# When You Self-Publish, You're Starting a Business



## Steerpike

This springs from a conversation I had on another forum, where a forum member was criticizing the advice that self-publishing authors who can't edit their own work should hire someone to do it. His view is that you'll never recoup the money and you're best off just doing the best you can yourself and getting the book out there. I think that is terrible advice, personally.

In a traditional publishing relationship, you have at least two entities: 1) author; and 2) publisher. The publisher bears certain expenses, including the expense of editing. When you self-publish, you're taking on both roles. You are author and publisher. So it stands to reason you're going to take on the expenses of the second role - editing, cover art, and so on. 

I think it is best viewed as starting a business. Upwards of 80% of restaurants fail in their first year, but you wouldn't tell someone who is starting a restaurant not to invest anything, not to hire staff to do things she can't do, &c. So why would someone advise a self-publishing author not to invest in their business.

Your competition isn't just people throwing up amateur work on Amazon. That's the _least_ of your competition. Your competition consist of books from traditional publishing houses and those self-published works of like quality. If you're not willing to invest in your business and do it right, why are you doing it?


----------



## Svrtnsse

When I started out I intended to do it all by myself.
I've since come to realize and appreciate the value of feedback and I've come to the conclusion that having someone else go over my text before I publish it might not be such a bad idea. When commenting on the showcase here I also realized the time investment required for this.

The way I feel about it now I'd be more than happy to pay someone to edit my work.


Again, I'll make a parallel to music. When producing a track it's generally considered a bad idea to master it yourself. Instead, you send your track off to someone else who masters it for you. You'll have listened to the track so much and so many times you're deaf to it. It'll require a fresh ear to hear what needs adjusting. I'm sure it's the same with books. You've been over the words so many times you don't notice the issues anymore.


----------



## Ankari

I agree with your post. I think that many aspiring authors think of their book as a lottery ticket. It's a chance to win that one big jackpot for such a small investment.

I'm not undermining the time spent in creating the story. I know the hours spent in front of the monitor and only producing two hundred words. But that isn't enough. This _is_ a business. You have to invest into it. I've met many people who have the next big idea (story), but when I tell them to put their money where their mind is (investing in editors and artists), they shrug their shoulders and _wish_ they had the money to do it. What?

This may sound coarse. I've been at the poverty line and know how hard it is to come by money, but I also know that you can come by money. It's the old saying, work hard, spend with care, and always make sure you're thinking of the future.

I don't think people of Gen Y (or Z) understand the true meaning of development and patience. I put words on a screen! Where's my money?

I'll admit a few things. When I first started off my project(s), I thought that, at the time, I had already invested into my dream. I sacrificed many hours, put together a little money, and sat down in front of the computer with a vague plan of conquering the fantasy world.

Then I got feedback. Thankfully, I'm blessed (cursed) with a pretty thick skin. I walked away from the first few harsh criticisms stronger, and with a more pragmatic vision of my rise to fame (I still feel that I'll conquer the fantasy world).

Now, I've taken it to the next level of understanding this industry. As you say, I know I have to delegate many tasks to professional. It's not enough just to get (excellent) beta reader feedback. I have to send off my work to an editor. And for larger pieces of work, maybe a copy editor. And to catch the eye of readers, a good/great cover artist. And to get the word out.....

You get the idea.


----------



## BWFoster78

I think opposition to this viewpoint rests on two issues:

1. The author feels he absolutely cannot afford professional services.
2. The author does not feel the service provided by the professional justifies the cost versus what a good beta reader provides.

For me, the first of those issues is not a good argument.  Let's compare starting your publishing business to opening a restaurant as Steerpike did.  If you can't afford to buy a stove and hire a chef, then maybe you shouldn't be opening a restaurant.  Sorry if that crushes your dream of owning one, but maybe you should wait until your financial circumstances change.

The second, imo, seems harder to prove.  I've seen the difference between an editor and some pretty darn good beta readers.  The editor was worth the cost all day long.  The problem is that some aspiring authors don't accept that there is such a thing as acceptable quality for a book.


----------



## Graylorne

I fully agree with Steerpike that selfpublishing is a business. Mine is, and the gods know it cost me a small fortune. I have my own publisher. It's a one-man business (me), but it is a real publisher according to Dutch law, with my own ISBN and of course, taxes.
Up to now I used a first class editor, and a first class illustrator. Marketing is another cost: book tours, free review copies, etc. But I want the same quality in my selfpublished books as I have in my trade books.

And I agree with Brian that you shouldn't selfpublish if you can't invest. Of course you can always submit your efforts to a regular publisher. 
A regular (freelance) editor is generally worth more than a beta reader to your book. In both cases it does depend on how they fit, but an editor with a long experience in publishing is preferable. Not all freelance editors have that experience, though, and then the difference could be a lot less.


----------



## Chessie

I'm definitely going to go with an editor but I have yet to figure out how to go about finding one. My husband and I make barely enough to get by right now because of his schooling and the investment we've made into my budding business. I see publishing the same way as my Ayurveda & Yoga practice: I offer the best quality in my services while continuing to educate myself so I can offer more to my students and patients. Getting an editor (already have an illustrator) is worth the investment.

I used to think otherwise, but I really want to be successful at this. There's a lot I can miss editing my own work and I want to give my stories the best chance they can have to sell. I don't think I'm going to hit the jackpot. This is a life goal and all I have to do is continue to write stories. Its all exciting and the cost of investment doesn't scare me anymore. Yes, I'm a bit poor right now but agreed, situations with money change. And if I'm unable to afford the right editor for my work when the time comes, I can always ask my parents.


----------



## Mythopoet

I agree wholeheartedly that a self-publishing author should be willing to invest in their work to make it professional. 

However, one does not necessarily need to invest money. One can invest time by learning to do as many of the tasks involved in publication as you can. Learning, for instance, to format your ebooks and print books to professional quality. If you have a good eye for design it is not very difficult to obtain and learn to use the tools to make a good book cover. If you are good at editing but not comfortable with editing your own work (some writers can, but usually only after a lot of experience) then trade your editing services with someone for something else, like that book cover. Or vice versa. 

If you are willing and able to invest money then you don't need to engage the most expensive services. There is a growing amount of freelancers you can easily find on the internet for things like covers and editing that are professional and quite affordable. Be smart about it. Shop around. 

Of course, there are different types of editing and people who advocate getting editing and people who resist it are often unclear about what they mean. Every published book absolutely needs to be copy edited for errors and inconsistencies. A good copy edit should point out spelling and grammar mistakes as well as fact checking and ensuring clarity of prose. (Ms. Author, you refer to your main character as Ben for the first half of the book and then inexplicably start calling him Steve in the second half. Make up your mind. Or Ms. Author, I read this sentence 5 times and it still makes no sense, what did you mean to write here? Or Ms. Author, you really need to learn the difference between "there", "their" and "they're".) 

However, there is another type of editing often called "story editing" or "developmental editing" where the actual content of the story is critiqued for quality. (Ms. Author, your story would be so much better if your main character wasn't a complete idiot. Or Ms. Author, I think you should cut the 5 page soliloquy about the main character's unrequited love. Or Ms. Author, "it was a dark and stormy night", seriously?) Now, I would maintain that this type of edit is NOT necessary. I don't personally believe there's any special knowledge that putting the word "editor" next to your name gives you authority to judge the "quality" of stories and charge money for it. Most writers will already have beta readers and critique partners doing this sort of thing and so paying for a story editor feels redundant to me, an unnecessary expense. (If you don't have beta readers or critique partners, of course, you probably need this type of editing.) And of course experienced authors (10+ books or so) will be good enough and confident enough to tell a good story without needing developmental editing or critique partners.


----------



## Steerpike

If you can do it all yourself, you should. A good story development editor can be valuable, and plenty of writers need it. This is, after all, one of the things editors at traditional publishing houses do. If you find one who knows what they are doing, it will be more valuable than the average beta reader. Not everyone needs it but I wouldn't discount it. If you go the traditional route, you're going to have editors who do this and know what they are doing.


----------



## BWFoster78

> However, there is another type of editing often called "story editing" or "developmental editing" where the actual content of the story is critiqued for quality. (Ms. Author, your story would be so much better if your main character wasn't a complete idiot. Or Ms. Author, I think you should cut the 5 page soliloquy about the main character's unrequited love. Or Ms. Author, "it was a dark and stormy night", seriously?) Now, I would maintain that this type of edit is NOT necessary. I don't personally believe there's any special knowledge that putting the word "editor" next to your name gives you authority to judge the "quality" of stories and charge money for it. Most writers will already have beta readers and critique partners doing this sort of thing and so paying for a story editor feels redundant to me, an unnecessary expense. (If you don't have beta readers or critique partners, of course, you probably need this type of editing.) And of course experienced authors (10+ books or so) will be good enough and confident enough to tell a good story without needing developmental editing or critique partners.



I thought I was pretty knowledgeable.  I thought that my beta readers were pretty good.  I really didn't think that my editor would be able to help me much with the "story" part of my story.

I don't know about writers with a lot of experience, but, for the first timer, I would say that a content edit is absolutely needed.

My only basis for this advice is my own experience.  My book is so, so, so much better now than it was.  Not only did my editor pointing out mistakes and making suggestions improve the book directly, but it led to me thinking even more about the plot and making more improvements.

In fact, I'd suggest that, if you had to choose between engaging a content editor and a copy editor, that a new author would do much better to engage the former.

It's not hard to get your copy to a point where it's readable.  After that point, imo, you get diminishing returns with how good you make it.  Is a reader going to enjoy your book that much more if a copy editor points out your mistakes instead of a good beta reader?

Issues regarding tension and character and plot are much more important to the reader's overall enjoyment of the novel than a few awkward sentences (assuming, obviously, that your technique isn't so awful as to be unreadable).


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> If you can do it all yourself, you should. A good story development editor can be valuable, and plenty of writers need it. This is, after all, one of the things editors at traditional publishing houses do. If you find one who knows what they are doing, it will be more valuable than the average beta reader. Not everyone needs it but I wouldn't discount it. If you go the traditional route, you're going to have editors who do this and know what they are doing.



The problem is, if the author is like me, it's hard to tell that you need a content editor until you experience what a content editor adds.  Truthfully, part of me thought I was wasting my $500.  Part of me was doing it only because the advice is that, "You need an editor."

Those parts of me were completely, totally, utterly wrong.


----------



## Svrtnsse

BWFoster78 said:


> The problem is, if the author is like me, it's hard to tell that you need a content editor until you experience what a content editor adds.  Truthfully, part of me thought I was wasting my $500.  Part of me was doing it only because the advice is that, "You need an editor."
> 
> Those parts of me were completely, totally, utterly wrong.



I guess it's one of those learning experiences we come across now and then. I to was pretty convinced I knew what I was doing before I started here. Just meeting up with others and getting feedback on what I've written has improved my writing beyond what I could imagine.
Now, yes, I don't think I'd mind shelling out that money to have an editor go over my book once I think I'm done with it.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> Issues regarding tension and character and plot are much more important to the reader's overall enjoyment of the novel than a few awkward sentences (assuming, obviously, that your technique isn't so awful as to be unreadable).



But those issues are highly subjective. Paying $500 for someone's _opinion_ about my story? No way.


----------



## Steerpike

Mythopoet said:


> But those issues are highly subjective. Paying $500 for someone's _opinion_ about my story? No way.



What you're paying for, if you have the right editor, is that person's experience with fiction and the market, and their assessment of what sells. It can be an important step for someone who wants to write commercial fiction. If you just want to write your story your way, and marketability be damned (which is a valid approach in my view), then I wouldn't bother with it.


----------



## Philip Overby

We've had this discussion before about paying for an editor vs. not paying for an editor. That the money might be better spent on excellent cover art. That's fine I think. However, I do think critique partners and beta readers may not spot everything that needs fixing. From Brian's experience, investing in an editor was a good choice for him. Others may feel like it is wasted money for them. 

I'll make an analogy because, hell I like making analogies.

When I was doing pro wrestling, I screwed up my shoulder one day trying to do a new move. My left arm went completely limp and I could only lift it up about half way. Instead of immediately going to a doctor to get it looked at, I tried to work feeling back into it. I went to the doctor who suggested I might have had a torn rotator cuff. Which meant I probably needed surgery. So in my mind, "Oh crap, lots of money." I didn't want to spend money at all, especially on an expensive surgery. She said try some exercises first to slowly get range back in my shoulder again first though and see if that worked. So I did. But I got impatient. I wanted my shoulder fixed then. So I got my wrestling buddy to essentially pop my shoulder back into socket. He wasn't a doctor. It temporarily fixed the problem, but now my left shoulder is higher than the other and I have nerve pain that shoots down into my arm and chest sometimes. Perhaps if I had waited and followed what the doctor said, I wouldn't to this day still have a messed up shoulder.

Why am I telling this story?

Because sometimes having your buddy fix a problem for free isn't enough. A professional can sometimes be the difference between a jacked-up shoulder (a poorly edited manuscript) and a healthy one (a well-edited manuscript.)


----------



## Chessie

Steerpike said:


> If you just want to write your story your way, and marketability be damned (which is a valid approach in my view), then I wouldn't bother with it.



May I ask what type of editor would be best under these circumstances then? Thank you.


----------



## Philip Overby

Chesterama said:


> May I ask what type of editor would be best under these circumstances then? Thank you.



I'd say getting a good copy editor would be enough. Someone to clean up sentences and technical issues, but not touch the content.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Publishing your work is a business, but a lot of writers don't see it that way. I'm not really sure that I do. Not completely. For many writing is a passion - as it should be - and so publishing what they've written is just the next logical step in that dream. And strangely - though it often produces poor overall results in terms of the final product - I think that's completely justifiable. Who am I to decide what other people should and should not be allowed to publish? Everyone has dreams and no one should be allowed to stand on other peoples dreams. Not even when their production of poor quality work tarnishes the reputation of self publishing in general.

Publishing only becomes a business when people start doing it in order to make money. Not everyone does. And it's then when you need to start making business decisions. But the decisions you make will vary from writer to writer.

It's very easy to say every book needs editing. It's not so easy to say every book needs professional editing. And even if you do it then becomes of what sort of editing and how much. But in businesses you have a lot of costs to consider. Yes there's editing. But there's also formating, cover design, marketing and the rest. If you spend three grand on editing do you forget the rest? Or do you get a cheap edit which may not be so good and then spend the rest on a really good cover? (By the way $3,000 was the average quote I got for editing my first book of 140k. I've never seen a professional editor look at $500.) And like it or not people do have budgets. For many people three grand is simply too much money to stump up. Do we sit back in judgement and say they shouldn't publish because they don't have the money?

My thought is that as you begin your journey as an author you do the best you can. But you always look to improve. Andso a small business hopefully becomes a bigger one. And all these business decisions become realistic ones. Over time if your books sell you can start affording more and more professional services. And if they don't that's the time to start making the hard decisions. And they begin with the most important - is this really a business foryou? Or just a passion?

For me it falls somewhere between the two. I do have an editor - actually two now. But when I first started out I didn't and there were some quality issues. However when my second book started selling in numbers I upped my game recognising that I needed to go for that quality. I have never yet bought a cover (though I am considering it for an upcoming book), but that's because I have slowly learned not only how to make a reasonable cover myself, but because I have started to enjoy the process. It has become part of the artistic endeavour and I would be reluctant to give it away. And as to marketing I simply don't do it. The thought of standing out there hawking my books is simply distasteful to me. (And I'm lazy!) And probably for that I've paid a price in terms of sales. But at the same time when I'm on some of the various writing fora and seeing the endless posts about marketing strategies, price changes, who to get to review, mail lists etc etc it not only leaves me cold, it leaves me with an obvious question. When do you write? Too many of these other business minded self publishers seem to spend hours and hours every day marketing their work. I just write. And that's where my passion lies.

So is publishing a business? My thought is that the answer to that question will vary wildly with the publisher. For me it's somewhere between a business and a passion.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Greg has a valid point.

For some writers, publishing is a business. It's about getting quality work out there to readers. It's about giving readers something that they will find worthwhile, so that the reader will come back for more of your work, so that you can make some level of income from your profession. Ideally, maybe even make a decent living from your profession.

For other writers, publishing is simply a logical extension of a passion for writing. The writer loves writing. The writer wants to see their work made available. So the writer puts her work out there, publishes it, because that fulfills the writer's need to be published. For that writer, it's not about income - and in most cases, income will indeed be low. But that's ok, because it's about the writer accomplishing the thing he was passionate about, not about the money.

To me, the difference between the two paths is all about focus.

The first writer is doing things for the readers: to give the reader the best experience possible.
The second writer is publishing for him or herself: to achieve a personal goal or tick something off a bucket list.

Don't misunderstand: NEITHER is wrong.

But they're very different.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Someone up above said that the poor quality books out there are the least of your competition. Fact is, they are NOT your competition. Poor quality books are out of the running, pretty much automatically. Yours included, if you produce crap.

Readers don't buy crap. They have hundreds of thousands of good ebooks to choose from. Why would they ever read something boring or uninteresting?

Bad books have never sold well. But bad books will continue doing WORSE as time goes on. So consider a professional level production the MINIMUM bar for entry to make decent sales from a book. Those midlist novels you see Big NYC publishers kicking out? That is the LOW end of the bar you must hit to have a decent chance.

And the competition is heating up. People are getting better. More savvy. Faster. Stronger at production methods. In 2014, the writers who do well will be producing outstanding content, and lots of it.


Ok, the other thing being talked about is editing. A lot has been said already. I'll add a couple of brief comments.

1) The proofreading myth is a myth. The whole "you can't proofread your own work because you're too close to it" meme? Yeah. Totally false. If you can't proofread your own work, it's because you're a lousy proofreader (technically, copy editor), not because of some sort of innate failing among humans to actually spot basic grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors in things we write. If you're a lousy proofreader, hire a better one. Or get better at it yourself. Or both. But that stupid myth is annoying. 

2) Your need for an editor is inversely proportional to your experience as a writer. That should be obvious. It somehow tends not to be... So a few examples. John Scalzi wrote s book a while back, blogging about his process. Took him two months to write the novel. On the last day, he gave the book a read over once, looking for any obvious errors to save his NYC big publisher editor some time. Then he sent it. His first draft, which he'd gone over for a little while looking for typos. He said on his blog he expected perhaps as many as a few dozen words to be changed before publication.

That is John Scalzi. He has many *millions* of words of professional prose to his credit, in a wide variety of forms. You and I are not John Scalzi (unless he is lurking here reading this - hi, John!).

The less experienced you are, the more developmental editing you are likely to need. It has been said that until you've written your first million words, you're still in your apprenticeship. Consider then: most trad pub authors have written a couple of novels before being published. And most don't publish more than a half dozen novels in a career before fading away. So most trad pub authors (not the big names, but most of the rest) are still in those first million words. They're still effectively apprentices at the craft.

Of course they need editors.

As you improve, your need for editing will diminish. Your ability to tell a good story without major flaws will improve. In fact, at some point, you will be better at writing new stories than most editors are at editing new stories. And perhaps the worst thing for any novel is a developmental editor who is less skilled than the writer.

But in the beginning? The more editorial help you can get, from EXPERIENCED editors, the better. You will actually learn from everything they edit. You will improve your own writing ENORMOUSLY from each good editing experience. It's not just about improving that work, when you're a new writer (first million words). It's also about improving all your future works. And a good editor can help you do that.


----------



## Philip Overby

> And as to marketing I simply don't do it. The thought of standing out there hawking my books is simply distasteful to me. (And I'm lazy!) And probably for that I've paid a price in terms of sales. But at the same time when I'm on some of the various writing fora and seeing the endless posts about marketing strategies, price changes, who to get to review, mail lists etc etc it not only leaves me cold, it leaves me with an obvious question. When do you write? Too many of these other business minded self publishers seem to spend hours and hours every day marketing their work. I just write. And that's where my passion lies.



Sorry, I don't quite understand this. I get not hocking your books endlessly or anything, but no marketing? I mean marketing is basically telling people about your book existing. I don't really see how that's tasteless. There are ways to promote your book without coming off like a spam bot. But I don't understand just publishing something and letting it sit there. It's like Field of Dreams, if you write it, they will come. 

A lot of really good and not tasteless people do marketing for their books. Sure, limiting this aspect to focus more on the next book makes sense, but simply not doing it? I don't see how that works. Any insight into how you sell books otherwise would be interesting. I'm not being sarcastic by the way, I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

To me no - marketing my books is distasteful. It would make me feel like a fraud. But hey I have the same problem going for job interviews. Even when I speak to the qualifications I actually have I feel as though I'm lying. I hate it. I don't want to do it - and so I don't.

As to how I sell, it's purely by writing. Write more books is my mantra, and it's what I do. So I have sixteen books out, eleven of them novels, and I simply hope that with a good cover and blurb and a decent story they'll sell. Currently I'm selling a little over a thousand books a month which is I think reasonable given my lack of advertising, and I plan on increasing those numbers simply by writing more books. In February I plan on releasing my next novel and a short story which I began here in the challenges. And my goal for the year is six novels out.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Greg, it's a workable model. Most people don't have the...whatever...work ethic maybe? ...involved in getting that sort of volume out there. I'm working on a 480k word year, and most of the people i know think I'm crazy. 

But yes, if you produce enough volume of good books for long enough, you will make sales even without marketing. Been demonstrated time and again that this model works.


----------



## Chessie

Unless I'm looking in the wrong places, I'm not finding a lot of productive resources on self-publishing. I want to do the best job I can in putting professional works out there, but I don't know how to properly look for an editor. I have a cover artist and I intend on learning how to do formatting, etc because I'm good at those things. Self-publishing is a business but how does one best prepare to be good?


----------



## BWFoster78

Chesterama said:


> Unless I'm looking in the wrong places, I'm not finding a lot of productive resources on self-publishing. I want to do the best job I can in putting professional works out there, but I don't know how to properly look for an editor. I have a cover artist and I intend on learning how to do formatting, etc because I'm good at those things. Self-publishing is a business but how does one best prepare to be good?



I would think that the best source of editors is to ask an author you like for a reference.

What worked for me was to go to elance.com.  With my job posting, I put up a sample of my work.  The editor that I chose was the one who commented on the things I really wanted help with.  I didn't care so much that this sentence wasn't a well constructed as it could have been; I wanted to know what I was doing wrong with the story that was making it less tense and less interesting.

That approach worked out really well, but, again, I knew exactly what I wanted.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Chesterama,

First, Kindleboards - the Writers Cafe, do some searching and you'll find loads of threads about editors, cover makers and other professionals, and you can usually PM the guys there if you want and a lot of them will be happy to tell you who they use. They're also big into marketing so if that's your thing you'll find endless threads about how they do it.

Also check your local writers body site. So if I wanted a local professional I'd go to the New Zealand Society of Authors and check their listings.

For covers if you want one made specifically for you try Deviant Art. There's a lot of them and they're usually not too dear.

For formatting etc, both Smashwords and CreateSpace have quite good sections which cover what's wanted.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Motley

I'm with Psychotick on the marketing, except in my case I believe it stems from fear or lack of self esteem. I find it very uncomfortable to talk about myself or something I've done. Probably should just get over that.

I do agree that self-publishing should be done as a business if you want to make money with it. You need to be able to separate yourself from the starving artist mentality. I've come across several people who seemed to believe that if you were making money with your fiction, you were automatically a hack and a sell-out... to what I'm not sure.


----------



## taiwwa

I would consider this, except I don't even know where to start with finding an editor. 

And finding an editor worth working with...


----------



## Mythopoet

taiwwa said:


> I would consider this, except I don't even know where to start with finding an editor.



Try googling "free lance editor". I found this off the first page of results: GalleyCat's Freelance Editor Directory

Or ask other writers who they use. Do some research. It's really not that hard.


----------



## Chilari

taiwwa said:


> I would consider this, except I don't even know where to start with finding an editor.
> 
> And finding an editor worth working with...



Try Fiverr if it's a copyeditor, and not a structural editor, you're looking for. Try one out on there, and buy one gig from them - $5 - and if they're good and they do what you want, keep at it with the same person. Depending on how much work is offered for each gig (it varied from 500 words to 2,500 words, from what I've seen), if you get a good person who does work at the upper word range per gig you might be able to get a novel of 80,000 words done for $200 or even less - a lot cheaper that a more established editor. If the first editor you try isn't what you're looking for, it's only cost you $5 to find that out - no contracts, no legal battles, no fuss. And then you can try another.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari said:


> Try Fiverr if it's a copyeditor, and not a structural editor, you're looking for. Try one out on there, and buy one gig from them - $5 - and if they're good and they do what you want, keep at it with the same person. Depending on how much work is offered for each gig (it varied from 500 words to 2,500 words, from what I've seen), if you get a good person who does work at the upper word range per gig you might be able to get a novel of 80,000 words done for $200 or even less - a lot cheaper that a more established editor. If the first editor you try isn't what you're looking for, it's only cost you $5 to find that out - no contracts, no legal battles, no fuss. And then you can try another.



Chilari,

Most editors will do a free sample edit of a chapter.  In my case, the first chapter was over 2000 words, and just about all the applicants on elance gave me their comments on it.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

I think you are absolutely correct. Just because it CAN be free to self-publish doesn't mean you SHOULD.  I have  pretty simple standard, anything I put out has to stand toe-to-toe with releases coming from New York.  If that means I have to hire people to get it to that quality...I'll do it.  If I can still put out a book that is indistinguishable from a traditional publisher, then "it's all good."

That being said, it may mean that when you have your "business hat on" it might not make sense to pull the trigger. If you have a work that you deem will cost $1,000 - $1,500 to get to a professional level and you calculate you'll only make $300 - $500, then it's probably not the right move.  Traditional publishers do this kind of cost analysis all the time, and it's often why a book is rejected.  Just because you are the author AND publisher doesn't mean you shouldn't make similar decisions.


----------



## STBURNS

Wow, really good thread and some great insight.
I am, by no means, a writing master. I found out early that I have trouble editing my work. It is nice if you have a publishing team to troubleshoot plot holes, writing errors and such. I for one believe it is always good to have someone look at your novel. Am extra set of eyes is not a bad thing. But as mentioned, if you don't have a publisher, it will cost you on those services.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

STBURNS said:


> Wow, really good thread and some great insight.
> I am, by no means, a writing master. I found out early that I have trouble editing my work. It is nice if you have a publishing team to troubleshoot plot holes, writing errors and such. I for one believe it is always good to have someone look at your novel. Am extra set of eyes is not a bad thing. But as mentioned, if you don't have a publisher, it will cost you on those services.



One thing to keep in mind...in today's publishing environment publishers are looking for very "clean" manuscripts that won't require a great deal of developmental editing.  If you have significant plot holes, or will need extensive re-writes you aren't going to get signed.  They just don't have the time or resources to hold your hand through the process.  Any large publisher will do structural editing, but the comments are going to be minor and relatively easy to address.  A small publisher will probably do only copy/line editing and accept the "story" in a "as is state." 

Personally, I think hiring structural editing is expensive and VERY subjective.  I suggest you need to get your book to a "publishable quality" on your own - maybe with the help of friends, doing critiques with other authors, and beta readers.  There are a lot of "aspiring writers" who will structurally edit your work, but they may end up making it worse rather than better. The only structural edits I trust is from someone who has been in the business a VERY long time and has an established track record.   (A good example is a structural editor I used for Hollow World: Betsy Mitchell who was the editor-in-chief at Del Rey for more than a decade and has edited more than 150 books including many bestsellers and award winners.  She comes with a REALLY high price tag ($200/hour)  but because my manuscript was clean, and my pockets deep.  I could afford her services. I wouldn't recommend most people starting out to hire that caliber of editor.


----------



## Ankari

MichaelSullivan said:


> I think you are absolutely correct. Just because it CAN be free to self-publish doesn't mean you SHOULD.  I have  pretty simple standard, anything I put out has to stand toe-to-toe with releases coming from New York.  If that means I have to hire people to get it to that quality...I'll do it.  If I can still put out a book that is indistinguishable from a traditional publisher, then "it's all good."
> 
> That being said, it may mean that when you have your "business hat on" it might not make sense to pull the trigger. If you have a work that you deem will cost $1,000 - $1,500 to get to a professional level and you calculate you'll only make $300 - $500, then it's probably not the right move.  Traditional publishers do this kind of cost analysis all the time, and it's often why a book is rejected.  Just because you are the author AND publisher doesn't mean you shouldn't make similar decisions.



Unless, I would think, it's part of a long term strategy of creating enough bodies of work that suggests legitimacy. I often hear that authors didn't start selling until their third or fourth published book.


----------



## BWFoster78

Ankari said:


> Unless, I would think, it's part of a long term strategy of creating enough bodies of work that suggests legitimacy. I often hear that authors didn't start selling until their third or fourth published book.



Hmmm.

This strategy depends on the assumption that quantity is the sole reason for the success.  My understanding of reading posts advocating that "your best bet is to publish another book" is that the success comes from people reading a quality book of yours then searching your other books for another quality publication.

The first time a reader encounters something substandard, it can derail future purchases.

Case in point: I read about a guy who was purported to be a decent writer.  He had quite a few books out (can't remember exact quantity, but over half a dozen).  His first novel was being offered for free, and I downloaded and read it.

It pretty much stunk.

Even though I know he probably improved greatly from that one based on comments/posts that I read, I had absolutely no desire to read anything else of his.


----------



## Ankari

BWFoster78 said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> This strategy depends on the assumption that quantity is the sole reason for the success.  My understanding of reading posts advocating that "your best bet is to publish another book" is that the success comes from people reading a quality book of yours then searching your other books for another quality publication.
> 
> The first time a reader encounters something substandard, it can derail future purchases.
> 
> Case in point: I read about a guy who was purported to be a decent writer.  He had quite a few books out (can't remember exact quantity, but over half a dozen).  His first novel was being offered for free, and I downloaded and read it.
> 
> It pretty much stunk.
> 
> Even though I know he probably improved greatly from that one based on comments/posts that I read, I had absolutely no desire to read anything else of his.



I discuss the topic of authors reading a book versus readers reading a book al the time with non authors. They'll ask me about my writing, and when they can expect my book to come out. They've read my short stories I've published, or are about to publish, and they want to read the "big one."

I tell them about the things that bother me about my current skill of writing. i tell them what is lacking, and what I plan to do to improve it. After I'm done, they look at me like I sprouted a new head. I ask them what's wrong, and they tell me that they noticed none of that in any of my writing. They tell me that what I wrote before seemed as good or better than what they read from other authors.

After vigorously reinforcing my argument (who wants false positive reinforcements!), they shrug their shoulders and chalk it up to an artist's self criticism. They feel that we, as authors, are too hard on ourselves.

I stopped reading novels for a few months. I didn't want other works to influence mine. But I recently joined the book club and started again. I felt the judging eye push aside the reader's. I scanned for any flaw, any small tidbit, if changed, would make the story better. I then recalled the conversations about authors and their higher level of criticism. After pushing aside the judging eye, I enjoyed the story the way I haven't in a long time.

I think we, as authors, need to meet a certain standard of production. This is why I agree that we pay people to do the job that we can't do. Editing, cover art. marketing, web design, etc. Once our final product meets the standard; no grammar mistakes, no spelling mistakes, a coherent plot, identifiable characters and enough content to justify the price, everything else is left to opinion.

I'm reading a book recently linked to these forums entitled Write. Publish. Repeat. From what I've read, their advise is similar to the intention behind my previous post.

It's a good book for all self publishers.


----------



## BWFoster78

Ankari,

Here's my experience as reading as an author:

If the writing is good, I don't notice the writing.  I'm drawn into the book and experiencing it as the author intended.  The author can break every writing rule under the sun, and I don't care.

if the writing doesn't draw me into the book, I get bored and start searching for "why?"  Perhaps it is harder, now, for an author to draw me into the book, but, truthfully, shouldn't the goal be to be good enough that you can draw even authors in?  Is your standard really that, "I want to be good enough that most readers won't see my flaws?"

If that's what you want, go ahead.

I think what bothers me most about the attitude expressed above is the lack of discernment you imply the average reader has.  Maybe he won't notice that you used too many words here or told there when you should have shown.  I think that, overall, a lot of readers will notice that the book read slower than they would have liked and they just couldn't get that into it.

It also fails to account for the fact that a reader doesn't have to be an author to expect good writing.  See Chuck's anecdote about the reader who stopped buying books in the 4.99 to 5.99 price range because she noticed the poor quality.

My thinking is that it is difficult to get your book in front of a reader in the first place.  Of those who do see your book, you're going to lose a lot of them simply because your concept, a matter of purely personal taste, doesn't appeal to them.  Of the ones remaining, can you really afford to lose the most discerning of your readers and all the authors (who also read) because your quality isn't there yet?  Also, I would think that, for the most part, book bloggers and reviewers fall into that category of more discerning readers.  It seems like almost every strategy for marketing I run across relies to some degree on getting reviews and getting your book on blogs.

EDIT: Note that I'm talking in general here and not commenting on the current quality of your writing.  The last thing of yours that I read was the Jobe origin story.  I thought that piece was very solid.


----------



## Ankari

BWFoster78 said:


> Ankari,
> 
> Here's my experience as reading as an author:
> 
> If the writing is good, I don't notice the writing.  I'm drawn into the book and experiencing it as the author intended.  The author can break every writing rule under the sun, and I don't care.
> 
> if the writing doesn't draw me into the book, I get bored and start searching for "why?"  Perhaps it is harder, now, for an author to draw me into the book, but, truthfully, shouldn't the goal be to be good enough that you can draw even authors in?  Is your standard really that, "I want to be good enough that most readers won't see my flaws?"



I have a hard time understanding what you mean by "good writing" since you follow it up with "The author can break every writing rule under the sun, and I don't care."

Do you mean the story is engaging?

I don't think anyone wants to become mediocre, or sub par. I don't. Trust me, I'll sit in front of a computer and agonize over a dialogue segment, wanting it to flow naturally.

My point is this:

1) If beta readers thought your story was engaging, move to criteria 2.
2) If you've put the work through the number of revisions that make you feel comfortable with your work, move to criteria 3.
3) If you've acquired professional editing, move to criteria 4.
4) If you've acquired professional cover art, move to criteria 5.
5) If you've established a marketing presence, you're book is ready to publish. Now start on the next one.

This is my point. I'm telling people to make sure their work has been professionally modified and beautified. After that, you're success will come from the number of books you have published.

As for your example, I think authors become better as they continue to write. It then only makes sense his first book is potentially worse than his later ones. I have the intention of editing my first novelette, expanding it, and redoing the cover for that same reason. All this will come as I get ready to publish other works.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I have a hard time understanding what you mean by "good writing" since you follow it up with "The author can break every writing rule under the sun, and I don't care."



Apparently, you feel that "good writing" is accomplished by following the rules?

I tend to feel that the rules are a good place to start learning how to write and are a benefit until one figures out how to discern what works and what doesn't.  Hopefully, however, we can avoid this interesting discussion devolving into yet another rules argument.

I will agree that defining "good writing" is difficult.  I agree with Chuck that Awesome Indies made a pretty good start, but, truthfully, is it possible to break just about everything that AI lists as criteria and still have a good, well-written story?  Yes.

My contention is that "good writing" is like the judge said about pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

I really do feel that most discerning readers and authors, if they're making the attempt to objectively judge a book, can say with a fairly high degree of certainty, "This book is good or bad."  And I think they can make that statement putting aside their personal feelings on whether or not they liked it.

Some books are just good.  Some books are just bad.

Yes, there is a degree of subjectivity, but I think that, again if everyone participating is trying to be reasonable and objective, you can get a pretty good concurrence on which is which.



> Do you mean the story is engaging?



I think that "entertaining" is a better objective criteria.  After all, if a fiction book isn't entertaining, what, exactly, is it's purpose?

Perhaps a better measure, though, is, "Did it meet the author's goal?"

Some authors seek to be thought-provoking, some humorous, some engaging, etc. There's a market for each.



> don't think anyone wants to become mediocre, or sub par. I don't. Trust me,



What I took from your comments in regard to my response to your first post is, "Readers accept a much lower standard than authors."

I'm not sure if you meant to say that, but that's the way I read it.

The implication of that statement, in my mind, is, "You don't need to write at a super high quality to publish, only good enough to meet the demands of the reader."

To which, I replied, "Don't underestimate readers."



> My point is this:
> 
> 1) If beta readers thought your story was engaging, move to criteria 2.
> 2) If you've put the work through the number of revisions that make you feel comfortable with your work, move to criteria 3.
> 3) If you've acquired professional editing, move to criteria 4.
> 4) If you've acquired professional cover art, move to criteria 5.
> 5) If you've established a marketing presence, you're book is ready to publish. Now start on the next one.
> 
> This is my point. I'm telling people to make sure their work has been professionally modified and beautified. After that, you're success will come from the number of books you have published.



Is that enough?

Maybe.  I don't know.  Perhaps I hope so.

All I do know is that there are a freaking ton of books being produced on a daily basis.  It takes something special to stand out.  Authors like Michael Sullivan and Joe Hill wrote a whole lot of novels before they actually hit upon one worthy of being published.  Are we as good as we think we are?


----------



## STBURNS

Michael,
You make excellent points. In the music industry, they expect a higher quality demo than they did years ago. From a business perspective, I understand. The chances of a publishing company seeing the potential for a story and the cost to make it readable are factors.
I guess the only question I have is: If you get signed to a publisher, will they always expect such a level of perfection for a manuscript?
That seems like a lot of pressure.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Ankari said:


> Unless, I would think, it's part of a long term strategy of creating enough bodies of work that suggests legitimacy. I often hear that authors didn't start selling until their third or fourth published book.



I've always said that "Three is a magic number" (and even have a post on that fact).  So yes, you have to get to that number before you can expect much in the way of success.  But...and here is the important point. All three of those have to be at that HIGH QUALITY INDISTINGUISHABLE level.  If you put out something sub-standard as book #1, no one will read book 2 or book 3.  So no - I can think of no scenario where it behooves an author to put out anything that isn't the very best it can be.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> This strategy depends on the assumption that quantity is the sole reason for the success.  My understanding of reading posts advocating that "your best bet is to publish another book" is that the success comes from people reading a quality book of yours then searching your other books for another quality publication.



I agree 100% percent.



BWFoster78 said:


> Even though I know he probably improved greatly from that one based on comments/posts that I read, I had absolutely no desire to read anything else of his.



It is absolutely true that you only have one chance to make a good first impression. If you miss that chance you may never have another.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

STBURNS said:


> Michael,
> You make excellent points. In the music industry, they expect a higher quality demo than they did years ago. From a business perspective, I understand. The chances of a publishing company seeing the potential for a story and the cost to make it readable are factors.
> 
> I guess the only question I have is: If you get signed to a publisher, will they always expect such a level of perfection for a manuscript?
> That seems like a lot of pressure.



I can't speak for all publishers, I'm just relaying what Devi Pillali (editor-in-chief at Orbit) has said to me on several occasions which is, "I won't sign a book that I don't think is already good enough to release as is."  Now don't take that to mean that they don't do structural or copy editing - because they indeed do both.  But the point she makes is during her structural edits she brings up what she feels would be necessary to improve the book.  But, and here are is the important fact...the comments she makes are suggestions not mandates. If the author does them, great...if not...well the book was already good enough or she wouldn't have signed it in the first place.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Wow! She won't sign a book unless it's already good enough to release as is? Or another way of saying they're getting really lazy at Orbit and don't want to do anything at all (like editing) for their money! Surely having access to professional editing is one of the advantages of going trade vs indie?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## BWFoster78

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Wow! She won't sign a book unless it's already good enough to release as is? Or another way of saying they're getting really lazy at Orbit and don't want to do anything at all (like editing) for their money! Surely having access to professional editing is one of the advantages of going trade vs indie?
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



The moves Michael brings up make sense to me.  A vital part of being a successful business is managing risk.

Every book the publisher invests in has the potential of having negligible sales and, thus, losing all the money the publisher put into it and the author advance.  Take two books:

Book 1 - If the author agrees to make substantial changes to the content and copy, it might be pretty good.
Book 2 - The book is already pretty good.  It may be better with minor changes.

I'd choose to publish Book 2 all day long.  Much less risk as there's one less layer of uncertainty.  Assuming they're getting enough submissions in the Book 2 category, and I would think that they are, why would they choose anything in the Book 1 category?

The advantages of traditional publishing are unchanged.  The author still does not pay for the editing services that are provided or the cover or the marketing costs, and the author still gets an advance.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Wow! She won't sign a book unless it's already good enough to release as is? Or another way of saying they're getting really lazy at Orbit and don't want to do anything at all (like editing) for their money! Surely having access to professional editing is one of the advantages of going trade vs indie?
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Greg, this isn't anything new. When I was first writing, back in the late 80s through mid 90s, it was the same thing. Publishers have ALWAYS had not just more submissions than they could possibly produce, but more GOOD submissions than they could possibly produce.

In other words, every month, editors at every major publishing company are turning away novels that require no significant editing. They are turning down novels that are so good, they could go to print as is, with perhaps a few words tweaked here or there.

If they are turning down novels that good, why on Earth would they accept novels that did not meet that standard?

If you have a truly AWESOME story, an editor might overlook a few rough edges and put his or her reputation on the line for you, go to bat for the book, and try to get it bought. But it would have to be simply amazing. The fact is, the minimum bar to be bought by a major publisher is generally to submit a publication ready book. And that's been the case for decades now.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Guys,

Turn that around a little bit. My thought would be that if you were a commercial publisher who wanted to sell books you should really be after the very best / most saleable stories you could get. If the writer's work isn't edited to a standard of a published book then that would be of less importance since you can always improve a books editing relatively easily through the services of an editor, but changing the story etc is something else entirely. That really requires an author.

And then look at it from the other POV. If a trade publisher isn't interested in providing a quality editing service to me as an author, then that's one less reason I would have for looking at going trade vs indie.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Wow! She won't sign a book unless it's already good enough to release as is? Or another way of saying they're getting really lazy at Orbit and don't want to do anything at all (like editing) for their money! Surely having access to professional editing is one of the advantages of going trade vs indie?
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



I think you need to read my post again.  They do structural editing, and in some case their recommendations can be extensive - I know David Dalghish's book had quite a few changes.  But they are not interested in a book that "isn't ready for primetime." When signing a book they don't want to be in a position where key changes would need to be performed to get it to the level Devi wants it.  She wants something that passes their seal of approval even IF nothing were changed.  Now during structural editing the author is going to agree with some things, disagree with others, but whether they make them or not - she still has a book she believes in because it was at that level before she adds her contribution.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> The moves Michael brings up make sense to me.  A vital part of being a successful business is managing risk.
> 
> Every book the publisher invests in has the potential of having negligible sales and, thus, losing all the money the publisher put into it and the author advance.  Take two books:
> 
> Book 1 - If the author agrees to make substantial changes to the content and copy, it might be pretty good.
> Book 2 - The book is already pretty good.  It may be better with minor changes.
> 
> I'd choose to publish Book 2 all day long.  Much less risk as there's one less layer of uncertainty.  Assuming they're getting enough submissions in the Book 2 category, and I would think that they are, why would they choose anything in the Book 1 category?
> 
> The advantages of traditional publishing are unchanged.  The author still does not pay for the editing services that are provided or the cover or the marketing costs, and the author still gets an advance.



You've got it correct.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

psychotick said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Turn that around a little bit. My thought would be that if you were a commercial publisher who wanted to sell books you should really be after the very best / most saleable stories you could get. If the writer's work isn't edited to a standard of a published book then that would be of less importance since you can always improve a books editing relatively easily through the services of an editor, but changing the story etc is something else entirely. That really requires an author.
> 
> And then look at it from the other POV. If a trade publisher isn't interested in providing a quality editing service to me as an author, then that's one less reason I would have for looking at going trade vs indie.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



There are two types of editing...structural and copy/line.  Structural editing isn't really done by the editor - in other words they aren't going to go in and rewrite your books.  Their editing comes in the form of a "letter" that gives overall impressions of strengths and weaknesses.  Then comments inline in the book such as - Need more description here.  I don't get who xyz is?  I don't buy this premise.  Then it's the author's responsibility to take this feedback, go back and change the things that they agree with, and ignore the things that they don't. 

After those changes it goes back to the structural editing for approval & acceptance or, in the rare situation, it would be rejected and the advance would be returned and the contract cancelled.  This is a bad place to be in, and why Devi wants books that are at a certain level as the chances of getting to the "reject" phase is low.

Once D&A has passed then the copy editor comes on board and they are actually changing the words.  They'll point out clumsy sentences, fix grammar errors etc.  They also find errors such as a person who stands and walks across a room and then later is seen standing up from their chair again.  Their changes are put in the manuscript in the form of track changes that the author can accept or reject. Sometimes they'll point out something that requires a re-write but usually only a sentence or two at that point.

Later on there is the proofer - after the layout another set of eyes catches anything the copy/line editor misses.  So every book has at least three sets of eyes on it, and sometimes more...if structural edits go back and forth for a few iterations (which is rare).  

What they are providing IS quality editing.  And I learned a great deal after going through the process six times now.  But if you think they are going to take a good idea with poor execution and spend months and multiple iterations to get to a minimum level  that they feel comfortable - putting out there. Well, you just don't understand the environment.  Publishers put out many books in short periods of times and everyone is overworked.  They don't have the time to do what you are suggesting.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

I didn't say poor execution, just not up to the standard where a book is ready to be published. 

But your posts are contradictory. In one the books already have to be up to that standard to be accepted, in which case you would have to ask yourself why they're editing at all - guilding the lily? And in the next if they're fixing things like typos, continuity errors, grammar and clumsy sentences then they clearly weren't up to that standard to begin with.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## BWFoster78

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I didn't say poor execution, just not up to the standard where a book is ready to be published.
> 
> But your posts are contradictory. In one the books already have to be up to that standard to be accepted, in which case you would have to ask yourself why they're editing at all - guilding the lily? And in the next if they're fixing things like typos, continuity errors, grammar and clumsy sentences then they clearly weren't up to that standard to begin with.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



I don't think that there's a contradiction as much as y'all are perhaps just not understanding each other.

I think that Michael is saying that:

The publisher chooses books that contain a good, well told story.  The editing process is then one of polishing and finishing.

The contrast to the book above is one where the author has a kernel of a good story but did not have the skill level necessary to properly execute it.  The publisher reads this one and thinks, "Okay.  This could be good, but, will we have to spend too much time and effort getting the author's ability up to speed?  Is there too much risk that the author just won't be able to get there at all?"

He's saying that, if your writing ability isn't at the "polishing and finishing" level, then you're pretty much wasting your time submitting.

I think that another thing you may be misunderstanding is the concept that the presence of "typos, continuity errors, grammar and clumsy sentences" exclude a work from being high quality.  Tension and story are so, so much more important than little things like this.  

If you submit a great story to a publisher that just grabs his interest, I don't think he's going to care a lick if you have no clue where to place a comma.  Little things like grammar are easy to fix.  Having a fantastic idea and an interesting character but not being able to effectively tell the story and develop that character are not easy to fix.

EDIT: Just a caution not to take the part about "not caring a lick if you have no clue where to place a comma" too literally.  I think that, overall, good grammar and punctuation help you communicate clearly.  If your knowledge in that area is so lacking as to impair your ability to communicate, I think it could turn off a publisher before he gets a chance to evaluate your story.


----------



## Mythopoet

I think editing of any sort done by traditional publishing editors is not nearly as common anymore as many think. I've seen many authors who claim that their books got next to no editing or even no editing at all before being published.

Much of traditional publishing takes the attitude that some people here are decrying. Basically, grab all the rights, throw it out there and see if it sticks. If it does, awesome, rake in the cash. If it doesn't, drop the author.


----------



## Chessie

From a business standpoint, it makes sense for publishing houses to do this. Since they aren't the ones technically creating the product (ie the book), then they have to rely on the author to bring them outstanding material from the beginning. There is an overload of stories they get and only have X amount of funds, time and people to work on it. No one ever knows exactly how well/not well a book is going to sell so if a publisher invests in a not-so-polished manuscript, that takes time and resources away from stories that are ready for the market. I don't fault them for that.


----------



## Mythopoet

Chesterama said:


> From a business standpoint, it makes sense for publishing houses to do this. Since they aren't the ones technically creating the product (ie the book), then they have to rely on the author to bring them outstanding material from the beginning. There is an overload of stories they get and only have X amount of funds, time and people to work on it. No one ever knows exactly how well/not well a book is going to sell so if a publisher invests in a not-so-polished manuscript, that takes time and resources away from stories that are ready for the market. I don't fault them for that.



I wouldn't fault them for it either except that the entire industry builds itself up by assuring authors that they will be "nurtured" and that their careers will be "grown" by the publisher. Also because the publishers are seriously into grabbing as many rights for as long as they possible can from the authors. This can result in an author's career being damaged or outright destroyed fairly easily. If you are offered a contract from a publisher you're going to have to do some hardcore negotiation to get it to the point where it actually benefits the author and doesn't give all of the advantages to the publisher. Draconian contracts are boilerplate these days. You have to negotiate from a very strong position to get a publisher to change anything. And no, almost all agents are not remotely qualified to do this for you, even if they were willing to, which most are not because it puts them in a bad position with the publisher. An IP lawyer would be qualified and would actually work for the author. 

So basically, the publishing industry in general is doing the bare minimum to help authors succeed while lying about it to the authors. And if the authors don't happen to succeed then it's highly likely that their contract with the publisher is going to damage their career permanently. I can fault the industry for that.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

psychotick said:


> I didn't say poor execution, just not up to the standard where a book is ready to be published.
> 
> But your posts are contradictory. In one the books already have to be up to that standard to be accepted, in which case you would have to ask yourself why they're editing at all - guilding the lily? And in the next if they're fixing things like typos, continuity errors, grammar and clumsy sentences then they clearly weren't up to that standard to begin with.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



I think you are misunderstanding.  Saying there are typos or missing commas isn't an indication that something isn't "up to a standard to begin with."  The main determination in signing a book is going to be the story and the characters. They expect that copy editing is going to be required - that is budgeted into the project.  Now if there are so many errors per page that it distracts from the story and the editor just can't read it....then yeah it's not going to make it through the first pass.  But the person acquiring the book is making their determination primarily on the author's ability to spin a good tale.  They don't care about the "exact word" - which will be cleaned up by copy editing. When I say "up to a publishable standard" I mean that the story is a compelling one and doesn't have major plot holes, plotting issues, or character problems that would require major rewriting to get it whipped into shape.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't think that there's a contradiction as much as y'all are perhaps just not understanding each other.
> 
> I think that Michael is saying that:
> 
> The publisher chooses books that contain a good, well told story.  The editing process is then one of polishing and finishing.
> 
> The contrast to the book above is one where the author has a kernel of a good story but did not have the skill level necessary to properly execute it.  The publisher reads this one and thinks, "Okay.  This could be good, but, will we have to spend too much time and effort getting the author's ability up to speed?  Is there too much risk that the author just won't be able to get there at all?"
> 
> He's saying that, if your writing ability isn't at the "polishing and finishing" level, then you're pretty much wasting your time submitting.
> 
> I think that another thing you may be misunderstanding is the concept that the presence of "typos, continuity errors, grammar and clumsy sentences" exclude a work from being high quality.  Tension and story are so, so much more important than little things like this.
> 
> If you submit a great story to a publisher that just grabs his interest, I don't think he's going to care a lick if you have no clue where to place a comma.  Little things like grammar are easy to fix.  Having a fantastic idea and an interesting character but not being able to effectively tell the story and develop that character are not easy to fix.
> 
> EDIT: Just a caution not to take the part about "not caring a lick if you have no clue where to place a comma" too literally.  I think that, overall, good grammar and punctuation help you communicate clearly.  If your knowledge in that area is so lacking as to impair your ability to communicate, I think it could turn off a publisher before he gets a chance to evaluate your story.



Exactly - that indeed explains what I was trying to get across.  Thanks for helping to clarify.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Mythopoet said:


> I think editing of any sort done by traditional publishing editors is not nearly as common anymore as many think. I've seen many authors who claim that their books got next to no editing or even no editing at all before being published.



I've heard these comments as well...I think a big part of it may depend on whether they were published with a small press or a big-five. I don't think that any big-five release would go out exactly as the book came in.  I could see that a low-advance mass market release might get only copy editing, but I think the bulk of the "I got no editing" are probably coming from someone at a small press that has either no advance or something south of $2,000.



Mythopoet said:


> Much of traditional publishing takes the attitude that some people here are decrying. Basically, grab all the rights, throw it out there and see if it sticks. If it does, awesome, rake in the cash. If it doesn't, drop the author.



I wouldn't go that far.  Again, some small presses might be taking this approach...but the big-five are still very risk adverse and the approach you speak of is filled with risk.  Even if they cut corners the book still represents an incredible amount of effort and time on their part...not to mention they don't want to ruin their reputation with the big store buyers. If they have too many titles that don't move anything they'll get reduced shelf space - so the big-five are still going to be very selective about what is signed.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Mythopoet said:


> I wouldn't fault them for it either except that the entire industry builds itself up by assuring authors that they will be "nurtured" and that their careers will be "grown" by the publisher.



Do they? Or is this some fairy tale that authors have told themselves? There are plenty of things I'm willing to hold publisher's feet to the fire for...but this isn't one of them.  I think any belief along those lines is coming from the author, not the publisher.




Mythopoet said:


> Also because the publishers are seriously into grabbing as many rights for as long as they possible can from the authors. This can result in an author's career being damaged or outright destroyed fairly easily.



There is no doubt that the contracts are heavily weighted in the publisher's favor.  But as far as "a career" being ruined - I have to put that on the author.  If you sign one Draconian contract to get "validation." Then so be it.  But if you are into making a career that is going to be one book (or maybe 2 - 3 books) out of a large number, and no one is putting a gun to their head to sign contract #2 through #n.  



Mythopoet said:


> If you are offered a contract from a publisher you're going to have to do some hardcore negotiation to get it to the point where it actually benefits the author and doesn't give all of the advantages to the publisher. Draconian contracts are boilerplate these days. You have to negotiate from a very strong position to get a publisher to change anything. And no, almost all agents are not remotely qualified to do this for you, even if they were willing to, which most are not because it puts them in a bad position with the publisher. An IP lawyer would be qualified and would actually work for the author. An IP lawyer would be qualified and would actually work for the author.



While "in theory" everything is negotiable, the reality is there are some things that aren't going to be changed no matter who is representing the author. There are some that the author should consider - complete deal breakers (such as a terrible non-compete clause) because this really could ruin a career.  But things like low ebook royalty rates or low thresholds for determining whether a book is in print - well those are just things you are going to have to live with. I consider that the rights for any book I sign will probably be "gone forever" and just account for that in my career planning.



Mythopoet said:


> So basically, the publishing industry in general is doing the bare minimum to help authors succeed while lying about it to the authors. And if the authors don't happen to succeed then it's highly likely that their contract with the publisher is going to damage their career permanently. I can fault the industry for that.



Again, I think this an unfair assessment. What benefit would there be for a publisher to setup an environment for failure?  And why would they lie?  I've never had my publisher make any promises of fame and fortune. I've also not heard of other authors talking about this.  I do think there is only so much time and money to go around, so that means low-signed titles and debut authors don't get much.  But the publishers DO want them to succeed and do what they can with their limited resources.  This is why I always say that making the book a success is the responsibility of the author...if for no other reason then they are the only one who are 100% invested in it and only it.  I treat anything my publisher does (and they actually do quite a bit) as "extra" but my book is going to sink or swim because of me.

I've actually been pretty impressed with Orbit signing, and even re-signing some authors that haven't done spectacularly. My only explanation is that they believe in the author and truly are doing what they can to further their careers.  It may mean that author had to sign a much smaller advance because the fist books didn't do well...but at least they are giving them another time "at bat."


----------



## Mythopoet

MichaelSullivan said:


> I've heard these comments as well...I think a big part of it may depend on whether they were published with a small press or a big-five. I don't think that any big-five release would go out exactly as the book came in.  I could see that a low-advance mass market release might get only copy editing, but I think the bulk of the "I got no editing" are probably coming from someone at a small press that has either no advance or something south of $2,000.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go that far.  Again, some small presses might be taking this approach...but the big-five are still very risk adverse and the approach you speak of is filled with risk.  Even if they cut corners the book still represents an incredible amount of effort and time on their part...not to mention they don't want to ruin their reputation with the big store buyers. If they have too many titles that don't move anything they'll get reduced shelf space - so the big-five are still going to be very selective about what is signed.



If you think this is only true of small presses then you need to hang out more at The Passive Voice. You hear a lot of interesting stories from legit authors there.


----------



## Ankari

Mythopoet, I understand that this is a passionate subject for you, but I don't think you're understanding what Michael has written, nor do I think you understand that Michael has succeeded through both methods. He started off as a self pub author, became a traditionally pubbed author, and is now a hybrid of the two. Don't you think that fact adds tremendous weight to his advice? Don't you think that his words are closer to the truth than what you perceive it to be?


----------



## Devor

I know that things can get heated, but I want to remind everyone the importance of a civil community.

There's a lot of poorly written books out there, self-published or otherwise, and that only makes it more important for us to help sub-par authors improve and quality authors to stand out.  We need every voice and idea at the table in order to build a community here which helps to do that.

I'd ask everybody to remember that, and to treat other members with respect, even while fuming over your disagreements.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Mythopoet said:


> If you think this is only true of small presses then you need to hang out more at The Passive Voice. You hear a lot of interesting stories from legit authors there.



I love the Passive Voice - it's a great site. It's true that I really can only discuss my own personal experiences, and those of the authors I talk to (which is quite a few). So let me rephrase. I've never heard of an author who has received an advance of $5,000 or more say they get NO editing whatsoever.  Does it happen.  Probably, but I think it would definitely be the exception not the rule.


----------



## Philip Overby

MichaelSullivan said:


> I love the Passive Voice - it's a great site. It's true that I really can only discuss my own personal experiences, and those of the authors I talk to (which is quite a few). So let me rephrase. I've never heard of an author who has received an advance of $5,000 or more say they get NO editing whatsoever.  Does it happen.  Probably, but I think it would definitely be the exception not the rule.



Small question: do you use a freelance editor for your self-published work or do you just do it yourself? I think this is a common issue with self-publishers because it's expensive to hire editors and some think it's better to not go for that and instead go for better cover art if they're on a budget.

What expenses would you say you notice most self-published authors put into producing a quality book? That is one with clean, polished writing, a professional looking cover, etc.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Phil the Drill said:


> Small question: do you use a freelance editor for your self-published work or do you just do it yourself? I think this is a common issue with self-publishers because it's expensive to hire editors and some think it's better to not go for that and instead go for better cover art if they're on a budget.



Well there's what I used to do when I was just starting out...and there is what I do now.  In both cases I used freelance editors. When I was just starting out I did a lot of shopping around and was able to get really good editing for $350 -$400.  On some occasions I would hire two lower cost editors rather than one higher cost one.  

Now that I have more money I just hire the same editors that edit for the traditional publishers. I'm not so concerned with price as I was when I was starting out and poor so I pay $1,000 a novel for copy editing. For Hollow World (as it was my first book coming back to self-publishing, I also hired Betsy Mitchell (former editor in chief at Del Rey for over a decade to do structural editing - but that was more of a sanity check than anything else. Doing so confirmed what I already suspected, which was that the book was in really good shape.  She is VERY expensive, and I had Kicksterater funds to burn, so it was something that I did - but I'm not sure I would recommend it to others.



Phil the Drill said:


> What expenses would you say you notice most self-published authors put into producing a quality book? That is one with clean, polished writing, a professional looking cover, etc.



I've seen some incredible covers that people have gotten for $150.  I think a more standard rate would be $350.  Again, for Hollow World I hired Marc Simonetti (who has done covers for my french publisher and also Rothfuss, Sanderson, and George R.R. Martin).  I don't want to "out" him so I'll just say I found it to be worth the price, but I probably wouldn't recommend it for new authors. So putting those two things together I say you can get a well produced book for $500 (if you shop carefully) and $1,500 if you are price insensitive and want to go with the top of the line.

When budgeting a first book - it's important to keep costs in line - otherwise it will be really hard to make a positive ROI so I think $500 - $700 is a good thing to shoot for.  The important thing is to focus on quality and if that means beating the bushes a bit then it will be time well spent.


----------



## Philip Overby

Thanks for the details. I think the sense that self-publishing (as the thread title suggests) does need to be treated like a small business in some regards. That means you have to put in money to make money so to speak. I do find that self-publishing tends to be perceived as a low risk investment for some that attempt to do the editing and cover art by themselves. I'm not sure what percentage of writers who go it "completely alone" (meaning they create their own cover art and edit everything themselves or with the help of critique partners/beta readers) is that actually becoming relatively successful, but my eyes tend to go towards the stuff that's professionally done.


----------

