything about the money I had just spent (waaaay more than $0.99).


^^ This.

Even if you're making minimum wage, your time is much more valuable than the price of the book, whether it's 99 cents or $9.99.

Minimum wage in the US is $7.25/hr, and it takes significantly longer than an hour to read a novel. There have definitely been novels where I've said I wanted that time back, even when I got them for free...


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Amanda Brice said:


> ^^ This.
> 
> Even if you're making minimum wage, your time is much more valuable than the price of the book, whether it's 99 cents or $9.99.
> 
> Minimum wage in the US is $7.25/hr, and it takes significantly longer than an hour to read a novel. There have definitely been novels where I've said I wanted that time back, even when I got them for free...


Yet, I've wasted tons more time on awful 25 dollar hardcovers that had been vetted by legions of New York agents and editors than I've ever wasted reading $0.99 indie books (not to mention money).


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

One more point: If you're paying $25 for an editor, or giving them pies for their services, instead of spending $400 to hire a top-notch experienced editor who knows what they're doing, isn't that just a slightly paler shade of 'not caring about your readers'?

I mean, if you REALLY cared about putting the best possible book out there, you would pay the extra money, right?

The truth is, when it comes down to it, it's the end product that matters.  Whether you paid someone to do it, or did it yourself, the book stands by itself, and the readers will eventually judge whether it's worth the cost you're asking.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

swolf said:


> One more point: If you're paying $25 for an editor, or giving them pies for their services, instead of spending $400 to hire a top-notch experienced editor who knows what they're doing, isn't that just a slightly paler shade of 'not caring about your readers'?
> 
> I mean, if you REALLY cared about putting the best possible book out there, you would pay the extra money, right?
> 
> The truth is, when it comes down to it, it's the end product that matters. Whether you paid someone to do it, or did it yourself, the book stands by itself, and the readers will eventually judge whether it's worth the cost your asking.


It seems that I respect you even more with every post of yours that I read. You make a great deal of sense to me.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

If we hold an author of a free good responsible for what a customer considers wasted time, can we then hold the author of a perfectly edited paid book responsible if the customer concludes he wasted his time reading it? Did the second author waste the customers time? Did the second author waste the customer's money?


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

swolf said:


> The truth is, when it comes down to it, it's the end product that matters. Whether you paid someone to do it, or did it yourself, the book stands by itself, and the readers will eventually judge whether it's worth the cost your asking.


Yes, it's the end product that matters, professionally edited or not. And yes, some writers are proficient at self-editing, but the overwhelming majority are not. And whether it's self-edited or professionally edited, if you aren't putting out the best product possible, then not only are you not respecting your readers, but you're doing yourself a disservice. Because readers remember these things. What good is it to get their money once if you don't have any chance of them ever reading your future books?


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

Just to follow up on the comments SWolf is making (I agree with too many of them to quote them all).

Compelling story, well-written, occasional errors that don't distract me and take me out of the story?  No Problem.

Boring story, wooden characters, stupid plot holes; with a slick cover, a great blurb, and no errors (beauty only skin deep)?  I won't finish it and won't pick up that writer again.

I haven't read any Hocking (not my thing), but I would assume she fell into the first category early on.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

JM Gellene said:


> Just to follow up on the comments SWolf is making (I agree with too many of them to quote them all).
> 
> Compelling story, well-written, occasional errors that don't distract me and take me out of the story? No Problem.
> 
> ...


I think it should also be stated though, that editors don't only handle proofreading. An indie may not have issues with typos, but may have a "boring story, wooden characters, and stupid plot holes", which is where an editor can come in and help.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Amanda Brice said:


> Yes, it's the end product that matters, professionally edited or not. And yes, some writers are proficient at self-editing, but the overwhelming majority are not. And whether it's self-edited or professionally edited, if you aren't putting out the best product possible, then not only are you not respecting your readers, but you're doing yourself a disservice. Because readers remember these things. What good is it to get their money once if you don't have any chance of them ever reading your future books?


There's always a trade-off, though. A book could always use one more beta reader, one more draft, edit, and proofread. Why do people pay $75 for a proofread instead of someone who charges (and earns) $75/hour? Why do people do their covers themselves or go with someone who is solid, not spectacular? For that matter, most of us will get better with time, so we could trunk this novel and wait until we've achieved greater mastery over our craft. This is not a defense of publishing crap, but defining quality is not a simple task.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

And that's my point. I hate to say it, but many writers don't know whether they fall into the first or the second category. They may assume they fall in the first, but really in the last. And both would benefit from an editor (the first to give it a coat of polish, the second to dissuade them from publishing, or at least to red pen the crap out of the story for them and help them whip it into shape).

And there's also the third category. Compelling story, well-written, with many, many errors that do take you out of the story. Sadly, I see a lot of that in indielandia. I don't care how unique and well-written it is...once you've taken me out of the story, that's it. Wallbanger.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

PMartelly said:


> I think it should also be stated though, that editors don't only handle proofreading. An indie may not have issues with typos, but may have a "boring story, wooden characters, and stupid plot holes", which is where an editor can come in and help.


Agreed, but I was thinking about a specific book by a well-known, very wealthy author. That person could use the editor you described.


----------



## PJJones (Apr 5, 2011)

Once upon a time, I was a high school English teacher, and before that, I was a magazine copy editor. However, perhaps because of personal bias, I do a much better job editing other books than my own. I can't afford a copy editor, either, but I do have a strong critique group that, hopefully, catches 99 percent of my mistakes. 

No matter the price and no matter the size of the book, I can't enjoy it if it's riddled with typos. In fact, I won't finish reading a book if it's got too many mistakes.  I thought, maybe, this is due to my own neurosis. After all, I constantly find myself editing billboards and the writing in bathroom stalls. There are other things that will make me set down a book, such as head hopping, telling instead of showing, slow pacing, lack of internalizing, a wayward plot and little character development.  Unless, of course, the book is a parody. In that case, the author must break as many rules as possible! PJ


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

Amanda Brice said:


> And that's my point. I hate to say it, but many writers don't know whether they fall into the first or the second category. They may assume they fall in the first, but really in the last. And both would benefit from an editor (the first to give it a coat of polish, the second to dissuade them from publishing, or at least to red pen the crap out of the story for them and help them whip it into shape).
> 
> And there's also the third category. Compelling story, well-written, with many, many errors that do take you out of the story. Sadly, I see a lot of that in indielandia. I don't care how unique and well-written it is...once you've taken me out of the story, that's it. Wallbanger.


Yep.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

PMartelly said:


> I think it should also be stated though, that editors don't only handle proofreading. An indie may not have issues with typos, but may have a "boring story, wooden characters, and stupid plot holes", which is where an editor can come in and help.


True. But not often enough, apparently, from what gets released. But hey, some people like stories with "wooden characters and stupid plot holes." And apparently, some editors like them, too (or they don't notice? Or don't care because they're pretty sure people will buy them anyway?).


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Amanda Brice said:


> Yes, it's the end product that matters, professionally edited or not. And yes, some writers are proficient at self-editing, but the overwhelming majority are not. And whether it's self-edited or professionally edited, if you aren't putting out the best product possible, then not only are you not respecting your readers, but you're doing yourself a disservice. Because readers remember these things. What good is it to get their money once if you don't have any chance of them ever reading your future books?


I agree with all of that. But when you say 'best product possible', what does that mean?

Does it mean I should spend $2000 on an professional editor who has experience editing with the NY publishing houses? Because if it doesn't, and I accept an editor with less skill, it's no longer the best product possible.

And yes, there's a lot of horribly edited self-published books out there. Hopefully the readers will inform those writers of the problem. But that doesn't mean all self-pubbers who self-edit have "no business being a publisher", which is what the OP is claiming.


----------



## Sondrae Bennett (Mar 29, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> Yet, I've wasted tons more time on awful 25 dollar hardcovers that had been vetted by legions of New York agents and editors than I've ever wasted reading $0.99 indie books (not to mention money).


Really? Because I feel the opposite. Sure, there is crap that comes out of NY, but most books in my DNF (did not finish) pile are indies. I also have a lot of keepers that are indies, but like many readers, I've been burned by self-published works many times. In fact, I bought a book just last night for .99 that I regretted buying within 10 minutes...not because of grammatical errors but because the book was just horrible. I should have sampled but I didn't because I figured .99 what the hell. I will never buy another book from the author.

I completely agree with Julie and others. I've noticed a growing sense of entitlement in general and while it worries me in everyday life, it pisses me off when talking about publishing, both as an author and a reader. I don't want to be a gatekeeper with my wallet. Frankly, I don't have the time or patience for that. When I buy a book on Amazon, I have certain expectations about editing and formatting. Not to mention, like others have stated, editing is not all spelling and grammar.

I also think it's interesting that the people who claim they don't mind reading poorly edited books, are the same people who also claim they can't afford an editor or are masters at editing their own work. If anyone doesn't care about editing, who is not an author, is reading this, please contradict me.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

PJJones said:


> Once upon a time, I was a high school English teacher, and before that, I was a magazine copy editor. However, perhaps because of personal bias, I do a much better job editing other books than my own. I can't afford a copy editor, either, but I do have a strong critique group that, hopefully, catches 99 percent of my mistakes.
> 
> No matter the price and no matter the size of the book, I can't enjoy it if it's riddled with typos. In fact, I won't finish reading a book if it's got too many mistakes. I thought, maybe, this is due to my own neurosis. After all, I constantly find myself editing billboards and the writing in bathroom stalls. There are other things that will make me set down a book, such as head hopping, telling instead of showing, slow pacing, lack of internalizing, a wayward plot and little character development. Unless, of course, the book is a parody. In that case, the author must break as many rules as possible! PJ


That reminds me of _Eats, Shoots, and Leaves_


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> True. But not often enough, apparently, from what gets released. But hey, some people like stories with "wooden characters and stupid plot holes." And apparently, some editors like them, too (or they don't notice? Or don't care because they're pretty sure people will buy them anyway?).


Definitely understand where you're coming from. But then I think that speaks to the quality of the editor, and not necessarily the editing process.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Unbelievable. So many authors here arguing against the necessity of a good editor. I'm completely gobsmacked. I wonder how many lurkers on this board have taken note of the people who seem to think that a good editing is of distant secondary importance, and have added those writers to their "not to read ever" list?


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

There is no point in assuming that every writer has the same journey to a book.

Some of us care about words.  Some of us don't.  Some are storytellers first.  Some are words smiths, first.

If you are a word smith, pay for an editor.  Because that's essential to be a word smith.



Some readers don't care about word smithing.  Some do.  It's obvious that Jules cares about word smithing.  And those of us who care about it too, share the opinion.

But not every book is a word smith book.  And not every reader is a word smith reader.

But if you want word smith readers for YOUR book... get an editor.  

Simples!


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

swolf said:


> And yes, there's a lot of horribly edited self-published books out there. Hopefully the readers will inform those writers of the problem. But that doesn't mean all self-pubbers who self-edit have "no business being a publisher", which is what the OP is claiming.


Not much can be argued about that point, starting to feel like my dads car has more wheels than your dads car argument.
Argiato,
Nick Davis


----------



## Todd Russell (Mar 27, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> OK, so I'm ticked off about a couple of posts in different threads. And I didn't want to get into it in those threads, because anything I said in those threads would have been construed as a personal attack. Then Betsy would have thrown one of her hats at me, and nobody wants to see her do that (it would be horrible if one was damaged).


Nice foreshadowing, Julie


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Sondrae Bennett said:


> I also think it's interesting that the people who claim they don't mind reading poorly edited books, are the same people who also claim they can't afford an editor or are masters at editing their own work.


You noticed that too?

I'm not saying that you must invest in a professional editor. But if you don't have the skills to self-edit (and let's face it, most authors don't...they might be able to self-copy-edit, but there's more to editing than that), then please get an editor of some sort, whether it's by hiring them or using one of the workarounds Julie suggested.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

swolf said:


> But that doesn't mean all self-pubbers who self-edit have "no business being a publisher", which is what the OP is claiming.


Where, exactly, did the OP say that self-pubbers can't self-edit? If you are capable of being your own editor, be your own editor. If you find that your stuff still goes out with tons of errors, hire, barter or beg for someone who is capable of providing a good final edit.


----------



## MarieDees (Feb 14, 2011)

Go Julie!


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

healeyb said:


> If an author chooses not to edit, I won't bother chastising them. There are plenty of quality self-edited works, and plenty of sucky edited works, and everything in between. The beauty of self-publication, like independent music, is that no one is filtered and it's up to the consumer to decide what works. It's capitalism in action, and I love it all.


Another good quote which is hard to argue against, since many of us are here because we can't get filtered through the Big 6 in NY.
Arigato,
Nick Davis


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

healeyb said:


> I have no idea if you are and no reason to believe you are, but if you're in any way referencing my last post, please let me further clarify:


  Nah, it was more in response to the people here who make excuses for not editing, or being poorly edited that sound like this: "I found LOTS of mistakes in XYZ traditionally pubbed book," and "I have NO problem enjoying a book with LOTS of errors as long as the story is good."


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

As a reader I thank you Julie for your post. 
And also as a reader I am a bit, looking for the right word here, dismayed? Disappointed?, at some of the posts here. 
This has nothing to do with price, period. I don't care if charge .99, 2.99 or 5.99, have some respect for me as the reader and do it properly. 

If you can't afford a editor/proofreader, and you aren't willing to follow some of the great help that has been offered, then you aren't ready to publish your book and put it under my nose. It is disrespectful and unprofessional. 
Its that kind of attitude that has made me reluctant of indy authors. I have lost the trust I am sorry to say. I am not a writer, not a english major, heck I am not even a native english speaker. I have to trust that what I read is done as proper as humanly possible. 

And to the point someone made about letting the readers sort it out. As in, throw the amateur work out there and see if it swims, if readers complain. This goes along with the expectations that readers are suppose to inform the author of the errors instead of daring to leave a bad review. 
I am sorry, readers are not your cheap freebie editor and proof reader.  Just because most don't say anything, doesn't mean its ok. Lot of people don't bother with trying to contact an author, they shouldn't have to. Most won't bother with a review either. That doesn't validate the product that was put out there without proper steps. 
My time is valuable. I enjoy reading and I deserve the respect to pay for a properly formatted, edited and proof read product. I am the customer, you are the seller of the product.

And not to leave this on a completely negative note, I do appreciate those authors here that get it. I just hope for your sakes that the rest get it too eventually. Its cut throat out there and the best way to make it is to put out a quality product. Readers know it and they will come back for more. No matter what the price is. 

But yes, I am weary, I do admit that.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Unbelievable. So many authors here arguing against the necessity of a good editor. I'm completely gobsmacked. I wonder how many lurkers on this board have taken note of the people who seem to think that a good editing is of distant secondary importance, and have added those writers to their "not to read ever" list?


I don't think anyone is saying that good editing is of distant, secondary importance. I think most people are reacting to the assertion that you can't self-edit effectively (or with the help of amateurs) and that you need a professional to do the job; and that if you can't do that then you shouldn't publish at all. The world is full of well-edited books from the big pubs that still contain minor errors, books with no errors that suck, and books that wouldn't suck but for all the errors. Books riddled with errors, regardless of the quality of the story, have no business being published; and I think everyone who cares enough to comment on this thread believes that.

But the market will ultimately decide, and the people who dash off some error-laden nonsense will fade away when they don't make their fortunes at writing.

Regarding Indies vs. traditionally published work: If we have to be held to a higher standard to overcome the crap being published via KDP, then so be it.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

swolf said:


> I agree with all of that. But when you say 'best product possible', what does that mean?
> 
> Does it mean I should spend $2000 on an professional editor who has experience editing with the NY publishing houses? Because if it doesn't, and I accept an editor with less skill, it's no longer the best product possible.
> 
> And yes, there's a lot of horribly edited self-published books out there. *Hopefully the readers will inform those writers of the problem.* But that doesn't mean all self-pubbers who self-edit have "no business being a publisher", which is what the OP is claiming.


Good luck with that. Most readers don't bother.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

NadiaLee said:


> Good luck with that. Most readers don't bother.


Yup. For many readers, once they're taken out of the story for any reason (plot holes, headhopping, factual errors, grammar, constant typos), the book becomes a wallbanger. And most of the time, they just don't want to think about it anymore. They've already lost however many hours (or minutes) that they will never get back. Why waste more?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> Where, exactly, did the OP say that self-pubbers can't self-edit?





Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When I read statements like "I can't afford to get an editor so I have to wait until I make some sales" what I actually hear is "I could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME."
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> One more point: If you're paying $25 for an editor, or giving them pies for their services, instead of spending $400 to hire a top-notch experienced editor who knows what they're doing, isn't that just a slightly paler shade of 'not caring about your readers'?
> 
> I mean, if you REALLY cared about putting the best possible book out there, you would pay the extra money, right?


Barter is the earliest form of payment and is still used today between businesses, so no, your argument is false. If someone is happy to be paid in pies and you have pies to pay them with, it's no different than paying cash, only minus the middle-man.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Where, exactly, did the OP say that self-pubbers can't self-edit? If you are capable of being your own editor, be your own editor. If you find that your stuff still goes out with tons of errors, hire, barter or beg for someone who is capable of providing a good final edit.


This is my situation. I've got a pretty good eye for editing other people's work, but I need help with my own. When I first started self-publishing and put up some of my unsold books in a "why not?" mood, I didn't pay enough attention to this and introduced versions with errors that should have been caught by an editor. It was a painful lesson and even now, I find this aspect difficult. In my most recent book, I got a thorough and excellent proofread that caught all sorts of things, and yet there was still an error/semi-error that slipped through. I was talking about a character driving and said something like, "He grinded the gears as he downshifted," and this made it into the book. One of the first readers choked on this and harped on it in the review. I wrote to my proofreader, who said, "I flagged that, but OED listed grinded as a legitimate, but archaic variant of ground, and I assumed that you did it intentionally, to give it a grittier feel." It sounds good, except it's not true. It was a hint of my rural dialect coming out that I should have caught and as soon as it was pointed out, I recognized it at once.

My proofreader has edited for Ballantine and Del Rey and knows her stuff. She caught all sorts of minor errors and even a spelling mistake in a snippet of French. And yet she missed this one issue that really irritated a reader.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

NadiaLee said:


> Good luck with that. Most readers don't bother.


There are more ways to inform than reviews.

No one buying their books is another one.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> Nah, it was more in response to the people here who make excuses for not editing, or being poorly edited that sound like this: "I found LOTS of mistakes in XYZ traditionally pubbed book," and "I have NO problem enjoying a book with LOTS of errors as long as the story is good."


I edit as best as I can, with all of the help I can afford. I tolerate some mistakes of others in otherwise good stories. Is that so bad?


----------



## caseyf6 (Mar 28, 2010)

Faithful Reader here--  I can handle a typo or two.  I can even handle sentences that are awkwardly phrased.  But when the whole book reads like a freshman English project, I stop reading.  This goes for grammar, spelling, punctuation, plot, character development, etc.  Multitudes of problems are multitudes of problems-- too many and I'll hit delete.

I don't worry too much about "time I could get back" because I simply won't finish reading.  I do, however, remember the quality of end product.

Please, please...just get someone who will be HONEST with you to read your work.


----------



## Sondrae Bennett (Mar 29, 2011)

healeyb said:


> As a consumer, if I happen to buy one of these products and discover the suckage, I just don't buy again. This is pretty basic capitalism.


You are absolutely right. You know what the bigger problem is though, right?

Not naming any names but there is a popular online publisher I used to enjoy books from. But in the past six months, I've read three books from that publishing house, all from different authors, that I've had multiple issues with. I've stopped buying any books from that e-publisher unless its an author already on my auto-buy list. That's an easy grouping I can make for all new works coming out of their house. I'm sure there are some gems I'm missing out on, but in the end, I don't think it's worth the aggravation anymore. Indie authors fall under one large umbrella in many consumers minds. Sad but true. The more poorly edited books that are published, the more hesitant readers are going to be to purchase any books under that umbrella. I really hope a balance is found before readers turn away, but this umbrella effect is one reason I'm hesitant to self-publish.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

Editors aren't perfect, of course. But I think the issue is a lot of writers are NOT good editors and think that they are.
I think they are two separate entities, two separate beasts to conquer. I think a lot of writers have a difficult time looking at their work from the critical perspective that editing requires. I'm not saying that writers don't examine their work, but that an editor comes at it with a lot of things the writer does not. 

For example, say you are writing a series. You explain something in a paragraph, but since you already know the story and know what's going to happen and how things work, it makes perfect sense to you. Someone else, such as an editor, may come in with a fresh pair of eyes and no background knowledge of what is to come, and tells you that what you've written is pretty unclear. This happens a lot on here with blurbs. Having a fresh pair of eyes, where the person is specifically looking for certain issues, can be a HUGE plus for a writer. And not just when it comes to grammar and the like. Things like flow, character development, etc. A lot of us are emotionally invested in our work, and that can hinder us as well.

If you are a writer who is capable of editing, then go for it. But a lot of us just don't have that kind of skill and require a once over or two.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

Sondrae Bennett said:


> Indie authors fall under one large umbrella in many consumers minds. Sad but true. The more poorly edited books that are published, the more hesitant readers are going to be to purchase any books under that umbrella. I really hope a balance is found before readers turn away, but this umbrella effect is one reason I'm hesitant to self-publish.


Hopefully this is a temporary wave we can work through as the get-rich-quickers pack up and move on.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Barter is the earliest form of payment and is still used today between businesses, so no, your argument is false. If someone is happy to be paid in pies and you have pies to pay them with, it's no different than paying cash, only minus the middle-man.


You're missing my point. If you're willing to settle for an editor who accepts pies for payment, instead of paying an experienced professional $400 - $1,000 (or more), you're not doing everything to make your book the best possible book it can be.

Or do you think that a pie-bartering editor is 'good enough' for your readers?

To bring this to a more personal level, you offer a service to check over author's books. They pay you what? $25 to $100 for that?

Are the authors who hire you putting the best possible book out there? Would they put a better book out there if they spent $400 on an experienced editor? Are the authors who hire you shortchanging their readers? (Don't get me wrong - I'm sure you do a great job. But you don't advertise yourself as a complete editor.)

If not, why?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"I don't worry too much about "time I could get back" because I simply won't finish reading."_

Many years ago I learned how to walk out of movies, click the TV remote, zone out of staff meetings, and stop reading bad books.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> Unbelievable. So many authors here arguing against the necessity of a good editor. I'm completely gobsmacked. I wonder how many lurkers on this board have taken note of the people who seem to think that a good editing is of distant secondary importance, and have added those writers to their "not to read ever" list?


I think you're misreading. I think some of us are just saying that it is possible to tolerate something less than top quality, top dollar editing and tolerate on occasion some conscientious self-editing. No need to be "gobsmacked" just because opinions differ.

A "good editor" is a luxury that some cannot afford. They are also hard to identify. Calling oneself an editor and charging money for the service does not suffice.

A. Sparrow is the name, everyone, if you'd like me at the top of your "not to read, ever" list. (Simply cut and paste).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

healeyb said:


> Anyone who believes that is already going to be a difficult sell. I don't worry about those people.
> 
> I'm sure there are many people who hold the same beliefs about music. But it is truly their loss, not ours. There are plenty of people who *do* believe that indie authors can produce quality work, and there should be enough time/money/love to go around while word-of-mouth to networks outside that circle begin to grow.


This.

Anyway, I'm a bit tired of indie writers practically making a career of beating up other indie writers. There are plenty of legacy pubbed writers who do that.

Maybe it's time to call a truce in the indie publishing house and stop beating on each other.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> A. Sparrow is the name, everyone, if you'd like me at the top of your "not to read, ever" list. (Simply cut and paste).


I LOL'ed. Awesome. haha


----------



## 13500 (Apr 22, 2010)

Julie, you are 100% correct. As soon as you put one of your books up on amazon or any other venue, you have started a business. New businesses take at least three years to make a profit. People should be ready for that.

Editing, or lack thereof, is a pet peeve of mine. Writing is not just about telling a story. If you want to be a writer, you must learn the basics of the language. Words and punctuation are our tools, and you have to take the time to learn how to use them properly or the story will be lost.

Pick up Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_ or _Self-Editing for Fiction Writers_ by Browne and King. Read through _The Chicago Manual of Style_ to see how professional publishing companies edit. These books do not cost a lot.

The bottom line is someone took the time to purchase and read your novel. That person deserves the best you can produce no matter what your price point is. If you do not take the time to ensure a quality product, don't release it.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> You're missing my point. If you're willing to settle for an editor who accepts pies for payment, instead of paying an experienced professional $400 - $1,000 (or more), you're not doing everything to make your book the best possible book it can be.
> 
> Or do you think that a pie-bartering editor is 'good enough' for your readers?
> 
> ...


It depends on the editor and the relationship I have with them. Just because someone is willing to barter doesn't make their service inferior. It just means that you have something they want.

As for your crack on my Oops Detection, it's not supposed to be a substitute for editing. I will, in fact, tell my clients when they need an editor. It is just what it says - it's a final read AFTER you've done everything else you can to polish your work. I can tell you that the majority of my clients have sent their books through editing before it ever gets to me. Way to make assumptions, though.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

PMartelly said:


> Editors aren't perfect, of course. But I think the issue is a lot of writers are NOT good editors.
> I think they are two separate entities, two separate beasts to conquer. I think a lot of writers have a difficult time looking at their work from the critical perspective that editing requires. I'm not saying that writers don't critically look at their work, but that an editor comes at it with a lot of things the writer does not.
> 
> For example, say you are writing a series. You explain something in a paragraph, but since you already know the story and know what's going to happen and how things work, it makes perfect sense to you. Someone else, such as an editor, may come in with a fresh pair of eyes and no background knowledge of what is to come, and tells you that what you've written is pretty unclear. This happens a lot on here with blurbs. Having a fresh pair of eyes, where the person is specifically looking for certain issues, can be a HUGE plus for a writer. And not just when it comes to grammar and the like. Things like flow, character development, etc. A lot of us are emotionally invested in our work, and that can hinder us as well.
> ...


I agree, you have to have someone look at it from a fresh perspective. For me, it also helps to put the current draft down for a while (the longer the better) and work on something else. I just got back to a piece I hadn't looked at in so long that I feel like I'm reading it for the first time. In addition to typos and grammatical issues, I'm also finding plot holes that need to be fixed. My editor will undoubtedly find more when I send it to him. My editor? A friend I trust to know what he's doing as far as grammar is concerned, and to tell me when something isn't working. He edits for me and I record guitar over keyboard tracks he sends me. Bartering is nice.


----------



## Sondrae Bennett (Mar 29, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> This.
> 
> Anyway, I'm a bit tired of indie writers practically making a career of beating up other indie writers. There are plenty of legacy pubbed writers who do that.
> 
> Maybe it's time to call a truce in the indie publishing house and stop beating on each other.


I'm sorry if you saw my post as "beating up indie writers". That certainly wasn't my intention. I often tweet about good indie books I read and consider quite a few self-published authors friends. But the reality I see, is the umbrella effect I stated. And to be fair, the explosion of .99 indie book popularity came about because of this umbrella effect. If Amanda Hocking and others hadn't gotten the praise they did, many consumers wouldn't be buying self-published works in the first place (umbrella effect).



JM Gellene said:


> Hopefully this is a temporary wave we can work through as the get-rich-quickers pack up and move on.


I really hope, and think, you're right.



Karen Wojcik Berner said:


> Pick up Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_ or _Self-Editing for Fiction Writers_ by Browne and King. Read through _The Chicago Manual of Style_ to see how professional publishing companies edit. These books do not cost a lot.


I would also recommend Stephen King's On Writing.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Sondrae Bennett said:


> I would also recommend Stephen King's On Writing.


I love Stephen King, and his little writing book is great. But I'm sorry, many of his books could have used some better editing.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> It depends on the editor and the relationship I have with them. Just because someone is willing to barter doesn't make their service inferior. It just means that you have something they want.


We can assume, in general, that an editor who's done it professionally and charges $2,000 per book, will do a better editing job than someone just getting into it and charging $25-$100. And $2,000 per book editors aren't selling their services for pies.



Arkali said:


> As for your crack on my Oops Detection, it's not supposed to be a substitute for editing. I will, in fact, tell my clients when they need an editor. It is just what it says - it's a final read AFTER you've done everything else you can to polish your work. I can tell you that the majority of my clients have sent their books through editing before it ever gets to me. Way to make assumptions, though.


What crack?

You yourself have said it's not a substitute for editing. Yet there are some who use you instead of an editor.

Are these people shortchanging their readers because they're not spending the money on a full edit?


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

I second _Self-Editing For Fiction Writers_ by Browne and King, Stephen King's _On Writing_, and would add Deb Dixon's _Goal, Motivation, and Conflict_ and _Writing the Breakout Novel_ by Donald Maass. The latter are more craft oriented than editing, but still keepers for fiction writers.


----------



## PeggyI (Jan 9, 2011)

Atunah said:


> If you can't afford a editor/proofreader, and you aren't willing to follow some of the great help that has been offered, then you aren't ready to publish your book and put it under my nose. It is disrespectful and unprofessional.


This

Disrespect for your readers, lack of self respect for your own work, and ultimately unprofessional.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Sondrae Bennett said:


> _Quote from: JM Gellene on Today at 11:25:30 AM
> Hopefully this is a temporary wave we can work through as the get-rich-quickers pack up and move on.
> _
> I really hope, and think, you're right.


Actually, this is the part I'm most sure about. It will _not_ go away. All those NaNoWriMo books will end up on Kindle, as will all the tens of thousands of books that are queried to agents every day, once the gatekeepers have turned them down. There are hundreds of thousands of people who want to be writers and more join the ranks every day. I say this as someone who has been both a gatekeeper and rejected by gatekeepers.

Some of these indies will go on to learn the lessons, while others will sputter on for awhile and drop out, but there will always be fresh soldiers to join the battle.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> You yourself have said it's not a substitute for editing. Yet there are some who use you instead of an editor.
> 
> Are these people shortchanging their readers because they're not spending the money on a full edit?


I'm sorry, I am not going to have this conversation with you. You've never used my service, so you don't know what you're talking about from that angle, and you have zero clue who my clients are unless you've hacked into my computer. Done talking about this, it's not cool.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

Amanda Brice said:


> I second _Self-Editing For Fiction Writers_ by Browne and King, Stephen King's _On Writing_, and would add Deb Dixon's _Goal, Motivation, and Conflict_ and _Writing the Breakout Novel_ by Donald Maass. The latter are more craft oriented than editing, but still keepers for fiction writers.


_Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation_ by Lynne Truss is a good one for punctuation. It's also very funny.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Actually, this is the part I'm most sure about. It will _not_ go away. All those NaNoWriMo books will end up on Kindle, as will all the tens of thousands of books that are queried to agents every day, once the gatekeepers have turned them down. There are hundreds of thousands of people who want to be writers and more join the ranks every day. I say this as someone who has been both a gatekeeper and rejected by gatekeepers.
> 
> Some of these indies will go on to learn the lessons, while others will sputter on for awhile and drop out, but there will always be fresh soldiers to join the battle.


Ugh! Forgot about NaNoWriMo. Did that one a couple of years ago and am just now editing the pile of crap that spewed out at 3300 words per day.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Some of these indies will go on to learn the lessons, while others will sputter on for awhile and drop out, but there will always be fresh soldiers to join the battle."_

Agree. Amazon will eventually limit the eBooks they offer. There is no reason to think the free access model they use today will continue indefinitely.


----------



## JenniJames (Mar 26, 2011)

Can I just chime in here while Kindleboards is working for me and letting me comment?

This has been by far the most fascinating reading on these forums.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I'm sorry, I am not going to have this conversation with you. You've never used my service, so you don't know what you're talking about from that angle, and you have zero clue who my clients are unless you've hacked into my computer. Done talking about this, it's not cool.


I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this. I'm not criticizing you or your service, or those who use it.

As a matter of fact, I'm defending them.

The OP made the claim:



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If you can't be bothered to figure out a way to make sure your book is proofed and edited, you have no business being a publisher.


And you said you agreed with her.

So I'm asking you, if you don't offer full editing services, do you agree with the OP that those authors who only use you to edit their books "have no business being a publisher?"


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

JenniJames said:


> Can I just chime in here while Kindleboards is working for me and letting me comment?
> 
> This has been by far the most fascinating reading on these forums.


It certainly has a lot of energy behind it.


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

ASparrow said:


> I love Stephen King, and his little writing book is great. But I'm sorry, many of his books could have used some better editing.


To be fair though Stephen King could write 200K of drivel _cough... Under the Dome... cough..._ and people would buy and read it on name recognition alone. I'm not sure if that's a good point to reach or not.

In end we do the best with the tools we have available to us to produce the best quality product that we can for the consumer. What makes we feel warm inside about finding errors in my work is over 40 years later I read The Lord the Rings and find errors in that. It validates what I've always said it does not matter how many times your book is scrubbed or how many eyes look at it their are going to be errors. The best you can do is correct them when you notice are they are pointed out to you.

I'm lucky I'm in a writing group that has two very good writers, and have degrees in english who I can lean on to look at my work. In turn I help them with layout issues and one time did a run for BK fries. Not the professional solution, but a tool I use to make sure my product is the best I can make it with the resource available at this moment.
Arigato,
Nick Davis


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

JM Gellene said:


> _Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation_ by Lynne Truss is a good one for punctuation. It's also very funny.


Careful, though. She's made some errors in grammar in her little tome.

http://northtexasliterarygal.blogspot.com/2008/08/review-eats-shoots-and-leaves.html

But not as many as Strunk and White

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

Leave NaNoWriMo out of this conversation. A place that encourages creativity and says come have a go without any prejudging is a gem in this day and age.
Arigato,
Nick Davis


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> The OP made the claim:
> 
> 
> > If you can't be bothered to *figure out a way* to make sure your book is proofed and edited, you have no business being a publisher.
> ...


And yet you're disparaging ways that people might *figure out a way* in order to make your point. Which is what? I agree with her that you need to find a way to get your work edited and proofed. Do you disagree, or are you merely arguing for the sake of it?


----------



## JenniJames (Mar 26, 2011)

altworld said:


> Leave NaNoWriMo out of this conversation. A place that encourages creativity and says come have a go without any prejudging is a gem in this day and age.
> Arigato,
> Nick Davis


My first book sold to a publisher was a Nanowrimo book.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

altworld said:


> Leave NaNoWriMo out of this conversation. A place that encourages creativity and says come have a go without any prejudging is a gem in this day and age.
> Arigato,
> Nick Davis


Yes, I wouldn't have that mess to edit if I hadn't done it, and I plan to do it again this year.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Actually, the point about NaNoWriMo is that it shows that there are zillions of people wanting to be writers and whether or not that has anything to do with "get rich quick schemes," shows that people wanting to become writers (and dreaming big) is neither new nor likely to go away. Poorly edited indie books are a function of the massive supply of new novels and new writers.

_ETA: speaking of poorly edited...this post needed work._


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> And yet you're disparaging ways that people might *figure out a way* in order to make your point.


Huh? I'm not disparaging anything (other than the OP's claims).

I think the service you provide is great. And I'm glad people take advantage of it. I was even thinking about using it myself. (Probably not now, since I seemed to have p***ed you off.)

But you even admitted yourself that some of the writers who use you, don't use any other editor. Now, if it's true that what you do isn't full editing, that means those authors are publishing without the benefit of a full edit.

Which seems to be a no-no in the OP's mind, and anyone who does that has "no business being a publisher."

I'm just asking you to respond to the ramifications of what you seem to be agreeing with.


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

JM Gellene said:


> Yes, I wouldn't have that mess to edit if I hadn't done it, and I plan to do it again this year. However, I hope no one takes their first draft and uploads it.


Well you can't stop them if they want to do that though. In the end the consumer will make the choice about quality not us, all we can do is make it the best that we can with what we have to hand. Hold yourself to a high standard and the rest will look after itself. Hard work, and brain ache, but that's the way it is.
Arigato,
Nick Davis


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

swolf said:


> Which seems to be a no-no in the OP's mind, and anyone who does that has "no business being a publisher."


When I read the OP's insulting feedback forms when she posted them here I thought she had "no business being a publisher." and showed she was unprofessional, and if those forms ever saw the public light of day she would be regarded as unapproachable in few short months.
Arigato,
Nick Davis


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

swolf said:


> A post from nine months ago:
> 
> Seems that Amanda started publishing as a self editor, and then switched to paying for an editor when she was making money off her books and saw readers complaining about it.
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting this. I self-edit because I simply cannot afford another editor. I can barely pay my bills. Does this mean I have no right to publish my books and try to make a little extra money off of doing what I love (the American dream, no?)? Isn't the whole point of KDP and other self-publishing sites to allow writers who may not have another means to publish to actually do so? Just because someone doesn't pay for an editor to take a look at the book, it doesn't make them less of a person or mean they care any less. And for the record, editors are not infallible. While reading the tradpub Icewind Dale trilogy, I found 12 errors in 8 pages. And those were just the errors I noticed. I make sure my books are the best I can possibly make them. If people don't like that, don't buy my books. You can read samples (I saw someone said they never read samples? Why? It's the best way to find out if a book is any good). If the sample has more errors than you can handle, move on. There's no point in whining about it.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

swolf said:


> We can assume, in general, that an editor who's done it professionally and charges $2,000 per book, will do a better editing job than someone just getting into it and charging $25-$100. And $2,000 per book editors aren't selling their services for pies.


SWolf, you are confusing "good editor" with "expensive editor." a good editor is someone who finds your mistakes, and helps you fix them, even if that person is your mother, and she is being paid with hugs.



ASparrow said:


> A. Sparrow is the name, everyone, if you'd like me at the top of your "not to read, ever" list. (Simply cut and paste).


A. Sparrow, if that comment was meant to be your admission that you regard good editing as unimportant, then I thank you for making the cut and paste so easy for me. I need all the help I can get in whittling down my TBR list.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

samanthawarren said:


> Thank you for posting this. I self-edit because I simply cannot afford another editor. I can barely pay my bills. Does this mean I have no right to publish my books and try to make a little extra money off of doing what I love (the American dream, no?)? Isn't the whole point of KDP and other self-publishing sites to allow writers who may not have another means to publish to actually do so? Just because someone doesn't pay for an editor to take a look at the book, it doesn't make them less of a person or mean they care any less. And for the record, editors are not infallible. While reading the tradpub Icewind Dale trilogy, I found 12 errors in 8 pages. And those were just the errors I noticed. I make sure my books are the best I can possibly make them. If people don't like that, don't buy my books. You can read samples (I saw someone said they never read samples? Why? It's the best way to find out if a book is any good). If the sample has more errors than you can handle, move on. There's no point in whining about it.


I think the OP was just saying that people should find a way to get their books reviewed or looked at. In all fairness, the OP did not say that you needed to pay to get your editing done. In fact, the OP did suggest multiple ways to do so without actually exchanging money. Not trying to criticize, just saying. =] As a person who cannot afford a professional editor at the moment, I understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

altworld said:


> I'm lucky I'm in a writing group that has two very good writers, and have degrees in english who I can lean on to look at my work. In turn I help them with layout issues and one time did a run for BK fries. Not the professional solution, but a tool I use to make sure my product is the best I can make it with the resource available at this moment.


THIS is exactly my point! You have made the effort to get other sets of eyes on your book to make sure it is the best you can make it. THAT is all I am asking of anyone. A couple of people seem to have willfully misinterpreted my post just to have something to complain about. All I ask is that you respect me as a reader enough to get the editing and proofing done. If that means you swap services with folks in your writing circle, GREAT! If that means you recruit your college professor, WONDERFUL! If that means you engage in chocolate bribes for your cousin who is an editor for a big six publisher, Go For It. But don't depend on spellcheck and your own eyes to do the job. No writer is so talented that he/she can edit his/her own work. You know what you MEANT to say, but won't always see what you actually said.

I also said you need to at least edit to the level expected for your genre. Editing erotica is different than editing literary fiction. Horror readers have different expectations regarding things like fact-checking than people who read biographies. There are things you can get away with in a fantasy novel than you can't in a non-fiction. There are different expectations from the readers. Heck, there are things that are 100% grammatically WRONG everywhere but in roleplaying game supplements. You need to know what those expectations are, and make sure you meet them. 
A


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

PMartelly said:


> I think the OP was just saying that people should find a way to get their books reviewed or looked at. In all fairness, the OP did not say that you needed to pay to get your editing done. In fact, the OP did suggest multiple ways to do so without actually exchanging money. Not trying to criticize, just saying. =]


Thank you!


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I've found this an interesting and helpful thread and thank you to OP and everyone else who has participated. I hope we'll keep it civil so that I can continue to learn from the various POVs.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> I've found this an interesting and helpful thread and thank you to OP and everyone else who has participated. I hope we'll keep it civil so that I can continue to learn from the various POVs.


I'd like to second this. It gave me a lot to think about.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> A. Sparrow, if that comment was meant to be your admission that you regard good editing as unimportant, then I thank you for making the cut and paste so easy for me. I need all the help I can get in whittling down my TBR list.


I think good editing is very important. That's why I take great pains with my editing and use beta readers.

You're welcome. I'm happy to be of service. It also makes my 'to-be-read-by' list that much more manageable.


----------



## theraven (Dec 30, 2009)

The best lesson I've learned as a writer is that I don't know what I don't know. I don't think any writer deliberately publishes/submits a 'bad' book. When I've submitted books it was because I thought it was 'nearly flawless' with possibly a few typos only to discover later that the novel I prided on being well-plotted novel had a few holes here and there. It's hard to know that there are problems in your book if a writer doesn't know what the potential 'problems' could be with grammar and/or novel construction that could ruin the reading for the customer.  

Yes, there are books put out by traditional publishers, small presses, and indies that have typos, grammar issues and plot issues and some of them are best-sellers. These are the exceptions to the 'rule'. And exceptions are gifts that are given by the reader to the writer. Exceptions shouldn't be something that a writer expects or demands from the reader. I think this is one of the biggest issues with society in general. People expect to be the exception and are shocked when they fall into the category of having their circumstance follow 'the rule'. 

I think the OP is trying to encourage writers to do what they can to get another set of eyes on the manuscript before it's published. Some people will pay an editor. Some will barter. Some will find volunteers. Is it easy? No. But it's worth a try. No writer has a right to publish their book or for people to buy their book. It's an opportunity. Our chances of being able to make money in our dream job is greatly increased if we do all we can to take care of problems/issues (typos, grammar problems, etc) before we ask readers to purchase our book.


----------



## CaedemMarquez (Mar 23, 2011)

Woo wee this thread exploded. I read the first six responses earlier and then came back to read more but discovered there are a LOT more than I have time for now. I will be back to read it later.

Just thought you all may want to know that! 

Caedem - http://CaedemMarquez.com


----------



## Glenn Bullion (Sep 28, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> I've found this an interesting and helpful thread and thank you to OP and everyone else who has participated. I hope we'll keep it civil so that I can continue to learn from the various POVs.


I do not believe in this "civility". Let's get ready to rumble. 

Sometimes a lack of editing doesn't mean you don't care. It just means you made a mistake. I thought I could edit Demonspawn alone. I was wrong. I now offer zombie killing services for editing.


----------



## Mike Cooley (Mar 12, 2011)

I spent months editing and consistency checking my novel after I finished it.
And then I had test readers read it and point out mistakes.
And then I paid a freelance editor to go over it.
And I paid a freelance artist to do my cover.

I'm proud of my work. I'm proud of my story. 
I wouldn't expect anyone to pay me for unfinished or unpolished work. 

Mike


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

JenniJames said:


> My first book sold to a publisher was a Nanowrimo book.


My third published novel began as a NaNoWriMo project.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Glenn Bullion said:


> I now offer zombie killing services for editing.


After the CDC post this morning about how to be ready for a zombie apocalypse you might find some takers on that


----------



## Justin Alexander (Feb 19, 2011)

RedAdept said:


> $2,000?!
> 
> Have you not noticed the number of Freelance Editors cropping up willing to help Indies get books ready for publishing for far less than that?


Anyone willing to pay $2,000 for editing a novel, please feel free to PM me.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> SWolf, you are confusing "good editor" with "expensive editor." a good editor is someone who finds your mistakes, and helps you fix them, even if that person is your mother, and she is being paid with hugs.


Stacy, if you have your mother editing your books, you're going to fall under the wrath of the OP also:



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Your desire to be read does not trump my desire to read a quality book. Particularly when it is my money we are talking about. When I read statements like "I can't afford to get an editor so I have to wait until I make some sales" what I actually hear is "I could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME."


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

PMartelly said:


> I think the OP was just saying that people should find a way to get their books reviewed or looked at. In all fairness, the OP did not say that you needed to pay to get your editing done.


Once again:



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Particularly when it is my money we are talking about. When I read statements like "I can't afford to get an editor so I have to wait until I make some sales" what I actually hear is "I could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME."


----------



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

Nicely put. Almost as lofty as the Jonah sermon from _*Moby Dick * _ - but look where that got Ahab. 

Edward C. C. C. C. Pattersermon


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

This thread proves to me that we here at KB can argue about _anything_. 

Nearly every single published book in existence has at least one error. Nobody expects any book--traditional or indie--to be 100% error-free. There's a big difference between finding five errors in a 80,000 word novel, and finding an error every five pages, or even every page.

Personally, I judge editing as "poor" when I encounter a steady stream of errors throughout a book. I do not deduct points for the occasional typo, especially if the vast majority of the book is well-written. I've been in editing threads in the past, and there are always folks who claim that they constantly read traditionally published books with tons of errors. I haven't personally had that experience (at least not from a mid- to large-sized publisher). Like everyone else, I've definitely encountered some sloppy self-published books that would never have made it past even the most mediocre editor.

My opinion is that every single author can benefit from having outside editorial assistance--a fresh pair of eyes and an objective point-of-view is absolutely invaluable. That said, some authors are capable of producing extremely clean manuscripts on their own. Unfortunately, I think too many authors believe they're skilled at self-editing when they really aren't. It goes back to "you can't know what you don't know". Also, the lack of objectivity inherent in self-editing is an incredible handicap. It may not hurt you with every book, but sooner or later the self-editor _will_ misstep.

I believe very strongly that taking the step to sell your work is a big deal, and unfortunately the ease of self-publishing seduces many prospective authors into pulling the trigger before they are ready. Just because you've written something, that doesn't mean it's publishable. Just because you're planning to charge $0.99, doesn't mean you're excused from the obligation to produce something worth paying for. There are thousands and thousands of unedited stories available online for free...when people choose to pay for a story, they do so expecting a certain level of quality. If you choose to sell your work, you have a moral responsibility to ensure that it's worth buying. If you're capable of doing so without professional outside help, awesome. It's not like that's impossible. But most people can't do it alone...and if you want to publish, you need to do what you need to do in order to produce publishable work. That doesn't mean perfect. It just means solidly written, to the point where bad editing isn't a distraction.

I agree about the sense of entitlement thing. It's interesting to read the threads here, and to see that many authors believe that all books (and authors) are created equal. They study pricing strategies, experiment with promotion, and cling to the sales numbers, results, and milestones of others as though they can automatically expect the same for themselves. But here's what too few people acknowledge: not everyone who manages to produce a novel is a good writer/storyteller. Not every book will find an audience. We are not all potential Amanda Hockings, or Jack Konraths, or [insert other successful indie author here]. Just because you wrote a book and decided to self-publish it, doesn't mean that you're going to sell X number of copies, or that you'll get to quit your day job and write full-time, or whatever. I've met many, many people in my lifetime who aspire to write a novel one day, or to be a published author. Wanting something really badly doesn't mean it will ever happen for you (see: American Idol).

At any rate, yes, if you decide to self-publish and sell your work to people, you _must_ produce something publishable--if you want any chance of success, at least. Are there people who overlook bad editing? Sure. Will the majority of readers, trained by years of reading traditionally published and edited books, expect a certain level of competence in your writing? *Yes*. If you do not possess the competence to self-edit, don't. Most of us need other pairs of eyes.

I've posted my work online for free in the past, and again recently. I self-edit those free stories. I've never, ever had a complaint about editing in those stories and have, in fact, received many compliments about my self-editing. And yet, for published work I plan to sell, I would never self-edit. Ever. Just like I would never sell a piece of software I wrote without having some QA performed by someone other than me. It's just part of being professional.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You have made the effort to get other sets of eyes on your book to make sure it is the best you can make it. THAT is all I am asking of anyone.


As I've pointed out, the "best that you can make it" doesn't happen by hiring a cheap editor, or trading pies for one.

So where's the cut off point? At what point is it 'good enough' so I'm not ripping off my readers? Who gets to decide that? You?

If I do hire a $2,000 editor, do they have to meet your approval first?

As I said, the readers get to decide that, not you.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

Glenn Bullion said:


> Sometimes a lack of editing doesn't mean you don't care. It just means you made a mistake. I thought I could edit Demonspawn alone. I was wrong. I now offer zombie killing services for editing.


Do you charge by the head or by the hour? As a dedicated zombiephobe, this is quite an important issue for me!   

You know, I think some people may forget that I'm not preaching from a pedestal, but experience. I have often documented my own, horrible first attempt at self-publishing. September and Other Stories was a train wreck when I first released it. It was poorly formatted, I tried to self-edit, I used a stock cover. It was an epic fail. I HAD NO BUSINESS SELF PUBLISHING IT! But in 2003, when I was posting excerpts at Lulu.com and asking for feedback, all I got was a bunch of cheerleaders telling me "You can do anything!" "Good job publishing your book!" and "Don't listen to the naysayers." By the gods, I wish there had been just one person who said "*****, er, have you ever even OPENED a book? Your preview looks like crap." ONE PERSON who could have made me stop and think for a second about what the reader expected out of a book.

And here's the thing: the industry was more forgiving then. Reviewers didn't make an effort to point out formatting or proofreading issues. They still followed the "old school" rules. Customers didn't really understand what POD was or how easy it was to upload and sell. They still thought there were gatekeepers that decided what books appeared on Amazon. If I released a book today in the condition my first book was then, I would be done as a publisher.

So I'm not saying these things to be mean. I'm saying them because someone has to. There was no ***** at lulu.com in 2004 to stop me from spending $300 on a review. There was nobody around pointing out that my cover looked like crap or that I needed a proofreader or that some of my fact-checking didn't check out. There were a bunch of people telling me to "stay positive" and don't worry about the "elitists." And it ended up costing me a huge amount of credibility as an author, and it took me a long time to get that back.

So yes, I had no business publishing that first book the way I did. I've learned my lessons the hard way. So regardless of whether or not some individuals hate me for saying it, so long as I can say even one author those same problems my conscience is clear.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Morgan Gallagher said:


> Word.





Ladyeclectic said:


> A-freaking-MEN, preach it!!!





RedAdept said:


> I knew there was some reason I liked you!
> 
> This is an excellent post!


1. Agreed.

2. How did I miss this thread?

3. I'm kinda annoyed and jealous that Julie posted one of my fave rants.

4. Before further comment, I need to catch up.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

To all those who think that inexpensive (or barter) proof-readers equate with lower quality, let me remind you that some people do things for love, not money.  As Julie said, college students looking for experience may be glad to do your proofing for minimal amounts. Other people may want to do the work but not deal with filing taxes, so barter works.  If I feel my effort on your behalf is worth a few pies (or in my case, expensive chocolate), then it is my choice.  But look at the work I do before you say that I'm less qualified than someone who charges you two thousand dollars.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

swolf said:


> So where's the cut off point? At what point is it 'good enough' so I'm not ripping off my readers?


When it reaches the point that it adheres to the norms of your genre. If you are meeting the norms of your genre, then nothing I am saying applies to you, because you are doing what customers expect out of you.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

scarlet said:


> To all those who think that inexpensive (or barter) proof-readers equate with lower quality, let me remind you that some people do things for love, not money. As Julie said, college students looking for experience may be glad to do your proofing for minimal amounts. Other people may want to do the work but not deal with filing taxes, so barter works. If I feel my effort on your behalf is worth a few pies (or in my case, expensive chocolate), then it is my choice. But look at the work I do before you say that I'm less qualified than someone who charges you two thousand dollars.


I did use the phrase "in general", and didn't mean to besmirch all low-paid editors.

Finding a good editor is hit or miss, and just having an editor doesn't guarantee a well-edited book. Just like self-editing doesn't guarantee a poorly edited book.

But I'm being told "I could care less about any of my readers", I "couldn't be bothered to make sure it was worth" my readers time, and I "have no business being a publisher."


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


>


Julie, I just have to say, on top of a SPOT ON rant (cheesy voice sings ***FABULOUS***) I have to tell you I am sitting here DYING with laughter at these! My grandma keeps asking me why I'm laughing.. how do you tell a 92 yo woman it's because of the chainsaw and tank?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

swolf said:


> I did use the phrase "in general", and didn't mean to besmirch all low-paid editors.
> 
> Finding a good editor is hit or miss, and just having an editor doesn't guarantee a well-edited book. Just like self-editing doesn't guarantee a poorly edited book.
> 
> But I'm being told "I could care less about any of my readers", I "couldn't be bothered to make sure it was worth" my readers time, and I "have no business being a publisher."


Just as you're telling me that you're not talking to me personally, perhaps you should realize that Julie (and I) isn't talking to you personally. I actually wasn't paying attention to who made the comments about low cost editors, I was just posting my feelings on the subject.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When it reaches the point that it adheres to the norms of your genre. If you are meeting the norms of your genre, then nothing I am saying applies to you, because you are doing what customers expect out of you.





Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> THIS is exactly my point! You have made the effort to get other sets of eyes on your book to make sure it is the best you can make it. THAT is all I am asking of anyone.





Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, I think some people may forget that I'm not preaching from a pedestal, but experience. I have often documented my own, horrible first attempt at self-publishing. September and Other Stories was a train wreck when I first released it. It was poorly formatted, I tried to self-edit, I used a stock cover. It was an epic fail. I HAD NO BUSINESS SELF PUBLISHING IT! But in 2003, when I was posting excerpts at Lulu.com and asking for feedback, all I got was a bunch of cheerleaders telling me "You can do anything!" "Good job publishing your book!" and "Don't listen to the naysayers." By the gods, I wish there had been just one person who said "Julie, er, have you ever even OPENED a book? Your preview looks like crap." ONE PERSON who could have made me stop and think for a second about what the reader expected out of a book.


You know, if you would have made these posts instead of the bitter diatribe you settled on, no one would have had a problem with it. These things are said around here multiple times a day.

And BTW, just because you lived through your mistakes, doesn't mean others can't also. Experience is the best teacher, not someone screaming at them on a message board.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Just as you're telling me that you're not talking to me personally, perhaps you should realize that Julie (and I) isn't talking to you personally.


No, I never said anything that included all editors, cheap or expensive.

However, the OP's comments were inclusive of me, and all other self-editors.

Now, if I said something like, "If you charge someone for editing their work, and you've never worked as a professional editor, then you obviously don't care about the readers", I'm sure a lot of editors here would take offense, even though I didn't name any.

I would never say anything like that, by the way.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

swolf said:


> As I've pointed out, the "best that you can make it" doesn't happen by hiring a cheap editor, or trading pies for one.
> 
> So where's the cut off point? At what point is it 'good enough' so I'm not ripping off my readers? Who gets to decide that? You?
> 
> ...


I'm so confused about this argument. Julie's original post stated that if you sell your work, you need to ensure it's well-edited...and that generally means acquiring outside editing help. She then went on to make suggestions to those people who claim that they cannot afford an editor, including bartering and looking for students, etc. Not once did Julie state that you needed to hire an expensive editor in order to self-publish. All she said was that if you aren't prepared to ensure that your book is properly edited by one or more competent editors/proof-readers/etc., you have no business self-publishing. I just don't understand how that statement could even be controversial. Nobody is telling you that you're not allowed to write stories and share them with people, if that's what it's about for you. Asking people to _pay_ for your work is a different story.

Why do you think that editors who work for cheap or for barter are automatically sub-par? Either your book is well-edited or it's not. If you want people to pay for it, it should be well-edited. An expensive editor is not the only route to a well-edited book...and I'm pretty sure nobody ever suggested it was.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> Unbelievable. So many authors here arguing against the necessity of a good editor. I'm completely gobsmacked. I wonder how many lurkers on this board have taken note of the people who seem to think that a good editing is of distant secondary importance, and have added those writers to their "not to read ever" list?


You mean with a look something like this?










I've heard that writers make poor talk show guests, although there are exceptions. They also tend to make poor PR people.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I just finished reading a book that had a good story, and far too many errors/typos/etc.. And at the end of the book, what do I see, but a, "BIG THANK YOU to my Editor (name inserted)"

And all I can think is OMG, they got ripped off! Short story, less than 100kb, and about 30 errors of all types.. Yes, I marked them so I can let the author know.



> Unbelievable. So many authors here arguing against the necessity of a good editor. I'm completely gobsmacked. I wonder how many lurkers on this board have taken note of the people who seem to think that a good editing is of distant secondary importance, and have added those writers to their "not to read ever" list?


I'm paying attention Stacey. Quite a few of us are.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> I'm so confused about this argument. Julie's original post stated that if you sell your work, you need to ensure it's well-edited...and that generally means acquiring outside editing help. She then went on to make suggestions to those people who claim that they cannot afford an editor, including bartering and looking for students, etc. Not once did Julie state that you needed to hire an expensive editor in order to self-publish. All she said was that if you aren't prepared to ensure that your book is properly edited by one or more competent editors/proof-readers/etc., you have no business self-publishing. I just don't understand how that statement could even be controversial. Nobody is telling you that you're not allowed to write stories and share them with people, if that's what it's about for you. Asking people to _pay_ for your work is a different story.
> 
> Why do you think that editors who work for cheap or for barter are automatically sub-par? Either your book is well-edited or it's not. If you want people to pay for it, it should be well-edited. An expensive editor is not the only route to a well-edited book...and I'm pretty sure nobody ever suggested it was.


My point was, that if putting out the 'best you can do' is so important, then why isn't it important to hire the best editor you can find? No matter the cost?

And yes, in general, more experienced editors are better editors, and more experienced editors charge more. That doesn't mean you won't find a low cost gem somewhere, but more likely, you're going to get what you pay for.

So who decides how much to spend is enough? If I have someone in my writer's group crit my story for free, and someone else pays an NY editor $2,000, does that mean they care more about their readers than I care about mine?

What if my self-edited book is better edited than someone charging $50 to do it? Does the author who paid that $50 care more about their readers than I do?

My point is that the readers will be the final judges of the book, not what steps I took to create it.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

swolf said:


> Stacy, if you have your mother editing your books, you're going to fall under the wrath of the OP also:


How? If my mother does a good job, what reason would anyone have to note the editing? I think you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand what she's saying, which is that "i can't afford it" is not a good excuse for a book to remain unedited while still expecting to sell it.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> How? If my mother does a good job, what reason would anyone have to note the editing? I think you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand what she's saying, which is that "i can't afford it" is not a good excuse for a book to remain unedited while still expecting to sell it.


It is nice to see that some people do have strong reading comprehension skills and understand statements in context. The characteristics of a good editor, BTW


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

swolf said:


> My point was, that if putting out the 'best you can do' is so important, then why isn't it important to hire the best editor you can find? No matter the cost?
> 
> And yes, in general, more experienced editors are better editors, and more experienced editors charge more. That doesn't mean you won't find a low cost gem somewhere, but more likely, you're going to get what you pay for.
> 
> ...


I guess my point is that you're extrapolating from the original post and arguing against something that was never said, or really even implied. And you're doing it because you feel targeted by Julie, because you don't use an editor.

Either your book is well-edited, or it isn't. If you produced a well-edited book via self-editing, then kudos. Obviously you're not one of the authors that Julie is addressing. If your book isn't well-edited, then I sort of share the opinion that you're not fulfilling your moral obligation to produce something of quality if you want to be paid for it.

So which is it? If your book is well-edited, there's no reason to be upset. If it's not, then maybe your best move would be to drop the defensiveness and consider how to make your next book better.


----------



## Alan Ryker (Feb 18, 2011)

Finding an editor who will help shape your story might be difficult. Finding a copy editor with good credentials is pretty simple. Go to elance and look at the feedback. They probably don't usually edit fiction, but they'll know grammar. My copy editor usually edits doctoral thesisesises for engineers for whom English is a second language. She can't help me with my story, but darn does she know grammar.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

_"'... the people who seem to think that a good editing is of distant secondary importance, and have added those writers to their "not to read ever" list?""

I'm paying attention Stacey. Quite a few of us are."_

If you don't see this as a straw argument, then you're not paying attention. No-one is disputing that editing is important. one might argue that it is secondary to voice and plotting and characterization, but not distantly so.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Every writer owes her/his readers a good read, which means errors should be kept to a minimum.  Different writers will have varying editing/proofing needs and they should recognize those needs and address it the best they can.  Thats it.

An author like Dean Koontz says he turns out a couple polished finished pages per day.  But he still has it checked by someone else later.

Most writers don't write like that and they do a lot of rewrites and cutting until they finally have the story down.  Some will be their own good editor/proofer and some will not.  If not find some help.  Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes will catch errors which your eyes have become accustomed to.

That said, I just can't believe all the errors I come across in books from franchise authors from Big Pubs.  I don't read a book looking for errors but you will encounter them.  If you did your best to eliminate them I think you did your best.  

A writer doesn't want to hear your story sucked but there were no errors in the copy.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

> A writer doesn't want to hear your story sucked but there were no errors in the copy.


A writer also probably doesn't want to hear, "The story seemed good, but there were so many errors I gave up and got my $$ back, and told my friends and family never to bother with that author again because they didn't care about quality.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

BTackitt said:


> A writer also probably doesn't want to hear, "The story seemed good, but there were so many errors I gave up and got my $$ back, and told my friends and family never to bother with that author again because they didn't care about quality.


Errors usually don't pop up in good-seeming stories because an author doesn't care about quality. There are other circumstances -- money, isolation, dyslexia, equipment, etc. -- that often contribute to the condition of a writer's final output.

Thus, your imaginary person could be misleading their friends and family by presuming that the author didn't care about quality. Though, that person is certainly welcome to react so extremely and irrationally to a story they apparently derived some enjoyment from if they thought it "seemed good."

Can you imagine someone saying: "The story seemed good, but don't you all bother reading anything by that author ever again?" What is that supposed to be? Eternal damnation? Punishment?


----------



## Sondrae Bennett (Mar 29, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> Errors usually don't pop up in good-seeming stories because an author doesn't care about quality. There are other circumstances -- money, isolation, dyslexia, equipment, etc. -- that often contribute to the condition of a writer's final output.


I told myself I wasn't going to comment on this thread anymore. I really didn't see the point of continuing to hit my head against a brick wall, especially after being left speechless with this gem:


ASparrow said:


> I love Stephen King, and his little writing book is great. But I'm sorry, many of his books could have used some better editing.


Pretty ballsy to condescend to someone hailed as a master of a _major_ genre and an expert in prose--not to mention a multi-award winning bestseller-- by calling it "his little writing book". But that's not what pushed me to respond.

I had to say something about the first comment above. You're looking at hypothetical reader comments like that from your perspective. You care but a, b, and c prevented you from putting out a product the consumer will want to recommend.

The consumer WILL NOT see things from this perspective. If I pay for a cup of coffee, I don't want the dregs left in the pot for the past three hours. It doesn't matter to me if it's the end of the day or if the store is about to close or excuse ABC. I want a good cup of coffee and if I don't get it, I'll probably tell my friends and family to stay away from that store that served me sludge.

Most readers want a well edited book and its your job, if you want to succeed, to give it to them. Whatever/However you need to do that, you need to do. Sure, the store sold me a cup of coffee and might count that sale as proof that they're doing something right, but that's not the case and they lost any return business and any business I warned away from them. The hypothetical reader does and will do the things BTackitt described and doesn't care about the why. The why only matters to the person with the excuses and frankly, it shouldn't. Do whatever you need to do to put out a quality product.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

swolf said:


> Once again:


Just to clarify: I formulated my response based on that particular person's post. They said that they couldn't afford an editor, which was not the OP's point. The point of the post was that: a) no writer is entitled to sales b) that if you plan to charge people for your work, then you need to make sure you are putting out the best quality work possible, and that you don't necessarily have to pay an editor to do so.

I get why you referenced Julie's post about paying for an editor, but I think she more so meant that some writers use that as a crutch or an excuse to not have their work looked at. And I believe what Julie was trying to say with that point was that there is no excuse. I am not saying I agree, nor am I saying I disagree. I'm just saying that I think that's what she meant.

Personally, I am getting my book edited by a teacher of mine, a beta reader, and an english major. But that's just me. Every author/writer has a different journey and a different path to releasing their work.

NOW, if we could all just hold hands, sing kumbaya (or "Pure Imagination", since that song seems to be tailor made for authors lol), I would absolutely love for us to keep the peace.  I think people are starting to take things a little too personally!


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Sondrae Bennett said:


> I told myself I wasn't going to comment on this thread anymore. I really didn't see the point of continuing to hit my head against a brick wall, especially after being left speechless with this gemretty ballsy to condescend to someone hailed as a master of a _major_ genre and an expert in prose--not to mention a multi-award winning bestseller-- by calling it "his little writing book". But that's not what pushed me to respond.
> 
> I had to say something about the first comment above. You're looking at hypothetical reader comments like that from your perspective. You care but a, b, and c prevented you from putting out a product the consumer will want to recommend.
> 
> ...


As I said, I love Stephen King. He's a very good writer, but he's not perfect, not matter how blindly he is worshiped. He is a nice and humble man. He would probably agree.

And I agree that readers shouldn't be expected to care about what circumstances led to their perception of poor quality in a book that they read. I was not speaking to these hypothetical readers. I was speaking behind the scenes to a person who creates and reviews books.

The hypothetical reader (and most of my readers are hypothetical) is welcome to react however they wish. I try my best to make them happy. They are welcome to blacklist me till the end of time, along with all their friends and family and everyone that will listen to their tragic story (even the lurkers).

Many of us do our best to create a quality product, using outside resources to help whenever possible. We who make mistakes are not doing this to traumatize anyone or waste their precious time on earth. If one does not like our work, one is welcome to respond however they like to overcome this trauma and to minimize the possibility of future occurrences (as long as its legal, i.e. please don't murder us or declare fatwas.).

You can burn our work (though please spare your Kindles). If the offending books are paper, mulch them. Toss them in the ocean. Whatever eases the pain.

I had a lovebird named Ozzie who once tore apart an entire Stephen King paperback (It). Not because I or Ozzie thought it needed more editing (though it did) or that we felt gypped (the story seemed good, so I overlooked all the bloat and sloppy editing). I just happened to leave the book in reach of Ozzie's cage, and once she got started there was no stopping her. She would tuck strips of paper in her tail feathers and use them to build a nest. But I digress.

I find it amazing how emotional people get about these issues. Bad writers are not evil, and neither are the mediocre ones like me.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

Sondrae Bennett said:


> If I pay for a cup of coffee, I don't want the dregs left in the pot for the past three hours. It doesn't matter to me if it's the end of the day or if the store is about to close or excuse ABC. I want a good cup of coffee and if I don't get it, I'll probably tell my friends and family to stay away from that store that served me sludge.


Avoid getting coffee at McDonald's then.


----------



## Tom Junior (Apr 4, 2011)

Amazon has put up a social publishing platform. Its wonderful and anyone in the world can  publish with it. This is a good thing. 

Not everyone is going to do their homework, put in hard work, and create a high quality product. Some will, and some won't. Ranting won't change it. 

Thats like expecting everyone who picks up a golf club to be Tiger Woods, or every kid who grabs a basketball to become Michael Jordan. We're seeing a mix of amateur and professional writers here. Some will be fantastic, others will be average, and many will be terrible. Like it or not, hobbyists are in the mix when it comes to e-publishing, and its that way to stay. 

For a good analogy think about a website like e-bay or Etsy. There's a lot of crap, theres also some great stuff. You will have to sift, if you find something you don't like, well return it.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> Errors usually don't pop up in good-seeming stories because an author doesn't care about quality. There are other circumstances -- money, isolation, dyslexia, equipment, etc. -- that often contribute to the condition of a writer's final output.
> 
> Thus, your imaginary person could be misleading their friends and family by presuming that the author didn't care about quality. Though, that person is certainly welcome to react so extremely and irrationally to a story they apparently derived some enjoyment from if they thought it "seemed good."


This is why you have to know yourself as an author, and constantly test to see if you're lying to yourself.

If you're dyslexic, you know you can't trust your editing. Plain and simple. And that means you have to buy, beg, borrow, or barter for editing, as Julie said. You MUST. And after you've had it edited, you need to get it proofed--because you probably screwed something up inputting changes. And if there are a lot of changes in the proof, you need to get it proofed AGAIN. Repeat. If your equipment isn't any good, for heaven's sake, get someone with good equipment to fix it for you.

If you don't know anyone, are dyslexic, and literally don't have any money to make this work, then it may be that you simply aren't a good candidate for self publishing. You're probably not a good candidate to open a bakery, either.

The danger when you do things for yourself is that you might be inept and not know it. I'm not saying that to be mean, but it's something that everyone should be paranoid about. Inept people are usually inept in part because they don't know they are inept. So if you're self-publishing, your job is to find independent verification that you are not, in fact, inept before you rely on your own judgment.

A lot of you think you can edit just fine on your own. You might be right; I believe that some people really can edit themselves, no matter what we say. But consider checking to make sure that's true--that you're really competent and not inept. When you have a spare thirty bucks, drop Arkali a line and have her look through your book. You shouldn't need more than thirty, right, because your editing is awesome.

If you want to produce competent work, make sure you're getting independent verification of your competence.


----------



## Sondrae Bennett (Mar 29, 2011)

Ryne Billings said:


> Avoid getting coffee at McDonald's then.


I always do.  I tried once again after they went cafe. Once was all it took, lol.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

Sondrae Bennett said:


> I always do.  I tried once again after they went cafe. Once was all it took, lol.


I used to work there. Only place I've ever seen sell coffee that was over six hours old.

That's a bit off-topic, so I won't go any further.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Courtney Milan said:


> This is why you have to know yourself as an author, and constantly test to see if you're lying to yourself.
> 
> If you're dyslexic, you know you can't trust your editing. Plain and simple. And that means you have to buy, beg, borrow, or barter for editing, as Julie said. You MUST. And after you've had it edited, you need to get it proofed--because you probably screwed something up inputting changes. And if there are a lot of changes in the proof, you need to get it proofed AGAIN. Repeat. If your equipment isn't any good, for heaven's sake, get someone with good equipment to fix it for you.
> 
> ...


I applaud your highly reasonable and fair advice.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Now that Bones and American Idol are over...

The act of writing can be all kinds of selfish and solitary, but the end result, the published work, has to please others. Writers, especially ones who hang out with other writers, tend to think that readers exist to buy their books and write their reviews. At some point though, a writer has to find a place of humility, a place of gratitude for what success they find. Eventually, they have to get beyond the concept that that the people they encounter exist as walking dollar signs and get to that pure place of writing as a gift -- a gift they possess and a gift that they wish to share. Not "how dare this person not love this thing I threw together and how dare they not look past the typos," but rather the joy of offering someone else the best they have to offer at that moment for the mutual benefit of all.

Editors help writers, but they don't co-own the work. I think too many writers who haven't experienced this process are afraid that if they listen to someone else they lose who they are, and it's not like that. You can write with the door closed, but at some point the door has to open and other people have to be let in.

When I read and I find that the writer just doesn't have an engaging voice, I'm sad. I want to like, love, everything I read and I believe that author wanted me to love it too. However, when I read something that is filled with easily fixed errors, something that clearly hasn't even seen a beta reader, I'm <expletive deleted.> That's disrespectful. That's a slap in the face to everyone who gave that author time and money. I can understand folks being unable to afford a "real" editor, but like all sorts of things in life that means that perhaps they can't have it now. That means there has to be sacrifices or the act of going to all the friends and family longing to give 5 star reviews for their pride and joy and asking them for a different kind of help, perhaps in the form of little green pieces of paper. With the ability to self pub, the waiting a couple extra months is still going to see them an indie in "print" before the guy down the street who is trying to make it the traditional way. If you want the advantages of the indie route, you also take the responsibilities.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> Now that Bones and American Idol are over...


Hey! I watch those, too. 

Actually, I was going to stop watching AI when James got voted off, but I'm kind of obligated to root for Scotty as he's from the town I live in.  Well, and he is a cutie... This will be the last season I watch AI, though, unless they get different judges. 

Bones rocked tonight! Can't wait for next season.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

ASparrow said:


> Errors usually don't pop up in good-seeming stories because an author doesn't care about quality. There are other circumstances -- money, isolation, dyslexia, equipment, etc. -- that often contribute to the condition of a writer's final output.
> 
> Thus, your imaginary person could be misleading their friends and family by presuming that the author didn't care about quality. Though, that person is certainly welcome to react so extremely and irrationally to a story they apparently derived some enjoyment from if they thought it "seemed good."
> 
> Can you imagine someone saying: "The story seemed good, but don't you all bother reading anything by that author ever again?" What is that supposed to be? Eternal damnation? Punishment?


I agree with you. If the story's good, why not forgive some errors? I know from whence they come, these stories. I think I'd rather have them, warts and all, then not have them because someone can't afford to spend $1000 on editing. Is there a cost to be paid for not paying this cost? Most likely lost sales, but better lost sales than lost stories.

The history of publishing is sea of mediocre and lousy books. Go read some of the old pulp magazines -- not the best stories cherry-picked from them, but an old issue in itself. Most of the stories are laughably bad, in part because they are so dated, but also because, well, they're just not very good. Most (not all) of the errors have been fixed, but they're still bad stories. A bad story without typos may be better than a bad story with typos, but at the end of the day they are still bad stories.

There was a time when the English language was more fluid and writers mispelled words all the time because spelling wasn't standardized. It was a time of barbarians in English literature, when roughnecks like Chaucer and Shakespeare abused the language. They might not make it out of the slush piles today with all their typos -- er, quill-o's?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

ASparrow said:


> Errors usually don't pop up in good-seeming stories because an author doesn't care about quality. There are other circumstances -- money, isolation, dyslexia, equipment, etc. -- that often contribute to the condition of a writer's final output.


Not to seem cold-hearted, but as a reader / consumer: that's my problem how? Hard-luck stories have zero to do with business. Sorry.

@Flannery - thanks for a breath of sanity.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Now that Bones and American Idol are over...


Fellow Bones fan here too! Love me some Temperance  haha


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Sondrae Bennett said:


> Most readers want a well edited book and its your job, if you want to succeed, to give it to them. Whatever/However you need to do that, you need to do. Sure, the store sold me a cup of coffee and might count that sale as proof that they're doing something right, but that's not the case and they lost any return business and any business I warned away from them. The hypothetical reader does and will do the things BTackitt described and doesn't care about the why. The why only matters to the person with the excuses and frankly, it shouldn't. Do whatever you need to do to put out a quality product.


Exactly. Good grief. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who grew up being told "The world doesn't want a man that will try; the world wants a man that'll do the job." Or woman. But jeez. Translation for those who don't get it: excuses don't matter. Bottom line is do what needs to be done, however you have to accomplish that.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

ASparrow said:


> Thus, your imaginary person could be misleading their friends and family by presuming that the author didn't care about quality. Though, that person is certainly welcome to react so extremely and irrationally to a story they apparently derived some enjoyment from if they thought it "seemed good."
> 
> Can you imagine someone saying: "The story seemed good, but don't you all bother reading anything by that author ever again?" What is that supposed to be? Eternal damnation? Punishment?


It's extreme and irrational to expect a professional product to be, I don't know... professional??! Refusing to ever buy another "professional" product from someone claiming to be professional, but who puts out an unprofessional product is "damnation" and "punishment?" Really!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Limiting purchases to big publishers will give a consumer the highest probability of error-free books. 

The aggregate quality level of independents will not change since anyone can upload anything for any reason they choose. Uploaders do not have to care, take pride in their work, apply business principles, employ editors, care about future sales, like readers, or use periods. Nothing in the process requires this. As long as Amazon does not limit its inventory, we will not see any change in the aggregate, so the problems highlighted here will never go away.

Come back in a year, and every criticism in this thread will still be valid, and they will be recycled in new threads. So the probabilities are against a consumer who wants error-free books being satisfied with independents.

Individual independents will distinguish themselves just as they do today, and they will succeed in attracting a following and generating a good income. Their future is bright. But the aggregate will remain as it is, so the probability of encountering an unacceptable number of errors will not change.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

Nothing in my original post was about "a handful of typos."  Whenever the subject of editing comes up, people get all bent out of shape and assume anyone who talks about editing is a grammar nazi.  I'll be blunt.  If you really wrote as great of a story as you claim you did, and you really did a good job of self-editing, nobody would notice the errors because they would be too engaged in your work.  If nobody is complaining about your work, that means you have met the expectations of your customers and nothing I have said applies to you.  If you have truly wrote an amazing story, I am not going to notice if you accidentally wrote "hear" instead of "here" or if you missed an indentation on page 250 or if there was a dangling participle in chapter five.  But if people ARE complaining about your work, if people are getting hung up on errors, then you have done something fundamentally wrong and need more help. If you are not meeting the expectations of the readership, you have an obligation to jump through hoops to make sure you fix the problems before you ask for money.  You have no right to ask a reader to suffer through poor craftsmanship.

It's like if I commission a seamstress to make me a dress.  I go to pick it up, and there is a button missing, but the dress is otherwise perfect.  I probably ask her to replace the button and I pay for the dress, happy with my purchase.  If the dress is exceptionally well done, I might not even notice the missing button until later, and which point I'll replace it myself.  

BUT, if I go to pick up the dress and it is the wrong size, wrong color, the zipper sticks, the seam is torn, and the hem is frayed, I'm not paying for the dress.  And if I complain, I don't really want to her that it is not her fault because she has arthritis, she is color blind, and her sewing machine is broken.  Well guess what?  IT IS her fault, because she presented herself as a seamstress.  If she is incapable of doing the job, she has no business doing it.  I don't care how much she loves it.  I don't care if it is her dream.  If she is physically incapable of performing the task, she should not be presenting herself as someone capable of doing such.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

I think that this discussion got a bit out of hand as a result of some misunderstandings.

I misunderstood the OP originally as well, though I don't think I actually stated as much prior to this. But anyways, I now understand it in the context that it was intended.

As another poster said, the methods don't matter; the end results do. If a book comes out to be well-edited or completely enthralling, what does it matter who edited it? The reader certainly won't care.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I read a story recently that I loved! I went back to the ending and realized something I hadn't the first time around -- there was a typo in the final sentence. Oops.    The story was good enough to carry me along, and since I'd understood what the writer had meant to write, I mentally corrected it without consciously realizing. It probably also worked that way because I'd had no reason to expect a mistake at that point, because the copy was pretty tight. You toss enough errors at me though and my extra eye is going to open, the one aware of and expecting flubs. 

I don't know a person who begrudges an author a few mistakes in a body of work that feels well put together. I think most people forget about the first couple -- briefly notice and then move on. If you asked them at the end if there were any mistakes, they'd have to think about it, and then struggle to come up with specifics. Anyone who writes knows it's bad karma to sweat someone over a couple missed commas. People here who are acting as if Julie is talking about this rather than the works that have dozens of errors are missing the point.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Ryne Billings said:


> I think that this discussion got a bit out of hand as a result of some misunderstandings.
> 
> I misunderstood the OP originally as well, though I don't think I actually stated as much prior to this. But anyways, I now understand it in the context that it was intended.
> 
> As another poster said, the methods don't matter; the end results do. If a book comes out to be well-edited or completely enthralling, what does it matter who edited it? The reader certainly won't care.


This is true. It's also true that a lot of authors are completely unaware that their work is poorly edited. I think there are some people who just don't care, but others publish thinking that their book is in really good shape. Some authors absolutely can self-edit, but there's only a couple ways to know that. One way is to do the editing job and then have someone with known skills go over it again for a book or two. At that point, yeah, you know that you can serve in that capacity for yourself. The other is to edit and then send it out into the world to be reviewed. This latter option makes readers the guinea pigs though.

The best training for being your own editor is being edited by someone else. It's what I said when Amanda took the deal and people wondered what a traditional publisher could do for her that she couldn't do for herself. I see it as her understanding that School is in Session and whether she keeps going that way or she walks away, she'll have learned something marketable and be better for the experience.

The proof is in the final result though and I have no issue with an author self-editing or having his Pomeranian do it as long as the copy I read is up to a reasonable standard.


----------



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

Julie, as ever, you remain my idol.


----------



## 25803 (Oct 24, 2010)

I think Julie makes a great point.

In the last 2 months I've purchased over 100 indie books.  I try to read them, but some are just not readable.

To me there seems to be some basic understanding that a proofreader should go over your books, but I believe the books also need to be edited with an eye toward craft and technique.  In some of the books I purchased, the author seemed to have little understanding of basic craft: POV, characterization, dialogue, etc.  

Believe me, I want to love these books and I'm a forgiving reader.  I've plunked down my money, knowing that many of the books I've bought are by emerging authors, hoping to find jewels.  I have found some wonderful books and writers, but all too often, the opposite has been the case and the issues could have been so easily corrected with a basic content edit.  While some books published by traditional publishers aren't edited or well-edited (often due to time constraints), rarely do they have these basic craft issues that make for difficult if not impossible reading.

Although I have my books professionally edited, I know that even afterward they aren't perfect.  No book is.  However, I do believe authors who find someone to edit (whether paid or not) as well as proofread are steps ahead of those who don't.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

swolf said:


> My point was, that if putting out the 'best you can do' is so important, then why isn't it important to hire the best editor you can find? No matter the cost?
> 
> And yes, in general, more experienced editors are better editors, and more experienced editors charge more. That doesn't mean you won't find a low cost gem somewhere, but more likely, you're going to get what you pay for.
> 
> ...


If you just want to say you don't want to pay a penny for editing because you can do it yourself better than anybody else out there who charges, then just say so.

Your posts are getting repetitive and you aren't adding any value by keep saying that inexpensive editors = crap, over and over again. I get your point.

My editor didn't cost me $2,000, but I didn't think she was crap. She came highly recommended.

It's ultimately up to each author. Just don't complain when readers don't read your work, return your books or complain to Amazon about errors.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

RedAdept said:


> I once told one of my clients that if I won the lottery, my price would go down to "FREE."  Unfortunately, I still have to eat occasionally.


Someone contact Al Gore... We just found the cause of global warming... Lynn refuses to give up eating to save the planet (and allow us indies to get "something for nothing.")

As the workforce of the Blue Moon Detective Agency once demanded during a strike... "No work AND pay! No work AND pay!"

Hee hee....


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

KathyCarmichael said:


> I think Julie makes a great point.
> 
> In the last 2 months I've purchased over 100 indie books. I try to read them, but some are just not readable.


Did you sample before buying? I can spot a bad book via the sample, normally.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Did you sample before buying? I can spot a bad book via the sample, normally.


I sample before buying from authors whose work I don't know.

If I've read other books by an author and know I'm gonna like 'em? I'll buy without sampling.

Oh, and Asher... just to be clear, a lack of HLA in the first ten pages does not a bad book make, necessarily! LOL


----------



## TheSFReader (Jan 20, 2011)

For me it's quite simple : if you self-publish, you take an other role than Author : that of Publisher. Part of the publisher's role (in addition to markleting, formatting, distribution ...) is the editing. If you self-publish, you (as a publisher) have to ensure that the product you put on the market is at the "appropriate" level of finition for that product. If you market a book as "finished", the "appropriate" level is that it at least has few errors/typos, and no "fatal" ones... If the author in you can't afford an editor, the publisher in you NEEDS to make sure the book gets properly edited ! (note the "properly" here makes no distinction on whether the editing was done against a pie or 2000$, only the final result (properly) counts!)
If it's not, you, as publisher, will be "sanctionned" by customers, which means that you, as a publisher will sell less book, which means that you, as both will make less profit from that book, and most probably all the following ones. 

Note that one publisher (not self-) that I know  (BAEN see signature)  makes quite a lot of money by selling "Advanced Readers Copy" money of it's novels. That ARC version is more or less the pre-anti-Oops pass version. It allows people to get an early version of the book, and trust me there are some people who are ready to buy for a premium for some of these books. Since the version is marked as such, and the customer warned about the book's state, I think it's quite fair.


----------



## Glenn Bullion (Sep 28, 2010)

PMartelly said:


> Fellow Bones fan here too! Love me some Temperance  haha


Bones finale last night, eh.  I had my doubts as to what happened in the bedroom last week. I won't spoil things, but I don't like the direction they're heading.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Did you sample before buying? I can spot a bad book via the sample, normally.


Sampling is all well and good, but I'm not going to blame the victim. Buyer Beware is all well and good, but that does not negate the seller's obligation to not do their job to begin with.

And again, I'm not talking about stray typos here. You can read a sample that is "error free" but the editing still sucks. The sample might descibe the hero as John Doe with green eyes and blonde hair, and then four chapters later (without the benefit of contacts and hair dye ) his eyes and hair are described as brown and his last name is being spelled Deon. If you have a writer who is great with action sequences and the same is the action sequence, you aren't going to know that his general dialogue is crap until later in the book. A sample is just that: a sample.

I've seen plenty of movie trailers where the movie looked amazing, and the film was still crap. That's really all sampling does--give you a taste of the book.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> That's really all sampling does--give you a taste of the book.


Not only that, I once read an Indie book where the prologue was excellent, well-written and well-edited. The rest of the novel needed serious help. It was filled with editing problems, simple things like commas, spelling, etc.

I honestly wondered if the author had gotten a free Sample Edit from an editor and used it to clean up the first part of the book, which would be the portion someone would see when sampling.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> How? If my mother does a good job, what reason would anyone have to note the editing? I think you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand what she's saying, which is that "i can't afford it" is not a good excuse for a book to remain unedited while still expecting to sell it.


And if I do a good job at self-editing, what reason would anyone have to note the editing?

But according to the OP, I have no business being a publisher.

Are you really claiming she didn't say that?


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Sometimes, the beginning is better than the ending because if an author has been submitting to contests, agents and editors, the first fifty pages is what gets requested.  So the first fifty gets proofed over and over.  The rest can be a slapped together mess.

Also, when we are talking editing, I usually think in terms of multiple levels.  First you edit for content (Does this make any sense? Does it have plot holes?) Then you copy edit. (Consistency in language, spelling, punctuation and grammar)  Then you proof the copy edits for those final mistakes.

And that first level is the killer.  Because maybe people will forgive you for missing a comma.  But if the stuff coming out of your head does not make as much sense to the general population as you think it does, you will never see that in a million years.  It is a very natural blind spot.  If you can't afford an editor, you better have some brutally honest friends who understand the basics of dramatic structure.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

NadiaLee said:


> If you just want to say you don't want to pay a penny for editing because you can do it yourself better than anybody else out there who charges, then just say so.


I'm being very clear in what I'm saying. If you're having trouble understanding it, please don't put words in my mouth.



NadiaLee said:


> Your posts are getting repetitive and you aren't adding any value by keep saying that inexpensive editors = crap, over and over again. I get your point.


I'm repeating myself because people are thinking I'm saying something that I'm not. Just like you just did.



NadiaLee said:


> My editor didn't cost me $2,000, but I didn't think she was crap. She came highly recommended.


And yet, you probably could have found a better editor if you paid more. Do you feel you've short-changed your readers?



NadiaLee said:


> It's ultimately up to each author. Just don't complain when readers don't read your work, return your books or complain to Amazon about errors.


No complaint's here. Nor any from my readers so far.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

Why the anger? Why the rage? It's all been said a million times before. Sure, there are bad books and there are good books, just as there have ever been. The market sorts it all out.


----------



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

swolf said:


> And if I do a good job at self-editing, what reason would anyone have to note the editing?
> 
> But according to the OP, I have no business being a publisher.
> 
> Are you really claiming she didn't say that?


You're willfully ignoring every later post she makes that clearly contradicts this point you are trying to hammer home.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Nothing in my original post was about "a handful of typos." Whenever the subject of editing comes up, people get all bent out of shape and assume anyone who talks about editing is a grammar nazi. I'll be blunt. If you really wrote as great of a story as you claim you did, and you really did a good job of self-editing, nobody would notice the errors because they would be too engaged in your work. *If nobody is complaining about your work, that means you have met the expectations of your customers and nothing I have said applies to you. * If you have truly wrote an amazing story, I am not going to notice if you accidentally wrote "hear" instead of "here" or if you missed an indentation on page 250 or if there was a dangling participle in chapter five. But if people ARE complaining about your work, if people are getting hung up on errors, then you have done something fundamentally wrong and need more help. If you are not meeting the expectations of the readership, you have an obligation to jump through hoops to make sure you fix the problems before you ask for money. You have no right to ask a reader to suffer through poor craftsmanship.


Do you see the bolded part? Okay? Look at it, SWolf. Staaare at it. Even IF her original post somehow said what you keep repeating (even if many still disagree on that) guess what? It is a conversation. It's a fluid thing, where ideas are exchanged, and points clarified. Julie has clarified exactly what she means, and you're still railing against the very original post. What are you hoping to accomplish, besides being your usual contrarian self?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> You're willfully ignoring every later post she makes that clearly contradicts this point you are trying to hammer home.
> 
> Do you see the bolded part? Okay? Look at it, SWolf. Staaare at it. Even IF her original post somehow said what you keep repeating (even if many still disagree on that) guess what? It is a conversation. It's a fluid thing, where ideas are exchanged, and points clarified. Julie has clarified exactly what she means, and you're still railing against the very original post. What are you hoping to accomplish, besides being your usual contrarian self?


Because her backpeddling doesn't change what she wrote. It's not a clarification, it's a contradiction. The first post claims that those who can't afford an editor and make no attempt to get one, have no business publishing. That in no way can be construed to mean "if you can do it yourself, then go ahead."

Look at the words. Thiiiink about them.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

swolf said:


> Because her backpeddling doesn't change what she wrote. It's not a clarification, it's a contradiction. The first post claims that those who can't afford an editor and make no attempt to get one, have no business publishing. That in no way can be construed to mean "if you can do it yourself, then go ahead."


It's okay to modify one's position when new information and arguments are presented, or when it becomes necessary to clarify one's original position. Even if you were to read it as contradiction, it's not a chess match. There's no need to press to checkmate and force the other person to tip over the king and capitulate.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> It's okay to modify one's position when new information and arguments are presented, or when it becomes necessary to clarify one's original position. Even if you were to read it as contradiction, it's not a chess match. There's no need to press to checkmate and force the other person to tip over the king and capitulate.


You're right. This will be my last post in this thread.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

swolf said:


> Because her backpeddling doesn't change what she wrote. It's not a clarification, it's a contradiction. The first post claims that those who can't afford an editor and make no attempt to get one, have no business publishing. That in no way can be construed to mean "if you can do it yourself, then go ahead."


To clarify, what I said was:



> If you can't be bothered to figure out a way to make sure your book is proofed and edited, you have no business being a publisher.


I did not say



> If you can't be bothered to figure out *how to pay for a proofreader and editor*, you have no business being a publisher.


You have been arguing that I said the second statement when I said the first. You read the first statement wrong, and interpreted it as the second. And each time I have clarified, you have ignored those clarifications and made a decision to continue to read the statement how you see fit. Personally, I don't think anyone is good enough to do it all themselves solo. But so long as you are meeting the needs of your customers then you are golden. But if you are NOT meeting their expectations, then you have an obligation to stop publishing until such time as you can.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> It's okay to modify one's position when new information and arguments are presented, or when it becomes necessary to clarify one's original position. Even if you were to read it as contradiction, it's not a chess match. There's no need to press to checkmate and force the other person to tip over the king and capitulate.


I have to agree there.

I also have to say that it's frustrating to hear readers say they won't touch Indies because of all the problems they've encountered, and I think that's where OP's frustration was coming from. If you care about your work, it will show in the final product no matter how you get there.

Someone mentioned something about inept people not knowing they're inept -- reminds me of American Idol auditions.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

JM Gellene said:


> Someone mentioned something about inept people not knowing they're inept -- reminds me of American Idol auditions.


----------



## Stefanswit (May 9, 2011)

Having agreed wholeheartedly to the issue of bad editing giving indie's a bad name, I must add that a 99c price point for a quality product does cheapen our game somewhat. It also confuses the consumer when quality products are available for the same price as a quick knock-off shortie. How will they differentiate between a badly written/edited 10k word novel and a well planned, professionally edited 120k word novel if they are both priced the same?

I am not sure how to counteract the growing desire to price at way below market value, and maybe there is no fix at this point. There are always people willing to sell for less - and it's a free market anyway. But what is it about the single dollar as a bottom-out price point? Ten or twenty years ago a buck for a discounted product was still a reasonable expenditure, but today that same buck is only worth 50c or even 25c... go figure.


----------



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

I hope that authors who are able to set their price start to ask what kind of author they really are: a discount writer or a middle-range author or a high-end service provider?

I'm a middle-range author. My publisher sets middle-of-the-road prices for my ebooks and my new one also does. My self-published works will be the middle range of book prices. I'm not interested in being the Walmart of writing. Then again, there are people who will only shop at Walmart and plenty of people who won't. So, I guess there's room for different kinds of business models, so long as everyone knows the differences and the type of work they are getting into with each.


----------



## Mike Cooley (Mar 12, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> ...The hypothetical reader (and most of my readers are hypothetical)...


     Love that statement!

Mike


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

JM Gellene said:


> Someone mentioned something about inept people not knowing they're inept -- reminds me of American Idol auditions.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


>


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

> Limiting purchases to big publishers will give a consumer the highest probability of error-free books.


Nope. Speaking ONLY as a reader, I stopped buying hard covers years ago because this simply is not true. NY is putting out crap constantly. And I would argue that when I put *well reviewed, upper list* indie books shoulder-to-shoulder with the stuff coming out of the big pubs, they stand up perfectly well. In fact, the disdain coming out of NY is often leaving me with a Kindle title that was very obviously scanned and filled with errors.

Know what? I find a badly edited book done by an individual a LOT more forgivable than a badly edited book put out by a massive corporation with a huge team of morons getting paid to give me a piece of crap in a cover.

I'm still pissed when I buy a bad book off amazon for my Kindle, no matter what the source. But at least if the piece of crap was created by a single person giving it a shot, I am less pissed than knowing I paid $7.99 for a book that was slapped together by Avon with the "well it's only the e-edition" attitude.

The prevailing pissery coming out of NY is the reason I turned down two offers and decided to go out on my own.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

swolf said:


> I'm being very clear in what I'm saying. If you're having trouble understanding it, please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I'm repeating myself because people are thinking I'm saying something that I'm not. Just like you just did.
> 
> ...


There you go. Equating inexpensive editing with bad editing again. I don't think I short-changed my readers since I've forked out my own money to ensure that I publish professionally produced books.

What can you say for yourself, except that you're too good to pay for an editor and that your readers should take it as is or else?


----------



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

oliewankanobe said:


> Nope. Speaking ONLY as a reader, I stopped buying hard covers years ago because this simply is not true. NY is putting out crap constantly. And I would argue that when I put *well reviewed, upper list* indie books shoulder-to-shoulder with the stuff coming out of the big pubs, they stand up perfectly well. In fact, the disdain coming out of NY is often leaving me with a Kindle title that was very obviously scanned and filled with errors.
> 
> Know what? I find a badly edited book done by an individual a LOT more forgivable than a badly edited book put out by a massive corporation with a huge team of morons getting paid to give me a piece of crap in a cover.
> 
> ...


You know, I wonder if all this is is related to the genre we read. Expectations, editing, acquisitions of books, etc vary between genres greatly and I'm wondering if that's why some of us see really bad books and some of us have never come across them.

*ponders*


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"And I would argue that when I put well reviewed, upper list indie books shoulder-to-shoulder with the stuff coming out of the big pubs, they stand up perfectly well."_

I agree. The probability of error-free books among 1) published books and, 2) independents with good reviews and high listings is the same. However, it doesn't appear this discussion is limited to upper list independents with good reviews. The books people are complaining about wouldn't get those good reviews and listings.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

All of this brings to mind why people (moreso on other forums than this one) say "hobbyist" as if it is a bad thing.  

I believe that just because someone is a "hobbyist" (or semi-pro as I regard myself) that doesn't mean they shouldn't put out the best, most professional looking product possible.  

And as for affordability, the barter system has always worked fine for me.   
However, contemplating paying an editor for the next novella as I'm running out of people to barter with.  hehehe


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"You know, I wonder if all this is is related to the genre we read. Expectations, editing, acquisitions of books, etc vary between genres greatly and I'm wondering if that's why some of us see really bad books and some of us have never come across them."_

It probably has a lot to do with how we select the books. Different sources of information and methods of discovery will yield different quality levels.


----------



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

A hobbyist is never a bad thing! I love birds and local plants. I get so much joy out of learning about them, making my yard friendly to both...but to do it as a career? Wow. That would crush my love of it and I'd never want to see another freaking bird again.

I figure publishing can be like that for a lot of people. You know, the sane ones.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> You know, I wonder if all this is is related to the genre we read. Expectations, editing, acquisitions of books, etc vary between genres greatly and I'm wondering if that's why some of us see really bad books and some of us have never come across them.


That is part of my point, actually. I think Terrence mentioned something in another thread about giving more leeway to a fiction novel's errors than his financial statements.  The error tolerance level for "pulp" fiction is much higher than it is for literary fiction. Some things that would be considered continuity issues in one genre may be normal in another. A sentence construction that is perfectly correct in a children's book may be too simplistic for a book written for adults.

Even with me, I have a zero-tolerance policy with non-fiction books. They HAVE to be right, or the author has no credibility. But I might turn a blind eye to fact-checking in a fantasy or horror novel, so long as the story still flows.


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

Reading some of the rebuttals in this thread, it reminds me of how ego is such a funny thing. It will go out of its way to keep from improving the soul it represents. Like that premise about jealousy, how it destroys the object of its love then itself. But anyway, that's a subject for another post...

A rant is welcome when it ends with constructive suggestions. That part I admire the most. Here is what is wrong, and here is what you can do about it. Cool. And worth expressing.

For those who can do it without an editor -- you must be a genius. I couldn't do it alone. I think two editors is minimum and I like having six or more, not counting beta readers. But even if I were a genius, I'd still want someone to check my work since I could be deluding myself about the genius thing.

I've written other posts about editors so I won't repeat it all here, but I'll say a little about the two editors I think all authors need -- the developmental and the copy editor. You can get both in one person but it doesn't seem to work as well due to the drastic difference in focus. A developmental editor focuses on the big picture whereas the copy editor watches for small details. It's tough for one mind to do both, at least, simultaneously.

About excuses, for example, NY books have typos so that justifies your book having typos. Come on, shoot for a higher standard than that. It's about having a professional _attitude_. Typos are inexcusable. Period. Doesn't mean they won't happen, but at least have the attitude of fighting them to the death.

Writing a good story is hard work. It's something from nothing. Characters, their personalities, locations and events, that's a lot to coordinate and end up making sense as a whole. And really, it's like a magic spell -- get it right, we sweep the reader away. Foul up the incantation, we bore them to tears. Hard work. But oddly, while the hard work, it's also the most fun.

On the other hand, correct spelling, usage and punctuation is not hard work. Tedious, yes, and not as much fun. There's plenty I'd rather do than go over my manuscript ten times before the editor and another ten times after all she finds wrong... but it's expected of you if you expect to be regarded as a professional. Suck it up and do your job. Whining is not in the author's job description. Or, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, they say.

Worst of all is arguing with readers. I can't understand that. Without readers, I am nothing. I respect readers more than some members of my family. I WORSHIP readers. Without them I am nothing. Nothing. When a reader writes "that was great," I feel good, of course. And when a reader writes, "that was awful," and I am fortunate enough to get specifics, I respect their opinion, try to examine it objectively, and learn something from it, so that I am a better writer tomorrow. My ego might not like it, but I do.

Reminds me of a short one...

"In life, when we win, we are happy. When we lose, we learn. Apparently, the meaning of life is learning to be happy."

Peace to everyone...


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2011)

Actually, Krista, I think it does make a difference with regard to genre.  And seeing what I was seeing in overpriced, over-pimped books for the past few years put me off so badly I went from being a five paperback a week reader to almost NEVER buying in paper and buying a lot less for my Kindle in one genre.


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> You know, I wonder if all this is is related to the genre we read. Expectations, editing, acquisitions of books, etc vary between genres greatly and I'm wondering if that's why some of us see really bad books and some of us have never come across them.
> 
> *ponders*


I was thinking the same thing when reading some of the responses in that other thread we were arguing quality in. There is some very bad editing and proofing coming out of major publishing houses these days, but it may be contained to only certain types of fiction. I read mostly genre fiction. The vast majority of the books I read are fantasy and maybe that has something to do with what I've experienced.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

God love ya~! Did that need to be said! The writing is the "easy" part...it's the revision and editing process that require the diligence and discipline to make it ready for our readers!


----------



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

oliewankanobe said:


> Actually, Krista, I think it does make a difference with regard to genre. And seeing what I was seeing in overpriced, over-pimped books for the past few years put me off so badly I went from being a five paperback a week reader to almost NEVER buying in paper and buying a lot less for my Kindle in one genre.


I really think this is it. For example, I don't read paranormal romance. I couldn't even list you a book in the genre (outside of Twilight...and was that paranormal romance??). So, for all I know, the genre is flawless. Or, maybe most of what's in it right now is little more than an abortion of the written word. I honestly have no idea. I try to read in all genres as much as possible, but I openly admit there are subgenres that don't know very well or at all.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> (outside of Twilight...and was that paranormal romance??). So, for all I know, the genre is flawless. Or, maybe most of what's in it right now is little more than an abortion of the written word. I honestly have no idea. I try to read in all genres as much as possible, but I openly admit there are subgenres that don't know very well or at all.


LOL No. Twilight is definitely YA fiction, aimed towards girls. As for the writing standards of paranormal romance, eh. I'm sure it depends on the house, but I regularly read Nalini Singh, Meljean Brook, Ilona Andrews, Marjorie Liu and Sherrilyn Kenyon. You can debate ad nauseum about the merits of the respective author's work, but as for editing / proofing - I don't think I've ever spotted more than one or two typos in them, and usually not even that.


----------



## sinclairbrowning (May 16, 2011)

I totally agree with you, Julie. Just as one would not expect to be a concert pianist without an awful lot of practice, one cannot expect to be a professional writer without a lot of practice.

Years ago a wise person once told me that as a writer you wouldn't even touch the your potential until you had a million words under your belt. That is not a misprint. _One million words._

Yep, that's a lot. But you know what? There's a lot of truth in that.

Writers write. That's the bottom line. They don't sit around and talk about writing, or think they don't have time to write, or bemoan the market. They write. Because they have to. And because they know with every word they put down they just get better and better.

And they're not happy until they know the book they have written is the best possible book it can be. It probably won't be as good as the next book they write, but it will be as good as they can possibly make it at this moment in time. Then they will release the book, turn it free to make its way in the world, knowing that it will not strike a chord with every reader.

And then they will move on to the next book.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If you cannot afford an editor and proofreader, you need to think outside the box on how to get one. As a public service, I offer some suggestions.
> 
> Check your community college: When I was a college student, I did a lot of comp work for businesses in the area. Why? Because I had no practical business experience and it was a way for me to build up a portfolio of professional work. I was designing brochures, flyers, ads, writing press releases, and all sorts of little projects. That gave me ammo that landed by first job with the City of Bridgeton's Public Relations department. I have real world stuff in my portfolio, not just class projects. That gave me an advantage in the marketplace.
> 
> You can place a classified ad in the college newspaper looking for an English major to serve as a volunteer editor for an independent book project. In college, the practical work experience is more important than a few bucks, because they are looking at an ugly employment marketplace when they graduate.


Ah, here is what I was looking for. From this thread: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,59912.0.html



> I realize now why I am not rich ...
> 
> I make the mistake of paying people
> 
> Silly me. Here all this time I thought I was being a good business person by setting a budget and paying people for their hard work and effort. But I now realize I could save $200-$300 a project by paying them in EXPOSURE instead of MONEY!


So "work experience" isn't "exposure" I guess. It must be something different and BETTER that it doesn't require payment.



> On three different forums today I pointed out the "money flows toward the writer"


I guess this doesn't include "money flows toward the editor"?



> I'm aggravated because I bend over backwards to treat my people fairly, while others abuse writers and artists and mooch free content


I'm aggravated that someone wants to abuse editors by offering them "work experience" rather than "money" yet in other posts rants about the importance of paying people. Care to explain Julie?



> Payment doesn't neccessarily need to be money if you have something else of value.


So if I understand correctly, "work experience" is of value for this editor you hire? Why then do you keep talking about people "mooching" off other people? How did you decide that the work experience is of value but exposure isn't?

Why shouldn't that English major ask for money? Doesn't the money need to flow toward them too?

Perhaps in these rants you should think about previous rants and actually come to a position that is both meaningful and backed with evidence. Going on about the "right" to publish ... I've never ever read anyone say that. Never. Who are these writers with these expectations? And then suggesting that it's okay to ask an English major to work for no payment when in other posts you mock the idea? Which is it? Is it okay to work for exposure or not? Is it okay to work for experience or not?

I really am quite puzzled by what your _aim_ is with this rant. Telling poor people that they are lazy because they can't afford an editor? Was that it? Telling poor people who may be having trouble feeding themselves that it's really that they don't care about their readers or the quality of their book?

There are many reasons someone might not hire an editor or even be able to edit their book themselves. Posts like this one do nothing for encouraging people to write and publish. They erect a false barrier of "perfect" which is unmeasurable. You are telling people that without someone editing their work, they shouldn't publish and that's simply garbage.

_[edited. Please don't continue an argument started in another thread. Thanks. Betsy]_


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I am speaking, not as a writer or editor or publisher, but as a CONSUMER. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MY TIME OR MONEY. Period. End of Story. Your desire to be read does not trump my desire to read a quality book. Particularly when it is my money we are talking about. When I read statements like "I can't afford to get an editor so I have to wait until I make some sales" what I actually hear is "I could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME." But it isn't about you. It's about the readers.


Seems to me that the few authors in this thread who are opposed to Julie's diatribe fail to remember one thing. She's speaking as a *reader*! I personally don't see who in their right mind could be opposed to what she's saying unless he or she's trying to convince themselves (or others) that it's not important to listen to their readers. I never heard of any other business where the producer/seller doesn't bend over backwards to meet the consumer's needs. Frankly, trying to take Julie to task for advocating what should be an obvious and essential part of the writing process makes for a bogus argument. Interestingly, I've noticed that the same authors defending this defenseless position seem to be the very ones putting forth a reader-centric position only when its conveniently associated with their point of view. However, I'll concede one point to the dissenters. They've done a wonderful job of proving this point:



Terrence OBrien said:


> The aggregate quality level of independents will not change since anyone can upload anything for any reason they choose. Uploaders do not have to care, take pride in their work, apply business principles, employ editors, care about future sales, like readers, or use periods. Nothing in the process requires this. As long as Amazon does not limit its inventory, we will not see any change in the aggregate, so the problems highlighted here will never go away.


----------



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

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> Seems to me that the few authors in this thread who are opposed to Julie's diatribe fail to remember one thing. She's speaking as a *reader*! I personally don't see who in their right mind could be opposed to what she's saying unless he or she's trying to convince themselves (or others) that it's not important to listen to their readers. I never heard of any other business where the producer/seller doesn't bend over backwards to meet the consumer's needs. Frankly, trying to take Julie to task for advocating what should be an obvious and essential part of the writing process makes for a bogus argument. Interestingly, I've noticed that the same authors defending this defenseless position seem to be the very ones putting forth a reader-centric position only when its conveniently associated with their point of view. However, I'll concede one point to the dissenters. They've done a wonderful job of proving this point:


You're correct, Kevis (and hi). I learned from no less an author than Victor Banis, who told methat the only person responsible for the content and quality and every word of your book is yourself. You can;t blame the editors, the publishers, the kitchen sink or, as in the case today, the end of the world. If a book slips on the screed of author ambivolence, it deserves every ounce of reader distain it gets. Does that mean hiring an editor or seeking some vetting. You bet your aschenweiche it does. AZ bad finished product will only engage a reader's anger, especially if the work had great promise. Open eyes, ears and close mouth - get to the business of publishing and the sales will take care of themselves.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

mathewferguson said:


> Ah, here is what I was looking for. From this thread: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,59912.0.html
> 
> So "work experience" isn't "exposure" I guess. It must be something different and BETTER that it doesn't require payment.
> 
> ...


I don't always agree with Julie, but she is nothing if not consistent. All you've done here is prove what lawyers and reporters have known forever: You can take sentences from peoples arguments out of context and make them say anything you want.

Logical arguments are not made in sentences but in pages. Quoting a caveat, clarification or sidenote does not nullify the main argument.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> You're correct, Kevis (and hi). I learned from no less an author than Victor Banis, who told methat the only person responsible for the content and quality and every word of your book is yourself. You can;t blame the editors, the publishers, the kitchen sink or, as in the case today, the end of the world. If a book slips on the screed of author ambivolence, it deserves every ounce of reader distain it gets. Does that mean hiring an editor or seeking some vetting. You bet your aschenweiche it does. AZ bad finished product will only engage a reader's anger, especially if the work had great promise. Open eyes, ears and close mouth - get to the business of publishing and the sales will take care of themselves.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Ed, I have always appreciated your loud and tireless advocation to put the readers first. This is not a slam against anyone in particular. But I would certainly rather hear stories on this forum about how authors connect with their readers than reading endless threads boasting about how many books they sold in a month. It's the readers that make any of this possible. We may write the books. But if no one reads them what difference does it make what price our books are offered at? This is why I take every review I receive as Manna from heaven even if its only a one-star. Knowing what I need to do to make readers happy is essential to my success as an author. The least I, or anyone else, can do is to give them the best product possible. Getting into silly arguments about how a book is edited is beside the point. What does matter is to treat readers with the respect they deserve.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The controversy here isn't about the objective. It's about the tactics.

The objective is a quality product. I haven't seen any disagreement on that. The disagreement involves the deployment of resources to achieve the objective.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> Ah, here is what I was looking for. From this thread: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,59912.0.html


You actually bring up a point that SHOULD be addressed, but I think you are not understanding my position. My problem is not if someone wants to do something for free. *It never was.* In fact, I have said several times there are times when offering work for free has value. I've done it myself. My problem is people who pretend they are "paying" with exposure, as if that exposure has actual value. There is a world of difference between the following two statements:



> I am a self-publisher looking for a student interested in helping me edit my book. While I cannot pay at this time, you will get a copy of the finished product for your portfolio.


and



> I am a publisher. I am looking for writers and artists to submit your stories and art to me, grant me full rights to make money off of them, and accept payment only in "exposure" to the people who buy my book.


In the first statement, your intention is clear and what the person gets out of it is clear. They get a finished product they can use it their portfolio. In the second, you are promising something that does not exist. You cannot promise "exposure" because exposure is a word that means nothing out of context. If an artist gives you free art, and you are "exposing" the artist to people who never buy art, the exposure is not relevant.

Exposure only has as much value of the type of exposure you are getting. For example, I have written for free. I published several stories for free in a ezine called Demonground. Why would I give my work away for free? Because Demonground was an Origin Awards winning fan fiction pub for the RPG industry, and I was building a name in the RPG industry. THAT was real exposure, because they had an existing readership that I wanted to reach. I also use to write articles for free for a site called RPGtimes for the same reason. It helped me reach a pre-existing audience that was my target market.
My problem with promises of paying in exposure is not the exposure. It is the fact that the people who offer it can't actually provide it. When someone has been a self-publisher for several years and says they can't afford to pay for something but you will get exposure, you have to wonder how much "exposure" you are actually going to get if he hasn't been able to sell enough books in a year to afford to pay. Most of these "exposure" payment deals are dependent on the people giving away the free work to promote it in order to generate the exposure in the first place. How does that make sense?
The difference between what I mentioned here and the exposure issue is the same as the difference between an internship and a shady business owner paying people under the table for less than minimum wage. In the first instance, the student is actually getting something of value (education). In the second, the owner is just trying to get out of paying minimum wage.
A lot of folks like to parse my words for whatever reason, but really my position is clear. Be honest. Be transparent. Don't offer things you cannot know whether or not you can deliver. If you have ever noticed, LOTS of folks ask for free help on the forum, but I only comment on a handful of those requests. And if you look at the ones I comment on, they share a common theme. People wanting something for free while promising something they cannot guarantee. It is one thing to say "can someone help me, I don't know what I am doing!" and ask for proofing or editing or technical help. It is another to hold your hand out and expect stuff to be given to you for free in exchange for something you do no possess.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Being a *reader* I have to agree with Julie. Writers owe the readers something. If your book needs an editor and proofreading then no matter what your books price is--you should get the job done. I know I don't read a book looking for errors or typos but sometimes they are just glaring at you and does not make for a good reading experience. Sometimes the story and dialogue are so weak and lifeless that it kills the story. You owe it to your readers to make your story stand out and be a good read. Whether it's a .99 or a 9.99 a clean solid story will win you readers and fans. A book that needs to be cleaned up won't win you anything. Readers will simply dis your books and some reviews can be so cruel.

Humans are always comparing everything and if your book compares poorly to others then you're doing something wrong.

A story with too many errors makes for a difficult read. Do you want to watch a movie that gets blurry or goes out of sync once in a while? No.

The writer owes a clean book to her/his readers or soon that writer won't have many readers. As a reader, I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book.

I'm sure Amazon got complaints from readers about errors in some of the self-published books. In time I'm sure Amazon will begin to weed those books out, especially since they are probably not adding to the profit side of the ledger nor are they making their customers happy with the product. Writers feel free to flame away.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"As a reader, I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book."_

Excellent point. If the book is free does the author owe you anything?


----------



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

The key to understand what's required is to remember that you're a reader also. You must hold yourself to your own reader standard. Now, that is debateable, because your standard might be Bugs Bunny. However, it's a start. Whatever it is, it must be hgher - it's a base standard rather than a debased standard. I know (and I bet even Julie knows and understands) that as authors we have an enthusiasm that blinds us from criticism. That the thing is born is an accomplishment in itself, but the child must be yaught and reared, before its allowed to migle with the public. True, some of the public will make googly eyes and speak baby talk. But your books muct have all the engagement of a Tennis pro combined with the writing and editorial discipline of Mother Theresa. The art is that the reader should see the Pro and never see the Nun in the background.  

Edward C. Patterson


----------



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

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"As a reader, I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book."_
> 
> Excellent point. If the book is free does the author owe you anything?


No, because my reader has brought my work into the shelter of their virtual bookshelf with the possibility of investing some time to read it. Now that's more than any author can expect.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"As a reader, I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book."_
> 
> Excellent point. If the book is free does the author owe you anything?


If the author is asking anything from me (the hypothetical reader,) especially my time, in exchange for a product that is being offered through professional channels, then the author has an obligation to at least attempt to offer a professional product. There is an implied contract between author and reader, when the method of delivery is via formal channels, ie: a book retailer; regardless of whether or not the intention is to offer a professional product, by "selling" through a retailer (even if the "sale" price is $0.00,) a retail (thus professional) product is implied.

OTOH, if a writer still wants to be an amateur, then he or she is under absolutely no obligation to provide a professional product.

It all comes down to this... Writers: are you Professional or Amateur? are you an Author or a Hobbyist?


----------



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

Edward C. Patterson said:


> You can;t blame the editors, the publishers, *the kitchen sink* or, as in the case today, the end of the world.


From this point forward, any mistake I make will now be blamed on the kitchen sink. You are my hero.


----------



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

Mine has a garbage disposal.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"As a reader, I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book."_
> 
> Excellent point. If the book is free does the author owe you anything?


Not always, but much of the time the author makes a book free hoping for a review. So the author is expecting something in return for his published work, whether it is money in the case of a sale, or a review in a quid pro quo arrangement. Therefore, I expect an entertaining read in exchange for my time reading and reviewing a free book.


----------



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

Oh, I take it back - I do expect something from my readers. I expect that they will like my work so much that they will acquire another title and another and antoher . . . In short, if you don't strive to impress a reaer to become a fan, you should keep your passions upon the shelf, trickle your words into blah-blah0blah-blogs ot take up trolling (not trawling) the boards. Writing jingles and cereal cartons is also an option, but there editing challeged even in the cutest marketing "bite." I know, having nee a marketing guru for most of my working career.  

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"As a reader, I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book."_
> 
> Excellent point. If the book is free does the author owe you anything?


As I previously stated, *"I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book." * It's just that simple, even if I got it for free I did give him my time to read it. But I do think the positive thing to do would be to give him a constructive review based on my opinion. If it was a good read I would be looking out for his next book or a previous book and that is how an author builds a fan base...and sells books.

I think too that if it was a negative review and the writer was self-pub I would probably email him my comments and NOT blab it on the internet. If it was a 3 Star or better I would blab it on the internet.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"OTOH, if a writer still wants to be an amateur, then he or she is under absolutely no obligation to provide a professional product."_

That's reasonable. I'd suggest that the mental states of the producers and consumers have no bearing on the creation of an obligation if the goods are free. Unless there is some agreement where the book is exchanged for other consideration, no obligation exists for either producer or consumer.

_"As I previously stated, "I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book." It's just that simple, even if I got it for free I did give him my time to read it. But I do think the positive thing to do would be to give him a constructive review based on my opinion. If it was a good read I would be looking out for his next book or a previous book and that is how an author builds a fan base...and sells books."_

OK. You owe him nothing. I presume you also owe him nothing if the book is free. If the book is free does he owe you anything?


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"As a reader, I owe the author nothing, afterall I just paid for his book."_
> 
> Excellent point. If the book is free does the author owe you anything?


Free how? That's the big misconception. A book for sale on Amazon and elsewhere with a price of $0.00 is still a sale. You don't force it on the customer. They still click the buy button, it just has a sweet price attached.

As Stacey pointed out, a product offered through professional channels is expected to at least _try_ to meet the level of quality of similar products sold through that channel.

If you buy a shirt off Craigslist you won't get the return policy Sears offers. Simple. Same difference between your brother-in-law giving your car a tuneup versus the dealer or other repair shop. Selling through professional channels demands that products offer a minimum level of quality.

Now, to answer the question, for a book "at no cost," does the author owe the reader anything?

If it's a blog, no. If sold through professional channels, you bet they owe the reader. Yes! The author owes the reader, at a minimum, something mildly interesting, or better, a period of relaxation, laughing, or scared out of their wits, whatever the potential experience _was being sold to the reader_ when they read the blurb and subsequently choose to buy the book _at any price_.

For those who feel this somehow nebulously imposed standard of quality is cramping their style, stop selling through retail channels and write a blog to your heart's content, as we all know, blogs are not held to similar standards.

Simple.



StaceyHH said:


> It all comes down to this... Writers: are you Professional or Amateur? are you an Author or a Hobbyist?


{{{William raises hand}}}

Professional.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Free how? That's the big misconception. A book for sale on Amazon and elsewhere with a price of $0.00 is still a sale."_

A sale is an exchange of goods for money. If no money transfers, there is no sale. Regardless of the channel, there is no sale unless money transfers. Nor does the recipient of goods buy them unless they transfer money to the seller. The channel doesn't define the sale, the exchange of goods for money defines it.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> A sale is an exchange of goods for money. If no money transfers, there is no sale. Regardless of the channel, there is no sale unless money transfers. Nor does the recipient of goods buy them unless they transfer money to the seller. The channel doesn't define the sale, the exchange of goods for money defines it.


So if you are an extreme couponer, and you have a triple coupon for a box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran, and the sale price at the store + your triple coupon = $0.00, is Kellogg still obligated to put Bran Flakes and Real Raisins in the box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran you just purchased? Or (since by your definition, there was no sale,) would it be perfectly okay for Kellogg to sell you a box full of floor sweepings? Would you still have a right to complain?

Or how about this one: When you go wine tasting, if there is no tasting fee, do they have any professional obligation for the liquid being poured from a bottle to actually be the liquid that is stated on the bottle?


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> So if you are an extreme couponer, and you have a triple coupon for a box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran, and the sale price at the store + your triple coupon = $0.00, is Kellogg still obligated to put Bran Flakes and Real Raisins in the box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran you just purchased? Or (since by your definition, there was no sale,) would it be perfectly okay for Kellogg to sell you a box full of floor sweepings? Would you still have a right to complain?


The better question is "What is a triple coupon?"

I've never heard of one, but then again, I throw coupons away.

Anyways, there's a difference between getting something for free through special means (coupons) and getting something for free through normal means.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Ryne Billings said:


> Anyways, there's a difference between getting something for free through special means (coupons) and getting something for free through normal means.


Why? Because free through normal means = not a professional product? Because if that is what you are saying, I can accept that. I would guess that there are a lot of Professionals who would disagree.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> OTOH, if a writer still wants to be an amateur, then he or she is under absolutely no obligation to provide a professional product.
> 
> It all comes down to this... Writers: are you Professional or Amateur? are you an Author or a Hobbyist?


IMO, You're a professional if you make a profit off your writing. You are an amateur if you haven't reached that status yet. I consider myself semi-pro, because my profit is very small as of yet.



William Campbell said:


> Free how? That's the big misconception. A book for sale on Amazon and elsewhere with a price of $0.00 is still a sale. You don't force it on the customer. They still click the buy button, it just has a sweet price attached.
> 
> As Stacey pointed out, a product offered through professional channels is expected to at least _try_ to meet the level of quality of similar products sold through that channel.
> 
> ...


Once again, there's that saying "hobbyist" as if it was a curse word. Why the hate?

Not that I'm a hobbyist...I consider myself semi-pro (as I've already stated). Writing is my second job, and secondary source of income. I do the best I can to produce a professional product Eventually, I hope to reach professional status...but that comes (IMO) with more time, and to reach the level where I can permanently retire from my other career and just write.

BUT, (here I go being a smart alec B!!ch again) There's also having a _professional attitude_. Handling yourself as a professional, being business-like in your conduct in message boards (like this one) and especially on retail sites. There are authors who's work I have shunned because of "unprofessional" sales tactics (like creating sock puppets to toot their own horns, tearing down other author's work in order to make themselves feel better, etc). And, other activity that has turned me off...some of it right here on this board. Sorry, just being honest.

An unprofessional attitude, and immature conversation will turn me off an author's work faster than 1-2 typos. 

That's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



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

A sale is a transaction recorded in a general ledger.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"So if you are an extreme couponer, and you have a triple coupon for a box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran, and the sale price at the store + your triple coupon = $0.00, is Kellogg still obligated to put Bran Flakes and Real Raisins in the box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran you just purchased? Or (since by your definition, there was no sale,) would it be perfectly okay for Kellogg to sell you a box full of floor sweepings? Would you still have a right to complain?"_

Good question.

The store records it as a sale to Kellog because Kellog pays the store when they present the coupon. It's interesting. I think stores make more money with coupons than without.

I'm not sure about the legalities of the coupon and customer. They may consider the coupon to be a voucher. I haven't ever run that kind of transaction. So it's also possible the store records a sale since the voucher is similar to a check.

However, under no circumstances is anyone allowed to serve floor sweepings as food. That prohibition applies to stores and private individuals, and is not a function of a sale.

But the coupon/voucher question is something I would have to research. Best answer: I don't know.


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> ...would it be perfectly okay for Kellogg to sell you a box full of floor sweepings?


Hmm... so that's why breakfast tasted funny this morning...

GRIN.

But seriously, Stacey, right on! (home run).

And Terrence, all I can say is we differ on economic philosophy. That's okay. Based on how you see it, no, the author owes the reader nothing. My differing opinion is that we do.



xandy3 said:


> IMO, You're a professional if you make a profit off your writing. You are an amateur if you haven't reached that status yet. I consider myself semi-pro, because my profit is very small as of yet.


I'm in the same boat. I don't make a living at this to match my other means of income. But that's not a reason to lack, as you said, a professional _attitude_. Indeed! Really what many of us have been trying to say. Actually, we agree...

Like anything you _want_ to be, the road to reach that is to act as though _you are_. Don't wish to be it. Be it, and all that comes with it.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> IMO, You're a professional if you make a profit off your writing. You are an amateur if you haven't reached that status yet. I consider myself semi-pro, because my profit is very small as of yet.
> 
> Once again, there's that saying "hobbyist" as if it was a curse word. Why the hate?


Hobbyist is not a negative, it's just not Professional. Look at all the hobbyist photographers... friends and family might be perfectly justified in saying "OMG, I LOVE YOUR PICTURES!" They might even be GOOD pictures, but they also have no obligation to hold themselves to professional standards. They don't have to know about DPI,color profile management, bleeds, noise, inks, papers, etc. If if a hobbyist does know, then bonus. But a Professional _should_ know, and furthermore, _should be competent._

"Professional" does not kick in only once you are making a profit, it starts once you are portraying yourself as such - by selling or "selling" a book on Amazon, for instance. If one is portraying him/herself as a Professional, anyone who accepts the services, at any price point, including free, has a right to criticize the Professional if he or she is not providing a product or service that is up to Professional standards. There are no take-backsies. If you sell a book - whether you sell for a fee, or for comp - you can't subsequently say "OH that one was just for PRACTICE!" or "Be nice to me, I'm new and poor! Please, no professional criticism!"


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

William Campbell said:


> I'm in the same boat. I don't make a living at this to match my other means of income. But that's not a reason to lack, as you said, a professional _attitude_. Indeed! Really what many of us have been trying to say. Actually, we agree...
> 
> Like anything you _want_ to be, the road to reach that is to act as though _you are_. Don't wish to be it. Be it, and all that comes with it.


^^ Well said!

Now, I have "I Believe I can Fly" stuck in my head.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Why? Because free through normal means = not a professional product? Because if that is what you are saying, I can accept that. I would guess that there are a lot of Professionals who would disagree.


That just depends.

Fanfiction is free. Original fiction from Fiction Press is free. The posts of most blogs are free. None of those are what would be considered professional products.

But, that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

People are speaking too much of entitlement. I hear way too much of "They owe me this."

That said, anything produced through KDP is put up with a price tag. It is price matched to become free, which is like a coupon.

So to summarise, if it is normally free, then I feel that you are not entitled to anything. It's your choice if you invest time in it.

If it is free through special means (coupons and price matching included), then you should expect some quality.

(Edited to remove slight contradictions.)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Professional" does not kick in only once you are making a profit, it starts once you are portraying yourself as such - by selling or "selling" a book on Amazon, for instance."_

I'd say it's neither profit nor portrayal. It's revenue. So professional status kicks in when the first sale is made. Once money is exchanged for any goods a whole bunch of obligations are triggered. They may not be met, but we can reasonably argue they exist. If they exist, they can be violated. If they exist and are violated, then a complaint is certainly reasonable.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"And Terrence, all I can say is we differ on economic philosophy. That's okay. Based on how you see it, no, the author owes the reader nothing. My differing opinion is that we do"_

Is there a non-economic argument that an obligation exists?


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> Hobbyist is not a negative, it's just not Professional. Look at all the hobbyist photographers... friends and family might be perfectly justified in saying "OMG, I LOVE YOUR PICTURES!" They might even be GOOD pictures, but they also have no obligation to hold themselves to professional standards. They don't have to know about DPI,color profile management, bleeds, noise, inks, papers, etc. If if a hobbyist does know, then bonus. But a Professional _should_ know, and furthermore, _should be competent._
> 
> "Professional" does not kick in only once you are making a profit, it starts once you are portraying yourself as such - by selling or "selling" a book on Amazon, for instance. If one is portraying him/herself as a Professional, anyone who accepts the services, at any price point, including free, has a right to criticize the Professional if he or she is not providing a product or service that is up to Professional standards. There are no take-backsies. If you sell a book - whether you sell for a fee, or for comp - you can't subsequently say "OH that one was just for PRACTICE!" or "Be nice to me, I'm new and poor! Please, no professional criticism!"


Well I'm not disputing that. Not at all. It's pretty much what I just said about a professional attitude.

I have NOTHING against hobbyists. They can write what they want... And, I think the literary world would be a boring place without them. My problem is with so-called "professionals" who engage in unprofessional behavior, or look down their noses at others. 

As a hobby, I create jewelry. I don't sell it, but I had considered doing so at one time for a little extra money. 
I opted to give them to people as birthday & Holiday gifts. I still do, in fact...
But, if (persay) a registered nurse makes quality jewelry in her spare time and sells it on ebay, I have no problem with that.

Similarly, There are people who sell Avon(tm) as just a hobby. I can't see telling them they're not allowed to charge money for their cosmetics because they're "hobbyists."


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"Professional" does not kick in only once you are making a profit, it starts once you are portraying yourself as such - by selling or "selling" a book on Amazon, for instance."_
> 
> I'd say it's neither profit nor portrayal. It's revenue. So professional status kicks in when the first sale is made. Once money is exchanged for any goods a whole bunch of obligations are triggered. They may not be met, but we can reasonably argue they exist. If they exist, they can be violated. If they exist and are violated, then a complaint is certainly reasonable.


True if you are talking about a specific product. But what about expectation? If a writer is portraying themselves as offering a professional product, is the obligation to be able to deliver a professional product already implied? Or does that only kick in once the hypothetical professional product has already been purchased? And if the goods (such as a novel) are already available for purchase before the first sale is made, is it fair for the potential buyer to assume that they are considering a professional product (such as one that has been appropriately edited?) Is it unfair for the potential buyer to assume that a professional novel comes with professional (whether for a fee or not) editing, *in advance of* the decision to actually complete transaction?


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Is there a non-economic argument that an obligation exists?


No.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> Similarly, There are people who sell Avon(tm) as just a hobby. I can't see telling them they're not allowed to charge money for their cosmetics because they're "hobbyists."


I doubt that Avon would see their sales model or their product as an amateur (or hobbyist) product or sales model.

Professional vs. Amateur (Hobbyist) is not necessarily defined by time spent or money made.


----------



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

That's also the difference between a whore and a prostitute only a whore had replaced the general ledger with general leisure.

Ed P


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

William Campbell said:


> Terrence OBrien said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a non-economic argument that an obligation exists?
> ...


Time is Money?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"OTOH, if a writer still wants to be an amateur, then he or she is under absolutely no obligation to provide a professional product."_
> 
> That's reasonable. I'd suggest that the mental states of the producers and consumers have no bearing on the creation of an obligation if the goods are free. Unless there is some agreement where the book is exchanged for other consideration, no obligation exists for either producer or consumer.
> 
> ...


Free? Lets see, I've never bought a book for free. But I see where you are getting to. Even for free I still think it should be a good clean story, but for free I should not really have ANY expectation that it will be a good solid read. In fact "free" IMHO means it may well be of inferior quality and that may be true. I won't know that until I begin to read it. Free is no harm, no foul. If I waste 15 minutes reading and decide it's terrible--all I did was waste my 15 minutes for a freebie. If I continued reading and I thought it was bad ,then it was all my fault because I didn't put it down. It was my decision to keep reading a bad book. I don't think he owes me anything, I got it for free so I throw it away if I don't like it.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> I doubt that Avon would see their sales model or their product as an amateur (or hobbyist) product or sales model.
> 
> Professional vs. Amateur (Hobbyist) is not necessarily defined by time spent or money made.


But, pardon me, wasn't that part of Julie's initial argument? That amatuer/hobbyist writers shouldn't be charging for a book? Or did I miss something?

But, yes Avon(tm) products are manufactured professionally, and even a hobbyist sales person is soliciting a professional product. Maybe my comparison was apples and oranges. Still it goes along the lines of what I was saying a few pages back--even if someone is a hobbyist, they still should still put out the best product possible.

Even some novice writing & art sites have standards. I know for a fact Elfwood does, having been a moderator in the past.

To what some other people were saying: YES people still complain when reading something free, even if the work is sub-par. I think complaining is just part of human nature...
which is the only reason I'm still here.  Me and my HUGE mouth.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

I don't know if I'd fully endorse Julie's argument about moral obligations, etc--there are enough moral obligations out there that I'm hesitant to include more.

That being said, I think that the argument for always putting out the best possible product--no matter whether it's free, $9.99, or if you're paying people $2 to take a copy--is that it is _your name_ on the cover and _your brand_ at stake. I don't know if there's anything immoral or inherently wrong about dousing your brand in gasoline and holding a lighted match to it, but just because it's not immoral doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.

You may not "owe" your readers anything in a moral sense, but if you don't pay them the basic courtesy of acting like a professional, they don't have to pay you the basic courtesy of treating you like one--reviewing your work, talking about it to friends, buying copies of your other work. If you don't want your readers to do any of those things, then ignore everything Julie says and sleep tight.

But if you have any sense of self-pride, put out the best darned product that you can. I don't know about what you owe readers--that's a hazy concept, and once you start putting morals in there you can lead to some results that I don't endorse (e.g., am I morally obligated as an author to write books that will have the broadest commercial appeal possible? Clearly not--but why not? Isn't it about giving readers what they want? If my readers want me to continue a series, and I'm done with it, do I have a moral obligation to go on? Probably not, either. See also, George R. R. Martin is not your b**ch.)--but it just seems really stupid to shoot yourself in the foot. And you can shoot yourself in the foot at any price.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"True if you are talking about a specific product. But what about expectation? If a writer is portraying themselves as offering a professional product, is the obligation to be able to deliver a professional product already implied? Or does that only kick in once the hypothetical professional product has already been purchased?"_

The obligation is initiated when the purchase happens because prior to that there was no counter-party. An obligation is to a buyer. If no buyer exists, then there is no obligation. If you buy the book, the seller has an obligation to you, not me.

I acknowledge a buyer may have an expectation prior to purchase, but the obligation isn't triggered until she buys.

NEW TOPIC

I just ran to the grocery store and kept thinking about your Kellogs Corn Flakes. Lets change it a bit and say the corn flakes are stale. That way we eliminate food safety and prohibitions about serving poison.

The coupon is an instrument with a fixed monetary value for a defined purpose. The grocery gets cash from Kellogs when it presents the coupon. So your rights are no different than if you paid cash. You do have a right to complain about stale corn flakes.

And the Merlot bottle filled with Two Buck Chuck? I don't know. We are in food safety and labeling territory.

NEW TOPIC

_"Time is money?"_

Could be, but neither the time nor the money is transfered to the seller, so there is no benefit to the seller.

I'd also say time is invested by the consumer to generate a return for the consumer. He reads to benefit himself, does it by choice, can stop at any time, and has total control over his participation. I'd put time on the consumer.

NEW TOPIC

The author's mental state, self-identity, and self-assigned label don't matter. Actions matter.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> The author's mental state, self-identity, and self-assigned label don't matter. Actions matter.


^^ That!

And, just wanted to add: I have a cousin who is a violinist. He's been playing since he was 8 years old. He's very talented, and NO I'm not just saying that because he's my blood relative. He could have gotten a music scholarship to Juliard, if he wanted to. He works hard at it, practices hard, and has even performed with the Symphony.

However, his passion is medicine, and he is currently studying to be a doctor. He still plays violin, still works hard at it...but it's his avocational ambition, rather than his vocational ambitions. Does that mean he slacks off? Dismisses his need to practice? Skips rehearsals? Not at all. He works just as hard at his music as he does at his studies.

And, on occasion he still performs with the symphony. Does that mean tickets should be free on the days that he performs with them? NO! Nor does that mean that anybody in the audience should ask for their money back because "Oh, geez. That medical student kid is playing. I payed to see professionals!"

It's all what you put into it. If you produce a professional product, people _won't or shouldn't care_ whether it's a hobby for you, or your second job...whatever. Well all the sane, decent, normal people won't anyways.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

Courtney Milan said:


> I don't know if I'd fully endorse Julie's argument about moral obligations, etc--there are enough moral obligations out there that I'm hesitant to include more.
> 
> That being said, I think that the argument for always putting out the best possible product--no matter whether it's free, $9.99, or if you're paying people $2 to take a copy--is that it is _your name_ on the cover and _your brand_ at stake. I don't know if there's anything immoral or inherently wrong about dousing your brand in gasoline and holding a lighted match to it, but just because it's not immoral doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.
> 
> ...


This. ALL of this. 
I always enjoy reading your posts. :]


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2011)

xandy3 said:


> But, pardon me, wasn't that part of *****'s initial argument? That amatuer/hobbyist writers shouldn't be charging for a book? Or did I miss something?


I don't care if you are an amateur, hobbyist, professional or charity worker. Your actual perception of your status has no bearing on the topic. What I said was that if you want to post your work on your blog or give it away for free that is your business. Since some people have for some reason taken to parsing the definition of free, I mean free as in you are giving it away and do not expect payment for it now or ever. I don't mean you set it to free temporarily but intend to sell it. I don't mean you make it available on Amazon and then set the price to zero elsewhere so Amazon matches the price in order to boost your sales rating. I don't mean you set a price and then give out a coupon to download for free. I don't mean you pay for it and send it to people. I mean free as in FREE.

If you are going to sell a product, the obligation is to make sure the product meets the standard expected by the customer base. You don't release a sub-par product knowing it needs help and pretend it doesn't. You don't release a product you know needs editing/proofing and then expect people to pay for it and buy enough copies of the sub-par version until you think you can afford to pay for the services. If you know your product is defective, you have an obligation not to sell it until those defects are resolved.

WHY is this so hard to comprehend? You either believe it is acceptable to knowingly sell a defective product or you do not. If you just don't KNOW whether your product is defective, that is an issue for another time.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2011)

If you spend time writing, you're a writer.

If you spend time nitpicking on forums to prove you're terribly clever, you're a twerp.

The other titles and definitions are less fun to point out.

*runs away giggling*


----------



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

Free at last. Free at last. Like the chickens on the range. Like 'nads in the breeze. Never a doubt. Never a pout. Just thrown to the waves like driftwood. I'm so glad the world didn't end today. 

Ed Patterson


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> But if you have any sense of self-pride, put out the best darned product that you can. I don't know about what you owe readers--that's a hazy concept, and once you start putting morals in there you can lead to some results that I don't endorse (e.g., am I morally obligated as an author to write books that will have the broadest commercial appeal possible? Clearly not--but why not? Isn't it about giving readers what they want? If my readers want me to continue a series, and I'm done with it, do I have a moral obligation to go on? Probably not, either. See also, George R. R. Martin is not your b**ch.)--but it just seems really stupid to shoot yourself in the foot. And you can shoot yourself in the foot at any price.


Good points, Courtney. In my opinion, yes, there is a moral obligation if you are releasing a commercial product. No, you aren't obligated (morally or otherwise) to release something that Joe Bloe is going to like, or to continue a series, etc. There is no way for you or anyone else to know what consumers will or won't like. It is up to the consumer to make that decision. However, selling something that you either know to be defective, or know that you haven't taken as many measures as possible to ensure that the product is defect free - well, there's a name for that. It's called ripping someone off. And last time I checked, ripping people off isn't a moral thing to do.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I don't care if you are an amateur, hobbyist, professional or charity worker. Your actual perception of your status has no bearing on the topic. What I said was that if you want to post your work on your blog or give it away for free that is your business. Since some people have for some reason taken to parsing the definition of free, I mean free as in you are giving it away and do not expect payment for it now or ever. I don't mean you set it to free temporarily but intend to sell it. I don't mean you make it available on Amazon and then set the price to zero elsewhere so Amazon matches the price in order to boost your sales rating. I don't mean you set a price and then give out a coupon to download for free. I don't mean you pay for it and send it to people. I mean free as in FREE.
> 
> If you are going to sell a product, the obligation is to make sure the product meets the standard expected by the customer base. You don't release a sub-par product knowing it needs help and pretend it doesn't. You don't release a product you know needs editing/proofing and then expect people to pay for it and buy enough copies of the sub-par version until you think you can afford to pay for the services. If you know your product is defective, you have an obligation not to sell it until those defects are resolved.
> 
> WHY is this so hard to comprehend? You either believe it is acceptable to knowingly sell a defective product or you do not. If you just don't KNOW whether your product is defective, that is an issue for another time.


It is perfectly acceptable to sell a book that you know needs editing/proofing.

Why? Because writers can be very poor judges of what needs editing/proofing.

No work is ever "done" - it's merely abandoned. Tweaking is infinite. Editing doubly so.

You're trying to erect a false barrier - one of perfection or correctness. A book with errors in it isn't defective. An ebook that can be easily fixed and republished isn't the same as a paper book that won't be reprinted for months to years, if ever.

I do want people to do the best with what they have but what you are suggesting is unworkable and you've also been quite insulting to those with no money to edit by suggesting they don't care about quality when in fact they're merely poor.

I say to anyone who has written a book - don't hold back on publishing just because you don't have the money to hire an editor. Do the best you can and then publish! You improve by doing and yes, it is acceptable to publish, fix, publish, fix and publish again.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

mathewferguson said:


> It is perfectly acceptable to sell a book that you know needs editing/proofing...it is acceptable to publish, fix, publish, fix and publish again.


This is the single worse piece of advice ever given on this forum. Hopefully aspiring authors will have enough sense to ignore it.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> This is the single worse piece of advice ever given on this forum. Hopefully aspiring authors will have enough sense to ignore it.


So what is your suggestion?

Julie wants to convince people that they can't publish until they've had their book edited. She is also using an unmeasurable metric. Does a single error make a book "defective"? How about two? Are we talking spelling mistakes or the debatable misuse of a transitive verb? How are your transitive verbs going? Are you using them correctly or are you googling for the definition of a transitive verb right now?

I said people should do their best, don't forget. I want people to write and rewrite and edit and edit again but at some point that comes to an end. Unlike paper books you can fix your errors and republish. People should absolutely do the best they can but to suggest that all books must be edited AND all these writers should try to get English majors to work for nothing is terrible advice.

All books are abandoned rather than finished. You could always do more. Don't let the spectre of endless editing hold up publishing your work.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> It is perfectly acceptable to sell a book that you know needs editing/proofing.
> 
> Why? Because writers can be very poor judges of what needs editing/proofing.
> 
> ...


Personally, if I purchased a book riddled with errors, and then another person went ahead and bought the book after me and gets the tweaked, fixed version, I'd be pretty upset.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> It is perfectly acceptable to sell a book that you know needs editing/proofing.


It is *never* acceptable to sell a book that you *know* needs editing and proofing.

I'm getting a little sick of this. Julie has been spot on throughout this. Sure, I disagree with her occasionally, but she's intelligent and knows what she's talking about.

If you know that your book needs editing and you sell it anyways, then there's something wrong with you. That's not professional. Most amateurs would be embarassed by such a notion that it's an amateur move too.

I can understand it you say that it's acceptable to sell a book that might need further editing. That's a different beat altogether. I'm mainly self-editing with a little help. Yeah, my work might need further editing, but that's only because I _might_ miss something. You can bet that I'll go over it a dozen times in the attempt to make it perfect.

As Julie and others have said in this thread, what you have to do to get your work edited doesn't matter. The readers aren't going to care, provided that it is edited and actually has quality. If it has neither, then you're not fit to publish.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

What are the standards? How many errors per thousand words are allowed before the product is judged to be substandard? 

And are these standards adjustable by the writer's income level? If he is impoverished, how much money should he budget for publication? If affluent, how much should he spend?


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Asher MacDonald said:


> And are these standards adjustable by the writer's income level?


  Almost spit my single malt.

I can see it now...

"But I only made $11k last year, that means I'm entitled to an extra 50 errors in this manuscript, no questions asked!"


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

> It is never acceptable to sell a book that you know needs editing and proofing.


Are you saying that it's never acceptable to sell a book you think might have a few mistakes?

In the software world, releases go out all the time with the expectation that there are issues that will need to be patched.

Let me put it another way: When is your obligation done? You proof your work and then turn it over to an editor. She finds things. You fix them. You give it another pass. Are you done now? Why not ask for new beta readers? Why not join a critique circle and ask for new critiques? When do you know a book no longer needs editing and proofing?


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> Almost spit my single malt.
> 
> I can see it now...
> 
> "But I only made $11k last year, that means I'm entitled to an extra 50 errors in this manuscript, no questions asked!"


Think of it in more realistic terms. What is the minimum budget to spend on proofing and editing? And if someone can't afford that, does that mean it's wrong to publish?


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Think of it in more realistic terms. What is the minimum budget to spend on proofing and editing? And if someone can't afford that, does that mean it's wrong to publish?


I really think everyone is missing Julie's point: a) writers = not entitled to sales b) obtaining a quality product. She said multiple times in her post that the issue was not money. She gave a ton of different suggestions as to how to obtain an editor without money. I just think that should really be acknowledged, because everyone seems so focused on the money aspect.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

mathewferguson said:


> So what is your suggestion?
> 
> Julie wants to convince people that they can't publish until they've had their book edited.


This thread is starting to get redundant. Either you don't know how to comprehend English or you are encouraging authors to publishing substandard books.

Julie has stated time and time again in this thread that the issue isn't paying to have your books edited. It's finding a way to get the work done. Does that mean that you have to hire a professional editor to produce a quality piece of fiction? No. Does it mean that you have to rob the old lady down the street to find the money to pay said editor? No.

There are tons of ways to get your work edited. Join a critique group, find beta-readers, swap favors with someone who knows how to edit, or if all else fails, get your hands on as many editing and grammar books as you can and spend the necessary time to produce the best work possible.

My first book languished in the hands of my POD publisher for more than a year until I could scrape up the money to pay to have my book edited by two different editors. I could easily have done what you said and simply published. But I had enough respect for both myself and my readers to wait until my book was edited. Throughout the entire process I self-edited my book every day.

Sure, my book isn't perfect. But it's a far superior book because I waited (impatiently I might add) until my book was ready before letting it out of the gate.

The problem isn't that authors don't have the money to pay for an editor. The problem is that they are *impatient*. It's not always good enough to do your best. Sometimes, what's required is to do what's *right*. If an author is really serious about their craft and not just looking for a quick buck, he or she WILL find a way to get their book edited.

At the end of the day, the only thing you get from making excuses why you couldn't get your book edited is _excuses_ (and a ton of negative reviews). Trying to flay the OP because she knows that the majority of readers, like myself, don't care how you produced your book, only that it's a professionally presented product.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> I think that the argument for always putting out the best possible product--no matter whether it's free, $9.99, or if you're paying people $2 to take a copy--is that it is _your name_ on the cover and _your brand_ at stake. I don't know if there's anything immoral or inherently wrong about dousing your brand in gasoline and holding a lighted match to it, but just because it's not immoral doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.


This is how I look at it. No, I don't think poor editing is immoral. However, its unprofessional. It will get a certain reaction from the world. We ought make sure we're going to get the reaction that we want. If we want to be taken seriously, we should be taking our work seriously.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Are you saying that it's never acceptable to sell a book you think might have a few mistakes?
> 
> In the software world, releases go out all the time with the expectation that there are issues that will need to be patched.
> 
> Let me put it another way: When is your obligation done? You proof your work and then turn it over to an editor. She finds things. You fix them. You give it another pass. Are you done now? Why not ask for new beta readers? Why not join a critique circle and ask for new critiques? When do you know a book no longer needs editing and proofing?


Why don't you read my post word for word? If you did, you wouldn't be asking if I said "that it's never acceptable to sell a book you think might have a few mistakes." I didn't say that. I said that it's never acceptable to knowingly sell a book that needs editing and proofreading.

I don't see why you bring software into this though. If you really want to compare, find something closer to the topic at hand.

Is it fine to sell music or movies in a digital format, knowing that there are errors in it? No, it's not. If you find that you missed it, you can fix it with e-books, but you shouldn't use that as an excuse to put out a flawed piece of work.

Because I don't have the time to answer a bunch of questions that are personal to every author, I'll conclude this with saying that your obligation is never done.


----------



## CaedemMarquez (Mar 23, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> How are your transitive verbs going? Are you using them correctly or are you googling for the definition of a transitive verb right now?


Ahem...coughs...then takes hands away from keyboard. 

Caedem


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Think of it in more realistic terms. What is the minimum budget to spend on proofing and editing? And if someone can't afford that, does that mean it's wrong to publish?


The minimum budget? Until it's done. Seriously. If you take on the role of publisher, (which you do if you're a self-PUBLISHER,) you are in business. If you are in business, editing is one of your startup expenses. If you don't have funds (or other means) to get the job done for your business, you shouldn't be in business.

I think it would be great to start a cafe, but I can't afford it. However, I can make a pretty mean cup of coffee, so maybe my city should just overlook all that licensing stuff. Maybe my customers should overlook their desire to have a location. Hopefully nobody will mind drinking the coffee I brewed at home in my coffee carafe and am serving in my Salvation Army mugs, because you know, I just don't have the money for all that stuff, and it's a lot of work! I shouldn't have to do it, because I'm poor! I want to have my cafe now!


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

PMartelly said:


> I really think everyone is missing Julie's point: a) writers = not entitled to sales b) obtaining a quality product. She said multiple times in her post that the issue was not money. She gave a ton of different suggestions as to how to obtain an editor without money. I just think that should really be acknowledged, because everyone seems so focused on the money aspect.


I don't think everyone is missing the point, though a few are, apparently.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Asher MacDonald said:


> What are the standards? How many errors per thousand words are allowed before the product is judged to be substandard?
> 
> And are these standards adjustable by the writer's income level? If he is impoverished, how much money should he budget for publication? If affluent, how much should he spend?


See Original Post.



Asher MacDonald said:


> Are you saying that it's never acceptable to sell a book you think might have a few mistakes?


In a way, you have answered your own question. If you feel your book only has few mistakes, then this conversation probably doesn't pertain to you.



Asher MacDonald said:


> When is your obligation done? You proof your work and then turn it over to an editor. She finds things. You fix them. You give it another pass. Are you done now? Why not ask for new beta readers? Why not join a critique circle and ask for new critiques? When do you know a book no longer needs editing and proofing?


If that's what it takes to exorcise the bulk of the mistakes from your book, then go for it.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

Ryne Billings said:


> I don't think everyone is missing the point, though a few are, apparently.


Didn't mean it in the literal sense, but yes, I agree.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

PMartelly said:


> Didn't mean it in the literal sense, but yes, I agree.


Sorry, I tend to be a bit too literal at times.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

I really wanted to contribute to this thread, but:


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

I'll take your bunny rabbit and raise you a pac man!


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

JeanneM said:


> I really wanted to contribute to this thread, but:


I vote yours the BEST contribution to this thread. Well done! Laughing my *** off.


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

JeanneM said:


> I really wanted to contribute to this thread, but:


Been a while since I last saw that one. Always good for a laugh.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

So, um, I'll throw my thinking hat into this ring. In my opinion, most of us on these forums are terrible writers. I've read hundreds of sample chapters from people on the Kindleboards, and the vast majority of us are simply just starting out when it comes to writing. We're failing at POV, showing instead of telling, and various basic writing mechanisms. Editing for grammar and punctuation is probably the least of our worries, and without an experienced editor to correct the ship, the ship is sinking just as it leaves port.

I've been a writer for dozens of years with many publications, but it has been in technical writing for conferences, journals, guides and walkthroughs. Telling comes along with trying to explain research that no one else is doing. Showing is a part of it too, but telling was a major problem that has caused a complete redraft of my first novel with my editor whipping me into shape. I am honestly happy as a lark to take responsibility for my failings as a fiction writer and am doing whatever I can to make this novel right for readers to enjoy the story that is in my head.

We are not entitled to sales, and I think a lot of us are still falling into that mystical Neverland where we are simply ecstatic to be doing something we love - even if we are failing at doing it well. I think the writers that realize their failures, learn from other writers here on the forums, and keep pushing forward will find a reader market. Unfortunately, I think we also have a disproportionate ratio of people trying to give advice on these forums that do not really know what they are doing, and I think they are leading others astray, but I don't believe it is malicious at all. I think they are truly trying to be helpful, but they are just as lost as anyone else in this wilderness.

I'm still climbing this fiction-writing mountain, but I acknowledge that such is the case, and I refuse to release my book on the market before I feel it is done. I'm also halting all work on other books until I learn everything I can from my editor about this process. Do I think others should do this? Well, it depends.

If you have given your story to a handful of people and none of them have completed the book or even five chapters, you are probably in trouble with basic writing elements (NOT GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION), and you probably need to redraft the book like I did. But don't worry, it comes a LOT easier the third or fourth time around (LOL), and you can and should take advantage of an editor or a free resource like critique corner for chapter-by-chapter reviewing. Otherwise, you may be simply reinforcing your own poor writing habits.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

I disagree with Julie almost entirely.

Skipping over that terrible mishmash of blather about the moral obligation of quality in publishing an ebook and the apparent legions of writers who are demanding both money and time ...

The most beautiful thing about e-publishing is the destruction of gatekeepers. Yet here we have people trying to put up new gates. What will be next for Julie and her rants? No book shall be published without a professional cover design? No book shall be published without being proofed by an editor with at least five years experience? Do we need to add any more barriers?

Every writer should do the best they can with what they have. That's it. There is no requirement to hire an editor. There is no requirement to be 100% sure that your book couldn't be edited just that little bit more.

I repeat again: no book is finished, merely abandoned. There is not a single book in existence that couldn't be edited a bit more. A word here, a phrasing there. It is an endless task.

So I oppose Julie and her rant because I want people to write and publish and not be pushed away by those trying to make this harder that it seems. I don't want a single writer thinking they can't publish until they've hired an editor and then subsequently not publishing due to the delay.

We read books all the time that contain errors. To call them "defective" is only an apt description in a very few cases (such as when a book is terrible in multiple ways). Thought that perhaps The Stand dragged on a bit? DEFECTIVE! Thought that in Game of Thrones a character wishing multiple times her brother would once more tousle her hair was a bit redundant? DEFECTIVE!

Julie supports editors working for free if we call it "work experience" but call it "exposure" and you're a fool to do it. Writers have a moral obligation to edit! Pfft. There is no such obligation.

As an editor myself I can tell you there is a world of difference between an English major and an actual editor. The first is a wannabe writer with almost no projects behind them and the second is a professional who can pull your weak writing out into the light and help you fix it. Her advice to ask English majors for free editing isn't really a good idea. I do support people working for free to break into certain careers but I'd take self-editing over an English major nine times out of ten.

Seriously, what is the worst that can happen if a book is published with errors? People buy it, some of them write about it in the reviews, the writer takes it down, fixes it and puts it back up again. They learn a lesson. Their first book might have errors but their second will have fewer.

I do want every writer to do their best work but don't get hung up on some standard of perfection demanded of you by someone who cannot measure this perfection and is in fact describing something that does not exist in the world.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

rexjameson said:


> Unfortunately, I think we also have a disproportionate ratio of people trying to give advice on these forums that do not really know what they are doing, and I think they are leading others astray


That's pretty much the crux of the problem and the reason why everything that gets said in this forum needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Problem is, the most egregious offenders of the English language are the ones kicking up dust whenever someone calls them on their shenanigans. Oh, well. You can lead a horse to water...


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Arkali said:


> Good points, Courtney. In my opinion, yes, there is a moral obligation if you are releasing a commercial product. No, you aren't obligated (morally or otherwise) to release something that Joe Bloe is going to like, or to continue a series, etc. There is no way for you or anyone else to know what consumers will or won't like. It is up to the consumer to make that decision. However, selling something that you either know to be defective, or know that you haven't taken as many measures as possible to ensure that the product is defect free - well, there's a name for that. It's called ripping someone off. And last time I checked, ripping people off isn't a moral thing to do.


 I guess I think it depends on the product defect. Something that kills people? Immoral. Something that can cause injury or problems? Immoral. But let's face it--there are a lot of people who don't care about spelling and grammar. If the story is good, and they enjoy it, are you ripping them off? If they happen to hate your book, even though it's well edited, are you ripping them off? To figure out if you're ripping someone off you need to know all kinds of complex things about value--and Julie's argument applies to books that are up there for free, or for 99 cents, and I think it's hard to say you're ripping someone off if you're posting the book at Smashwords for free for a lengthy period of time.

And then, we all have purchased things that are shoddy, and I don't necessarily think the manufacturer is immoral. I've bought cheap CD-ROMs where the data copy fails half the time. I'm sure the manufacturer knows they're producing a substandard product. But I don't think this is a moral failing on their part. I just think they're cheap, and I should have expected it for buying the cheapest one in the store.

All I'm trying to say is that there's a point where providing a substandard product stops being a moral failing and starts being just an annoyance. I'm not sure where that point lies, but the point where you can look at someone and say, "Repent, sinner, for thy editing sucketh!" is pretty far out there. And that's why there are all these people wanting to pin this down.

I think the best argument as to why you should edit--and proof--and edit--and proof--until you don't think you could reasonably find any more errors is really simple: It is DUMB to put out substandard products.

It doesn't make you a bad person if you don't take pride in your work. It just makes you a dumb one. And a poorer one. And a less successful one.

This is my cynical nature showing, but I think people are more likely to change behaviors if they believe it is in their own self-interest than for some hard-to-define moral quantity. I can't imagine ever being motivated to do something because someone told me it was the moral thing to do. Once you start talking morals, you end up only preaching to the choir. That kind of stuff didn't work on me when I was a young, gullible kid and I've only become more skeptical as an adult.

For me, I'm driven to try and be as clean as I can not out of any sort of moral desire to be good, but by the twin sins of pride and greed. And, I suppose, OCD. Which would have been a mortal sin if the Greeks knew about it.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

> 1. I'm poor. I can't afford covers (mine stink) or editing.


Once again we're back to the "money" issue. The point has been made, quite well, by many in this thread that if you're publishing books (for sale), then you're no longer engaging in a hobby. Make enough money selling ebooks and the IRS won't think so either.

I worked 40+ hour weeks for more than a year at near minimum wage, saving no more than 2 or 3 bucks each pay period to hire an editor. I certainly couldn't afford one of those $2000 editors, so I found a very capable editor within my price range. Since publishing my first book, I've discovered several talented editors who offered to edit my books for free simply because they were trying to build up a client list. I've found other editors who charge peanuts to edit full novels because they, too, want to build a client list. If an author really wants to get their book edited, there are ways to do so without busting the bank.

One point to consider. How many of the same authors complaining about not being able to afford an editor like to go out to eat, watch movies at the local multiplex, buy and rent DVDs, go shopping, and engage in a host of other non-essential money sucking activities? Granted hiring an editor is a hardship for most indie authors (especially the ones just trying to put food on the table). But I almost get the impression that some of the authors haranguing Julie isn't trying so much to argue the point that they can't afford an editor, but rather why should they hire one when they can do the work themselves?


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> Once again we're back to the "money" issue. The point has been made, quite well, by many in this thread that if you're publishing books (for sale), then you're no longer engaging in a hobby. Make enough money selling ebooks and the IRS won't think so either.
> 
> I worked 40+ hour weeks for more than a year at near minimum wage, saving no more than 2 or 3 bucks each pay period to hire an editor. I certainly couldn't afford one of those $2000 editors, so I found a very capable editor within my price range. Since publishing my first book, I've discovered several talented editors who offered to edit my books for free simply because they were trying to build up a client list. I've found other editors who charge peanuts to edit full novels because they, too, want to build a client list. If an author really wants to get their book edited, there are ways to do so without busting the bank.
> 
> One point to consider. How many of the same authors complaining about not being able to afford an editor like to go out to eat, watch movies at the local multiplex, buy and rent DVDs, go shopping, and engage in a host of other non-essential money sucking activities? Granted hiring an editor is a hardship for most indie authors (especially the ones just trying to put food on the table). But I almost get the impression that some of the authors haranguing Julie isn't trying so much to argue the point that they can't afford an editor, but rather why should they hire one when they can do the work themselves?


Julie is directly claiming that if you don't have your work edited then you don't care enough. It's like the idea of a writer in poverty never occurred to her. It was insulting.

It's sad that Jeanne's post vanished because she made some very good points about why people don't use editors.

This new world of e-publishing does not need any more false barriers put up. If you can write then publish. Do your best and ignore those like Julie who claim a book with a error is "defective".


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

I deleted my post after thinking that it made me feel kind of pathethic and also from the fear that it would only fall on deaf ears.  Which, in fact, does appear to be the case judging by the post before yours.

DVDs? Eating out?  Are you kidding?  I only dream of those things.  Some people are in a terrible situation, which others have never been in and can't even fathom.  Thank you Matthew for understanding what I was trying to say.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

JeanneM said:


> I deleted my post after thinking that it made me feel kind of pathethic and also from the fear that it would only fall on deaf ears. Which, in fact, does appear to be the case judging by the post before yours.
> 
> DVDs? Eating out? Are you kidding? I only dream of those things. Some people are in a terrible situation, which others have never been in and can't even fathom. Thank you Matthew for understanding what I was trying to say.


Your post was true and is precisely the reason I oppose Julie and her rant.

I've been poor in my life and once had an idiot at my first ever job as a university student in Melbourne make fun of me in front of a room full of people because of what I was wearing. For the first two weeks I wore the same black pants and swapped between two white shirts I'd had given to me by the Salvation Army because I was so dirt poor I couldn't afford any other clothes. He said to me that I didn't "care" about the job.

So then I read Julie's rant about how writers who don't use an editor don't care and my blood boils. She lives in a world where poverty doesn't exist apparently. Where it's not possible for a writer to not be able to hire someone or trick some English major into editing for zero payment for them.

You have to do the best you have with what you've got and turning not using an editor into a MORAL issue is beyond belief.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JeanneM said:


> I deleted my post after thinking that it made me feel kind of pathethic and also from the fear that it would only fall on deaf ears. Which, in fact, does appear to be the case judging by the post before yours.
> 
> DVDs? Eating out? Are you kidding? I only dream of those things. Some people are in a terrible situation, which others have never been in and can't even fathom. Thank you Matthew for understanding what I was trying to say.


I wasn't addressing you directly. But if I offended you in any way, I apologize. My intent isn't to berate anyone who is financially struggling or fighting to feed themselves and pay their bills (I'm all too aware of what that's like). Rather, my only goal is to enlighten authors like myself and the ones most desperately in need of having their books edited by an outside source, that if they put their minds to it, and are resourceful and patient enough, they don't have to buy into the hype that only authors with money can afford to have their books edited.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Thank you Kevis. It is very kind of you to clarify.    Actually I do have a solid plan in place.  As a matter of fact, I'm shaking my Magic 8 Ball as we speak.  LOL


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> Your post was true and is precisely the reason I oppose Julie and her rant.
> 
> I've been poor in my life and once had an idiot at my first ever job as a university student in Melbourne make fun of me in front of a room full of people because of what I was wearing. For the first two weeks I wore the same black pants and swapped between two white shirts I'd had given to me by the Salvation Army because I was so dirt poor I couldn't afford any other clothes. He said to me that I didn't "care" about the job.
> 
> ...


I understand Matthew. I'm that kind of poor. It makes one feel ashamed. Being looked down on is a horrible feeling. But I guess it will make it all the sweeter when we prevail, right? Tell me I'm right, ok. I'll feel better.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JeanneM said:


> Thank you Kevis. It is very kind of you to clarify.  Actually I do have a solid plan in place. As a matter of fact, I'm shaking my Magic 8 Ball as we speak. LOL


Go, Magic 8 ball, go!


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

oliewankanobe said:


> If you spend time writing, you're a writer.
> 
> If you spend time nitpicking on forums to prove you're terribly clever, you're a twerp.
> 
> ...


That sounds like something Stewie Griffin would say! LOL


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> So then I read *****'s rant about how writers who don't use an editor don't care and my blood boils. She lives in a world where poverty doesn't exist apparently.


Let's be blunt. You are either arguing a point that I did not say solely for the purpose of arguing, or your reading comprehension is so low that you cannot grasp the original post. As I don't think you are dumb, I'm going to assume the first. I never, EVER said the words "a writer who doesn't use an editor doesn't care." That is not what I said. What I said, and I have been saying from the beginning, is that is you know your book needs editing and proofreading, do not publish it until you get it done. This has nothing to do with poverty. This has nothing to do with wealth. This has to do with deliberately selling something that you know needs to be fixed. Being poor does not give you a pass. Publishing is not a charity. It is a business. You either treat it like a business, or you do not.

If I go to the auto mechanic to get an oil change, and he is charging me for that oil change, I expect a new oil filter and clean oil put in the car. I don't expect him to say, "Look, I'm poor and business isn't going well, so I just rinsed off your old oil filter and put the old oil back in." If I go to a restaurant and buy lunch, I expect the food to be fresh. I don't expect the waitress to say "Sorry about the stale bread, but business is down so we haven't had the money to get fresh bread." If I take a document over to Kinkos to get color copies, I expect color copies. I don't expect them to tell me they were out of magenta and couldn't afford to restoke so they just printed my file in black and white but still expect me to pay for color.


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

Here we go again. Seems the threads are crossing. The other one wore me down, so I'll be brief (I hope).

I should just move along, but this one assertion...



mathewferguson said:


> no book is finished, merely abandoned.


That may be true for you, but not for me, so it doesn't apply to everyone. I finish what I start, once reaching the goal I've set for the project. Those I have abandoned were sinking ships, now resting on the sea floor, never to be seen.

Nowhere in this discussion is the suggestion to edit endlessly. Members are urging others to find errors and fix them, using whatever methods are within their means. There are no gates being blocked. Publish anything you want. Is it so much to suggest that you try your best? That you exercise *patience* and double-check your work before publishing? If you already take these steps and succeed at limiting errors, then what is there to be upset about? If you are making the effort, the rant was not directed at you. Just because it touched a nerve doesn't mean it was targeting you personally. It just touched a nerve.

About rich or poor, I've decided that should be left out of the conversation. It's mucking up the point. So I'm going to treat that as off-topic, other than to say that once upon a time, I was dirt poor, so I am well aware of how much that sucks. Even so, it didn't stop me from holding my head up high. Any one of us is free to do that, any time, at no cost.


----------



## kathieshoop (Feb 18, 2011)

You're right, publishing is not charity. I can't tell you how many reads my book went through and there is still a pesky errant apostrophe, mocking me.  It is so hard to get this right. And more important to get it right if you're self-publishing because people look down on it so much.  I know many traditionally published books have typos and errors, but boy that kills me to leave even one there for consumption.  We need to take care of our writing more than anyone, I suppose...thanks for the post.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

RedAdept said:


> Not only that, I once read an Indie book where the prologue was excellent, well-written and well-edited. The rest of the novel needed serious help. It was filled with editing problems, simple things like commas, spelling, etc.
> 
> I honestly wondered if the author had gotten a free Sample Edit from an editor and used it to clean up the first part of the book, which would be the portion someone would see when sampling.


Considering that the traditional "partial" sent to agents and editors consists of the first 3 chapters and a synopsis, is it really any wonder that the "sample" on Amazon might be polished, yet the rest of the book is nowhere near ready for primetime? It's no secret that many authors spend the most of their time on the opening.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

For the most part, this thread is just splitting hairs.

I don't see anyone here disputing that you should put out the best product possible.
No one here is claiming that their book is perfect the first time around, and they don't need an editor...or that they don't care about editing. Anne Rice, evidently, is not a contributing member of this board. LOL

How you go about getting that done is _your business_. Do whatever works best for you, and what you can afford.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> I guess I think it depends on the product defect. Something that kills people? Immoral. Something that can cause injury or problems? Immoral. But let's face it--there are a lot of people who don't care about spelling and grammar. If the story is good, and they enjoy it, are you ripping them off? If they happen to hate your book, even though it's well edited, are you ripping them off? To figure out if you're ripping someone off you need to know all kinds of complex things about value--and Julie's argument applies to books that are up there for free, or for 99 cents, and I think it's hard to say you're ripping someone off if you're posting the book at Smashwords for free for a lengthy period of time.
> 
> And then, we all have purchased things that are shoddy, and I don't necessarily think the manufacturer is immoral. I've bought cheap CD-ROMs where the data copy fails half the time. I'm sure the manufacturer knows they're producing a substandard product. But I don't think this is a moral failing on their part. I just think they're cheap, and I should have expected it for buying the cheapest one in the store.
> 
> ...


LOL @ the OCD. And I agree with you mostly across the board. As for morals - moral arguments work with me, but then you have to convince me that your argument aligns with my own moral compass. That's a hard thing to do when you're talking about lots of different people with sometimes opposing ideas of right and wrong.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

JeanneM said:


> I really wanted to contribute to this thread, but:


I was thinking of adding something but then I saw this and realised that no further comment was needed. The bunny with a pancake on his head just says it all.


----------



## iamstoryteller (Jul 16, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> Unbelievable. So many authors here arguing against the necessity of a good editor. I'm completely gobsmacked. I wonder how many lurkers on this board have taken note of the people who seem to think that a good editing is of distant secondary importance, and have added those writers to their "not to read ever" list?


Many indie authors are arguing against the necessity of a quality book because a) they really cannot afford to hire an editor/cover designer/formatter. And b) they were under the impression writing books was easy money.

I'm guessing that a good majority of the folks who indie publish cannot afford to hire professionals. Lots of businesses are started on a shoestring. I've been in business my entire adult life and I've started one or two that way. I've also been on the other end. The only business I've ever considered a failure was fully capitalized. For the others I had to get creative to succeed, for the failure I believe I felt the entitlement others have spoken of. To succeed one must put in the work. There are many great suggestions here to find others who can help you. But you must put in the time and effort, not just with the writing but with all the other grunge work afterwards. It's not likely to come easy, but it can be done...


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

JeanneM said:


> I really wanted to contribute to this thread, but:


He has a friend!


----------



## StefanBourque (May 23, 2011)

Dammit!  Now I want pancakes.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> For the most part, this thread is just splitting hairs.
> 
> I don't see anyone here disputing that you should put out the best product possible.
> No one here is claiming that their book is perfect the first time around, and they don't need an editor...or that they don't care about editing. Anne Rice, evidently, is not a contributing member of this board. LOL
> ...


Right. Do what gives you the most satisfaction in your finished product.

You know what trumps better proofing and editing? Better writing and better storytelling.


----------



## CatherineIsom (May 22, 2011)

If I can just add my tuppence worth I have to say I am poor. I have no money for a professional editor. The way I work is I ask my sister who is also a freelance writer to check my work. For us, just having a fresh pair of eyes on the finished product is usually enough to pick up any errors in grammar or continuity of the story.
This may not be the most perfect solution, but it works. Other people should easily be able to work this way too and it doesn't cost a penny.


----------



## Mike Cooley (Mar 12, 2011)

CatherineIsom said:


> If I can just add my tuppence worth I have to say I am poor. I have no money for a professional editor. The way I work is I ask my sister who is also a freelance writer to check my work. For us, just having a fresh pair of eyes on the finished product is usually enough to pick up any errors in grammar or continuity of the story.
> This may not be the most perfect solution, but it works. Other people should easily be able to work this way too and it doesn't cost a penny.


I'm going to have to borrow your sister.... (I kid, I kid  )

Mike


----------



## aaronpolson (Apr 4, 2010)

I like pancakes!  

And bunnies! 

Mmmmm... pancake-bunnies.


----------



## CatherineIsom (May 22, 2011)

Haha Mike, I could hire her out for a small fee and save enough money to have my own work edited professionally! or just buy pancakes. this thread is now making me hungry.


----------



## PMartelly (May 1, 2011)

Daniel Arenson said:


> He has a friend!


haha. awesome. =D


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Let's be blunt. You are either arguing a point that I did not say solely for the purpose of arguing, or your reading comprehension is so low that you cannot grasp the original post. As I don't think you are dumb, I'm going to assume the first. I never, EVER said the words "a writer who doesn't use an editor doesn't care." That is not what I said.


You said this:


> When I read statements like "I can't afford to get an editor so I have to wait until I make some sales" what I actually hear is "I could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME."


"I can't afford an editor" = "I could care less about my readers and only care about ME."

Split hairs all you like Julie but you opened your rant with something truly insulting.

It is perfectly legitimate for someone to say that they can't afford an editor. It is also perfectly fine for that person to say that when they have money in the future that they will hire an editor. But to you, this means they "could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME".


----------



## Ryne Billings (May 15, 2011)

What Julie has a problem with (Julie, correct me if I'm misunderstood) is people who refuse to get their work edited in any form, saying that they'll worry about it after they get some sales. She *never* actually said that someone only cares about their work and their readers if they pay to have it edited.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2011)

Ryne Billings said:



> What ***** has a problem with (*****, correct me if I'm misunderstood) is people who refuse to get their work edited in any form, saying that they'll worry about it after they get some sales. She *never* actually said that someone only cares about their work and their readers if they pay to have it edited.


Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I said. I never said anything about paying. In fact, I specifically said lack of funds is not an excuse, as there are other ways to get the help you need. I also never said you had to get a "professional" editor. I said you need to edit to the norms of your genre. Each genre has its own peculiarities, and things that are acceptable in one are not acceptable in the other.

So *IF* you know what the expectations of your genre are *AND * you know your work as it is does not meet those expectations *THEN * you have an obligation to seek out additional help before making the work available for sale. To willfully sell something to unsuspecting readers that you know does not meet their expectations for the genre is wrong.

Why this is a "controversial" position for some people is beyond me.


----------



## JM Gellene (Mar 30, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Why this is a "controversial" position for some people is beyond me.


Did strike a nerve, didn't it? 14 Pages worth


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Julie, this is one of those times when I totally agree with what you said all of the way. (Not always the case, but this time it is.)
    As a reader, spending MY $$ and TIME on a book, if it has a couple of errors that's no biggie, but I will probably try to contact the author to let them know. If it is riddled with errors on page after page after page, then it becomes a serious issue. If it is a book I am reviewing for RedAdeptReviews.com, you can BET I am going to mention editing problems. 

    In the original post Julie mentioned a number of ways to get editing done for cheap/free. She never said if you are broke, don't publish.


----------



## miss_fletcher (Oct 25, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Why this is a "controversial" position for some people is beyond me.


It's not. Some people may get their backs up and are not seeing the advice they are being gifted because of how you phrased it. I agree with what you said ... the tone and delivery was courting disrespectful, but, your points are completely valid, entirely true, and should be taken seriously by all lucky enough to read it (that is not a sarcastic comment, if you've read the post digest it and move on).

No doubt, a number of Authors could give a personal explanation as to why their product failed to meet a professional standard in some way or another. The truth is they are excuses that do you no favors, and that needs to be accepted by the Indie community collectively for any lasting change to be made. Your post was (as you yourself said) a rant that just screamed of frustration to me.

However, I am of the opinion anyone who wishes to have a lasting career, retain a loyal readership and produce quality books to gain new readers, will improve over time (Rome wasn't built in a day). It's a learning curve some do have to go through (myself included in that pool). You've been through it (as you explained in one of your earlier posts). So for the Authors who may take this to heart (in a bad way) they need to reach the same place you're in their own time. You can't drag them there.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> To willfully sell something to unsuspecting readers that you know does not meet their expectations for the genre is wrong.


Agreed. If you have published a book and early reviews highlight your novel has editing issues, or any kind of issue, unpublish it and sort it out. If you publish knowing your work is crap quality no one can save you.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> You said this:
> "I can't afford an editor" = "I could care less about my readers and only care about ME."
> 
> Split hairs all you like Julie but you opened your rant with something truly insulting.
> ...


That line in the opening post made it seem like she was arguing that we should all pay for editors, even if it means not eating for a month, or else we don't care about our readers. That is what prompted my initial response. She has since clarified her point, and I think the clarified point is valid. _You need to make sure the book is the best you can make it_ (within reason. I don't think you should waste years on editing, because perfection is impossible). I can't afford an editor, but I could afford an editing class, which improved my own editing skills. And I have another reader who catches many of the things I miss. And if I find anything that needs to be fixed, I fix it and re-upload the corrected version (gotta love ebooks). We as indie writers really have no reason to not offer pieces that are on par with those in big publishing houses, regardless of funds at hand. All it takes is a little effort and creativity. In fact, if there's anyone out there who has a bit of editing skill and would like to swap novels on occasion to get a second set of eyes, hit me up.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jumping in here to ask that, if anyone is going to quote Julie; they actually quote Julie--not a paraphrase by someone else of what she said. Here is what Julie actually said. I think this is the part mathew paraphrased...at any rate, I can't find anywhere where she said something that is equivalent to what he stated.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If you can't be bothered to figure out a way to make sure your book is proofed and edited, you have no business being a publisher.


If you want to read or re-read her initial post in its entirety, you can click on the top of the quote above to go back to that post.

I would have said this after mathew's post, but I was asleep...

Betsy


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

I'm sorry Betsy, but you're mistaken. Mathew Ferguson did not paraphrase. 

The offending quote was extracted word for word from the first post (3rd paragraph down):

Here it is again:

'When I read statements like “I can’t afford to get an editor so I have to wait until I make some sales” what I actually hear is “I could care less about any of my readers and only care about ME.”'

That's insulting. It's a 'flame'. No one disagrees with the premise, and her subsequent backtracking ('clarification') is more reasonable. It's the tone that was objectionable, not the overall sentiment.  Of course people should edit.

However, some of the less costly options may lead to some less than optimal results. You can't depend on some random English major to do a good job.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Point taken, I'm wrong 

However, I still consider it a paraphrase. I mean, if someone quoted six words from the beginning of Julie's post and the last six words but left out all the middle, you wouldn't say it wasn't a paraphrase, would you? And I think the words "what I actually hear is" make a difference in the meaning and tone. So I still stand by my point: if someone is going to quote Julie, quote Julie and not someone else's paraphrase.

I agree that the complete quote is a very strong statement with a very strong tone. Julie has a tendancy to do that. It's the reason I stalk her posts here.  And the rest of her post states her position quite clearly, that one should make every effort to have one's work edited, and that there are options besides actually paying for it.

Once again, all I'm saying is quote the OP, not someone else's take on it.


Betsy


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

However, Betsy is correct.

Julie never said that one EQUALED the other. She simply said when she hears one, she _thinks_ the other.

I have had a few authors contact me after I posted a review of their book in which I gave them low ratings under "editing." They inevitably whine about how they can't afford an editor. One detailed her health problems and tossed in her age as an excuse before demanding that I remove that portion of my review and rate her book solely on the merits of the story, as she didn't like what I had to say about her writing style, either.

As a reader, I don't care. As a reviewer, I don't care. As a human being? Sure, I felt sorry for her, but that didn't change the fact that I had spent my money and my time trying to wade through unedited garbage.

My point here is that saying you "can't afford an editor" is simply no excuse. As Julie pointed out, there are other avenues.

But, saying that you're going to publish manuscripts to make some money, then you will get an editor? 

Why should people pay for you to edit a book after they've already wasted their time trying to read it? It's putting the cart before the horse.


----------



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

Sigh.

Sometimes I really am ashamed to be a self-published author. And it isn't because of agents, or readers, or people who barely know me. It is because of other self-published authors. That's all I'm going to say about some of the most jaw-dropping idiotic statements I've seen in this thread. What I'd give for a "readers, don't look" tag at the end of this subject line.


----------



## Kristian &#039;TS Games&#039; Dalglish (Sep 12, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Sometimes I really am ashamed to be a self-published author. And it isn't because of agents, or readers, or people who barely know me. It is because of other self-published authors. That's all I'm going to say about some of the most jaw-dropping idiotic statements I've seen in this thread. What I'd give for a "readers, don't look" tag at the end of this subject line.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Is the horse dead yet?  Should we all move on?


Betsy


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

With all the talk of whether we have to pay to get a clean manuscript, I am not hearing much about nipping the problem in the bud and actually working on our own skills.  Brushing up on grammar, punctuation, spelling and subject and verb agreement will take any author a long way down the road towards solving this problem.  And barring learning disabilities, those skills are free for anyone who wants to work for them.

No author is going to catch all of their own mistakes.  But the mistakes that need catching can be reduced to a manageable, and possibly ignorable level if the author is willing to work really hard, instead of expecting strong storytelling to carry the day.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Point taken, I'm wrong
> 
> However, I still consider it a paraphrase. I mean, if someone quoted six words from the beginning of Julie's post and the last six words but left out all the middle, you wouldn't say it wasn't a paraphrase, would you? And I think the words "what I actually hear is" make a difference in the meaning and tone. So I still stand by my point: if someone is going to quote Julie, quote Julie and not someone else's paraphrase.
> 
> ...


I understand there are wagons circling here, and that's fine. But Betsy was correct in saying that she was not correct. A quote is a quote. A paraphrase is a rephrasing of someone's words. Matthew did both. He quoted the actual quote and he then paraphrased it to illustrate how it could be interpreted as inflammatory. What caused this thread to explode was her inflammatory and insulting wording, not her premise.

Again, who disputes that our work should not be edited? People strive to do their best, within their means, with varying results. Beta readers and English majors are not perfect. Even professional editors make mistakes. Even some of those baying the loudest here about the lack of editing have foisted faulty offerings on readers.

I have, too. My first release was mess. I'm getting better with the assistance of others, but I'm still not perfect. Noone is.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

ASparrow said:


> However, some of the less costly options may lead to some less than optimal results. You can't depend on some random English major to do a good job.


I'm really going to have to stop following this thread. I feel as though my IQ is steadily dropping trying to comprehend the logic behind some of these bizarre statements.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Sometimes I really am ashamed to be a self-published author. And it isn't because of agents, or readers, or people who barely know me. It is because of other self-published authors. That's all I'm going to say about some of the most jaw-dropping idiotic statements I've seen in this thread. What I'd give for a "readers, don't look" tag at the end of this subject line.


Would you care to clarify instead of throwing out random insults? What in particular did you find "jaw-dropping idiotic?"


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> I'm really going to have to stop following this thread. I feel as though my IQ is steadily dropping trying to comprehend the logic behind some of these bizarre statements.


Again, please explain what was so ridiculous? The OP suggested that people get their work edited by Community College students or English majors. It wasn't my logic.

Here:

"Check your community college: When I was a college student, I did a lot of comp work for businesses in the area. Why? Because I had no practical business experience and it was a way for me to build up a portfolio of professional work. I was designing brochures, flyers, ads, writing press releases, and all sorts of little projects. That gave me ammo that landed by first job with the City of Bridgeton's Public Relations department. I have real world stuff in my portfolio, not just class projects. That gave me an advantage in the marketplace.

You can place a classified ad in the college newspaper looking for an English major to serve as a volunteer editor for an independent book project. In college, the practical work experience is more important than a few bucks, because they are looking at an ugly employment marketplace when they graduate."

Betsy, please kill this thread. It's going nowhere. Can we have a vote?


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> With all the talk of whether we have to pay to get a clean manuscript, I am not hearing much about nipping the problem in the bud and actually working on our own skills.


Actually, Asher already mentioned that here:


Asher MacDonald said:


> Right. Do what gives you the most satisfaction in your finished product.
> 
> You know what trumps better proofing and editing? Better writing and better storytelling.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm locking this thread. We are no longer discussing Julie's premise but, as my coworker Major Butch Waddell (USMC) used to say, "pole-vaulting over mouse


Spoiler



turds


." 

_Edit: saw your request, ASparrow, after I posted. We are in agreement on this one! _

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

