# On NOT Hiring an Editor (Interview)



## Philip Overby

Not sure what to think about this. It's interesting to note this particular author's stance toward improving his/her writing as long as the sales are good. I'll let you be the judge. This interview could be perceived as humor if it wasn't so sad.

On NOT Hiring an Editor Ã¢€Â¦ my interview with a vampire. | On Writing & Editing


----------



## Chilari

Is this actually real? It sounds very carefully set up, so if it is real, the author seems to have picked someone to interview that suits their agenda in presenting not professionally editing as amateurish and the sign of a bad writer. I'd like to see something from a writer who does actually care about their craft, but still doesn't professionally edit. That'd be an interesting perspective.


----------



## Philip Overby

I'm not sure if it's real or not. Sadly enough, I think it might be. I think the point being made was that people who care about what they put out there, get some kind of editing done. They certainly wouldn't just throw something out there with tons of typos and other kinds of errors. I've heard of some authors publishing what were basically first drafts, but they had editors with their publishing house that helped them. I'd be interested to hear about a writer that never used any kind of professional editing (whether by hiring one or using their publsher's editor) and still turned out fine. The only people I could see this being applicable to are writers who also happen to be professional editors.


----------



## tlbodine

Wow, that was probably the most combative interview I've ever read.  It's pretty obvious that the blogger has an ax to grind.  

I haven't used any professional editing for either of my books.  I've sent them to my brother (a book critic and writer himself) and beta readers, but I do my own editing.  Any errors that have come to my attention in my books have been formatting problems, not editing problems -- things like irregular spacing or lost italics that occurred while trying to reformat my books from manuscript form to ebook form (or print book form...urgh.)  

Honestly, if I had the money to spare, I'd much rather spend it on professional formatting than professional editing.  

Just my two cents.


----------



## Chilari

Combatitive, that's a very accurate word. Yes, it seems like the blogger was using the interviewee to make a point rather than looking for balance in a debate, which is why I'd like to see that side of things from a different successful author.

Tlbodine, would you mind answering a few questions? If so, how have you found your stories receieved? Have any readers mentioned they thought it wasn't professionally edited? Conversely, have any praised the editing? Do you feel you have enough different perspectives with your brother and beta readers to do a good job? Finally, if you had sufficient spare cash to both professionally format and edit, would you consider paying for editing or would you keep the money for something else?


----------



## Nihal

I can't see the benefits of reading an article crafted with such a _puerile_ attitude. There are better ways to express your thoughts on the subject without luring someone to an interview and, as the others already said, use–literally use–him/her to make a point.

That's one blog I wouldn't follow.


On a side note, like Chilari I would like to read about a serious writer who doesn't edit his/her work.


----------



## Philip Overby

I don't know, I thought it was funny in a weird way.  Not like "haha" funny, but like "Wow, what a bizarre interview." 

I'm on both sides of the debate really, just wanted to see what others thought. It does seem like the interviewer is trying to bait someone to make a point, but the interviewee keeps saying things like "I don't have time to do that." It just seems weird to say you don't have time to edit. I don't necessarily think every single person needs a professional editor, but at least taking the time to edit your work before putting it out there seems like a pretty important step.

On one hand, I don't think this is a real interview. If it is, the interviewee should have stopped it right at the beginning.

The closest I know to a serious writer that doesn't edit, as far as I know, is Mark Lawrence. I've heard he just writes one draft. Not sure if editors go over it before it's in print, but I read on his blog that he does that.


----------



## GeekDavid

While I can see not hiring a *professional* editor (and I stress the word *professional*) due to the cost, I've read enough unedited dreck that actually got published -- and struggled through it because I needed to in order to accurately review it (for examples, see here and here) -- to be convinced that an editor of some sort (brother, friend, coworker) is essential.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I am going to draft a (so far) willing volunteer who's a friend to edit _Librarian_. Since he's the kind of guy who'll forward work emails to me with lists of complaints about grammatical errors in them, I think he'll do a good job.


----------



## Nihal

Phill, I can't even find it funny. Being fake, it's a highly ineffective and probably spiteful way to express a point. The people who agree with editing will still agree with editing, the ones who doesn't might feel offended by the setup and just dismiss this blogger's opinion. It's hard to not think "Are you angry because the X author is bad and still more successful than you?". Extremely hard.

And, if it's a true interview, a possibility I don't promptly dismiss at all after many people I've met... It almost makes me wish to be against editing just to be on "the opposite team" of someone with such attitude, heh.


----------



## Philip Overby

As I said in the first post, I wasn't sure what to think about it. I read it over on Google+, thought it was kind of weird, and wanted to share it. 

I guess let's just say the "interview' doesn't work for whatever reason. Let's put that aside for a minute. I still find any writer that would suggest they don't have time for editing to be strange. Editing is a part of the writing process. That is one of the main things I got from the article. I can understand if someone doesn't want to hire an editor, but this just sounds like someone who completely ignores the need to edit. As GeekDavid noted, a lot of people struggle with what might otherwise by good fiction due to problems that could have been fixed by having a second pair of eyes on it. 

I guess I didn't pay much attention to the combative tone because I was more interested in the answers than the questions.


----------



## Chilari

Phil: I got the impression that while Mark Lawrence does not edit a draft much at all before it gets submitted to the publisher, they do have editors look over and approve it before publication and that there might be minor changes, but that Lawrence himself is just the kind of writer able to produce a first draft that really works - a rare skill.

Back on the topic of the interview, it seems the interviewee is an erotica writer - at least I got that impression from the derogatory way the interviewer talked about what they write. If that is the case, I suspect the interviewee chose not to edit because in erotica, quantity over quality is what brings in the money and readers are quite forgiving. If it's good enough that most readers don't mind it, and it's selling in bulk and the author wants to focus on getting more books out to enable them to make more money, then to be honest I can't fault them - they're treating writing as a business (where they see editing as a diminishing returns thing) not as a craft to be perfected.

I think this merely represents a different approach to writing as a career; if I wrote erotica, I think I'd have the same approach to editing as the interviewee for erotica and make the stories just good enough, but still want to make anything else I write the best it can be. Being as that is the case, I really think the interviewer has presented something of a straw man - they're presenting a view on editing that does not apply to treating writing as a craft, as a means of discrediting the position of not hiring a professional editor.

So what I'm saying is I'd like to hear the perspective of a "craft-approach" writer who didn't hire a professional editor, rather than a "business approach" writer.


----------



## Philip Overby

Chilari: Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I guess I didn't take that into account. In the case of erotica, quantity over quality is perhaps even encouraged. I don't know much about the genre really, so I can't speak on its overall quality. I read a bit of _50 Shades of Grey_ just to see what it was about. I'm of the opinion that I'll never publicly bash another writer. I just think it looks bad. But yeah, it didn't rank in my all time favorites. Kudos to her thought for doing her thing and being mega-successful.

I was also under the impression that Mark Lawrence had pro editors looking over his work. I just read that he himself doesn't do extensive editing. His style is leaner than most fantasy writers, so I can see how that works for him. If I find anything about a "craft-approach" writer taking the same "I don't need an editor" approach, then I'll post it up. I'd be interested to hear any comments about that as well.


----------



## tlbodine

Chilari said:


> Tlbodine, would you mind answering a few questions? If so, how have you found your stories receieved? Have any readers mentioned they thought it wasn't professionally edited? Conversely, have any praised the editing? Do you feel you have enough different perspectives with your brother and beta readers to do a good job? Finally, if you had sufficient spare cash to both professionally format and edit, would you consider paying for editing or would you keep the money for something else?



I'm not exactly rolling in sales -- I'm working on building exposure.  But the reviews and comments that I have received have not been concerned with the editing at all (except for a friend who messaged me to point out the formatting quirks mentioned above).  

Personally, if I had the money for a proper publishing budget, I would prioritize it thusly: 
1 - Professional cover art/design 
2 - Professional formatting 
3 - Marketing (review copies, distribution, contests, ads, etc.) 
4 - Editing 

And, actually, editing and marketing might be tied for third, or I might prioritize the editing over marketing.  I would absolutely pay for editing if I had the budget for it.  But I wouldn't prioritize it.  

I can't say with absolute certainty that my books are 100% typo-free.  

But I can say pretty confidently that they are the same quality, in terms of typos/spelling/grammar at least, as books published by big-name houses (which also tend to not be 100% typo-free).


----------



## GeekDavid

May I offer something I just saw on TV as evidence that you need other people to read your manuscript?








That's from a JC Penney's ad I just saw on TV a few minutes ago. Can you find the spelling error? Here's a hint:







JCP is a multi-billion-dollar company, and no doubt they hired one of the top advertising firms in the nation for that ad campaign... and yet that misspelling made it through all the spell-check programs and onto the air.

Just something to think about.


----------



## tlbodine

Going by that logic, should we assume that JCP's top advertising firm does not have professional editors?  

Or should the takeaway be that sometimes errors slip through regardless?


----------



## ThinkerX

1)  I've noticed an increasing number of typos and similiar errors even in print material these days - material that *has* gone through a pro editing process. (at least I hope it did)

2) I've also noticed that if the style or story is good enough, readers can be very forgiving of not so great writing, including grammar problems.


----------



## Philip Overby

One thing I find a bit strange from my perspective is if someone basically throws out a whole novel just because of some technical issues. If there are problems in that regard I can forgive it if I think it's still a good story. I have more problems with work that has weak characterization, a plodding, confusing, and/or unremarkable plot, and stilted dialogue. I rather an editor help me with those things rather than if I used "its" or "it's" correctly. That's embarrassing if that happens, but I would hope I could hunt down all those issues on my own.

Of course I don't want to read things with tons of technical issues in them, but if there are only a handful, I can handle it. If they're littered throughout a whole book is when they're a problem. I guess I'm more forgiving than most in that regard.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

A couple of days ago one of the authors I follow on FB actually posted on this very subject.  Here's what she had to say - 



> Stepping in to scratch my head in utter confusion  Okay, everyone assumes grammar and spelling and typo mistakes are always the author’s fault... um, yeah... You’d be amazed how many are made by copy editors and others who handle the book in addition to the author. For the record, I taught college level creative writing courses and have been a professional proof reader and tutored college level English for many years. I’ve got a pretty good handle on grammar rules and spelling most days (yes, I’ve even read the Chicago Manual of Style vers. 4-16, Strunk & White and The Deluxe Transitive Vampire just for fun - and yes, I know I’m making mistakes as I type this, but it’s for impact and amusement).
> 
> Anyway, as I’m reviewing the galleys for DARK BITES, I’m having STYXX deja vu (among many others). I know I’m not perfect, but what always baffles me are how so many mistakes are added to a manuscript/book when they convert the digital files over. In the first two paragraphs of UNTIL DEATH WE DO PART, there are, no kidding, 14 mistakes that weren’t in the story originally. Likewise, all the stories have weird grammar and spelling errors, missing words, etc. that are all new to this set of galleys. I don’t know how many mistakes I fixed in Styxx that were made by others that are still in the final novel. It is SO frustrating. We spend all this time going over and over a book, and still the corrections are missed. Or worse, brand new ones are made. I even highlight my corrections on the PDF, and still they get missed. Oh well, back to work  I just hope all of these go in this time



She went on over the next day or so to post pics from her galleys showing the errors she was struggling to have corrected.  I've also been hearing from other sources of authors having issues with smaller publishers releasing their work riddled with errors _after_ the authors have submitted those very corrections.  So, how is this happening?  We do our due diligence and still mistakes get published?


----------



## Nihal

A similar yet entirely different situation to the cited by A. E. Lowan makes me forgiving when it comes to works written by foreign authors and published here.

The reason is simple reason: They're translated versions. Sometimes the translations are badly done or the proofreading is simply sloppy, typos and weird sentences happen in the first versions. I understand it's certainly the national publisher's fault, not the author's fault. Example: Just now I've read an Arch Lector "Zult" instead of "Sult" in my brazilian copy of _The Blade Itself_. I believe it's the first edition of this translation, released last month in a book festival.


----------



## GeekDavid

Phil the Drill said:


> One thing I find a bit strange from my perspective is if someone basically throws out a whole novel just because of some technical issues. If there are problems in that regard I can forgive it if I think it's still a good story. I have more problems with work that has weak characterization, a plodding, confusing, and/or unremarkable plot, and stilted dialogue. I rather an editor help me with those things rather than if I used "its" or "it's" correctly. That's embarrassing if that happens, but I would hope I could hunt down all those issues on my own.
> 
> Of course I don't want to read things with tons of technical issues in them, but if there are only a handful, I can handle it. If they're littered throughout a whole book is when they're a problem. I guess I'm more forgiving than most in that regard.



Personally, in my "work" for Otherwhere Gazette, I've given very positive reviews to books with just a few technical errors in them. And I've had the authors in question write me asking where the errors were.

I've also panned books with tons of technical errors, especially where those errors were constant and repeated, showing the the author really didn't know the rule in question.

I can forgive some. Not if there's one on every page.


----------



## Chilari

tlbodine said:


> I can't say with absolute certainty that my books are 100% typo-free.
> 
> But I can say pretty confidently that they are the same quality, in terms of typos/spelling/grammar at least, as books published by big-name houses (which also tend to not be 100% typo-free).



I can understand relegating copyediting and proofreading budgets to a low priority if you have experience in that and the time to go through thoroughly. But what about content editing? It's harder to spot things like telling where you should be showing, weak characterisation or a logical leap in a plotline because you know the material too well to see it objectively. What would your stance be on content editing?


----------



## PaulineMRoss

GeekDavid said:


> I've also panned books with tons of technical errors, especially where those errors were constant and repeated, showing the the author really didn't know the rule in question. I can forgive some. Not if there's one on every page.



Exactly. All books have a few errors, even the big-cheese traditionally published ones. I only mention them in reviews if they interfere with my enjoyment noticeably. Some errors I don't even see (one book changed a character's name for a few pages, which I didn't notice at all). Grammatical errors drive me insane. And I'll forgive a book any number of spelling mistakes if the author uses 'had' properly.

But the other point is not just about hiring an editor, but hiring a GOOD editor. I had an author approach me recently for a review, and I rejected the book because of two grammatical errors and a serious crime against punctuation in the first two pages. He was mortified (his word) because he'd already paid for professional editing. He got it re-edited and I did read it in the end (and enjoyed it) but there were still numerous stupid mistakes. I don't know what he paid his editor but he was robbed.


----------



## Philip Overby

Hiring a professional editor can be very expensive. I can understand why someone would hire someone cheaper to do the work if they could. I guess you get what you pay for though. 

For self-published authors especially, making sure your work is clean before putting it out there is very important. I would probably have multiple people look at my work before putting it out there, even if I had a professional editor look at it first.

For me content>technical issues. I mostly read big publisher or small press work, so I guess they have more resources. I'd like to read more self-published work going forward. Since it's still a relatively new phenomenon, I want to seek out new authors I believe have promise. Even if they have some errors in their work, I'll forgive that if they tell an excellent story and hope they clean it up more for their next book.


----------



## Chilari

I will forgive a certain amount of technical issues if the content holds up. But if the author constantly gets homophones wrong, put's in a few apo'strophe's that 'shouldn't be their and so on I'm gonna run out of patient's before long.

Disclaimer: All errors in the above paragraph are deliberate.

But seriously. There's a threshold; the better the content, the higher the threshold, but no amount of technical expertise will keep me reading a book with dull characters, a pondering plot and masses of exposition. The content has to have something going for it. And that definitely needs a second opinion - an author is too close to their own work and their own style to be able to tell if what they've written is good. That's where beta readers and editors come in.

I'm not entirely decided on whether a professional editor is required, but I'm utterly convinced that there must be someone with a certain degree of understanding in writing to look at and evaluate a book, who is not the author. That could be a professional editor, a writing group, a stranger on an online critique exchange site, a book blogger, or even just someone who reads a lot. And I think the less expertise the reader, the more readers there need to be.

As for copyediting and proofreading, I think that is someone some authors can do themselves, if they're well versed in grammar and willing to put the time in to make sure they've caught it all. But even then I think a second opinion is a good idea. There are a few instances where I've come across lesser known homophones (council/counsel was one) and I can see that it's just something the author doesn't even know is wrong and something most readers wouldn't even notice, but I do and that annoys me.


----------



## tlbodine

Chilari said:


> I can understand relegating copyediting and proofreading budgets to a low priority if you have experience in that and the time to go through thoroughly. But what about content editing? It's harder to spot things like telling where you should be showing, weak characterisation or a logical leap in a plotline because you know the material too well to see it objectively. What would your stance be on content editing?



Like I said, I send everything to my brother and several beta readers who help me out with that kind of stuff.  I think everybody needs a crit partner (or five).  Which is the other reason why paying for a final proofread is not as high priority for me. 

I've found that most of the time when people are going on about editing, they usually seem to mean proofreading.  Which is actually a shame because most of the serious problems with a book are not actually, y'know, misspelled words or whatever.

EDIT: Also, I should add that my brother and I are pretty ruthless with each other's work.  We don't let things slide on account of blood relation.


----------



## GeekDavid

Phil the Drill said:


> Hiring a professional editor can be very expensive. I can understand why someone would hire someone cheaper to do the work if they could. I guess you get what you pay for though.
> 
> For self-published authors especially, making sure your work is clean before putting it out there is very important. I would probably have multiple people look at my work before putting it out there, even if I had a professional editor look at it first.
> 
> For me content>technical issues. I mostly read big publisher or small press work, so I guess they have more resources. I'd like to read more self-published work going forward. Since it's still a relatively new phenomenon, I want to seek out new authors I believe have promise. Even if they have some errors in their work, I'll forgive that if they tell an excellent story and hope they clean it up more for their next book.



Well, my friend the volunteer editor will be the fourth reader (besides me) of _Librarian_, so I think you could say I've definitely had multiple sets of eyes looking at it. And I reiterate an earlier offer... if anyone wants to look at it and offer suggestions, drop me a PM. I'm not afraid, I want it as clean as I can get.

And one reason I point out errors when I review is for the author to do better the next book... and so far I've had two of them respond positively, one asked for a list of errors so he could correct them himself, the other wrote and said he was getting it professionally edited, and would I like a free copy so I can re-review the corrected one. I gladly call both authors true professionals.


----------



## GeekDavid

tlbodine said:


> I've found that most of the time when people are going on about editing, they usually seem to mean proofreading.  Which is actually a shame because most of the serious problems with a book are not actually, y'know, misspelled words or whatever.



In my own defense -- and that of Otherwhere Gazette (OG) where I review stuff -- we have an unwritten rule not to post reviews of books we don't like because of things like slow plot, poor characterization, etc, so most (stress *most*) of the time, if we post a review and complain about something, it's going to be proofreading errors.

We have, however, made one exception, and that was a review I wrote, but the website's editor (whom I count as a friend) had also read it and pushed me to post a review as a warning to others.

Honestly, I think it's a good policy. If I reviewed every book I picked up but put down in disgust after a few chapters, OG would be so crowded with bad reviews that you'd have to fight to find a good one... and those bad reviews would include big name authors like David Eddings, whose latest series is a clear flop, both on Amazon and with me.


----------



## Philip Overby

This discussion kind of gave me an idea. What if there was a service or site that gave you "practice reviews?" Meaning they would give you an honest review as if it was a finished work, but they wouldn't be put out there in the world like a real review, just shared with the writer. If there was something out there like that, there might be less instances of reviewers pointing out technical issues or glaring content problems. Then the book could be judged solely on the merits most well-edited books are critiqued. I know that's the job of beta reader sites and critique groups, but I think it might be beneficial to some authors to get these "practice reviews" so they know what doesn't work and can save themselves any embarrassment from a bad review due to these kind of issues.

Just a thought.


----------



## GeekDavid

Phil the Drill said:


> This discussion kind of gave me an idea. What if there was a service or site that gave you "practice reviews?" Meaning they would give you an honest review as if it was a finished work, but they wouldn't be put out there in the world like a real review, just shared with the writer. If there was something out there like that, there might be less instances of reviewers pointing out technical issues or glaring content problems. Then the book could be judged solely on the merits most well-edited books are critiqued. I know that's the job of beta reader sites and critique groups, but I think it might be beneficial to some authors to get these "practice reviews" so they know what doesn't work and can save themselves any embarrassment from a bad review due to these kind of issues.
> 
> Just a thought.



Not a bad idea, Phil. How about making it a Mythic Scribes service? I'll gladly do some of the reviews, time and other projects permitting, of course.


----------



## Devor

It would be nice if there was a cheaper way to get your work proofread.  But proofreading is real work - I would be concerned that a volunteer review service would give people a false sense of security.


----------



## Philip Overby

I think if the people doing the volunteering are those who are conscious about such things more than others, it couldn't hurt. The idea of a "practice review" might highlight an author's biggest problems. It seems reviewers like GeekDavid, PaulineMRoss, and Chilari tend to pick up on these issues, so these kind of reviewers (not necessarily them) could give honest reviews of a "finished" work (meaning it's ready in the author's mind, but might not be in other people's) It could be written just like a real reader review. 

Of course, any such service shouldn't substitute for a professional or experienced editor, but could be a way for writers to get a real gauge on their weaknesses before publishing. I think this might be pretty beneficial for self-publishing authors especially.


----------



## GeekDavid

Thanks for including my name on that list, Phil.


----------



## Chilari

I already send private critiques to authors whose books I've promised to review that I don't think very highly of, instead of posting a public review - I don't like posting negative reviews or reviews of books I couldn't get through. A pre-publication review system would be a good idea - then authors like those I have encountered can get their completed novels checked by an independent but knowledgable third party before they hit "publish", stopping them from jumping the gun on something that's not ready - but also, if the book is well recieved, giving them a pre-publication review which they can opt to have publically visible to help their marketing efforts or use quotes from in the blurb.

I could see a service like that working and being very popular with self-publishers.


----------



## Graylorne

What is the real difference with 'Review Request?' We have that service already and it's not exactly booming.


----------



## Philip Overby

I think the difference I'm seeing, and one that Chilari highlighted, would be a review that wouldn't necessarily be a real review, meaning it wouldn't be made public unless the author wanted it to be so. I find the Review Requests section tends to be for writers who have finished products and want reviews for Amazon or other public places. This service, or whatever it is, would be more of a private venture to help writers get a taste of what people might say about their writing. I've heard this more often that not that a writer puts something out there and then is embarrassed when their manuscript is marred with problems that they either missed or an editor glossed over. 

The people who are able to do reviews often respond to the Review Requests section I find. I've noticed Chilari and PaulineMRoss have both done reviews of books posted there in the past.

I think a simulated "publishing world" would actually be quite a cool idea. BWFoster has already mentioned doing a service where he'll "accept/reject" your manuscript and tell you why he would do so. More services like this could definitely be helpful if the right people are involved and they have a passion for helping new or undiscovered authors.


----------



## Devor

You would need a lot of people onboard to do it - a handful couldn't be expected to carry the load on a longterm basis.  It would fizzle, unless you tried to network with other sites and get in the neighborhood of twenty or thirty people to volunteer.


----------



## Zero Angel

Popping in to give my opinion in regards to the original article. 

I'll never be reading that blogger's blog again, and if I am ever asked to do an interview for it, I not only would say no, I would tell them that I don't like bullies and jerks. 

As someone mentioned earlier, it is very difficult for the whole thing to not read like it was motivated out of spite and jealousy. 

Although erotica readers seem to have about the same tolerance for writers of a certain quality as fanfiction, I don't think either of those things matter when you are approaching writing as something to keep a roof over your head and pay your groceries which is something wholly ignored by the blogger and true independent of genre. This writer wrote "good enough" to be successful and continue to be successful. That's "good enough". 

If I was able to make a living writing and the only way I could do it would be to write a novel every eight weeks and only dedicate two weeks to editing, then I would be doing that and damn my reputation or the critical reviews. Any time I heard of a mistake I would update the files for the second editions and hope that I would eventually be able to give them all their fair share of time, but if it's a living, then it would be a living, and trust me it's a lot better than going to sleep hungry or working 120 hours in a week. 

If I could get started doing that, then I would do that right now. 

Two asides: 

(1) I don't have an editor anymore. I use what beta-readers I can, and trust myself as the final error-catcher and director. My first novel I spent almost a full year editing, cutting, adding, editing some more, etc and had to have read the entire thing front-to-back 8 times, not to mention dozens of times in different scenes. Reading it aloud, reading it over and over and over again. I caught 99% of errors and directorial changes that ended up being made even though I did a TFP with a college English student going into editing and had my beta-readers also.  That said, I still had issues after going to press with some copyediting and a couple of anachronisms.

(2) Even though I didn't have much success going this route that time, if you can't afford an editor, TFP is a good alternative. TFP literally means Time-for-Portfolio (or Print) and is a modeling term, but is a good term to use in general. Try to find people that are going into editing or need experience and would be willing to work with you in return for the experience, adding  to their portfolio (before-and-afters, recommended changes on manuscripts, etc), or even a letter of recommendation (just work out the terms before-hand). It's basically like an individual intern, but has some of its own issues to navigate.

I had too much of my time wasted when I went that route and ended up doing more on my own anyway, so because of that combined with my natural cockiness, I won't be doing that again. Word-of-mouth or calling up your local university's English Department would probably be the best route, but get a good recommendation and don't get burned like I did. 

If I ever had enough money to be a professional author, then I would re-invest in my books probably _about _with the same priority as mentioned earlier in the conversation: Cover, then marketing with editing close behind/tied, then formatting. 

I trust myself in the formatting department enough that unless I had extra, extra money to spend, I wouldn't even consider it. I've become very proficient in formatting.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

Phil the Drill said:


> I think the difference I'm seeing, and one that Chilari highlighted, would be a review that wouldn't necessarily be a real review, meaning it wouldn't be made public unless the author wanted it to be so.[...]This service, or whatever it is, would be more of a private venture to help writers get a taste of what people might say about their writing.



To be honest, I don't see a lot of difference between this proposal and what beta readers and some editors already do, that is, provide independent feedback on a book. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to do this. My time is short, and I'd hate to spend it reading a book I don't enjoy (even in a good cause). I'm very selective about what I read nowadays.

What I would be happy to do, purely as a favour for Mythic Scribers, is to look at the first 2-3 chapters, cover image, blurb, etc, the sort of things I'd see if I was trawling through Amazon, and give an honest assessment of whether I personally would buy the book, based on that information, and if not, why not. This wouldn't be too time consuming to do, and although it wouldn't be a full review, it would give the author an idea of how his/her work comes across. If two or three people were to do that, it would be very useful.

Alternatively, there are online critique groups who can provide that sort of feedback too, if you critique other work in return.


----------



## tlbodine

PaulineMRoss said:


> To be honest, I don't see a lot of difference between this proposal and what beta readers and some editors already do, that is, provide independent feedback on a book. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to do this. My time is short, and I'd hate to spend it reading a book I don't enjoy (even in a good cause). I'm very selective about what I read nowadays.
> 
> What I would be happy to do, purely as a favour for Mythic Scribers, is to look at the first 2-3 chapters, cover image, blurb, etc, the sort of things I'd see if I was trawling through Amazon, and give an honest assessment of whether I personally would buy the book, based on that information, and if not, why not. This wouldn't be too time consuming to do, and although it wouldn't be a full review, it would give the author an idea of how his/her work comes across. If two or three people were to do that, it would be very useful.
> 
> Alternatively, there are online critique groups who can provide that sort of feedback too, if you critique other work in return.



Yeah, I was going to say, this is exactly what crit partners/critique groups are for.  

My experience with them has often been that critters are 1.) too worried about coming across as mean (criticism sandwich!) and 2.) too worried about getting their own work dealt with, that this isn't as helpful as it should be.  But that just means that you need better critters, not that the whole system needs to be reinvented.


----------



## Philip Overby

Well, it was just an idea. 

Maybe Pauline's "mini-feedback" idea would be good. Not reading a whole novel, but just giving feedback on a sample. I could probably have time to do that. As it is now, I only do full reviews for writers who aren't well-known if they contact me directly or I've read some of their work before and I liked it.

So maybe a "sample review" type of thing would be helpful? Like mentioning if you would want to continue reading, if it hooked you early on, etc. Maybe a critique of a synopsis, cover art, as Pauline mentioned?

I feel like critique partners and beta readers would be different. With a critique partner, you're often trading critiques. So you're usually analyzing the writing more than you would if you were doing a simple review. I reviewed one of Andrzej Sapkowski's book not long ago and I didn't treat it like a critique. 

I guess this idea would be similar to a beta reader. The idea would be do maximize helpfulness and perhaps minimize time investment from the reviewer. I agree that giving a review of a sample wouldn't be a big time suck. This would be something I'd be willing to do as well.

In regards to the original article again, I just wanted to mention that on other blogs and websites that have shared that article, the main sense seems to be that they thought the whole thing was funny and that more people should speak out against poorly constructed writing. Here at Mythic Scribes is the only place that I've noticed all negative feedback. I guess this means we're more compassionate towards an author trying to make it than proving a point about needing an editor. I was sort of on the fence about it, but I think you've all convinced me that there was probably a better way to get the point across than baiting a writer into an interview and ambushing him/her.

Interesting to note.


----------



## Lord Ben

Phil the Drill said:


> I think a simulated "publishing world" would actually be quite a cool idea. BWFoster has already mentioned doing a service where he'll "accept/reject" your manuscript and tell you why he would do so. More services like this could definitely be helpful if the right people are involved and they have a passion for helping new or undiscovered authors.



If I had any skill in editing whatsoever I think a useful addition to the self-published ebooks industry would be editing and/or art in exchange for a percentage of future sales instead of an upfront fee or a traditional publisher.   Perhaps it exists already and I just don't know of it but there seems to be a lot of middle ground between getting accepted by an agent/publisher and going full self-publish.

If the editor had a good enough eye for stories it wouldn't take long for people to start checking out other stuff they'd done.   Even so far as to have it all linked to the same "author" page in Amazon or whatever so people would easily see everything.


----------



## Devor

It's very difficult to find a good critique partner.  I mean, a lot of people push their beta readers and critique partners into simple responses because the whole process is loaded with tension and distrust.

I think a critique / review service with people who were actually trained to provide stronger feedback with tact would definitely be able to offer some people a lot of value.


----------



## Chessie

I also agree the interview was combative. That said, the reader reviews speak for themselves. So my question is this: if the author is getting such poor reviews, how the heck is he selling that many books and making a living from it? There's got to be something he's doing right. And perhaps he's stating he doesn't have time because his purpose is to write books and get them out for the fans. 

That point I can see.

The one thing that bugged me about the author though was that he said the writing was fine. Editor or not, I think as writers we should always be open to improvement. Writing is an art form and we should want to constantly hone it.

PS: I can't remember which author this was but I read an article once where the author suggested that Indie publishers learn how to edit their own work. He mentioned that its possible to get good enough were you don't need a professional editor. I would love to have a professional editor but I don't know if I can afford it. I definitely want an editor though. So although I do think the interviewer here was pushing for writers to hire professional editors, it may not be necessary for all...especially an erotica writer. Come on, with that type of material I wouldn't have an editor either.


----------



## Chilari

Chesterama said:


> So my question is this: if the author is getting such poor reviews, how the heck is he selling that many books and making a living from it? There's got to be something he's doing right.



The author is writing erotica and publishing enough stories that sheer force of numbers provides an income. When you've got 25 books out, you need only sell on average 57 per book per month at $2.09 royalties to earn an income of $3,000 a month. Over 25 books, you're going to build a fanbase of at least that many.



Chesterama said:


> The one thing that bugged me about the author though was that he said the writing was fine. Editor or not, I think as writers we should always be open to improvement. Writing is an art form and we should want to constantly hone it.



True, but again, it depends on your aim - selling lots of erotica books to earn a living so you have time for writing real stuff? It doesn't need to improve that much. Going back to the business-writing vs craft-writing, the business-writer needs only be good enough. Sure, improvement is a good idea, but if you're selling and you don't want to put any more time into it than you need to, then why bother when that extra time you have is spent on what you really care about?



Chesterama said:


> PS: I can't remember which author this was but I read an article once where the author suggested that Indie publishers learn how to edit their own work. He mentioned that its possible to get good enough were you don't need a professional editor. I would love to have a professional editor but I don't know if I can afford it.



I suspect it might be possible, though I still think you'd need a different perspective on it at the editing stage, preferably more. Still, I think it'd be possible to learn it well enough - by editing your own shorts, editing others' work and so on.


----------



## Zero Angel

Pretty right on with all the relevant points I would have made, Chilari. 

If your only interest is to sell, then all you need to do is write "good enough". Also, it bears noting that we have no idea how bad or how good the author is. It could be that the author really isn't very bad at all and the blogger is just being a jerk...seeing as how we know the blogger in question is being a jerk, I wouldn't be surprised if the "there are mistakes on every page" claim was unfounded or stylistic choices as opposed to actual errors. 

Now, I am reasonably confident that there are errors as well, just maybe not on every page. 

Also, I found it interesting that the blogger offered to provide a marked up proof of a novel for the author. If all I have to do is be held in contempt by this guy in order to get free copyediting, then let me know what I need to do for that.


----------



## brokethepoint

If you dig through some of the articles, it looks like he has an editing service.  Sorta puts things into perspective.


----------



## BWFoster78

The central conflict of the interview is Business vs Art.  The author obviously believes that the sales validate his writing.  The interviewer believes that a certain minimum level of quality should be maintained regardless of the finances involved.

I see both sides but tend to agree more with the author.  If you've found your audience and you're happy with your sales, why should you put more effort into polishing?

If you've followed any of my posts, this opinion might surprise you as I tend to advocate highly polished work.  I advocate such because I believe that it's the best way for a new author to find an audience.  If you've already got an audience, the advice doesn't really apply.

I will say (write) this: incredible numbers of books are being published.  It's hard to stand out from the crowd.  If you're a relatively new author and you're not using a professional content editor, I'm pretty sure that:

1. Your work does not have enough tension
2. You're telling too much instead of showing (to forestall the argument, note that I did not say you can't tell at all, just that you're telling when you should be showing)
3. You have character and story arc mistakes

Lack of tension, too much telling, and story/character mistakes don't seem to me to be a good way to find an audience.

I have good beta readers.  I'm a smart guy.

I had all three of these problems, and it took a good content editor to find them.

EDIT to clarify: If you got your audience with low quality work, there's no reason to improve unless you're trying to expand your base.  If you get your audience with high quality, dropping the quality will lose you readers.  It's all about meeting expectations.


----------



## Chessie

See, I totally agree with the points made here. Its not like erotica is literature anyway (though some might disagree with me haha). I've never read the stuff frankly because I'm too immature not to laugh my way through it, so I side with the line of thinking that writing as an art form means honing your skill--always.

But the author in this article has met his goal a thousandfold. And it seems to me that he agreed to the wrong interview. 

I would like to self-publish, mainly because I'm already self-employed and its something I can see myself being good at. I still need an editor. The only problem is I have X amount of money. I like the priority list given by a couple users here (sorry to forget the names) a few pages back. I would pay for the cover art first, then the format, then an editor. And when I make a decent revenue from sales, I will be able to afford an editor first when budget isn't such an issue. Hopefully my books sell though.


----------



## BWFoster78

Am I missing something on the format?  Why is it necessary to pay someone for that?  It seems like an easy DIY part of the process.


----------



## Chessie

I have no idea how to do that, so I would pay. Although my goal is to learn how to do it. I just wouldn't want to mess up my very first book I put out there.


----------



## Chilari

A book I bought yesterday, published by Penguin no less, had rubbish formatting and the only way I could get it to display well was to flip my Kindle sideways and read landscape. That was the Aeneid - so formatting had to account for line numbers and I believe it also matches the existing printed text for line breaks, but when shown in portrait every line had a big indent and went over two lines, with the odd line number in there too.

But if the big guys can get it wrong, with a well known text (albeit one with particular needs), then I think I can forgive less-than-perfect formatting from an indie, provided it is at least readable - the other translation of the Aeneid I bought didn't even have a space where there was meant to be a linebreak, so one word ran right into the next, making it very hard to read indeed - and again, this was set by a traditional publisher. And that one does not go right when flipped horizontal. Which is a shame, because I was enjoying the rhyme to it, but the formatting makes it so hard to read.


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> Am I missing something on the format?  Why is it necessary to pay someone for that?  It seems like an easy DIY part of the process.



For print books, formatting is pretty complicated and error-prone. It easily took up 20-80 hours of nothing-but-formatting work when I first did it for The Throne of Ao (and because I'm never happy, I've done it multiple times, although I'm much faster and more proficient on it now). 

It involves things like increasing the line spacing by 0.01 over ten lines in order to get an entire paragraph to fit on a final page instead of a few words, making the chapters start on the right side, widow/orphan control, headings, page numbers. The final copy of a book before it goes to print is more a picture than a document. It's all doable on your own, but it involves significant proficiency in your program of choice (preferably a publishing program, but DIYers can probably manage with Word and a pdf).

Ebook formatting is much more straightforward, but it is yet again something that some people might not be comfortable with. Things like hyperlinks are probably the most under-utilized options, but a lot of the formatting and options we take for granted in Word may not be present in the ebooks. For fiction it's usually very easy for most people to convert a document into a ready-to-convert file using something like Amazon's mobi-converter. And it is even easier (although less pretty) to use Smashwords's meatgrinder. But for the best choices, you really should be working directly with the .epub file, and that is out of a lot of people's depths as well. 

For the record, I like Amazon's converter just fine, and use it exclusively for my math books. Unfortunately, the meatgrinder grinds up my equations too much to use and I don't have time to learn the epub math codes. What I do is convert every equation I can't type into a gif file (Amazon recommended) and it has worked out for me so far in my math books. One of the big things a lot of self-publishers don't do is re-read their book after it is converted (yes, things change and you have to compensate for that). 

I would say that most people think they have more proficiency with editing than they probably do, but they usually _know_ they don't have proficiency with formatting, so it frequently gets bumped up the list. Still, for the frugal author, formatting is something that really just needs a time investment and mistakes are easy to recognize and see when they're made. I would say if you can't afford an editor, then you should strongly consider learning the skills of formatting. Both Kindle and Smashwords have "style guides" that you can follow to make your files ready to upload for ebooks and they're not that difficult to follow (and they're free to download: Building Your Book for Kindle and Smashwords Style Guide).

For print, you almost *need* to have a formatter unless the DIY is strong in you and this is a difference that everyone can see as soon as they open your book if it is done poorly.


----------



## Zero Angel

Chilari said:


> A book I bought yesterday, published by Penguin no less, had rubbish formatting and the only way I could get it to display well was to flip my Kindle sideways and read landscape. That was the Aeneid - so formatting had to account for line numbers and I believe it also matches the existing printed text for line breaks, but when shown in portrait every line had a big indent and went over two lines, with the odd line number in there too.
> 
> But if the big guys can get it wrong, with a well known text (albeit one with particular needs), then I think I can forgive less-than-perfect formatting from an indie, provided it is at least readable - the other translation of the Aeneid I bought didn't even have a space where there was meant to be a linebreak, so one word ran right into the next, making it very hard to read indeed - and again, this was set by a traditional publisher. And that one does not go right when flipped horizontal. Which is a shame, because I was enjoying the rhyme to it, but the formatting makes it so hard to read.



One of the big issues with some of the converters are that "breaks" are not maintained. For instance, in Smashwords you have to use four carriage returns instead of a page break. My first conversion of The Throne of Ao had the chapter headings occur in line with the last line of the previous chapter -_-


----------



## tlbodine

Yes.  What Zero Angel said.  eBook formatting is pretty straightforward (especially if you're smart enough to set up the file properly in the first place and don't then have to go back through it and nuke all of your tabs, for example), but print formatting is a fiasco.  I don't know how many times I had to redo the formatting of Nezumi's Children, and I'm still not 100% happy with it.  I wrestled with that thing for like a week straight.


----------



## Sanctified

This is like network television, just @#%#-ing out content, throwing it at the wall and seeing what sticks. This author found what sticks and is making money off it, and if making money is the ultimate goal, why bother?

I applaud the honesty. Obviously there's a market for garbage, and this author is happy to supply that garbage.

However, that's quite a bit different than having personal pride in the material, trying to win literary awards, etc. The sad truth is that garbage can and often does appeal to the masses, while literary novels often don't. This is why one of the teen moms from MTV is a New York Times bestselling author, while David Mitchell is not.

Messed up, isn't it?


----------



## GeekDavid

Sanctified said:


> This is like network television, just @#%#-ing out content, throwing it at the wall and seeing what sticks. This author found what sticks and is making money off it, and if making money is the ultimate goal, why bother?
> 
> I applaud the honesty. Obviously there's a market for garbage, and this author is happy to supply that garbage.
> 
> However, that's quite a bit different than having personal pride in the material, trying to win literary awards, etc. The sad truth is that garbage can and often does appeal to the masses, while literary novels often don't. This is why one of the teen moms from MTV is a New York Times bestselling author, while David Mitchell is not.
> 
> Messed up, isn't it?



Very messed up.

What's probably even worse is that I'll bet that at least 50% never read that MTV teen mom's book, they just bought it so they could lay it in plain sight somewhere when their friends are coming over so they could look like they're part of "the cool group."

Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. After all, I do remember when MTV stood for *MUSIC* Television, and actually played music videos the majority of their broadcast day.


----------



## Sanctified

GeekDavid said:


> Very messed up.
> 
> What's probably even worse is that I'll bet that at least 50% never read that MTV teen mom's book, they just bought it so they could lay it in plain sight somewhere when their friends are coming over so they could look like they're part of "the cool group."
> 
> Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. After all, I do remember when MTV stood for *MUSIC* Television, and actually played music videos the majority of their broadcast day.




Hah...remember Yo! MTV Raps and the birth of alternative when they only played that stuff late at night? Hell, even The Grind looks tame in comparison to what's on now.

Teen mom probably also makes a killing on the autographs, moving more copies. For a while I thought the NYT book staff would be horrified to see what's on their list, but then I realized it's always garbage...Long Island Medium's book, diet book of the month, ghostwritten "autobiography" of some celebrity, yadda yadda yadda. In that sense I guess it's not different from the music industry.


----------



## GeekDavid

Sanctified said:


> Teen mom probably also makes a killing on the autographs, moving more copies. For a while I thought the NYT book staff would be horrified to see what's on their list, but then I realized it's always garbage...Long Island Medium's book, diet book of the month, ghostwritten "autobiography" of some celebrity, yadda yadda yadda. In that sense I guess it's not different from the music industry.



Don't forget the disgruntled employee dishing all the dirt on their famous employer... whether said dirt is real or just a vindictive fantasy.


----------



## Chessie

It is quite a shame, but I bet there are musicians, artists, actors, etc out there that feel the same way about their craft. There are always going to be those willing to provide crap like Sanctified said.

Returning to the topic though, I think that a writer's willingness to have his/her work looked at by an editor or beta readers shows a desire to get better. At the end of the day, winning a literary award (for me anyway) would be way more valuable than money.


----------



## Chilari

Chesterama said:


> At the end of the day, winning a literary award (for me anyway) would be way more valuable than money.



And sometimes literary awards come with money attached, which is nice.


----------



## Zero Angel

Sanctified said:


> This is like network television, just @#%#-ing out content, throwing it at the wall and seeing what sticks. This author found what sticks and is making money off it, and if making money is the ultimate goal, why bother?
> 
> I applaud the honesty. Obviously there's a market for garbage, and this author is happy to supply that garbage.
> 
> However, that's quite a bit different than having personal pride in the material, trying to win literary awards, etc. The sad truth is that garbage can and often does appeal to the masses, while literary novels often don't. This is why one of the teen moms from MTV is a New York Times bestselling author, while David Mitchell is not.
> 
> Messed up, isn't it?



So, there's some good network television. Again, we have no idea as to the actual quality of this author, although the fact that he or she has such a high level of productivity does tell us that they write a lot. Also, this particular author seems to take _some_ pride in their writing as when the blogger continues to attack the writing, the author sticks up for it in a very nice way that would be difficult for anyone to do when they are being ambushed and attacked. 

I hope I never win any "literary" literary awards personally. I mean, money is nice and all and yes it would be nice to support myself with my writing, but if I have to go through the dreck of crap that is "literary" writing in today's world, well, it's crap. I can't stand it. Give me writing that entertains before writing that is art any day. 

(obviously, writing that entertains that is also art would be the ideal, but if I have to pick one or the other, entertainment please).


----------



## Sanctified

I get what you're saying, although by literary I don't mean some Naked Lunch-esque Scrotie McBoogrballs stream of consciousness BS about people jacking off under bridges. (IIRC that's actually part of Naked Lunch. People masturbating under bridges = max shock factor and literary brilliance in 1959, apparently.)

Despite Tom Hanks pissing all over Cloud Atlas by turning the movie into some high-minded Mitch Albom-style sap fest, that book ran the complete gamut of emotions and was entertaining as it gets. And literary genre fiction not only exists, it's thriving.

Next time someone poo-poohs genre fiction as low-bro crap, point 'em to Iain M. Banks, stuff like "Against A Dark Background" and "Consider Phlebas." Writing doesn't get more masterful than that, and it doesn't lose an ounce of effectiveness despite the fact that its's space opera -- in fact, it says more about humanity than most "literary" novels could hope to.

I've also mentioned Coleson Whitehead on these boards. He's a novelist who has been slapped with the literary label, and he hasn't fought it, but he was also completely unapologetic when critics went after him for writing a zombie novel. Who says a zombie novel can't have literary merit? And who says a zombie novel can't tell us a whole lot about modern society and the way we live?

The point is, genre fiction does not have to be somehow less serious, or less worthy because of its premise or setting. It's just as valid as some wannabe Great American Novelist writing 400 pages about the first world problems of a suburban family.

As for network TV, personally I think there are a handful of decent shows, but most of it is watered down by suits and focus groups to have the widest appeal possible, which is how we end up with tepid crap like The Event. And reality? That's another post entirely...


----------



## Zero Angel

Thanks for that. I requested my library to get "Cloud Atlas", but haven't gotten a chance yet. Still, the fact that you state it is "literary" makes me trepidatious to read it. 

My main point was that we have no idea if the author in question was producing crap or not, and he or she clearly takes some pride in their work, in spite of being relatively mellow over being ambushed and attacked after what was pretty clearly an interview requested by the blogger. 

I wouldn't take the word of a biased blogger about it is all. 

Also, in case it's not clear: I'm firmly of the opinion that not having an editor does not mean that you don't take yourself seriously or don't have pride in your work. It could just mean that you're poor or that you cannot afford an editor or that having an editor would not make good business sense for you. 

And yes, maybe poor people shouldn't have the rights and opportunities of not-poor people, but I'm going to keep operating under the assumption that they do and if they can't afford an editor that they go out and do the best they can without one unashamedly.

_Edit: Of course, if you can afford it, then I strongly recommend getting one (or a whole team of them). If you can't, then do your best. It's possible your best isn't good enough, but it's also possible that it is._


----------



## GeekDavid

Zero Angel said:


> And yes, maybe poor people shouldn't have the rights and opportunities of not-poor people, but I'm going to keep operating under the assumption that they do and if they can't afford an editor that they go out and do the best they can without one unashamedly.
> 
> _Edit: Of course, if you can afford it, then I strongly recommend getting one (or a whole team of them). If you can't, then do your best. It's possible your best isn't good enough, but it's also possible that it is._



I'm going to take offense at that.

I happen to be between jobs, subsisting on the pittance unemployment pays. I am still using an editor, though it's a friend.

There is no reason "poor people" can't find a friend or friend of a friend who is good with the language to provide a second pair of eyes. It may not be as good as a professional editor, but it's better than some of the dreck I've read that actually got published!


----------



## BWFoster78

I disagree with both the above posts.

An inexperienced author putting out a product without utilizing the services of a professional editor, to me, would be no different than me trying to sell crayon scribbles from my 3-year-old on Amazon as "art."  In most cases, the dreck that such authors foist upon the unsuspecting public is not of a sufficient quality to justify asking people to pay for it.

Note that a beta reader or friend who is "good with the language" is not a professional editor and cannot replace one.

If you cannot afford an editor, perhaps you should go the traditional publishing route.  Once your work is good enough to be accepted by someone willing to pay for those services for you, you'll know your quality is there.


----------



## GeekDavid

Foster, if my writing was as bad as this is (download the Kindle sample at your own risk, it is truly horrible) then yes, I'd save my meager pennies for a professional editor.

But given that I've already gotten positive feedback on the first draft, I think I can best that dreck even with my friend serving as editor.


----------



## Devor

I think you can go it alone if you are a real Do-it-Yourselfer.  But most people aren't, and won't realize the gulf of difference.  The danger is that doing it yourself or asking a few friends to read through it might lead to a false sense of security about how good your product really is.

Every bad book you can buy on Amazon was put there by somebody who thought it was ready.


----------



## BWFoster78

GeekDavid said:


> Foster, if my writing was as bad as this is (download the Kindle sample at your own risk, it is truly horrible) then yes, I'd save my meager pennies for a professional editor.
> 
> But given that I've already gotten positive feedback on the first draft, I think I can best that dreck even with my friend serving as editor.



The problem is that you may not have any comprehension of how bad your final draft is.

Maybe you, somehow, are a rare exception, but, in my experience, most new authors don't have much of a clue about what it takes to write a good book.  They simply don't have the tools necessary to understand what they've done wrong and all the things that drag what seems to them like a perfectly fine story down to total dreckitude.

I realize that this is not a popular opinion, but I think that, if you can't approach the quality level of a Big 6 published book, you shouldn't self publish.  I also think that it's incredibly difficult for you to gain an understanding of if you've reached that level without the services of someone that has an experience level that approaches those utilized by Big 6 editors.

This opinion is based on the following:

1. It's a waste of your time and money to do otherwise.  I think you have little chance of standing out as a new author lacking an audience (if you have already built an audience, my opinion is completely different) if you don't put out a truly quality product.

2. A sense that, by putting out your book for sale, you're claiming to be a professional.  As an engineer, I've had it ingrained into my head that, if you claim to be a professional, you have to provide a professional quality product.


----------



## GeekDavid

BWFoster78 said:


> The problem is that you may not have any comprehension of how bad your final draft is.
> 
> Maybe you, somehow, are a rare exception, but, in my experience, most new authors don't have much of a clue about what it takes to write a good book.  They simply don't have the tools necessary to understand what they've done wrong and all the things that drag what seems to them like a perfectly fine story down to total dreckitude.
> 
> I realize that this is not a popular opinion, but I think that, if you can't approach the quality level of a Big 6 published book, you shouldn't self publish.  I also think that it's incredibly difficult for you to gain an understanding of if you've reached that level without the services of someone that has an experience level that approaches those utilized by Big 6 editors.
> 
> This opinion is based on the following:
> 
> 1. It's a waste of your time and money to do otherwise.  I think you have little chance of standing out as a new author lacking an audience (if you have already built an audience, my opinion is completely different) if you don't put out a truly quality product.
> 
> 2. A sense that, by putting out your book for sale, you're claiming to be a professional.  As an engineer, I've had it ingrained into my head that, if you claim to be a professional, you have to provide a professional quality product.



Oh, trust me... if the manuscript is dreck, Mark is sure to tell me about it. He's that kinda guy.


----------



## BWFoster78

GeekDavid said:


> Oh, trust me... if the manuscript is dreck, Mark is sure to tell me about it. He's that kinda guy.



Understood, but what is his qualification to tell you?

I'm speaking from experience here.  I ran my drafts by my writing group (one of whom is a freelance editor) and a couple of really good beta readers.

After seeing the comments my content editor made, I would have been embarrassed had I released a draft that I thought wasn't too bad.

It's not that I don't think your friend will tell you that you suck; I think it's unlikely he'll be able to tell that you suck.


----------



## Chilari

So here's a question: is an experienced reviewer good enough to pass for an editor for someone without money? Reviewing books required more thoughtful reading than normal, and often involves taking notes; reviewers read a variety of levels of quality and know how to recognise both good and bad.


----------



## GeekDavid

BWFoster78 said:


> Understood, but what is his qualification to tell you?
> 
> I'm speaking from experience here.  I ran my drafts by my writing group (one of whom is a freelance editor) and a couple of really good beta readers.
> 
> After seeing the comments my content editor made, I would have been embarrassed had I released a draft that I thought wasn't too bad.
> 
> It's not that I don't think your friend will tell you that you suck; I think it's unlikely he'll be able to tell that you suck.



Uh, this guy has been known to forward me (suitably redacted) emails from his work with extensive comments on the grammar and sentence structure.


----------



## BWFoster78

GeekDavid said:


> Uh, this guy has been known to forward me (suitably redacted) emails from his work with extensive comments on the grammar and sentence structure.



Grammar and sentence structure are trivial concerns.  Really.

If you're more concerned about that than tension, emotion, and story/character arcs, I guarantee what you produce isn't going to be close to being ready.

Sorry.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari said:


> So here's a question: is an experienced reviewer good enough to pass for an editor for someone without money? Reviewing books required more thoughtful reading than normal, and often involves taking notes; reviewers read a variety of levels of quality and know how to recognise both good and bad.



I think a reviewer can say, "I don't like this book for these reasons, and/or I love this book because of this."

Here's the problem:

The "reasons" the reviewer points out may or may not have anything to do with the underlying problems with the book.  Professional editors have training to spot problems with book and tell authors how to fix them.  I don't advocate doing everything your editor says just because, but you do have to understand that they have a level of training that a lay person simply doesn't have.


----------



## Devor

Chilari said:


> So here's a question: is an experienced reviewer good enough to pass for an editor for someone without money? Reviewing books required more thoughtful reading than normal, and often involves taking notes; reviewers read a variety of levels of quality and know how to recognise both good and bad.



I would compare it to the legal secretary who passed the bar.

That is, maybe sometimes, if they take this area of the field that passionately.




BWFoster78 said:


> Grammar and sentence structure are trivial concerns.  Really.



I do wish more people would distinguish between editing and proofreading.


----------



## Chilari

So if I call myself an editor, charge money, and say the same sorts of things I pick up in critiques I send authors I'm reviewing, but before the book gets published, does that make a difference?


----------



## GeekDavid

BWFoster78 said:


> Grammar and sentence structure are trivial concerns.  Really.
> 
> If you're more concerned about that than tension, emotion, and story/character arcs, I guarantee what you produce isn't going to be close to being ready.
> 
> Sorry.



Thanks, but I think I'm gonna go with it anyway, once the editing gets done. I simply cannot afford what an editor will charge, and refuse to send it off to some Big Name Publisher who pushes dreck onto the public (see my review in the Books forum of Trudi Cavanan's _The Magician's Guild_) and get pennies on each dollar of the sales.

I'm not saying it's going to be _The Hobbit_ or _Hunger Games_, but it's better than a lot of the dreck I read regularly as part of my reviewing "job".

If you don't like indy published books with volunteer editors, don't buy it. *Please*, don't buy it. I can live without your money, I think, and without the negative review you'd be all but certain to write.


----------



## GeekDavid

Chilari said:


> So if I call myself an editor, charge money, and say the same sorts of things I pick up in critiques I send authors I'm reviewing, but before the book gets published, does that make a difference?



Great idea! I should do that myself. I'll call myself a Professional Editor and rake in over $1,000 for telling someone what any reasonably intelligent person should be able to spot.


----------



## Devor

Chilari said:


> So if I call myself an editor, charge money, and say the same sorts of things I pick up in critiques I send authors I'm reviewing, but before the book gets published, does that make a difference?



I'm just going to say that I had a professional editor work on a short story of mine, and the difference was night and day.


----------



## Chessie

BWFoster78 said:


> I disagree with both the above posts.
> 
> An inexperienced author putting out a product without utilizing the services of a professional editor, to me, would be no different than me trying to sell crayon scribbles from my 3-year-old on Amazon as "art."  In most cases, the dreck that such authors foist upon the unsuspecting public is not of a sufficient quality to justify asking people to pay for it.
> 
> Note that a beta reader or friend who is "good with the language" is not a professional editor and cannot replace one.
> 
> If you cannot afford an editor, perhaps you should go the traditional publishing route.  Once your work is good enough to be accepted by someone willing to pay for those services for you, you'll know your quality is there.


I disagree with this line of thought, with all due respect. You have experience in this business yes, but every artist is different and not the same method works for everyone. I'm in GeekDavid's boat in that my pennies are also meager. I'm a small business owner already trying to make it and things are looking up for me, despite the fact that many people in my life didn't think my business would work. I've ignored them all and had unending faith in myself and so far, so good.

Now though I agree that editors are important, I think its rather unjust to say that if you cannot afford one then you should wait and be published traditionally. How does any other author's 'poorly written works' affect any of us personally? What harm is there in letting people achieve their dreams and learn the publishing business first hand? 

I don't understand the animosity when it comes to self publishing and for example, not using an editor.


----------



## Devor

Chesterama said:


> I don't understand the animosity when it comes to self publishing and for example, not using an editor.



I think it stems from the thought which tempts some people that they can write, publish and just hit it big.  Skipping the hard work and time of an editor plays into that notion.


----------



## Zero Angel

GeekDavid said:


> I'm going to take offense at that.
> 
> I happen to be between jobs, subsisting on the pittance unemployment pays. I am still using an editor, though it's a friend.
> 
> There is no reason "poor people" can't find a friend or friend of a friend who is good with the language to provide a second pair of eyes. It may not be as good as a professional editor, but it's better than some of the dreck I've read that actually got published!



I'm sorry you took offense to it and I'm not really sure why if you're in the same boat. You are fortunate in that your friend is substituting in some way for the money that it would take to hire an editor, but I also don't think that counts as an editor. I think you're doing what I described, the best that you can with what you have, and that's laudable, but I wouldn't call that an editor. When I first published my novel I called the person that edited my book an editor because that was what the college student editor-in-training was going into and we did it TFP. Turns out, he wasn't very good (I hope he ended up doing something else or got wayyyy better). I caught pretty much every proofreading error and he barely offered any advice in regards to directorial concerns. I also had beta readers.

Oh, and I'm now a professional editor also. Have I mentioned that? I've even been paid to do it. WHOO. 

But yeah, I still would like to invest the money for another pair of professional eyes to look at my work. But I won't. I won't do that until I'm making at least $100 a month on my books (I'm currently making $15-30/month) AND I can afford groceries. So that means for the foreseeable future (1 novel, 5 novellas, dozens of shorts, 3-10 math books, more), I will continue to publish editor-less. 

And I will do it unabashedly. 



Chesterama said:


> Now though I agree that editors are important, I think its rather unjust to say that if you cannot afford one then you should wait and be published traditionally. How does any other author's 'poorly written works' affect any of us personally? What harm is there in letting people achieve their dreams and learn the publishing business first hand?
> 
> I don't understand the animosity when it comes to self publishing and for example, not using an editor.



The animosity comes from the fact that most people that don't use an editor have a lot of crap and it makes indies and selfers look unprofessional, undesirable and bad. To be fair though, the thing that most people complain about are not directorial choices that (as has been pointed out many times) is what editors actually look at. The thing that makes everyone look bad are the proofreading errors, and this is what most people that complain in reviews about "editing" complain about. 

I think if you can't afford one you need to be extremely honest with yourself in a way that most people are unable to and take a good hard look at what you're producing and why you're producing it. If you want to have your work out there and don't care about its quality, then well, I guess publish (although I have a hard time understanding the time you've put into it without caring about the quality, I'm not going to say you shouldn't publish, although a disclaimer in the description might be nice). On the other hand, if quality is important, then do everything you possibly can to improve that quality before you publish. 

I stand by the statement I made before though. If you can't afford an editor, then go another route. Do as much as you can with what you have and ask yourself if your book is something that you want out there. Is your book something that you would want to explore and read if it wasn't written by you?

I'm not financially where I need to be in order to afford the bells and whistles, I'll settle for the coffin alone. Some people believe that an editor is part of the coffin, but in my eyes it's strongly, strongly recommended, yet not required. Similarly, back when people were regularly buried alive, I would strongly, strongly recommend bells and whistles and snorkels, but it's not required to bury you. I've got a lot of burying to do and if I wait until I can afford the bells and whistles they'll get a bit overripe.


----------



## Chessie

Absolutely quality matters. Perfectly said, thank you.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari said:


> So if I call myself an editor, charge money, and say the same sorts of things I pick up in critiques I send authors I'm reviewing, but before the book gets published, does that make a difference?



Presumably, you'd only call yourself a professional editor if you had the training and experience to become a professional editor.

Note that not every person out there on the internet charging money for their "editing" services are of any use whatsoever.

I'm an engineer.  I don't just "call" myself an engineer.  I have a degree, spent more than five years working under engineers, and passed two tests to become one.  I'd be angry if someone without those qualifications called themselves an engineer (in fact, in the US, calling yourself an engineer and not being one is illegal).

If I were a real editor, I'd be pretty ticked at all the people who seemingly have no idea what they're doing who are calling themselves editors.

My advice is to find a content editor who has real experience.  Going with some random person is not better than your reviewer friend.


----------



## BWFoster78

GeekDavid said:


> Thanks, but I think I'm gonna go with it anyway, once the editing gets done. I simply cannot afford what an editor will charge, and refuse to send it off to some Big Name Publisher who pushes dreck onto the public (see my review in the Books forum of Trudi Cavanan's _The Magician's Guild_) and get pennies on each dollar of the sales.
> 
> I'm not saying it's going to be _The Hobbit_ or _Hunger Games_, but it's better than a lot of the dreck I read regularly as part of my reviewing "job".
> 
> If you don't like indy published books with volunteer editors, don't buy it. *Please*, don't buy it. I can live without your money, I think, and without the negative review you'd be all but certain to write.



GeekDavid,

Understand, please, that I have no personal stake in you obtaining the services of an editor.  It's your book, and you have every right to do whatever you want.  It's absolutely no skin off my back if you publish something without an editor.

My interest in this is entirely the following: 

1. I'm assuming that your goal is to become a professional writer (ie, you support yourself through writing fiction).
2. I truly believe that you will not succeed in that goal unless if you skip, for whatever reason, the step of obtaining the services of a professional editor.

If becoming a professional writer is not your goal, then my advice, obviously, is not applicable.  If that is your goal, I think you seriously need to think about what I'm saying.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic.  Really.  I'm just trying to share with you what, from my experience, is necessary to progress along the journey of becoming a successful author.

I hope there's no hard feelings.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## BWFoster78

GeekDavid said:


> Great idea! I should do that myself. I'll call myself a Professional Editor and rake in over $1,000 for telling someone what any reasonably intelligent person should be able to spot.



I still think there is some misunderstanding.

I've been doing this writing thing for a while now.  I have a pretty solid grasp of the fundamentals.  I completed my book to the best of my ability and had a number of other individuals who know what they're doing look over it.

My book is absolutely going to be tremendously better because I hired a good editor (as painful as the process was).  She made many, many, many suggestions that went well beyond what a "reasonably intelligent person" would have spotted.

If you're going to make the decision not to hire an editor, I urge you to at least gain a better understanding of what a real editor can do for you.  Frankly, from your posts, you don't seem to have a clue.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chesterama said:


> I disagree with this line of thought, with all due respect. You have experience in this business yes, but every artist is different and not the same method works for everyone. I'm in GeekDavid's boat in that my pennies are also meager. I'm a small business owner already trying to make it and things are looking up for me, despite the fact that many people in my life didn't think my business would work. I've ignored them all and had unending faith in myself and so far, so good.
> 
> Now though I agree that editors are important, I think its rather unjust to say that if you cannot afford one then you should wait and be published traditionally. How does any other author's 'poorly written works' affect any of us personally? What harm is there in letting people achieve their dreams and learn the publishing business first hand?
> 
> I don't understand the animosity when it comes to self publishing and for example, not using an editor.



I think you've misunderstood my viewpoint.  Hopefully, I clarified it with my latest posts.

Just to reiterate: I don't feel that what you do impacts me at all.  I think that you're only hurting yourself by skipping this step.  Read the recent interview of Joe Hill in Writer's Digest.  Understand all the measures he took to ensure that he was good enough to publish.

I think we all mostly agree that the best way (assuming you're a new author without a built in audience) to succeed in this business is to:

1. Publish a good book
2. Repeat step 1

I think we are in disagreement of what constitutes a good book and how incredibly difficult it is to get to a level where you're capable of producing a good book.

What I'm saying is that, unless you have hired an experienced professional content editor, I seriously, seriously doubt your ability to produce a good book.


----------



## Chilari

Brian, editing isn't a professional requiring chartered status to practice. There are no laws preventing someone from calling themselves a professional editor in the way there are with engineers and architects and so on. There also aren't direct fatal consequences to an unqualified person calling themselves an editor. But the result of this is that there are potentially a lot of people out there who call themselves editors and have shiny websites and testimonies and business cards, but who aren't good editors. People who will happily take David's or anyone else's $1000 and give no more detailed feedback than I do for indie authors I review (which, in my defence, is quite detailed - from structural and characterisation down to homophones and the occasional typo, though if there's a proofreading issue I just mention it once with a few examples and move on to the more important stuff).

So while an unedited book might not sell, a badly edited book will also not sell but cost $1000. The author potentially doesn't know what bad editing looks like because they're not a professional editor. A mediocre editor might do only as much to improve the book as five or six friends who are writers and book bloggers. To the author, this editor has shown them how to make some seriously good changes and gone into things in detail with them, and the book has improved - but what's to say that if those five or six friends had also given detailed information, they might not have covered everything the editor said and then some more on top?

After all, everyone says - the more pairs of eyes on your manuscript, the more comprehensive the feedback. People have different experineces, different opinions, different pet peeves. One editor might catch ten things, but six beta readers each catching four things, with some overlap between them, could catch 16 things in total - six more than the editor.

Also I want to make it clear here - I'm not against hiring an editor, but I want to get a fully rounded view of things and see what the other perspective is. Can an indie author do well without spending money on an editor?

Your experience with an editor, Brian, was good - you editor took your manuscript and improved it. She caught things you and your beta readers had missed. But if you'd have five more beta readers - say, me and David and Pauline and other reviewers - would we have been able to make the same improvements? What about ten more beta readers who are all reviewers or published authors?


----------



## BWFoster78

> Brian, editing isn't a professional requiring chartered status to practice. There are no laws preventing someone from calling themselves a professional editor in the way there are with engineers and architects and so on. There also aren't direct fatal consequences to an unqualified person calling themselves an editor. But the result of this is that there are potentially a lot of people out there who call themselves editors and have shiny websites and testimonies and business cards, but who aren't good editors. People who will happily take David's or anyone else's $1000 and give no more detailed feedback than I do for indie authors I review (which, in my defence, is quite detailed - from structural and characterisation down to homophones and the occasional typo, though if there's a proofreading issue I just mention it once with a few examples and move on to the more important stuff).



I agree with you completely here.  Part of the problem is that it's not easy to find a good editor and that there are a lot of people out there who will do just what you say.  I will say that both Devor and I were able to find good ones.  In fact, I've now had experiences with two of them, and I'd say they were both good.



> Your experience with an editor, Brian, was good - you editor took your manuscript and improved it. She caught things you and your beta readers had missed. But if you'd have five more beta readers - say, me and David and Pauline and other reviewers - would we have been able to make the same improvements? What about ten more beta readers who are all reviewers or published authors?



It is my belief that the editor I employed brought knowledge, training, and skills to the table that would not have been matched by any number of beta readers who are not trained.  

Again, I have good beta readers.  I run a lot of my stuff by a writing group that contains both experienced authors and someone who performs freelance editing.

Neither is a substitute for hiring a good content editor.

I'm only going off my experience, but I absolutely feel that finding and employing a good editor is a crucial step.  I understand that the money involved is a hindrance (I felt no joy in spending $550 on this), but it's something that everyone considering self publishing needs to consider seriously.  Maybe you can find some substitute that will allow you to produce quality without an editor, but, truthfully, I'm highly skeptical that it's possible.

EDIT: One additional thought - I don't know if you've seen my line by line critiques or not, but I'm pretty darn thorough.  I cover everything from speech tags to lack of tension.  Even with the level of detail I provide and the knowledge that I bring to the table, I do not feel that my input would adequately replace having a content editor, even when combined with several others with a similar skillset.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

Interesting discussion, which has obviously touched a nerve with some people. I think we can probably all agree that authors shouldn't just toss books out into the world without at least some external editing, and the more pairs of eyes on it the better.

But to suggest that every author who's serious about the craft MUST employ a professional (that is, trained and experienced) editor, without whom the book will be crap is, quite frankly, offensive. Brian's experience with his editor has been mostly good, which is very nice, but that doesn't mean that's the only possible way to go. I don't actually know what training editors can have that will equip them to edit any particular piece of work. To my mind, experience is far more valuable, especially experience in the relevant format and genre.

The risk in hiring a professional editor is that he or she is just one person, whose opinion is given enormous weight because the author has shelled out serious dosh for their time. There's a temptation to tamely go along with everything the editor says, because s/he's the expert, and it may be that the end result is just another generic fantasy book that's lost all the spark and originality of the author's voice. I think they're probably great for experienced authors who know exactly how to adapt the advice, but I'm not convinced that a beginning author should take that jump. 

For the debut book, I don't think there's any substitute for multiple forms of critique; friends, beta readers, critique groups, the more the better, and preferably complete strangers who will tear it apart. Then the author has a range of opinions and can better judge what works and what really doesn't.

I'll repeat here the offer I've made elsewhere on Mythic Scribes. I'm quite happy to read the first few chapters and say whether I'd buy based on that sample, and if not, why not, in some detail. There are plenty of others here who will do the same thing. If anyone really wants their work shredded, Brian is already doing this on his website. 

But the key, in my opinion, is to get as many different opinions as possible, and not depend too heavily on just one person, however well qualified.


----------



## Devor

I think the biggest difference between the editor that I worked with, and the other people I've had give me critiques, was the aggressive cuts.  And he even said that he was being restrained because we were doing it informally.  I think most people are hesitant to make the changes that are necessary.  Most of the critiques I see are motion; here's a thought or two of how I felt.  An edit was action; slice this, this, and fix this.

There wasn't a single thing that he changed that I took issue with.  So that's probably unusual.  There were a handful of changes he made which I agreed needed to be changed, but decided to change them differently.

I learned a lot about writing from having just one story edited by a professional with whom I was on the same page.


----------



## GeekDavid

BWFoster78 said:


> GeekDavid,
> 
> Understand, please, that I have no personal stake in you obtaining the services of an editor.  It's your book, and you have every right to do whatever you want.  It's absolutely no skin off my back if you publish something without an editor.
> 
> My interest in this is entirely the following:
> 
> 1. I'm assuming that your goal is to become a professional writer (ie, you support yourself through writing fiction).
> 2. I truly believe that you will not succeed in that goal unless if you skip, for whatever reason, the step of obtaining the services of a professional editor.
> 
> If becoming a professional writer is not your goal, then my advice, obviously, is not applicable.  If that is your goal, I think you seriously need to think about what I'm saying.
> 
> I'm not trying to be antagonistic.  Really.  I'm just trying to share with you what, from my experience, is necessary to progress along the journey of becoming a successful author.
> 
> I hope there's no hard feelings.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Brian



Brian, please understand, I've seen books passed by what you would call "professional" editors that were just as bad as some indy books. Case in point (which I pointed out before, and which you apparently missed or ignored, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one) is _The Magician's Guild_.

Between chapter 3 and chapter 15 the protagonist goes through approximately a dozen repetitions of "girl on the run from the Guild moves to a new hiding place, she learns something new about her magic, and then the Guild gets close again." Over and over and over again. Lather, rinse, repeat _ad nauseum_. The only saving grace about those chapters is that what's happening within the Guild is slightly more varied, though I found it eminently predictable (Guild member that is known as disagreeable -- surprise! -- disagrees and causes problems).

Yet the "professional" editor(s) at Hachette thought this repetitive dreck was good enough to put on paper and ship to bookstores across the country.

Pray forgive me if I don't put a lot of faith in a group of people who are able to overlook such basic problems with the plot of a story.


----------



## GeekDavid

BWFoster78 said:


> I still think there is some misunderstanding.
> 
> I've been doing this writing thing for a while now.  I have a pretty solid grasp of the fundamentals.  I completed my book to the best of my ability and had a number of other individuals who know what they're doing look over it.
> 
> My book is absolutely going to be tremendously better because I hired a good editor (as painful as the process was).  She made many, many, many suggestions that went well beyond what a "reasonably intelligent person" would have spotted.
> 
> If you're going to make the decision not to hire an editor, I urge you to at least gain a better understanding of what a real editor can do for you.  Frankly, from your posts, you don't seem to have a clue.



So tell me, what is it that makes a "professional" editor better than a "reasonably intelligent person." Have they received a Laying On Of Hands from Anointed Elders of the Church of the Written Word? Have they been bitten by a radioactive bookworm and gained Super-Editing Powers?

Or are they just also reasonably intelligent people who happen to have read a lot and are willing to be brutally honest with an author?


----------



## BWFoster78

> But to suggest that every author who's serious about the craft MUST employ a professional (that is, trained and experienced) editor, without whom the book will be crap is, quite frankly, offensive.



Offensive or no, I stand by the opinion.

Not to discount the service you provide, but, again, I can only go by my experience.  I thought going into editing that my book was pretty ready.  I honestly expected a few minor revisions instead of a major rewrite.

I don't know what to say other than, "Wow, was I wrong." AND "Wow, the book is so much better because of the editing."  AND  "Wow, I'm a much better writer now because of the experience."

I think, on some level, it's hard to understand how much benefit an author can derive from working with a good editor until you experience it.  Before I had the experience, I was much closer to where your POV is now.



> There's a temptation to tamely go along with everything the editor says, because s/he's the expert, and it may be that the end result is just another generic fantasy book that's lost all the spark and originality of the author's voice. I think they're probably great for experienced authors who know exactly how to adapt the advice, but I'm not convinced that a beginning author should take that jump.



I'll agree that you cannot take an editor's every suggestion.  The book is yours, and you have to make the final call.

I disagree with the rest of your statement about beginning authors.  The improvements in the book, and for you as an author, will greatly outweigh any negatives.



> For the debut book, I don't think there's any substitute for multiple forms of critique; friends, beta readers, critique groups, the more the better, and preferably complete strangers who will tear it apart. Then the author has a range of opinions and can better judge what works and what really doesn't.



I have never said that an author shouldn't use beta readers, only that beta readers aren't a substitute for an editor.

Beta reading is a vital part of the learning process and a vital part of the process of improving a book.  For a first time author, I advocate getting your work to the greatest possible stage of advancement on your own and with your beta readers help before submitting it to an editor.


----------



## BWFoster78

GeekDavid said:


> Brian, please understand, I've seen books passed by what you would call "professional" editors that were just as bad as some indy books. Case in point (which I pointed out before, and which you apparently missed or ignored, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one) is _The Magician's Guild_.
> 
> Between chapter 3 and chapter 15 the protagonist goes through approximately a dozen repetitions of "girl on the run from the Guild moves to a new hiding place, she learns something new about her magic, and then the Guild gets close again." Over and over and over again. Lather, rinse, repeat _ad nauseum_. The only saving grace about those chapters is that what's happening within the Guild is slightly more varied, though I found it eminently predictable (Guild member that is known as disagreeable -- surprise! -- disagrees and causes problems).
> 
> Yet the "professional" editor(s) at Hachette thought this repetitive dreck was good enough to put on paper and ship to bookstores across the country.
> 
> Pray forgive me if I don't put a lot of faith in a group of people who are able to overlook such basic problems with the plot of a story.



David,

I did miss that point.

My first thought is: if it was that bad after editing, how bad must it have been before?

Seriously, an editor isn't a magician.  All they can do is take a book from a start point to something better than the start point.

I've read The Magician's Guild.  I agree that it isn't great.  It is, however, better than just about all the unedited drivel I've read.


----------



## GeekDavid

BWFoster78 said:


> David,
> 
> I did miss that point.
> 
> My first thought is: if it was that bad after editing, how bad must it have been before?
> 
> Seriously, an editor isn't a magician.  All they can do is take a book from a start point to something better than the start point.
> 
> I've read The Magician's Guild.  I agree that it isn't great.  It is, however, better than just about all the unedited drivel I've read.



I honestly think you're giving it a pass because it was allowed through by a "professional" editor.

My honest opinion is that you -- because of your career path -- are both used to being The Expert, and because of that, are imbuing Experts in any field with pseudo-magical powers. A "professional" editor is An Expert, therefore to you, whatever they say must be right.

I've found a lot of Experts who probably had trouble getting the right shoe on the right foot in the morning. They're not superhuman, they're not minor deities, they're merely people who've gotten a piece of paper from somewhere. They're just as prone to errors as the rest of us and in some cases, more prone because they let their Expert status blind them to obvious flaws. (Tacoma Narrows Bridge, anyone? The Experts thought that bridge was just fine, remember.)

One final point, then I am done debating this with you. Are you willing to write your "professional" editor and tell him/her that you'll foot the bill for editing my manuscript? Because I do not have the money to do it. No? Then please, quit trying to force me to spend money I don't have.


----------



## BWFoster78

GeekDavid said:


> So tell me, what is it that makes a "professional" editor better than a "reasonably intelligent person." Have they received a Laying On Of Hands from Anointed Elders of the Church of the Written Word? Have they been bitten by a radioactive bookworm and gained Super-Editing Powers?
> 
> Or are they just also reasonably intelligent people who happen to have read a lot and are willing to be brutally honest with an author?



A professional content editor has training and experience in fixing problem areas that arise in writing.

In any field, there is a difference between a professional and a lay person.  Let's say you need to build a high rise.  Do you go to a structural engineer or is Uncle Bob, who's lived a long time and works in a high rise, good enough?

Back to the point of my post, which you seemed to have ignored: it certainly seems like you don't know a lot about the editing process.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to research the concepts involved more in depth before you dismiss the advice that an editor is needed?


----------



## GeekDavid

BWFoster78 said:


> A professional content editor has training and experience in fixing problem areas that arise in writing.
> 
> In any field, there is a difference between a professional and a lay person.  Let's say you need to build a high rise.  Do you go to a structural engineer or is Uncle Bob, who's lived a long time and works in a high rise, good enough?
> 
> Back to the point of my post, which you seemed to have ignored: it certainly seems like you don't know a lot about the editing process.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to research the concepts involved more in depth before you dismiss the advice that an editor is needed?



Yeah, the editors at Hachette had *so* much training that they let an author write the same scene twelve times in twelve chapters.

See my earlier response about you and your Expert-itis.

I am done debating this with you.

Edited to add: If you'd lose the tone of looking down at anyone who doesn't do it precisely the way you do, you might be able to get your point across better. This whole discussion with you I've gotten the sense that I was being thought of as "not a real author" because I intend to self-publish.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I honestly think you're giving it a pass because it was allowed through by a "professional" editor.



And I honestly think that we have an honest difference of opinion on how bad the book is.  I don't consider it one of the great works of fantasy, but, if my memory serves, I thought it was okay.  Perhaps the problems with the book happen to touch on one of your pet peeves?



> My honest opinion is that you -- because of your career path -- are both used to being The Expert, and because of that, are imbuing Experts in any field with pseudo-magical powers. A "professional" editor is An Expert, therefore to you, whatever they say must be right.



I am quite willing to admit that experts can be wrong.  Happens all the time.

I'm simply relating my experience and the conclusions I've drawn from it: my book is absolutely better because of hiring an editor.  The increase in quality is to such an extent that I think it would have been a huge mistake for me to publish it after only going through the "editing" methods that you've described.

I don't know how I can more clearly state that a) I understand what you suggest is adequate, b) I went through the process that you felt was adequate, and c) I later found out that the process you felt was adequate absolutely wasn't.



> Then please, quit trying to force me to spend money I don't have.



I'm not trying to force you to do anything.  The only person who is responsible for your success in this endeavor is you, and, really, whether or not you succeed means nothing to me at all.

I'm simply stating that, from what my experience has taught, my conclusion is: you are much less likely to succeed at becoming a successful writer if you don't engage a professional content editor.

It sounds like you don't want to hear that advice.  I understand as I've been where you are.  I had my own ideas as to what was required to become successful.  Experience has taught me that I was wrong, that a lot more is required than I ever imagined.

I don't care what you do with the information, but I'll not shy away from telling you the truth as I see it.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Edited to add: If you'd lose the tone of looking down at anyone who doesn't do it precisely the way you do, you might be able to get your point across better. This whole discussion with you I've gotten the sense that I was being thought of as "not a real author" because I intend to self-publish.



I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not sure where it's coming from.

I feel like I'm saying: It's my experience that, in order to succeed, you should do this...

You seem to take that as: You look down on me because I'm not doing what you say.

That is not my intent.  My intent is simply to try to improve your chances of success based on what my experience and analysis have shown.  You are free to disregard the advice.  I don't think you're a horrible person if you do; I simply think that your decision has decreased your chances of being successful.

BTW, I'm self publishing, and I consider myself a "real" author.  I'm not sure how you got the impression that I am against self publishing or that I feel people who self publish aren't real authors.


----------



## GeekDavid

Speaking of editing FAIL:


> "Jesus" has been misspelled on official Vatican issued medals designed to celebrate the one year anniversary of Pope Francis' installation as head of the Catholic Church.
> 
> It in an embarrassing incident for the Catholic Church with the Vatican being forced to withdraw thousands of official papal medals from sale after the misspelling of Jesus' name was found recently.
> 
> The medals were designed to help the Catholic Church mark the first year of Pope Francis' pontificate. The medals, which were produced in gold, silver and bronze, contained a Latin inscription around the edge, but referred to Jesus as "Lesus."



Jesus Misspelled by Vatican: Embarrassment for Catholic Church as Special Medals to Celebrate Pope Francis' Anniversary as Pontiff Withdrawn

Now *that's* an embarrassing goof.


----------



## Philip Overby

I find this topic interesting and I apparently missed something. I recently read Brian's stance on this issue over at Chilari's blog. I said that I agreed with a lot of what was said, but didn't think it all completely rang true for me. So Chilari offered for me to write a counter-argument in a future guest post. I'll be working on that soon.

One thing I'd like to point out is that I've noticed around here and other writing communities that writers don't want to be told "this way is the only way." If a way works for a particular person, it's good to say, "Hey, this worked for me and here's why." Saying that another person's way is wrong or ill-informed is a sure-fire way to start a heated argument. For me I say, "I think things are this way." If someone disagrees I say "OK. I guess we disagree about that" and move on. If it's a topic that I think we can have a good, constructive discussion on, then I'll state my case the best I can. When it seems that neither side is budging, that's when it's time to just say, "Well, toMAYto, toMAto. Let's call the whole thing off."

I do think there's merit to hiring a professional editor. Especially if you're planning to self-publish. However, I don't think it's an absolute must. Writers should teach themselves editing skills that way they don't have to rely so much on other people to make their work shine. So my advice would be if you don't plan to hire an editor or at least have others you trust look over your work, then you should study editing extensively and put that in your "writer's tool belt." The best way to learn is by writing and editing. Learn by doing. But it would be good to see what the standard in the industry is held up to be or at least find a writer's book you think is clean and well edited. Aim for that.

I'll have more to say on Chilari's blog. That's not a cheap plug because it's not my blog, right?


----------



## Chilari

BWFoster78 said:


> A professional content editor has training and experience in fixing problem areas that arise in writing.
> 
> In any field, there is a difference between a professional and a lay person.  Let's say you need to build a high rise.  Do you go to a structural engineer or is Uncle Bob, who's lived a long time and works in a high rise, good enough?



Two points in response to this:

1. What kind of training and experience? And what constitutes sufficient of either?

An example: I am a proposals co-ordinator. That means when my company wants to bid to build a school or residential block or office, I get the client's documentation and have a set of questions to respond to. I then send out those questions to the bid team, comprising engineers, designers, planners, etc within the company. We have a meeting where we talk about win themes and how we're going to answer each question. They answer the questions and send them back to me. For each answer, I then read it and check it against the question that was asked, the answer plan we discussed earlier with key points, and the win themes. We have a review session and discuss the document, and between us we decide to change sections, cut bits, add bits, move bits around etc as necessary. Once this is done, I proofread the document and format it, then submit it. So, a certain amount of my day job involves content editing - asking response writers to change their responses to make them better. The editing and proofreading parts of my job probably take up about 5% of my time, a couple of hours a week for the last year.

As part of my job I also undergo constant training in job-related skills, like giving presentations, using inDesign, understanding the client - and editing responses to ensure they answer the question and persuade the client we're what they want.

At the same time, for the last year I've had a website where I have reviewed books on occasion. The number of reviews posted on my website is fewer than the number I have agreed to do; with some, I get a certain amount through the book and give up. In most cases, the review you see on the website isn't all I had to say. Those reviews, which range from 400 to 1000 words, are more in depth than many reviews. I consider a variety of aspects of the book in question, including plot, characterisation, pacing, mood, language and voice. Even for books I loved, I try to find something to criticise; no book is perfect. In the feedback I send an author, I go into more depth on my key points, provide specific examples, and explain my reasoning. I find it easier to be brutal for those I don't already know, those who approach me via my website, but I don't want to be mean; they've already published this, it's out there, and sure they can edit it and upload a new edition, but I'm not being paid for this, I'm probably not going to hear back from them, so it's not worth my time or theirs for me to bring up more than the worst offenders or general problems.

So I have experience in editing bid documents in a professional capacity. I have experience in reviewing fantasy books for my blog and providing feedback. I have an understanding of the fantasy genre and some experience in writing. If I were being paid to edit someone else's work, I'd give them more detailed, specific advice and feel more able to make suggestions than I do now, but at present this is offered, not asked for. I have even got a little bit of training in editing.

Is that enough training and experience to set up as a professional editor? How much experience editing should I have? How do I get expereince as an editor without saying "I'm an editor, hire me to edit your books"? And if someone asks me for a detailed beta read of their book, brutally honest, at a higher level than I give critiques normally on books I review, what's the difference between me doing that, and me charging for the same from a stranger and calling myself an editor? What's the difference between me doing that for a friend and them paying someone else who may or may not have experience in editing, in their genre, indeed in editing fiction at all? What about an editor with ten years of experience and who has gone on several training sessions, but never wrote a word of fiction themselves? What about an editor who has experience and training but just never quite got it, who just isn't that good at their job?

What training is enough? What experience is enough?


2. Yes, there's a difference between a professional and a layperson. But this isn't a case of you're either a member of the public with no high rise building experience, or you're an engineer at the prime of your career and lots of expereince in high rises. There is more nuance. You don't go on a training course and go from knowing nothing to knowing everything. You start by getting an engineering degree, then you start on site as a junior engineer and learn on the job. Or you start as a labourer and learn on the job and get sponsorship from your company to take an NVQ and keep learning on the job. Then either of these two routes will lead to more experience and more qualifications - HNC, ONC, whatever - until you become an expereinced engineer.

Nobody starts their career near the top of the ladder. You start on a lower rung and climb. The same goes for editing. Perhaps with my expereince, I'm a couple of rungs from the bottom already without ever calling myself a professional editor. I'm better than the guy who just left school with an English A level (I have one of those too, for the record) because I have different types of experience, I've probably read more books, and I've spent the last year reviewing books in depth. I've also been studying writing for the last decade, something I doubt an 18 year old has managed.

What I'm saying here is that a reasonably intelligent person with some experience of editing, lots of experience of the genre and knowledge of writing could just as easily be David's friend providing a free detailed critique as they could be someone with a start-up freelance editing business.

So how can you justify making that distinction when (a) you don't lknow the specifics of a trusted beta reader/editor working for free, (b) anyone can be an editor if they want, with whatever level of experience and training, so it's possible to hire an editor and only then discover they're crap, and (c) someone working for free for a friend could be considering starting up an editing business next month, with aforementioned friend as testimony to their skill and years of experience in writing, reviewing fantasy novel and content editing for technical documents, and they only haven't yet because they had a stable job before and didn't need to.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I do think there's merit to hiring a professional editor. Especially if you're planning to self-publish. However, I don't think it's an absolute must. Writers should teach themselves editing skills that way they don't have to rely so much on other people to make their work shine.



I think that, as a group, new authors who don't have a built in audience vastly underestimate how good their work needs to be in order to be successful.  Vastly.  Really vastly.

The issue for me isn't as much about the need for an editor as it is about the need to be good.  I happen to think that it's difficult to get to the necessary level without a lot of help, including that of a professional content editor.

Note that I make two distinctions in that initial statement:

1. New authors, but which I mean inexperienced.  Fiction writing is not like any other writing we've been taught.  It requires a skill set and learning well above and beyond learning grammar or anything that was taught to us regarding technical writing.  If you've published a ton of novels or achieved the 10,000 hours of writing necessary to become an expert or you have a masters degree in fiction writing, my statement does not necessarily apply.

2. No built in audience.  Some authors achieved success by giving away their work in an environment where they were able to get good feedback on what their audience wanted.  These people were taught directly by their intended audience exactly what and how to write.  Once they achieved a huge fanbase, they then published.  That direct experience, imo, trumps anything an editor is going to be able to do for them.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari,



> 1. What kind of training and experience? And what constitutes sufficient of either?





> Is that enough training and experience to set up as a professional editor?



If we're talking copy editing, I think the experience that you describe is probably adequate.  I think that, when we're talking about content editing for fiction, I just don't see it.

I think a professional editor needs specific training and experience, and a lot of it, in fiction writing and on how to spot and fix the specific types of problems that authors are likely to encounter.

As I wrote in the post above, fiction writing requires skills and experience that have absolutely nothing to do with technical writing or grammar or punctuation.  Editing fiction writing for content is about tension and characters and story.  Whereas practically anyone is capable of saying, "I didn't like this and that," it takes, imo, special expertise to be able both to diagnose and make suggestions for fixing specific issues.



> So how can you justify making that distinction when (a) you don't lknow the specifics of a trusted beta reader/editor working for free, (b) anyone can be an editor if they want, with whatever level of experience and training, so it's possible to hire an editor and only then discover they're crap, and (c) someone working for free for a friend could be considering starting up an editing business next month, with aforementioned friend as testimony to their skill and years of experience in writing, reviewing fantasy novel and content editing for technical documents, and they only haven't yet because they had a stable job before and didn't need to.



A) I can only go by my experience.  I have yet to find a reviewer or beta reader, myself included, who come close to the level of experience, training, and skill needed.  If your beta reader is a professional content editor, good for you!

B) There actually is a professional organization for editors that requires certain critieria be met.  Authors are probably better off making sure that they use members of that organization.

C) There's always an outside chance that maybe your friend's skill/experience level is adequate.  If you think that's the case, only you can make that decision.

Again, not trying to say arbitrarily: "Thou shalt use only a certified professional editor."  I'm saying, "I think only a professional content editor is likely to be able to perform the function you absolutely need."


----------



## Devor

Chilari said:


> So I have experience in editing bid documents in a professional capacity. I have experience in reviewing fantasy books for my blog and providing feedback. I have an understanding of the fantasy genre and some experience in writing. If I were being paid to edit someone else's work, I'd give them more detailed, specific advice and feel more able to make suggestions than I do now, but at present this is offered, not asked for. I have even got a little bit of training in editing.
> 
> Is that enough training and experience to set up as a professional editor?



I think this discussion has gotten too much about credentials and isn't focused enough on the actual editing process.

For instance, consider the rates that editors charge, and then extrapolate those rates across the amount of work they're expected to put into it.

If I gave somebody a 30,000 word story, would they know how to put $500 of skilled work into improving it?  What are the various impressions of what that work would look like?


----------



## Sanctified

Zero Angel said:


> Thanks for that. I requested my library to get "Cloud Atlas", but haven't gotten a chance yet. Still, the fact that you state it is "literary" makes me trepidatious to read it.



I'm not going to lie, some parts of Cloud Atlas are written in styles that can be difficult to comprehend at first -- the novel is structured like a Russian nesting doll, with a story within a story within a story within a story, and so on. Because the stories leap across several hundred years, with contemporary, unreliable narrators, it's like reading a book by six different authors with very different voices.

The first story is written as the diary of a notary on a missionary ship in the 1850s, and the last story is an oral history related by a far-future, post-apocalypse tribesman speaking an evolved pidgin with remnants of our language. But once you get the hang of it, both stories are beautiful, and the other stories are much easier to read, such as "The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish," which is rendered in a very British, modern prose and also happens to be one of the most hilarious things I've ever read.

The bottom line is, the effort required is well worth it because the reward is so sweet. It's not hype to say there is nothing like it, because there really is nothing like it. You know how you might admire a novel and think, "I'd really like to write like this guy"? I read David Mitchell's first book in 1999 (Ghostwritten) and thought, "There is no way I could ever write like this guy."


----------



## Sanctified

I think there are some misconceptions about what a book editor does. Phil made a very good point about self-editing, which is an absolutely necessary skill.

If you're handing a manuscript full of spelling and grammatical errors to a professional editor, you're wasting her time as well as your own. Of course we all make those mistakes, but it's on us to minimize the, because a professional editor's role is not to play high school grammar teacher. Her role is to make sure the narrative is tight and engaging, to look for errors in consistency and logic, and to help make your prose sing. We need professional editors because we're all human and we make mistakes, but we also need them because they have real expertise and experience, and because they're far enough removed from the story to assess what works and what doesn't.


----------



## Zero Angel

GeekDavid said:


> Brian, please understand, I've seen books passed by what you would call "professional" editors that were just as bad as some indy books. Case in point (which I pointed out before, and which you apparently missed or ignored, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one) is _The Magician's Guild_.
> 
> Between chapter 3 and chapter 15 the protagonist goes through approximately a dozen repetitions of "girl on the run from the Guild moves to a new hiding place, she learns something new about her magic, and then the Guild gets close again." Over and over and over again. Lather, rinse, repeat _ad nauseum_. The only saving grace about those chapters is that what's happening within the Guild is slightly more varied, though I found it eminently predictable (Guild member that is known as disagreeable -- surprise! -- disagrees and causes problems).
> 
> Yet the "professional" editor(s) at Hachette thought this repetitive dreck was good enough to put on paper and ship to bookstores across the country.
> 
> Pray forgive me if I don't put a lot of faith in a group of people who are able to overlook such basic problems with the plot of a story.



Just a note about arguing (the mathematician in me has been screaming to get a word in as I've gotten caught up). An example doesn't prove anything. Your example of badly edited books doesn't help and Brian's example of editing improving his work doesn't help prove anything. There's nothing to prove. It's a matter of opinion, but if there was something to prove, then you couldn't do it with an example. 

Also worth noting, Brian's insight here is invaluable because he is discussing the actual editing process from an editor. Any book we could cite as an example of a terrible book with terrible editing or whatever, we have NO IDEA what the editors told the author. It's possible (maybe not plausible, but possible) that the author was told to absolutely not do what ended up being done in the book. For bigger authors or even just established authors, I think they get a little more leeway, especially in directorial editing choices. This would explain the massacre that was Robin Hobb's Rain Wilds Chronicles. I would have never approved that as an editor to the books. 



Chilari said:


> Two points in response to this:
> 
> 1. What kind of training and experience? And what constitutes sufficient of either?
> What training is enough? What experience is enough?



I think Brian's said it at least once, and I would have hoped that it would have been assumed, but you want a a *GOOD* editor. Everything else (experience, training, etc) falls by the wayside in your considerations (or should anyway, although those other considerations may be one way you judge someone until you get to know their work). 

Yes there are bad editors, inexperienced editors, and all varieties, but you want a good one. How do you find a good editor would be a great topic for discussion, and everyone's different. People have different styles of writing and editing and you need to find an editor that is going to benefit your writing and that you can work with.

This is even more reason why I'm not bothering with paying an editor until I am more established. Finding a good editor that I can work with is a needle in a haystack venture and is not something that I am willing to spend time on until I know I would be able to afford it without going hungry.


----------



## GeekDavid

Zero Angel said:


> It's possible (maybe not plausible, but possible) that the author was told to absolutely not do what ended up being done in the book. For bigger authors or even just established authors, I think they get a little more leeway, especially in directorial editing choices. This would explain the massacre that was Robin Hobb's Rain Wilds Chronicles. I would have never approved that as an editor to the books.



These are this author's first books to the best of my knowledge, so she's not a "bigger or even just established" author. And if she defied what the editor told her to do, they shouldn't have published the books.

My point is that editors can screw up, even Big Name Publisher editors, and therefore they should not be invested with god-like wisdom. Telling someone to send a manuscript off to a Big Name Publisher to get it edited the right way (as Brian did to me) is exactly the sort of "you can't trust anyone but an expensive professional" attitude that rubs me entirely the wrong way.


----------



## Chessie

In case I have missed it, has anyone posted on here some things writers who aren't going the editor route can do to improve their manuscripts for publication? Granted, I do think having a GOOD editor who is familiar with the genre you are writing in is invaluable, but I cannot afford such a luxury at this time. Zero Angel, how do you go about having your manuscript sharpened without an editor? Anyone else have experience with this?


----------



## Zero Angel

GeekDavid said:


> My point is that editors can screw up, even Big Name Publisher editors, and therefore they should not be invested with god-like wisdom. Telling someone to send a manuscript off to a Big Name Publisher to get it edited the right way (as Brian did to me) is exactly the sort of "you can't trust anyone but an expensive professional" attitude that rubs me entirely the wrong way.



I'm not sure anyone has claimed they're infallible, only invaluable. 



Chesterama said:


> In case I have missed it, has anyone posted on here some things writers who aren't going the editor route can do to improve their manuscripts for publication? Granted, I do think having a GOOD editor who is familiar with the genre you are writing in is invaluable, but I cannot afford such a luxury at this time. Zero Angel, how do you go about having your manuscript sharpened without an editor? Anyone else have experience with this?



Well, I've gotten a lot better at self-editing first of all. I do several read-throughs with a variety of different things I'm looking for. I'm constantly on the lookout for grammar and wording issues, but I'm mostly reading for pacing, continuity, cadence and interest. After I've worked out most of the kinks, I do a read-through aloud to see how it reads that way. 

For my first novel, I did a TFP deal with an "up-and-coming editor" (call your local university's English department). Even though I didn't have a great experience, I still think it's a good option to explore. The more eyes on your manuscript the better, and you may luck out with a talented unknown. I had the usual gamut of beta readers as well, and it was nice to hear their thoughts and takes on the characters, story and action. 

I do a lot of outlining, both before and during the story and I connect scenes with continuity lines in my notes, writing down what new things the reader discovers or what they need to figure out so I make sure that I cover everything. I have a "what the reader knows" document where I write down when and how the reader finds something out, and if it is privy only to a few characters, then I write that there too. My series is scheduled for 12+ books though, so this is preventative maintenance more than anything. 

I'm sure there's more that I do, but it has been a little while since I've edited a novel. For shorter stories, everything is much more straightforward and easier.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Telling someone to send a manuscript off to a Big Name Publisher to get it edited the right way (as Brian did to me) is exactly the sort of "you can't trust anyone but an expensive professional" attitude that rubs me entirely the wrong way.



I've read a lot of self published stuff.  I've read a lot of posts by self published authors.

If you list the following two problems for self published authors:

1. I paid money to a good editor and wasn't happy with the results.
2. I self published my book without an editor and the result wasn't very good.

From my experience, the second of those two problems is much more widespread and much more damaging to the career of the author in question.  That's not to say that the first one isn't valid, but I tend to focus on the more common and disasterous of the two.


----------



## BWFoster78

> This is even more reason why I'm not bothering with paying an editor until I am more established. Finding a good editor that I can work with is a needle in a haystack venture and is not something that I am willing to spend time on until I know I would be able to afford it without going hungry.



Thus far, I've worked with two editors and found both of them well worth the money.  I don't think that either of them were perfect, but I learned a lot from each.

I think the keys to finding a good editor are:

1. Make it clear that you're looking for content editing.  (I think that most writers on the board can provide you with help with copy editing.  I'd love to pay a professional copy editor, but I think content editing is so much more important and harder to find good help with.)
2. Have the prospective editor do a small section of your work as a sample.
3. Look at the sample work.  Did the editor make excellent suggestions on how to improve tension and pace and character and story?  If not, move on to the next one.


----------



## BWFoster78

> In case I have missed it, has anyone posted on here some things writers who aren't going the editor route can do to improve their manuscripts for publication?



I think the best advice I can give here is to not rush to publication.  Get a lot of sets of eyes on it.  Trade beta reading with the best authors you can find.  Learn as much as you can from each of them and do a lot of drafts.

Truthfully, my main point in everything I've written in this thread is:

*Creating a good book is much, much harder than most self published authors think.*


----------



## GeekDavid

For all you, pro and con, I am running an impromptu experiment.

Since I've decided to back-shelf _Librarian_ for a while, I told my friend he didn't have to edit it, but he said he'd still like to give it a shot, because he really likes the story concept. He also mentioned that he can edit for story/character development, expansion/contraction/development, as well as technical.

Since we have a bit of a disagreement here, I've also sent the identical manuscript off to Patrick Richardson, who is the editor-in-chief at Otherwhere Gazette, and who is also a professional newspaper reporter and editor.

In other words, I've sent the same manuscript off to both an amateur and professional editor, allowing me to compare and contrast the suggestions they make. I'll report the results here when I get them... assuming I haven't gotten myself kicked off before then.


----------



## Chessie

I do agree that creating a good book is much more difficult than I originally thought it would be. This creation is my baby, and the last thing I want to do is stab it to death on the Amazon market. Thank you for the suggestions BW and Zero, they are very helpful.

GeekDavid, awesome! Good luck with your experiment. I hope it turns out something really good for you.


----------



## GeekDavid

Chesterama said:


> GeekDavid, awesome! Good luck with your experiment. I hope it turns out something really good for you.



My suspicion is that the "professionals only" camp will take the "well, you found the one in a billion good amateur" line if my friend happens to edit just as well as the professionals.


----------



## Chilari

Interesting experiment.

I'd like to see a similar experiement (or maybe try it myself. Write a story. After getting it to a good position myself, I stop working on it. Then split it in two. In one, change all the character names. Send version A to a professional editor. Edit the A version based solely on feedback from that editor. Send version B to ten beta readers, and edit the B manuscript based solely on feedback from them. With copyediting, do the same thing - A goes to a professional, B goes via a few people good at English grammar. Publish both versions under pseudonyms, having set up author platform blogs for both with very similar marketing efforts (not identical blog posts, but very similar topics, and posted at the exact same times). Conduct exactly the same marketing efforts - when one tweets, so does the other. See how many downloads each version gets. Is there a difference? Which direction does it favour?

Of course, this costs money. Plus, the optimum approach would obviously be to use both methods - get beta readers first, then a professional. Different pairs of eyes, different approaches. But still, it would be interesting to see the results.

So if anyone has a novelette they don't know what to do with and a few grand going spare, please have a go at this!


----------



## GeekDavid

Chilari said:


> Interesting experiment.
> 
> I'd like to see a similar experiement (or maybe try it myself. Write a story. After getting it to a good position myself, I stop working on it. Then split it in two. In one, change all the character names. Send version A to a professional editor. Edit the A version based solely on feedback from that editor. Send version B to ten beta readers, and edit the B manuscript based solely on feedback from them. With copyediting, do the same thing - A goes to a professional, B goes via a few people good at English grammar. Publish both versions under pseudonyms, having set up author platform blogs for both with very similar marketing efforts (not identical blog posts, but very similar topics, and posted at the exact same times). Conduct exactly the same marketing efforts - when one tweets, so does the other. See how many downloads each version gets. Is there a difference? Which direction does it favour?
> 
> Of course, this costs money. Plus, the optimum approach would obviously be to use both methods - get beta readers first, then a professional. Different pairs of eyes, different approaches. But still, it would be interesting to see the results.
> 
> So if anyone has a novelette they don't know what to do with and a few grand going spare, please have a go at this!



After I hit the Powerball or win the Publisher's Clearing House prize, I'll give that a shot.


----------



## Sanctified

GeekDavid said:


> For all you, pro and con, I am running an impromptu experiment.
> 
> Since I've decided to back-shelf _Librarian_ for a while, I told my friend he didn't have to edit it, but he said he'd still like to give it a shot, because he really likes the story concept. He also mentioned that he can edit for story/character development, expansion/contraction/development, as well as technical.
> 
> Since we have a bit of a disagreement here, I've also sent the identical manuscript off to Patrick Richardson, who is the editor-in-chief at Otherwhere Gazette, and who is also a professional newspaper reporter and editor.
> 
> In other words, I've sent the same manuscript off to both an amateur and professional editor, allowing me to compare and contrast the suggestions they make. I'll report the results here when I get them... assuming I haven't gotten myself kicked off before then.




I'm a newspaper reporter and editor. I wouldn't trust most of my colleagues to edit fiction. Different ball game.


----------



## ThinkerX

> In case I have missed it, has anyone posted on here some things writers who aren't going the editor route can do to improve their manuscripts for publication? Granted, I do think having a GOOD editor who is familiar with the genre you are writing in is invaluable, but I cannot afford such a luxury at this time. Zero Angel, how do you go about having your manuscript sharpened without an editor? Anyone else have experience with this?



Set aside for several weeks.  Work on something else, let your attention get absorbed by that something else.  Then pull the first project out of (digital?) storage and start reading.  A lot of things needing fixing *will* leap out at you.  A lot of other things you thought 'not so good' will seem good.  At least, thats how it worked with me...and in some cases, the older work had been tucked away for over a decade.


----------



## GeekDavid

Sanctified said:


> I'm a newspaper reporter and editor. I wouldn't trust most of my colleagues to edit fiction. Different ball game.



Yeah, I know, I have to use the Officially Approved Editors of the High Llamas of Fantasy as shown by the Holy Laying On Of Hands.


----------



## Sanctified

Chesterama said:


> In case I have missed it, has anyone posted on here some things writers who aren't going the editor route can do to improve their manuscripts for publication? Granted, I do think having a GOOD editor who is familiar with the genre you are writing in is invaluable, but I cannot afford such a luxury at this time. Zero Angel, how do you go about having your manuscript sharpened without an editor? Anyone else have experience with this?



You're talking about self-publishing, yeah? An alternative is to submit to a good compilation. I've seen quite a few that anchor the collection with big names, but make a point to say they'll accept submissions and are actively looking for new voices. Editing is part of the process, so you also get the benefit of working with a professional editor without it costing you anything. Can't hurt to try.

As far as straight-up self-publishing, ebooks or hard copy, I'm afraid I don't have an easy answer. I have an online friend who is a professional fiction editor and maybe she'll be willing to answer some questions. I'll follow up here if she's up for that.


----------



## Sanctified

GeekDavid said:


> Yeah, I know, I have to use the Officially Approved Editors of the High Llamas of Fantasy as shown by the Holy Laying On Of Hands.



Dude that argument you're having in this thread is a whole other thing, no need to get defensive. I'm not one of the people posting absolutes or saying you've got to do X to be successful. I'm a chill dude and willing to listen to any perspective, and I try to be as respectful as possible.

You're using your friend's expertise as a reporter to make a point. Fair enough. But I'm saying journalism and fiction writing are two very different things, and most journalists don't have the skill set to serve as fiction editors.


----------



## GeekDavid

Sanctified said:


> Dude that argument you're having in this thread is a whole other thing, no need to get defensive. I'm not one of the people posting absolutes or saying you've got to do X to be successful. I'm a chill dude and willing to listen to any perspective, and I try to be as respectful as possible.
> 
> You're using your friend's expertise as a reporter to make a point. Fair enough. But I'm saying journalism and fiction writing are two very different things, and most journalists don't have the skill set to serve as fiction editors.



So, the man who makes his living editing isn't good enough, because he isn't a *fantasy* editor.

I get it, really, I do. I was just pointing it out in a sarcastic way, because that's the way I am... I am a sarcast with a little human wrapped around me.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari said:


> Interesting experiment.
> 
> I'd like to see a similar experiement (or maybe try it myself. Write a story. After getting it to a good position myself, I stop working on it. Then split it in two. In one, change all the character names. Send version A to a professional editor. Edit the A version based solely on feedback from that editor. Send version B to ten beta readers, and edit the B manuscript based solely on feedback from them. With copyediting, do the same thing - A goes to a professional, B goes via a few people good at English grammar. Publish both versions under pseudonyms, having set up author platform blogs for both with very similar marketing efforts (not identical blog posts, but very similar topics, and posted at the exact same times). Conduct exactly the same marketing efforts - when one tweets, so does the other. See how many downloads each version gets. Is there a difference? Which direction does it favour?
> 
> Of course, this costs money. Plus, the optimum approach would obviously be to use both methods - get beta readers first, then a professional. Different pairs of eyes, different approaches. But still, it would be interesting to see the results.
> 
> So if anyone has a novelette they don't know what to do with and a few grand going spare, please have a go at this!



I think an experiment is a good idea.  I'm not sure what your plan of how to judge the results is entirely feasible from a time and effort standpoint.

Most of us, when we received feedback, eventually come to understand the worth of that feedback.  Not sure a big evaluation is needed.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari,

I'm going to take one more stab at trying to get my point across:

Let's take the following sentence -



> Jake sew that, all of the children were walking.



Forget "any reasonable person."  Any idiot with some knowledge of English would be able to point out that "sew" was probably meant to be "saw" and that the comma after "that" is incorrect.

Is this feedback valuable?

Absolutely, leaving typos like these in your story makes you look unprofessional.  Any help getting rid of them is much appreciated.

On the other hand, the number of people who can provide this feedback lessens its worth from a monetary standpoint.

Let's move to the next level of comments:



> Jake saw that all of the children were walking.



A lot of beginning writers seem to think that it's necessary to add "were/was" before the verb.  I think that most of the people on this board would easily point out to them that a) it's not necessary and b) it makes you look like a beginning writer.

A lot of us would also point out that "of" is superfluous and should be deleted.  Some would say the same for "that" and "all."

These kind of changes are good.  Tight writing is, in general, better.  These comments, imo, are also a bit more valuable than the ones before because they require more knowledge on the part of the commenter.

Moving on:



> Jake saw the children walking.



"Walking" doesn't paint much of a picture.  Are they strolling, trudging, skipping?  Find a better word!

It takes a bit more experience to make this kind of comment, making it more valuable.



> Jake saw the children strolling.



"Saw" indicates that a narrator is telling us what the POV character, Jake, is seeing.  Is there a reason for the narrative distance?

Nice.  Good comment.  This person understands a bit about POV.

Now we have:



> The children strolled.



To my way of thinking, nothing about changing the sentence from its original version to the one immediately above makes the story better.  All it does is make the writing less bad.

Don't get me wrong.  Less bad is much better than more bad.

The important point is that I don't feel that any of the advice above is worth any of my hard-earned money.  IMO, your story should be at this level before you ever send it to an editor.  Those kind of changes are why you need good beta readers, and it's stuff you should know before you ever think you're ready to publish.  I think of them as prerequisites.

So, what do I consider important?

A good content editor is going to look at that sentence and ask, "Why is the sentence there?  Does it increase tension?  Reveal character?  Advance plot?"  Ideally, your sentence not only accomplishes one of these three things but all three.

A content editor is not concerned with wordsmithing.  A content editor is concerned about story.

Just as it takes a writer a long time to gain an understanding of the techniques laid out in those first comments, it takes even longer to gain a true understanding of how to craft stories.  

I don't know about the other writers on this board, but I'm not nearly there yet as far as story goes.  I do stupid stuff that robs tension.  I make mistakes that present my characters as less relatable.  I pen scenes that obscure plot rather than reveal it.

It has been my experience that it is hard to find people who understand how to fix those mistakes.  For example, I posted my opening chapter in the Showcase forum many times and received comments.  I sent it to many, many beta readers.  I brought it to my writing group twice.

My editor, upon first read, immediately pointed out structural mistakes that robbed tension.  No one else noticed these mistakes.

If you can find someone with the level of knowledge necessary to find these mistakes and tell you how to correct them without charging you for them, good on you.  I wish I could find that person.

The important point is that fixing those story mistakes is crucial to making you successful as a writer.


----------



## Philip Overby

> The important point is that I don't feel that any of the advice above is worth any of my hard-earned money. IMO, your story should be at this level before you ever send it to an editor. Those kind of changes are why you need good beta readers, and it's stuff you should know before you ever think you're ready to publish. I think of them as prerequisites.



I agree with this. Good beta readers that pay attention to little things are pretty important so that you don't at least look unprofessional. I've seen a lot of pros use "was" and "were" in abundance and they still do fine, so I'm not sure how much that matters to every single editor. As a general rule, it's better to clean those up when you can. 



> So, what do I consider important?
> 
> A good content editor is going to look at that sentence and ask, "Why is the sentence there? Does it increase tension? Reveal character? Advance plot?" Ideally, your sentence not only accomplishes one of these three things but all three.



This is something that you could spend your whole life doing and never get right. It's a bit tricky as well. If an editor has to constantly tell you that your sentences aren't accomplishing anything, then that's a pretty serious problem. Hopefully, after seeing these issues pointed out, you can learn from these problems and limit them in any future novels or drafts. These are skills you have to learn as a writer and not necessarily rely on a content editor to clean up for you. Sure, it helps a lot in the beginning, but as time goes on, hopefully a writer doesn't keep running into these same problems.

The technique Scene-Sequel is a good way to avoid this. It may seem formulaic at first, but once you figure out how to make every single scene mean something, it's a good way to teach yourself how to crawl before learning to run. Here are two posts about the technique for those interested: The first five pages of your manuscript and Writing The Perfect Scene: Advanced Fiction Writing Tips If these methods seem too rigid or strict, you don't have to follow them completely. Some complain that this creates bland, formulaic fiction. However, I bet some of your favorite books have been written this way and you don't even realize it.


> A content editor is not concerned with wordsmithing. A content editor is concerned about story.
> 
> Just as it takes a writer a long time to gain an understanding of the techniques laid out in those first comments, it takes even longer to gain a true understanding of how to craft stories.



To me being a good writer and a good storyteller are always going to be vastly different. I get in arguments about this all the time, but I feel like you can only become so good as a storyteller. You reach your plateau eventually. Maybe your plateau is super-awesome, but everyone reaches a ceiling at some point. On the other hand, I think you can become a better writer until the day you die. It's one of those skills you can completely master. 

Storytelling I'm sure not works the same way.

There are just some people who are naturally better at telling stories than others. I've heard people ramble for hours and hours about their weekend in which basically nothing happened. However, I've also heard people tell stories in five minutes that had me on the edge of my seat (usually older people). 

What I mean is, you could study for a thousand years and never understand how to perfect your method of crafting a story. You have to make due with what you have now and hope you learn things along the way. 



> I don't know about the other writers on this board, but I'm not nearly there yet as far as story goes. I do stupid stuff that robs tension. I make mistakes that present my characters as less relatable. I pen scenes that obscure plot rather than reveal it.
> 
> It has been my experience that it is hard to find people who understand how to fix those mistakes. For example, I posted my opening chapter in the Showcase forum many times and received comments. I sent it to many, many beta readers. I brought it to my writing group twice.
> 
> My editor, upon first read, immediately pointed out structural mistakes that robbed tension. No one else noticed these mistakes.



Everyone is going to notice different things. Obviously, you feel you made the right choice by using an editor. However, it sounds like you're discounting your beta readers and writing group partners as merely copywriters, something you mentioned you don't really need. If your editor is the only person who found these problems, it's because he/she does it for a living. There are really only so many ways to write, honestly, so he/she's probably seen them all umpteen times.



> If you can find someone with the level of knowledge necessary to find these mistakes and tell you how to correct them without charging you for them, good on you. I wish I could find that person.



They exist. Making friends with an editor is never a bad idea.



> The important point is that fixing those story mistakes is crucial to making you successful as a writer.



I agree, but I don't believe paying an editor is the only way. I'm pretty sure the writers of _Beowulf_ and _Gilgamesh_ didn't have editors. And I could be completely wrong, but Shakespeare's writing was probably not edited by a pro either. If I'm wrong, pour poison in my ear.


----------



## GeekDavid

Phil the Drill said:


> I agree, but I don't believe paying an editor is the only way. I'm pretty sure the writers of _Beowulf_ and _Gilgamesh_ didn't have editors. And I could be completely wrong, but Shakespeare's writing was probably not edited by a pro either. If I'm wrong, pour poison in my ear.



Who was Homer's editor? Who was Mark Twain's? How about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's? 

I also find it interesting that in a previous post, Brian commented that technical things like grammar and sentence structure are trivial, yet his own examples above seem to be on the same "trivial" technical level. Nothing in his examples that I can find about character development, story structure, level of tension, etc.


----------



## Chilari

Brian, I think it depends on what you ask beta readers to look for. If you ask beta readers to look at tension and sentence structure, that's what they're going to comment on most. If you ask them to consider overall plot and the value of individual scenes to that goal, characterisation and character growth, and other "big picture" things, they'll look at that. If you post an excerpt int he Showcase, that's all the beta reader can examine and thus the feedback will necessarily be small-scale stuff like sentence structure, perhaps also looking at things like pacing and characterisation within the scene; but beta readers looking at 1000 words on a forum cannot comment on plot structure.

I'm not saying beta readers will do better than a professional editor by any means. What I'm saying is:

1. A professional editor is an expense not all self-publishers can justify.
2. A book that has not seen a professional editor is not automatically awful.
3. It could be possible to gain success as an indie author without a professional editor
4. Any author who wants to achieve success must invest the time and effort to make their book as good as they can make it. For some, the best use of their available resources is a professional editor. For others, that's not an option but there are alternatives.

I think that several rounds of edits with successive groups of beta readers would give a novel sufficient polish to allow it to be successful. Once the author has the book as good as they can make it alone, they send it out to the first group and ask specifically for feedback on plot and characterisation. Then they edit based on feedback. A few more rounds of that, asking beta readers to focus on specific areas each time, followed by a thorough copyedit, should see a solid, polished, publishable manuscript without the need for a professional editor. It would require more time and a lot of beta readers, yes, but I think it would be possible.

And what also can we do if we don't have $1000 sitting unused in our bank accounts? Those of us who live paycheque to paycheque can't save up much and when we can we spend it on emergencies or house maintenance or the car we need to get to work every day to keep earning an income. Where am I going to find the money to hire a professional editor? I've spent the last year saving up for a Â£200 dishwasher, in a house I don't pay rent on because my mother in law owns it. A payrise is not going to happen. So either I put my novel on hold for years until I'm earning more money (which requires the global financial crisis to end - unlikely, given the US government's situation) or I find alternative methods of editing my manuscript.

Maybe it's worth spending that kind of money for you, but not everyone can afford it. There are other priorities. So accepting that there are alternatives means those people are allowed to consider publishing. Discussing alterantives is healthy; it gives hope to those who can't afford professional services, and it gives those who can afford it more ways to improve their manuscript before spending money.

So maybe the approach we need to take here isn't "do you need an editor?" and arguing over that, but "how can you make your manuscript as good as it can be without spending money?"

That's what I want to see discussed.


----------



## Philip Overby

> So maybe the approach we need to take here isn't "do you need an editor?" and arguing over that, but "how can you make your manuscript as good as it can be without spending money?"



Perhaps a new thread would be in order for that discussion because I think it warrants its own focus. 

About money: there are priorities of course. However, the discussion often goes "Should I spent money on cover art or an editor?" I see these as common issues. If I have the money and I decide to self-published, I'd probably invest in an editor if I were able. I'd probably have a "Novel Budget" that I'd save up if I could. Now I'm not really in a position to do such.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I also find it interesting that in a previous post, Brian commented that technical things like grammar and sentence structure are trivial, yet his own examples above seem to be on the same "trivial" technical level. Nothing in his examples that I can find about character development, story structure, level of tension, etc.



Did you happen to notice that I elaborated on all those technical things and then said, "All that is great, but it's essentially worthless?"

Perhaps you missed the point?


----------



## Steerpike

The simplest and most correct answer seems to me to be that you have to do what works for you.

Some people can write without the help of a professional editor and put out a high-quality, professional end product. If you can do that, great. More power to you.

Some people can't do that, and without the help of an editor will put out something substantially worse than it should be. If you're in that category, it certainly pays to hire an editor if you can do so.


----------



## GeekDavid

Steerpike said:


> The simplest and most correct answer seems to me to be that you have to do what works for you.
> 
> Some people can write without the help of a professional editor and put out a high-quality, professional end product. If you can do that, great. More power to you.
> 
> Some people can't do that, and without the help of an editor will put out something substantially worse than it should be. If you're in that category, it certainly pays to hire an editor if you can do so.



And not all non-professional editors are useless. Many could be professional editors if they wanted to.


----------



## GeekDavid

Sanctified said:


> Dude that argument you're having in this thread is a whole other thing, no need to get defensive. I'm not one of the people posting absolutes or saying you've got to do X to be successful. I'm a chill dude and willing to listen to any perspective, and I try to be as respectful as possible.
> 
> You're using your friend's expertise as a reporter to make a point. Fair enough. But I'm saying journalism and fiction writing are two very different things, and most journalists don't have the skill set to serve as fiction editors.



By the way, Mr. Richardson has edited _Cat's Paw_ and _Ratskiller_ for fantasy author Robert A. Hoyt, one SF novel he can't remember, and serves as beta reader for several authors, including Sarah A. Hoyt (mother of Robert). He also serves as beta reader for Dave Freer, Kate Paulk, and Amanda Greene; and reads WIPs for Michael Z. Williamson.

But I guess since he hasn't been invested with the Diamond d20 by the High Llamas of Fantasy he's still not qualified.

*Edited to add*: A question such as, "has he ever edited or beta-read anything other than newspapers" would have resulted in a much nicer response than making the (erroneous) assumption that he had not.


----------



## Sanctified

GeekDavid said:


> By the way, Mr. Richardson has edited _Cat's Paw_ and _Ratskiller_ for fantasy author Robert A. Hoyt, one SF novel he can't remember, and serves as beta reader for several authors, including Sarah A. Hoyt (mother of Robert). He also serves as beta reader for Dave Freer, Kate Paulk, and Amanda Greene; and reads WIPs for Michael Z. Williamson.
> 
> But I guess since he hasn't been invested with the Diamond d20 by the High Llamas of Fantasy he's still not qualified.
> 
> *Edited to add*: A question such as, "has he ever edited or beta-read anything other than newspapers" would have resulted in a much nicer response than making the (erroneous) assumption that he had not.



I said none of the things, and you're attributing other people's arguments to me, which I don't appreciate especially after I already told you politely I'm here to have chill conversations with an open mind. What I DID say is that, as a newspaper reporter, I would not trust the vast majority of my colleagues to edit fiction because it's a completely different skill set.

You're using this "I have a friend who's a newspaper reporter!" as a bludgeon in this conversation, but writing for a conservative rag started by Tucker Carlson does not make anyone a legitimate newspaper reporter. You dont springboard from that to a decent newspaper. But what do I know? I've only worked for the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and Newsday. You know, actual newspapers and wire services that report the news, win Pulitzers and stick to the professional standard of objectivity instead of shilling for a political party. 

But, hey, maybe some dude who has a friend whose aunt's officemate works at the East Bumble$&@Â£ Herald Turdsman can set me right by telling me how it's done in rural newsrooms staffed by novelists.

You've been combative on the boards, you were absolutely rude in the chat room the other night, and you seem hell bent on disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing. I didn't come here to have arguments, so our conversation is over and I'll avoid exchanging messages with you in the future. Cheers.


----------



## Steerpike

Just a reminder - people are invariably going to disagree on these sorts of issues, and given how personal the craft is to most of us, that disagreement can sometimes lead to hurt feelings or defensive feelings. Let's try to keep the criticism of different paths to the substantive issues themselves, and not focused on traits of an individual who might happen to take an opposing view.


----------



## BWFoster78

Phil,



> However, it sounds like you're discounting your beta readers and writing group partners as merely copywriters, something you mentioned you don't really need.



Just to be clear, I said nothing of the kind.

First, technical advice is much appreciated and needed.  I simply said that, since it's easy to come by with beta readers, I wouldn't want to pay an editor for it.

Second, I have received content advice from my beta readers; they're just not knowledgeable/experienced enough to tell me what I really needed.



> If your editor is the only person who found these problems, it's because he/she does it for a living. There are really only so many ways to write, honestly, so he/she's probably seen them all umpteen times.



This is exactly the point I tried to make over and over again: a professional editor can provide advice that others can't because they have more knowledge and experience.



> To me being a good writer and a good storyteller are always going to be vastly different. I get in arguments about this all the time, but I feel like you can only become so good as a storyteller. You reach your plateau eventually. Maybe your plateau is super-awesome, but everyone reaches a ceiling at some point. On the other hand, I think you can become a better writer until the day you die. It's one of those skills you can completely master.



Interesting topic, but I'd prefer not to chase that rabbit in this thread. 



> This is something that you could spend your whole life doing and never get right. It's a bit tricky as well. If an editor has to constantly tell you that your sentences aren't accomplishing anything, then that's a pretty serious problem. Hopefully, after seeing these issues pointed out, you can learn from these problems and limit them in any future novels or drafts. These are skills you have to learn as a writer and not necessarily rely on a content editor to clean up for you. Sure, it helps a lot in the beginning, but as time goes on, hopefully a writer doesn't keep running into these same problems.



I could not agree more.  Writing is a learning process for all of us.  I've learned a lot from my beta readers, from my writing group, and from my editors.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari,



> Brian, I think it depends on what you ask beta readers to look for. If you ask beta readers to look at tension and sentence structure, that's what they're going to comment on most. If you ask them to consider overall plot and the value of individual scenes to that goal, characterisation and character growth, and other "big picture" things, they'll look at that. If you post an excerpt int he Showcase, that's all the beta reader can examine and thus the feedback will necessarily be small-scale stuff like sentence structure, perhaps also looking at things like pacing and characterisation within the scene; but beta readers looking at 1000 words on a forum cannot comment on plot structure.



I am a much better beta reader now than when I started coming to this forum.  The reason?  Because I'm a much better writer than when I started.  I have more knowledge and more experience.

When I started beta reading (both full novels as exchanges and on the Showcase), I focused solely on technique.  I didn't understand deep POV.  Tension wasn't something that entered my mind.

Simply put, I could only give advice on the areas that I understood.

That's still the case, but, now, I know more and can comment on more.  I continue to think that the knowledge required to perform the level of analysis that the beginning novelist needs is rare.



> 1. A professional editor is an expense not all self-publishers can justify.



And please understand that what I'm saying is that I'm not sure it's an expense that a self publisher can afford not to justify.  I think the best chance to achieve success is through quality.  I think the best chance to achieve quality is through use of a professional content editor.

I feel that some consider that opinion somehow adversarial or condescending or something, and I'm just not getting why.  



> 2. A book that has not seen a professional editor is not automatically awful.



Nor is a book that has seen a professional editor automatically great.  I agree.

Consider, however, if "not awful" is what is necessary for success.



> 3. It could be possible to gain success as an indie author without a professional editor



Anything is possible.  I think that use of a professional editor is both worth what you spend and increases the likelihood of achieving success.



> 4. Any author who wants to achieve success must invest the time and effort to make their book as good as they can make it. For some, the best use of their available resources is a professional editor. For others, that's not an option but there are alternatives.



If a professional editor is not an option, why go the self publishing route?  If your work is good enough, you should be able to find a traditional publisher.  Once you've gained the necessary experience and an audience, you can always switch to self publishing.

Why is this not a valid choice?



> I think that several rounds of edits with successive groups of beta readers would give a novel sufficient polish to allow it to be successful. Once the author has the book as good as they can make it alone, they send it out to the first group and ask specifically for feedback on plot and characterisation. Then they edit based on feedback. A few more rounds of that, asking beta readers to focus on specific areas each time, followed by a thorough copyedit, should see a solid, polished, publishable manuscript without the need for a professional editor. It would require more time and a lot of beta readers, yes, but I think it would be possible.



I think that this can only work if you can find beta readers who have the knowledge to tell you what you've done wrong.  If you have that, you're good.

The problem is that I think it's hard to find people with the necessary knowledge.



> And what also can we do if we don't have $1000 sitting unused in our bank accounts?



For the record, I paid my editor $550 for my 120,000 word novel.  Still a large amount, but half of what you estimate...



> Those of us who live paycheque to paycheque can't save up much and when we can we spend it on emergencies or house maintenance or the car we need to get to work every day to keep earning an income. Where am I going to find the money to hire a professional editor? I've spent the last year saving up for a Â£200 dishwasher, in a house I don't pay rent on because my mother in law owns it. A payrise is not going to happen. So either I put my novel on hold for years until I'm earning more money (which requires the global financial crisis to end - unlikely, given the US government's situation) or I find alternative methods of editing my manuscript.



Again, after you've polished your manuscript to a high gloss shine, why not submit it to agents, publishers, small publishers, etc?  Why is self publishing the only option?


----------



## PatrickRichardson

*Excuse me?*



Sanctified said:


> I said none of the things, and you're attributing other people's arguments to me, which I don't appreciate especially after I already told you politely I'm here to have chill conversations with an open mind. What I DID say is that, as a newspaper reporter, I would not trust the vast majority of my colleagues to edit fiction because it's a completely different skill set.
> 
> You're using this "I have a friend who's a newspaper reporter!" as a bludgeon in this conversation, but writing for a conservative rag started by Tucker Carlson does not make anyone a legitimate newspaper reporter. You dont springboard from that to a decent newspaper. But what do I know? I've only worked for the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and Newsday. You know, actual newspapers and wire services that report the news, win Pulitzers and stick to the professional standard of objectivity instead of shilling for a political party.
> 
> But, hey, maybe some dude who has a friend whose aunt's officemate works at the East Bumble$&@Â£ Herald Turdsman can set me right by telling me how it's done in rural newsrooms staffed by novelists.
> 
> You've been combative on the boards, you were absolutely rude in the chat room the other night, and you seem hell bent on disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing. I didn't come here to have arguments, so our conversation is over and I'll avoid exchanging messages with you in the future. Cheers.



Aware as I am that David can be a bit strident at times, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from libeling my character and background when you do not know me. Indeed I have written for both the Daily Caller and PJ Media. Indeed I am a conservative, and proudly so. I also have nearly 20 years in the community newspaper business. That you've worked for largely liberal rags like Newsday does not impress me. Nor does the Pulitzer prize these days, hag-ridden with with political correctness as it is.

I've broken national news stories, including Operation Fast and Furious and the fact that the Department of Labor was promulgating rules which would have kept farm kids from working on the family farm.

Sarah A. Hoyt, who is a well respected and award-winning author trusts me enough to beta-read her work and trusts my opinions on said work. She has, in fact, said that with a bit of seasoning I may be a top fiction editor.

You may continue to inhabit your ivory tower sir, and I shall continue to give your opinions the weight they deserve.


----------



## Zero Angel

GeekDavid said:


> Who was Homer's editor? Who was Mark Twain's? How about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's?


If your question is sincere: Mark Twain *was* an editor, so it's possible he was his own, but he probably had an editor as well, but regardless, editors usually are the unsung heroes of writing. They do a lot of work, save a lot of works, and then they are very lucky to get mentioned in the afterword or foreword and even less likely to get copyright page mention. 

If Homer existed at all, then please be aware that his work was the precipitate of centuries of oral storytelling and I don't think editors existed (for that matter, publishers didn't either) back then. I don't know much about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's editor(s). 

If I'm being dense, I apologize, but I figured there were only two ways to take your questions: (1) sincerely or (2) sarcastically as an implication that since these bulwarks of language didn't have editors that we being their peers didn't need them. Since I figured you weren't comparing us to Homer, Mark Twain and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I took it sincerely.


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> And please understand that what I'm saying is that I'm not sure it's an expense that a self publisher can afford not to justify.  I think the best chance to achieve success is through quality.  I think the best chance to achieve quality is through use of a professional content editor.
> 
> I feel that some consider that opinion somehow adversarial or condescending or something, and I'm just not getting why.


I think the particular ego/superego/id relationship of those people is probably why they are finding it condescending. My opinion is that I think you will find that the more experience you get writing, the less you will need the content editing (what I call directorial guidance) that you hold in such high esteem and the more that you will just value them as another pair of eyes offering a fresh perspective. I'm very glad that you found that direction and I am sure that it helped you, but I just don't think it was a given, a guarantee, or even necessarily worth it monetarily...even in your particular case. 

You've said it's made your novel better, and I will trust you on that, but we don't know if better in that regard is better in the sales department. I have a feeling that you will do well with your novel because of your other skills and the determination that you are going to bring to bear on it, and because of the fact that you will continue following the formula of continuing to write and eventually, anyone that's not in the lower 50% will be able to do OK with their writing so long as they keep publishing, but is the editor an expense that will translate to sales this early in the game? I view it like infrastructure. You are at the point where you can afford the infrastructure. I can't afford the infrastructure, so I have to keep scraping by until I can make enough to afford the improvement to my infrastructure that an editor will bring. It's possible I am going to have to bulldoze these early works once the infrastructure is in place to support greater ones, and if that's the case, then that is what will happen for me, but it's the only option that fits right with me. 

If you market an average-sized novel for $2.99 to $4.99, then you're going to make between $2 and $3.50 per book, less for larger books, but the assumption is that you'd probably charge more or split it if it is significantly cutting into your royalties. Paying $550 for an editor comes out to ~160-275 sales of said book (and that's actually a pretty good price for an editor by the way. I mean, I wouldn't charge that much for a novel, but I'm not established. I've charged anywhere from $20-100 for articles and essays and the like). 

I know you're all-in with the self-publishing route Brian, but that's a HUGE return you have to get to pay for the editor. Is that editor going to guarantee 200+ sales more than you would get going the other route? 

My math books are international bestsellers, topping their respective charts and I'm just now getting into the triple digits of sales. My first math book is only $0.99 (so I'm only getting $0.35 per sale...although $2+ per Kindle borrow!), so that's something like $50 I've made off it. I understand math is not as popular as fantasy, but that 1st book has been out since last November and has been breaking into the charts since then and I'm just now getting to that point. The second book has been out since February and gets a quarter of the sales the first does every month (it's also three times more expensive). Maybe by the time the 10th book comes out I can get my infrastructure to the point I want it to be at, but I'm not going to dilly-dally in the meantime. 

There are a couple situations we can examine. Please feel free to add to them.

1) Your book is crap. No amount of polish will improve it. Releasing this will negatively affect your reputation if it ever rises beyond obscurity in the first place (unlikely). Note: an editor would probably not tell you that your book is crap if they want to keep getting work from you, but they're at least going to tell you that it's not ready to publish (unless they're gaming you). 

2) Your book is solid, but needs polish. An editor would help. Pertinent questions: Is the cost of the editor worth the increase of chances of a break-out? Is the cost of the editor worth avoiding the minority of 1 and 2-star reviews you will garner for not having that polish (with the assumption that a solid book will probably return mostly 3 and 4 star reviews)? Is the cost of the editor less than the sacrifice to your reputation for not releasing high-quality material? 

3) Your book is solid and doesn't need polish. The editor is superfluous, but if you end up doing well enough, the investment may not be noticed.

I'm *ALWAYS* going to recommend an editor...IF you can afford it. I just don't think it's a necessity. I view my writing as art and a hobby and a business and as the air I breathe, but I don't think editors are a necessity. I think they're a luxury and that their lack can be compensated for...but you have to work darn hard to compensate for that lack. 

I absolutely agree that most selfers probably underestimate the value of an editor and are delusional as to the quality of their work. But if you approach editors with a cost-gain analysis in mind, then I think most people will come to the right decision (unless they're super delusional)


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> If a professional editor is not an option, why go the self publishing route?  If your work is good enough, you should be able to find a traditional publisher.  Once you've gained the necessary experience and an audience, you can always switch to self publishing.
> 
> Why is this not a valid choice? Again, after you've polished your manuscript to a high gloss shine, why not submit it to agents, publishers, small publishers, etc?  Why is self publishing the only option?



There's a lot of reasons why this wasn't the right choice for me, personally, but I'm sure everyone has different answers. I think that you bring up a great point and that a lot of people assume they are going to fail before they really try, or they try at one or two places and fail and then give up and go it alone. 

I have a few comments. First, I think you are overestimating the publishing houses in that they accept quality work. I think if you have quality work you can probably get an agent eventually, and then farther down the line get a publishing contract, but that's just as likely to screw you as not where you'll be reliant on yourself for marketing and if you don't move that first printing your rights will be tied up AND the books will be pulled. On the other hand, you're reliant on yourself for marketing in the self-publishing option too, you just don't have to worry about your rights or about pulling your books.

For me, I'm really arrogant and probably have some ego/superego/id issues of my own, and I couldn't stand the thought of giving up my opus. Hunger is starting to erode my pride though, and if I was approached with a reasonable offer, I could imagine me selling out now, but I'm not going to go looking to sell out. 

Another major issue for me was time. I had written a novel years ago (11 years ago in fact) and gave up on it, and pretty much since then I have been writing in this other series. The novel I have out now first solidified somewhere in 2003-2005, and it took me years and years to become the writer I am today where I could sit and write and be disciplined and not get distracted with world-building, prequels, sequels, side-stories and more. When I finished it, it was one of the greatest feelings of my life (I'm sure all of us that have finished novels have felt that), but it was unpolished and needed re-written, and I spent at least a year doing that. I started looking at agents then, but I just kept feeling time ticking by. The more time I spent on queries and submissions, the more I felt I was losing my series until it begged me to get it up. 

I spent another month formatting for Kindle and Nook, and then I went back and edited again and again and again, and then I released it. And it was spectacular. 

I'm embarrassed to admit that I made a couple of references to modern day sayings that were out of place and which were admonished in a review by Pauline. Those should have been caught. In fact, a couple WERE caught by a beta reader, but I guess I got defensive or didn't acknowledge the advice until it was in irrevocable print as a review of my novel. Then I was like, "AW CRAP" and my beta reader was like, "Told ya' so." It was a mistake of knowing the world of my novel instead of knowing the novel describing my world. 

Still, in spite of my math books being way more popular than my fantasy novel and short story, I wouldn't go any other route than this one that I'm still on today. I like being in charge of my time and I like that my novel is released and published today and not in a slush pile or being passed around behind closed doors.


----------



## GeekDavid

Zero Angel said:


> There are a couple situations we can examine. Please feel free to add to them.
> 
> 1) Your book is crap. No amount of polish will improve it. Releasing this will negatively affect your reputation if it ever rises beyond obscurity in the first place (unlikely). Note: an editor would probably not tell you that your book is crap if they want to keep getting work from you, but they're at least going to tell you that it's not ready to publish (unless they're gaming you).
> 
> 2) Your book is solid, but needs polish. An editor would help. Pertinent questions: Is the cost of the editor worth the increase of chances of a break-out? Is the cost of the editor worth avoiding the minority of 1 and 2-star reviews you will garner for not having that polish (with the assumption that a solid book will probably return mostly 3 and 4 star reviews)? Is the cost of the editor less than the sacrifice to your reputation for not releasing high-quality material?
> 
> 3) Your book is solid and doesn't need polish. The editor is superfluous, but if you end up doing well enough, the investment may not be noticed.



I should point out that, according to the reports from the my beta readers, _Librarian_ was in the second category. Note that, in addition to finding the best editor my budget will allow, I am now shelving that project in order to come back to it later after I've gained more skill and experience. In other words, I am not pushing forward with putting a book out there that is clearly Not Ready For Primetime, as some indy authors seem to be guilty of.

My biggest beef with certain people on this thread has been the either/or tone of their statements. I won't name names at this point (I reserve the right to do so later), but the one that really struck me was *either* you have an editor, *or* your book will be terrible. That's just not the way the world works. There are books out there, as you point out, Zero, that are not in need of an editor, and then there are those that cannot be saved by anything short of a complete rewrite. In writing, as in any art, there are many shades of gray, so black-and-white proclamations just don't work for me.


----------



## Chessie

BWFoster78 said:


> Again, after you've polished your manuscript to a high gloss shine, why not submit it to agents, publishers, small publishers, etc?  Why is self publishing the only option?


Hi Brian, it isn't the only option. And I can only speak (type) for myself when I say that self-publishing is the option that feels right. I have my personal reasons for it, and that does not include thinking that I'm just not good enough to make it in traditional publishing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here and correct me if I am, but choosing self-publishing over traditional depends on the individual and his/her choices--not quality or experience in writing.

You've mentioned you are self-publishing, correct? Is that ok for you to do because you hired an editor? We can agree to disagree, the world won't stop turning unless the zombie apocalypse happens, but perhaps having a bit more compassion might help clear the air here on this thread. How about all of us holding each other up as a community instead of saying it needs to be done one way? We're all here on these forums to learn and hone our craft...which is a different attitude than the author in the article posted on the OP seemed to have.


----------



## GeekDavid

Chesterama said:


> Hi Brian, it isn't the only option. And I can only speak (type) for myself when I say that self-publishing is the option that feels right. I have my personal reasons for it, and that does not include thinking that I'm just not good enough to make it in traditional publishing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here and correct me if I am, but choosing self-publishing over traditional depends on the individual and his/her choices--not quality or experience in writing.
> 
> You've mentioned you are self-publishing, correct? Is that ok for you to do because you hired an editor? We can agree to disagree, the world won't stop turning unless the zombie apocalypse happens, but perhaps having a bit more compassion might help clear the air here on this thread. How about all of us holding each other up as a community instead of saying it needs to be done one way? We're all here on these forums to learn and hone our craft...which is a different attitude than the author in the article posted on the OP seemed to have.



For the record, my reason for self-publishing is simple. I want a bigger cut of the profits than traditional publishers are going to give out. My family also has a history of entrepreneurship, in various industries, so the idea of being my own boss without having to answer to the publisher's deadlines is another strong draw for me.

It used to be that you had no choice but to go through a traditional publisher, so they set all the rules. The Kindle Revolution changed all that, now authors don't have to jump through all the traditional publishing hoops if they don't want to, and I'm glad of that.


----------



## Chilari

> If a professional editor is not an option, why go the self publishing route? If your work is good enough, you should be able to find a traditional publisher. Once you've gained the necessary experience and an audience, you can always switch to self publishing.
> 
> Why is this not a valid choice?



As someone else has already said, the choice to self-publish is a complex one, and depends on a number of factors - including cut per sale, control over the book, title, cover and price, deadlines. I don't want to default to traditional publishing just because it would take me two or more years to save up enough money for a professional editor (money, I might add, that could be spent on a rental deposit, a car service, or a year's worth of heating). When money is as tight as it is now (hint: I'm living rent free in my mother-in-law's house because I can't afford to pay rent anywhere, not because I like her house; I hate her house) the cost of a professional editor is not one that can be justified in terms of personal finance; whether it can be justified as an author trying to be successful doesn't even come into it. It cannot be afforded, whatever worth it may prove to have in the future.

But the fact that it cannot be afforded shouldn't mean I have to attempt the ratrun that is traditional publishing when it's not the route I've decided is best for me. Especially when the work involved is no less - especially as far as marketing is concerned - and the timescales are seriously exaggerated as it takes the publisher months or even years to get from signing a contract to putting the book on shelves. And then when it's selling at Â£7 I'm still getting less per sale than if I'd self-published at Â£3.

Why does not being able to afford an editor mean someone shouldn't self-publish?


----------



## GeekDavid

Chilari said:


> As someone else has already said, the choice to self-publish is a complex one, and depends on a number of factors - including cut per sale, control over the book, title, cover and price, deadlines. I don't want to default to traditional publishing just because it would take me two or more years to save up enough money for a professional editor (money, I might add, that could be spent on a rental deposit, a car service, or a year's worth of heating). When money is as tight as it is now (hint: I'm living rent free in my mother-in-law's house because I can't afford to pay rent anywhere, not because I like her house; I hate her house) the cost of a professional editor is not one that can be justified in terms of personal finance; whether it can be justified as an author trying to be successful doesn't even come into it. It cannot be afforded, whatever worth it may prove to have in the future.
> 
> But the fact that it cannot be afforded shouldn't mean I have to attempt the ratrun that is traditional publishing when it's not the route I've decided is best for me. Especially when the work involved is no less - especially as far as marketing is concerned - and the timescales are seriously exaggerated as it takes the publisher months or even years to get from signing a contract to putting the book on shelves. And then when it's selling at Â£7 I'm still getting less per sale than if I'd self-published at Â£3.
> 
> Why does not being able to afford an editor mean someone shouldn't self-publish?



Thank you, Chilari.

On another topic that you touched on, perhaps I should start a thread where people can list their perceived pros and cons for self-publishing and traditional publishing. In fact, I think I will.


----------



## BWFoster78

> My opinion is that I think you will find that the more experience you get writing, the less you will need the content editing (what I call directorial guidance) that you hold in such high esteem and the more that you will just value them as another pair of eyes offering a fresh perspective.



I concur.  I know this thread has went on forever, but my opening qualification was that my advice is directed to the beginning author who is considering self publishing.  I don't feel qualified to offer advice to experienced authors and, frankly, I have no idea how useful editors are to those who meet that description.  I have read books from bestselling authors that I thought would have benefited from more content editing, but examples of such really prove nothing.



> but is the editor an expense that will translate to sales this early in the game? I view it like infrastructure. You are at the point where you can afford the infrastructure. I can't afford the infrastructure, so I have to keep scraping by until I can make enough to afford the improvement to my infrastructure that an editor will bring. It's possible I am going to have to bulldoze these early works once the infrastructure is in place to support greater ones, and if that's the case, then that is what will happen for me, but it's the only option that fits right with me.



I understand where you're coming from.

I seriously doubt that an editor will pay for themselves this early in the game.  My proposed "path to success" is:

1. Write a good book.
2. Repeat step 1.

My argument is really that too many authors think they have met what is demanded for step 1 but haven't.  My solution to remedy that is to hire a professional editor.

I understand your problem; you don't have the money available.  However, I think you do great damage to your potential career by putting out material that is substandard.  Let's say you find a way to attract someone to one of your fiction books (note that, as this is a site for fantasy fiction writers, I do not intend my advice to be in any way applied to non fiction):

First, congratulations!  It's hard to get someone to notice your book.  That you got them to your Amazon (or other similar market) page is an accomplishment.

Second, let's say they're interested and end up buying your book.  Double congrats!  Fantastic on you.

Third, now they read it.  One of three things happen: they like it, they're ambivalent, or they dislike it.  If the first, you've gained a fan.  They are now likely to buy just about anything you write and tell their friends!  If the second, you've likely lost them as a future customer.  At best, they bear you no ill will, but they are certainly not going to be looking to buy more from you.  If the third, you've now lost a customer for life and, if they feel strongly enough, they may even tell others the same.



> I know you're all-in with the self-publishing route Brian, but that's a HUGE return you have to get to pay for the editor. Is that editor going to guarantee 200+ sales more than you would get going the other route?



You missed in  your calculations that this is a series, probably six books.  No matter how much better my writing gets, customers will always start with the first one.  If they don't like it, I have no shot of them buying the future ones.

Truthfully, though, I don't think even that matters.  The fact is that I think the damage to my reputation caused by putting out something truly dreadful is well worth it no matter if I get the sales or not.  If I would have put this out without going to an editor, it would have been dreadful.  I'm not saying it's the best book ever written, but it's much better than dreadful now.



> I absolutely agree that most selfers probably underestimate the value of an editor and are delusional as to the quality of their work. But if you approach editors with a cost-gain analysis in mind, then I think most people will come to the right decision (unless they're super delusional)



We're actually pretty close in our views, but there are two main difference:

1. Your cost/benefit computations are centered on immediate gain.  If that's the case, there's no way the cost can be justified.  I feel that, if you take a longterm view, the cost is much easier to justify.

2. You feel that it's much easier to become successful selling fiction books without the editor than I believe it is.  Again, my only argument comes from my experience, both in working with professional editors and in reading self published dreck that hasn't been through the process.


----------



## BWFoster78

> First, I think you are overestimating the publishing houses in that they accept quality work.



Zero,

I've read this four times (with the paragraph that follows) and have no idea what you're saying.  Can you clarify?


----------



## BWFoster78

> Hi Brian,



Hi, Chesterama!



> choosing self-publishing over traditional depends on the individual and his/her choices--not quality or experience in writing.



I think that I'm still being misunderstood, but I'm not quite sure why.

Part of the problem, which I think Zero's responses clued me in on, is that I feel that improving your skill as a writer is so much more valuable than improving your book.  Kinda the "teach a man to fish" thing.

First, please understand that I am not saying in any way that you should not self publish.  I'm saying that, if you self publish and your book is not good enough, I feel you're hurting your longterm chances of success.

Does the difference between those two statements make sense?  Truthfully, I don't care terribly much what route you choose; I'm simply saying that:

1. If you put out a book that isn't very good, I don't see how it's going to help you much and that it's probably going to end up hurting your potential career.

2. The best way to make sure that you put out a book that helps you succeed is to engage a professional editor.  Keep in mind that a lot of people, all thinking they know what they're doing, have put out books that are simply dreadful.

Are either of those statements offensive?  It seems, from the reaction that I'm getting, that they are.  Seriously, I don't get why...



> perhaps having a bit more compassion might help clear the air here on this thread. How about all of us holding each other up as a community instead of saying it needs to be done one way?



The problem is that I don't see how I'm not displaying compassion.  My only desire here is to help the people of this forum succeed in their goals.

If I think that the best way for you to succeed is for you to hire a professional editor, isn't the best, most compassion-filled, way from me to proceed is to tell you to hire a professional editor?

EDIT (forgot an important point): The reason I mention traditional publishing is because of an article I read about Joe Hill.  In order to prove to himself that he could succeed on his own merits instead of simply following in his father's footsteps, he honed his craft through years of submissions, learning with each rejection that what he was putting out there wasn't ready.  Once you write well enough for a traditional publisher/agent to accept you, it's a good indication that your writing is good enough to put out there.  If you truly don't have the money for an editor, perhaps this is a good option.


----------



## Chilari

BWFoster78 said:


> Zero,
> 
> I've read this four times (with the paragraph that follows) and have no idea what you're saying.  Can you clarify?



I took it to understand that publishers are both capable of refusing quality work and publishing sub-standard work. Relying on a traditional publisher doesn't mean your work will get published if it's good nor that it won't get published if it's bad. Thus they are are an unreliable measurement of quality.


----------



## GeekDavid

Chilari said:


> I took it to understand that publishers are both capable of refusing quality work and publishing sub-standard work. Relying on a traditional publisher doesn't mean your work will get published if it's good nor that it won't get published if it's bad. Thus they are are an unreliable measurement of quality.



That's what I got from it too. Flops happen all the time, even from Big Name Authors that are writing for Big Publishing Houses.


----------



## Scribble

I have to agree with Brian, though I am inexperienced in publishing. 

I'm not going to do all that work of writing and revising and unleash what might be garbage and poison my brand.

A year's work is worth the $1000 or whatever it will cost. If the book has serious problems that I, my writing group, my friends, and close colleagues are not able to spot, and I release it - that's a year _wasted_. Doesn't seem very wise.

I write software, and I pay professional testers to make sure it works well. They certify quality, I don't just "hope" it's okay. All that effort can be wasted and worse, I poison my brand and nobody will buy from me again.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari,

See the response at the end of my previous post regarding why I suggest traditional.



> Why does not being able to afford an editor mean someone shouldn't self-publish?



My belief, again, is that putting out a bad book will hurt your career.  I think that it is exceedingly difficult for you to produce a good book without a professional editor.

I think that, out of those two statements, you most disagree with the second one.  In the end, it's your responsibility to make sure you're putting out good work.  Only you can make the call.  I just ask that you seriously consider what I've said.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chilari said:


> I took it to understand that publishers are both capable of refusing quality work and publishing sub-standard work. Relying on a traditional publisher doesn't mean your work will get published if it's good nor that it won't get published if it's bad. Thus they are are an unreliable measurement of quality.



If that's the view, I think, again, self publishers are deluding themselves a bit.  

Yes, you can find an example where you like a self published book is pretty good.  You can find an example of a traditionally published book that you don't like.

Overall, the quality I've read of traditionally published books versus self published books has absolutely no comparison.  At the low end, this is especially true.  A bad self published book is terrible.  A bad tradition is at least readable.  The two draw closer the higher the overall quality of the book, but, on average, traditional is much better than self published.

Take Weeks' latest series.  It's not fantastic by any means.  That being said, it's much better than the vast, vast majority of what I've read by indie authors.

If you really think that the quality being put out by indies, on the whole, matches in any way the quality by traditionally published, maybe that's somewhere we're going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Chessie

I recently read an awesome Indie book that kept me up for 2 nights in a row immersed in story. I don't know if this author hired an editor, but my guess is probably not because there were a lot of things that could have been cleaned up. Towards the middle, the story dragged on and on but I stayed with it and got an interesting reward at the end. With a house clean, that book could be the stronger, but even so I have recommended it to several friends and posted a review on it. It was a fantastic story and I really enjoyed it. This author is doing well by the reads of her web page. Granted, she could be that needle in the haystack but it just goes to show that for readers, certain things don't matter.

I get that we don't want to ruin our reputations. I won't be putting my two books out until I am confident that the manuscripts are as good as they can be. I haven't dismissed the idea of an editor. In fact, I'm trying to schmooze my parents to help me pay for one as a birthday gift, so we'll see how that goes. But if all else fails, then I'm not going to spend the next 10 years trying to get published traditionally. I know you mean well, Brian, but I disagree with you. I do wonder what has brought you to this certain opinion, though, even though you are self-publishing. Maybe you've read a lot of crappy Indie books? We can't judge all books by their covers.


----------



## Scribble

I'm sure there are writers who have written great books through their own meticulous and merciless self-editing, but I think they are rare in experienced writers, and extremely rare in novice writers. My life is too short to consider submitting the same book for ten years hoping it sells. I'll do a little of that, but there will be an expiry date on each effort. If it doesn't get lucky in a few months, it will go self-pub. Either way, I will make some sacrifices in order to have the funds to pay for an editor.

I'm luckier than some of you younger writers in that I am 20 years into a paying career, I have a little more cash to play with. The downside is that I have 20 less years to get good as a writer.


----------



## GeekDavid

Scribble said:


> I'm sure there are writers who have written great books through their own meticulous and merciless self-editing, but I think they are rare in experienced writers, and extremely rare in novice writers. My life is too short to consider submitting the same book for ten years hoping it sells. I'll do a little of that, but there will be an expiry date on each effort. If it doesn't get lucky in a few months, it will go self-pub. Either way, I will make some sacrifices in order to have the funds to pay for an editor.



I don't think anyone is saying skip the editor completely. I certainly am not.

What I am saying is, if you cannot afford a professional editor that charges four figures and has a big snazzy website, poll your friends and find one with a solid command of the language who loves to read fantasy, and ask them to edit it.

In other words, if you can't drive a Mercedes, drive a Hyundai. Some people here seem to be (I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get) arguing that if you can't drive a Mercedes, you have to take the bus.

Edited to add: If anyone is curious, I *do* drive a Hyundai... and I love it.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I know you mean well, Brian, but I disagree with you.



Understood.  I can accept that 



> I do wonder what has brought you to this certain opinion, though, even though you are self-publishing. Maybe you've read a lot of crappy Indie books?



I have read a few good indie books and a few decent indie books.  I've read a lot of dreadful indie books.  

When I do find one that is even decent, I do my best to try to spread the word.

Writing takes a lot of work, and I think the natural inclination is to think, "I've put a lot of work into this.  Surely, it's ready."  I think most of those people putting out the dreadful books feel that way.  As much work as they put into it, wouldn't it have benefited them so much more if they had gone the extra steps to make it actually good?  It seems like, as Scribble said earlier, they just threw away all that effort.

As far as where I got the opinion regarding needing an editor, I got that mainly from my own experience.  I thought that my book was decent.  I really did.  Seriously, I figured that the editor would suggest a few minor changes, and I'd have it out in a few weeks.  I'd gotten great feedback from my beta readers, and I thought it read well.

In short, I was delusional.

The editor completely opened my eyes to just how delusional I was.  Hopefully, after incorporating the comments, the book will be tolerable at least.

You and Chilari aren't me.  Maybe when you think it's ready, it actually will be.  I would hate, however, for either of you to waste all that you've put into the book to this point.

EDIT: BTW, let me know who the author is.  I'm always on the lookout for good indie reads.  Thanks!


----------



## BWFoster78

> In other words, if you can't drive a Mercedes, drive a Hyundai. Some people here seem to be (I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get) arguing that if you can't drive a Mercedes, you have to take the bus.



The point that I am trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is that it's not a choice between the Mercedes and a Hyundai.  In the end, each will get you where you want to go.  Can't come up with a great analogy on the fly here, but I'm saying that I believe, in this case, that it's unlikely that choosing not to buy editing services will get you where you want to go.

Again, I'm not sure why you seem to consider that offensive.  Really, truly, I am not trying to insult you or tell you what you somehow HAVE to do.  I'm simply stating what, based on my experience, is the path most likely to lead to success.

If you feel differently, fantastic.  That's what this forum is for: exchanging ideas.

I would, however, love for you to explain exactly what is offensive about my opinion.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## GeekDavid

Chesterama said:


> I recently read an awesome Indie book that kept me up for 2 nights in a row immersed in story. I don't know if this author hired an editor, but my guess is probably not because there were a lot of things that could have been cleaned up. Towards the middle, the story dragged on and on but I stayed with it and got an interesting reward at the end. With a house clean, that book could be the stronger, but even so I have recommended it to several friends and posted a review on it. It was a fantastic story and I really enjoyed it. This author is doing well by the reads of her web page. Granted, she could be that needle in the haystack but it just goes to show that for readers, certain things don't matter.
> 
> I get that we don't want to ruin our reputations. I won't be putting my two books out until I am confident that the manuscripts are as good as they can be. I haven't dismissed the idea of an editor. In fact, I'm trying to schmooze my parents to help me pay for one as a birthday gift, so we'll see how that goes. But if all else fails, then I'm not going to spend the next 10 years trying to get published traditionally. I know you mean well, Brian, but I disagree with you. I do wonder what has brought you to this certain opinion, though, even though you are self-publishing. Maybe you've read a lot of crappy Indie books? We can't judge all books by their covers.



I've read some incredible indy books, but if I was to follow what some people here are saying, I'd never buy anything except what's put out by the Big Publishing Houses because the message from those people seem to be, "indy = dreck." It's as if the fact that someone makes a conscious choice to stay away from the Big Six Conglomerates that control 90% of the book publishing in the US automatically makes their writing unworthy of consideration.

What's funny is that by pushing people away from reading indy with their non-stop criticism of indy writers as bad, they're also pushing people away from reading their own stuff.

You might think if they really had the best interests of indy writers at heart, they'd be telling everyone they can on every public forum they are a part of (like this one) about all the great books they've read by indy writers, rather than always focusing on those that fall short of Shakespeare.


----------



## Chessie

BWFoster78 said:


> EDIT: BTW, let me know who the author is.  I'm always on the lookout for good indie reads.  Thanks!


The book is "Children Of The Fog" and the author is Cheryl Kaye Tardif. Its a supernatural mystery. 

I definitely agree in that putting a work out there that isn't ready is throwing away a lot of potential. I just think there are other ways of gauging as to whether a book is ready or not besides submitting queries and hiring an editor. I recommend editors as well because they are important and I don't think my writing is beyond that, even though I have been doing it for years. I'm young enough, but not THAT young.  I'm also rather hard on myself when it comes to editing and being realistic over what I create. If its crap, its crap, and it takes more than just me thinking its good to really believe the work is so. We're all different and thank goodness that there are various methods of attaining the same prize.

EDIT: Apparently Cheryl is NOT Indie. I read somewhere else that she was, but I went to her blog again and it mentioned she is represented by someone else. I apologize for the confusion!


----------



## BWFoster78

> You might think if they really had the best interests of indy writers at heart, they'd be telling everyone they can on every public forum they are a part of (like this one) about all the great books they've read by indy writers, rather than always focusing on those that fall short of Shakespeare.



We apparently have a difference of opinion.  It's been known to happen even between reasonable people, I'm told.

See, I thing that only good books tend to lead to success, so the best bet is to encourage potential indie writers to write good books.  The biggest obstacle that I see preventing self published writers creating good books and the belief of those same authors that their stuff is good when it isn't.

Again, reasonable people can disagree about the best way to achieve a goal...


----------



## GeekDavid

Chesterama said:


> I definitely agree in that putting a work out there that isn't ready is throwing away a lot of potential. I just think there are other ways of gauging as to whether a book is ready or not besides submitting queries and hiring an editor. I recommend editors as well because they are important and I don't think my writing is beyond that, even though I have been doing it for years. I'm young enough, but not THAT young.  I'm also rather hard on myself when it comes to editing and being realistic over what I create. If its crap, its crap, and it takes more than just me thinking its good to really believe the work is so. We're all different and thank goodness that there are various methods of attaining the same prize.



Agreed, that's why I have placed _Librarian_ on the back shelf. It just ain't ready yet, and I am honest enough with myself to admit that.

If an author lacks the self-awareness and self-control to step back from their work and say, "this just isn't ready yet," then I'd say they need a lot more than an editor to help them.

However, a reasonably intelligent and mature person who's sent the manuscript off to multiple readers and gotten accurate and honest responses from those readers can probably make the decision if it's ready or not.

And if they can't, what's the big deal? Everyone makes mistakes, it happens. It's not like someone's going to die if my book flops -- I certainly don't intend to suicide over it -- and I doubt that a bad book from me is going to cause anyone is going to have a heart attack. In other words, it's not like a bridge or a building collapsing or a mistake during open-heart surgery. It's a book, it's entertainment, people!

Even if you write the Greatest Fantasy Book In The History Of Forever, some people are not gonna like it. Some people don't like _The Hobbit_, but I don't see anyone dying over it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I haven't read anything offensive in this discussion. Moreover, we have to understand that people are offering opinions which we are each free to accept, disagree with, refute, or ignore. This should be true of all opinion & advice.  

That said, I'll weigh in on the issue for a bit. My thinking is more in line with Brian's. At this stage in my life, I just can't see spending three years working on a novel and not doing everything in my power to make it the best I possibly can. That should probably be the goal for every author at every point in time.   

Twenty years ago I couldn't have afforded $1k editorial fees. In that case, I probably would have tried to utilize friends & other writers to fill the editor role. Now however, I consider $1k a minor investment towards ensuring the best possible product out there. I'll probably spend $500 to $1k on photographic manipulation cover art to make sure the product looks no different that traditional publishing on the exterior. That being the case, why would I forego a similar investment on the interior...the writing and the story? 

Can professional editors make mistakes? Yes, no question. Could an acquaintance do just as well? Maybe, depending on who you know. But I submit, if your friends can do just as well as your editor selection, you've made a bad hiring decision. A true professional with good credits has a lot to offer.   

We each should strive to do the utmost to make our stories, our product, the best they can be. After all, you're building a brand. How you choose to do this is entirely up to you. For me personally, it will closely mirror the efforts of traditional houses so that my finished work is near-indistinguishable from theirs.  

If you can accomplish this feat and skip some of those steps involved in traditional publishing, more power to you.


----------



## Chilari

On the topic of Indie books we've read, yes there is a lot more range of quality in indie books than traditionally published books, but I contest that when you remove those who publish a first draft and don't choose to make the ffort to put out something good - the people who won't get beta readers and feedback before the publish - you eliminate a huge amount of the indie range and the difference is left considerably reduced. Yes, the quality range difference is still there, but since we're talking about people who are willing to put in the effort by asking beta readers to provide feedback, and editing based on that feedback, it would be disingenuous to include the infamous first drafters within the Indie umbrella. And I think that almost completely eliminates the "awful books" category and a significant minority of the "mediocre books" category. Of the people willing to put the time in, that leaves mostly books that are pretty okay right up to amazing - which I think is roughly the same range of quality as traditionally published books, with the bulk to the lower end while traditional have the bulk to the higher end.

But I do think there are some indie authors who, without editors, have produced something that is solid and of sufficiently good quality to start building a career.


----------



## GeekDavid

Chilari said:


> On the topic of Indie books we've read, yes there is a lot more range of quality in indie books than traditionally published books, but I contest that when you remove those who publish a first draft and don't choose to make the ffort to put out something good - the people who won't get beta readers and feedback before the publish - you eliminate a huge amount of the indie range and the difference is left considerably reduced. Yes, the quality range difference is still there, but since we're talking about people who are willing to put in the effort by asking beta readers to provide feedback, and editing based on that feedback, it would be disingenuous to include the infamous first drafters within the Indie umbrella. And I think that almost completely eliminates the "awful books" category and a significant minority of the "mediocre books" category. Of the people willing to put the time in, that leaves mostly books that are pretty okay right up to amazing - which I think is roughly the same range of quality as traditionally published books, with the bulk to the lower end while traditional have the bulk to the higher end.
> 
> But I do think there are some indie authors who, without editors, have produced something that is solid and of sufficiently good quality to start building a career.



I think a lot of the dreck is caused by people who see indy publishing as an easy route to quick money, rather than an investment in a craft that they expect to be a part of for a lifetime.

In other words, they're dilettantes, and should be treated as such.


----------



## Zero Angel

Chesterama said:


> We can agree to disagree, the world won't stop turning unless the zombie apocalypse happens


Quick note: the world will keep turning even then, we will just be dead in that case. 



BWFoster78 said:


> I concur.  I know this thread has went on forever, but my opening qualification was that my advice is directed to the beginning author who is considering self publishing.  I don't feel qualified to offer advice to experienced authors and, frankly, I have no idea how useful editors are to those who meet that description.  I have read books from bestselling authors that I thought would have benefited from more content editing, but examples of such really prove nothing.
> 
> 
> You missed in  your calculations that this is a series, probably six books.  No matter how much better my writing gets, customers will always start with the first one.  If they don't like it, I have no shot of them buying the future ones.
> 
> Truthfully, though, I don't think even that matters.  The fact is that I think the damage to my reputation caused by putting out something truly dreadful is well worth it no matter if I get the sales or not.  If I would have put this out without going to an editor, it would have been dreadful.  I'm not saying it's the best book ever written, but it's much better than dreadful now.


That's true about inexperienced/beginning authors. There aren't many people on this forum with entire series of books under their belts just yet (although many of us are working our way there! and many more seem to have other writing experience). 

I doubt your book was "truly dreadful" before you had it edited. 

I don't have a problem with going back and having the first book of your series edited when you're able to afford it (although this is an unforgivable offense in the eyes of some). The content and story will be the same, and I realize that this is something that isn't usually done in fiction writing, but it's done all the time in software and games. But other than that, yes, I agree that the cost is more justifiable when it's for a series. Still, if you don't got the $, you can't do it no matter how much you may like to.


----------



## GeekDavid

Zero Angel said:


> I don't have a problem with going back and having the first book of your series edited when you're able to afford it (although this is an unforgivable offense in the eyes of some). The content and story will be the same, and I realize that this is something that isn't usually done in fiction writing, but it's done all the time in software and games. But other than that, yes, I agree that the cost is more justifiable when it's for a series. Still, if you don't got the $, you can't do it no matter how much you may like to.



I actually commend authors who go back and have their first book re-edited or edited for the first time. It shows that they're serious about their craft and are willing to admit making a mistake. I've even offered to write a new review for OG for one author who thanked me for pointing out the technical errors in his book (apparently it hadn't been edited at all), because he said he was going to have it edited.

Again, I am not against editing. I am against denigrating those people who simply cannot afford a thousand-dollar-or-more editing job and so are forced to make do with what they can get.


----------



## Scribble

GeekDavid said:


> I don't think anyone is saying skip the editor completely. I certainly am not.
> 
> What I am saying is, if you cannot afford a professional editor that charges four figures and has a big snazzy website, poll your friends and find one with a solid command of the language who loves to read fantasy, and ask them to edit it.
> 
> In other words, if you can't drive a Mercedes, drive a Hyundai. Some people here seem to be (I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get) arguing that if you can't drive a Mercedes, you have to take the bus.
> 
> Edited to add: If anyone is curious, I *do* drive a Hyundai... and I love it.



I also have a Hyundai. And a Civic. Both are modest, affordable, and reliable cars. 

Yes, you can find a good editor among the people you know - maybe. If you get lucky. I'm just saying that I had plenty of friends offering to help me recover my roof 2 years ago. I paid a _professional_. It would have saved me 2-3000 dollars, but it could have cost me MANY THOUSANDS in damages and possibly friendships if the job went poorly and I ended up with a house full of rainwater. That is a risk I was not willing to take on my house.

I can get a new house, I can make more money, but I cannot get a new year back if I publish a dud and I don't know it is bad until nobody likes it. Worse, I won't know it's bad until the rain starts coming in.

There's _FREE_, there's the Hyundai, and there is the BMW. I don't drive a BMW, I'm not willing to spend my money that way. I _am_ willing to spend _some _money on the Hyundai. Have you ever seen what a _free_ car looks like?

I'm not saying nobody should do it, I am just outlining the risk, and it's one I don't want to take.


----------



## GeekDavid

Scribble said:


> I also have a Hyundai. And a Civic. Both are modest, affordable, and reliable cars.
> 
> Yes, you can find a good editor among the people you know - maybe. If you get lucky. I'm just saying that I had plenty of friends offering to help me recover my roof 2 years ago. I paid a _professional_. It would have saved me 2-3000 dollars, but it could have cost me MANY THOUSANDS in damages and possibly friendships if the job went poorly and I ended up with a house full of rainwater. That is a risk I was not willing to take on my house.
> 
> I can get a new house, I can make more money, but I cannot get a new year back if I publish a dud and I don't know. Worse, I won't know it's bad until the rain starts coming in.
> 
> There's _FREE_, there's the Hyundai, and there is the BMW. I don't drive a BMW, I'm not willing to spend my money that way. I _am_ willing to spend _some _money on the Hyundai. Have you ever seen what a _free_ car looks like?



Again, a house is not a book. A book is entertainment. A house is a necessity. You could die if your roof collapses. You won't die if your book is a flop.

I'm not saying books are unimportant -- everyone here knows they are important -- but there are varying levels of importance, and I just don't put books on the same plane as fixing a roof, getting a broken leg set, or building a bridge.

Priorities, people. Let's get them in the right order.


----------



## Scribble

GeekDavid said:


> Again, a house is not a book. A book is entertainment. A house is a necessity. You could die if your roof collapses. You won't die if your book is a flop.
> 
> I'm not saying books are unimportant -- everyone here knows they are important -- but there are varying levels of importance, and I just don't put books on the same plane as fixing a roof, getting a broken leg set, or building a bridge.
> 
> Priorities, people. Let's get them in the right order.



I hear you. I am making my goal of becoming a professional writer of fiction a priority. I am a professional software developer. I pay for training courses, books, etc... I could try and do it on my own, but I may go down the wrong path, make mistakes, produce bad software. 

Photography is a _hobby_. I don't spend money on it, I don't take courses, I have a cheap camera. It's for my own fun, I'm not trying to make a name for myself as a photographer. If I put shoddy photos out and acted _as if_ they were supposed to be considered professional, I would not be taken seriously. That's what I am saying.

If writing is a hobby, that's one thing. If you want to make it your career, that is another. Software is lucrative, but after 20 years, I know I don't want to be doing it for the next 25. So, I am trying to take a serious shot, the most seriously I know how.

Priorities!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

GeekDavid said:


> Again, a house is not a book. A book is entertainment. A house is a necessity. You could die if your roof collapses. You won't die if your book is a flop.  I'm not saying books are unimportant -- everyone here knows they are important -- but there are varying levels of importance, and I just don't put books on the same plane as fixing a roof, getting a broken leg set, or building a bridge.  Priorities, people. Let's get them in the right order.



This entirely depends on how you view your writing. No, a flop won't cause physical death. Yet, shattered dreams can be a destructive force all their own. 

For some, their writing success at some point, is a requirement in their view of what constitutes personal/professional success.  

Few things are of a higher priority if that's the view you espouse.


----------



## BWFoster78

> the people who won't get beta readers and feedback before the publish - you eliminate a huge amount of the indie range and the difference is left considerably reduced.



I think we disagree about the quality of those publishing even with beta readers and feedback.



> Of the people willing to put the time in, that leaves mostly books that are pretty okay right up to amazing - which I think is roughly the same range of quality as traditionally published books, with the bulk to the lower end while traditional have the bulk to the higher end.



Again, I have a different opinion.  I think that, even considering only these indie authors, the quality range is still heavily weighted to the traditionally published authors.



> But I do think there are some indie authors who, without editors, have produced something that is solid and of sufficiently good quality to start building a career.



Understand, please, that I hope you're right.  I'm not sitting at my computer thinking, "Wow, I hope that, when Chilari publishes her book without using a professional editor, it completely tanks so that I can be right.  Instead, I hope you have great success and prove me entirely wrong.

I am positive that some authors have done so in the past.  More will do so in the future.  I sincerely hope that you are one of them.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel that the odds aren't in your favor.


----------



## GeekDavid

Scribble said:


> I hear you. I am making my goal of becoming a professional writer of fiction a priority. I am a professional software developer. I pay for training courses, books, etc... I could try and do it on my own, but I may go down the wrong path, make mistakes, produce bad software.
> 
> Photography is a _hobby_. I don't spend money on it, I don't take courses, I have a cheap camera. It's for my own fun, I'm not trying to make a name for myself as a photographer. If I put shoddy photos out and acted _as if_ they were supposed to be considered professional, I would not be taken seriously. That's what I am saying.
> 
> If writing is a hobby, that's one thing. If you want to make it your career, that is another. Software is lucrative, but after 20 years, I know I don't want to be doing it for the next 25. So, I am trying to take a serious shot, the most seriously I know how.
> 
> Priorities!



Again, software is not books. Software can, in some cases, cause death if it fails (like the software controlling a backup generator, or a jumbo jet). Software can cost huge amounts of money if it fails and a company loses business or has to shut down.

Writing is important, but it is not life-or-death. If anyone honestly thinks that good editing is as critical as a good cardiac surgeon, they likely need more than an editor.


----------



## Xitra_Blud

"Y: I’m a successful author.

You are a successful salesman, but a mediocre writer."


Gotta say, I really liked this line!


----------



## BWFoster78

> I doubt your book was "truly dreadful" before you had it edited.



I suspect we have different definitions of "truly dreadful."


----------



## Scribble

GeekDavid said:


> Again, software is not books. Software can, in some cases, cause death if it fails (like the software controlling a backup generator, or a jumbo jet). Software can cost huge amounts of money if it fails and a company loses business or has to shut down.
> 
> Writing is important, but it is not life-or-death. If anyone honestly thinks that good editing is as critical as a good cardiac surgeon, they likely need more than an editor.



I think we're getting in a weird zone taking analogies literally, but I get your point. 

This is my way I chose for me, and I accept that not everyone sees things the way I do. The investment of my... spirit? into my writing is costly, more dear to me than money.


----------



## Philip Overby

I understand what Scribble is saying. Even if it's not life or death, writing is so ingrained in some writers' lives that failing at it is akin to breaking their spirit. For some, they love their job. If they lose their job, it can be a pretty soul-crushing experience. So while it may not physically kill you, failure at writing can definitely make you feel next to worthless.

That's one reason why putting the best possible product out into the world is paramount. Whether you believe hiring a professional editor will get you there or just using your own resources, it has to be the best you can make it.


----------



## Chessie

So then a question: could it be possible for the author highlighted in the OP article to 'make it' in a genre outside of erotica? Let's say he decided to write fantasy. Even if he surrendered to an editor, would his bad reputation follow him and prevent his success?


----------



## GeekDavid

Chesterama said:


> So then a question: could it be possible for the author highlighted in the OP article to 'make it' in a genre outside of erotica? Let's say he decided to write fantasy. Even if he surrendered to an editor, would his bad reputation follow him and prevent his success?



Part 1 of that question is, how many people would recognize his name and associate it with writing erotica?

Part 2 is, what is _Twilight_ except vampire erotica?

I think if he wanted to turn to "modern romantic fantasy" and went to a Big Name Publisher and told them he was an erotica writer, they'd sign him in an instant in the hopes of him writing the next _Twilight_.


----------



## Philip Overby

Most erotica writers don't use their real names. Is this true? I don't know, but it seems right? 

So technically I could be writing erotica right now and no one would know unless I told them my pen name. From the OP it was interesting that the writer wouldn't let the interview use his or her name. I think that was because it was pretty obvious the interviewer wanted to bury the writer about two questions in.

I do think writers can jump genres, but it's usually not a good idea to use the same name. That's one reason JK Rowling used a pen name for her crime fiction (although she was figured out anyway). You don't want people saying "She should go back to writing Harry Potter books" or "He should only write fantasy." Each genre you work in can be an individual brand so it's good to have a different name for each brand you're trying to sell.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chesterama said:


> So then a question: could it be possible for the author highlighted in the OP article to 'make it' in a genre outside of erotica? Let's say he decided to write fantasy. Even if he surrendered to an editor, would his bad reputation follow him and prevent his success?



If his writing is as bad as the interviewer indicated, I doubt even the best editor could help him...

It's not just about reputation; it's about lost opportunities.  It's incredibly difficult to get somebody to notice your book.  When they do, if you don't take advantage of that opportunity, you lost a customer for life, for every one of your future books.  You lost the potential of that person recommending them to their friends and their friends becoming your customers and telling their friends and...

Find readers is hard.  Your best bet to become successful is to write well enough that at least some of the readers you do find recommend you to others.


----------



## Chessie

But if he's such a terrible writer as all the reviews on him posted...and per the interviewer...would his chances of succeeding be limited even with a name change? You can change your name overnight but the same doesn't apply to your skill level. Unless he really doesn't care about his writing when it comes to telling sexy stories.

Edit: Nevermind. BW answered my question.


----------



## Zero Angel

GeekDavid said:


> Again, a house is not a book. A book is entertainment. A house is a necessity. You could die if your roof collapses. You won't die if your book is a flop.



Your career could though, I think that's what most are saying about this.


----------



## GeekDavid

Zero Angel said:


> Your career could though, I think that's what most are saying about this.



David Eddings' first book was called High Hunt. It was not given rave reviews.

He went on to write some of the bestselling fantasy books.

Yeah, a poor first book sure hurt his chances.

*Edited to add*: This article has more info...



> More authors whose first books did not sell well went on to be successes than vice versa. Steven King's first book, Carrie, only sold a few thousand copies when it first came out. It was Salem's Lot, his second book, that rose to the top of the bestseller lists. Isaac Asimov wrote over 200 hard cover books that sold in the 5000 to 20,000 copy range until Foundation's Edge became the first to appear on any bestseller list.



David Eddings, Steven King, Isaac Asimov... yeah, I'd say any author whose first book flops is in good company.


----------



## Sanctified

PatrickRichardson said:


> Aware as I am that David can be a bit strident at times, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from libeling my character and background when you do not know me. Indeed I have written for both the Daily Caller and PJ Media. Indeed I am a conservative, and proudly so. I also have nearly 20 years in the community newspaper business. That you've worked for largely liberal rags like Newsday does not impress me. Nor does the Pulitzer prize these days, hag-ridden with with political correctness as it is.
> 
> I've broken national news stories, including Operation Fast and Furious and the fact that the Department of Labor was promulgating rules which would have kept farm kids from working on the family farm.
> 
> Sarah A. Hoyt, who is a well respected and award-winning author trusts me enough to beta-read her work and trusts my opinions on said work. She has, in fact, said that with a bit of seasoning I may be a top fiction editor.
> 
> You may continue to inhabit your ivory tower sir, and I shall continue to give your opinions the weight they deserve.



Your friend is combative, rude and starts arguments for the sake of argument. You seem to realize that, because you acknowledge it up front.

If you think Newsday is a "liberal rag," then I don't even know what to say to you. Not only does that newspaper have 24 Pulitzers, but it's to the right of every major daily newspaper in New York except the New York Post and the WSJ. Perhaps you're thinking of Newsweek, which is a different publication. 

Newsday is a daily based in Long Island, read by mostly working-class and upper middle class people. I cannot say enough good things about the editors there, and in fact I cannot tell you anything about their political beliefs, because in years of working there I never heard anyone express an ideological opinion.

The difference between professional media, like the AP, Newsday and WSJ, and the Daily Caller, is that professional media value objectivity, require their reporters to sign ethics agreements, require their reporters to attend ethics training regularly, invest resources in internal training, have protocols and mechanisms for corrections, admit their mistakes, and report to the highest standards.

Likewise, in a professional newsroom, ideology is NOT acceptable or tolerated. It's treated for what it is -- only one side of the story, an intrinsic bias that colors everything once you allow it to infect your newsroom. 

The Daily Caller was founded by Tucker Carlson, a hyper partisan who pushes ideology, and employs mostly amateurs. IIRC, I remember once reading an ad by the DC calling for resumes, and specifically saying they'd rather not hear from professional journalists because they want people they can mold.

Now you say you have 20 years in the "community newspaper business," which is another way of saying you worked for weeklies and other small-circulation newspapers. Which is fine. There is serious value in that, and local communities are seriously underserved when it comes to news. But it also explains why you don't understand what libel means, why you think that Newsday and WSJ are "liberal rags," and why you think a blatantly partisan publication like the Daily Caller qualifies in any way as legitimate journalism.

This is an old thread, but I did not see your reply before, which is why I responded. I will now place you on ignore along with David. FWIW I'm not even a liberal, and I will be voting for Trump. But I am mature enough to realize that ideology is the enemy of freedom and critical thought, and as I deal with the neverending daily grind of politics constantly in my job, I don't have the stomach for it when I'm trying to enjoy my leisure time. Good luck writing for Tucker Carlson.


----------



## Malik

Ignoring the politics above, I'm going to chime in here because I've been over on KBoards and holy shit. 

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the American public. That said, Amazon is killing the craft. 

The number of "authors" who think that putting 90,000 words in a row qualifies as a "novel" is astonishing. Post after post after post in the Writers' Cafe about:

*"Just get that magic 1,000 words a day. Four books a year and you'll be making a living wage as an author!"*

Just write! You don't need plot, worldbuilding, character development, backstory, romantic tension, allegory, story arc, or even editing. Grammar, misspellings, repetitive writing? No problem! Just put enough words in a row, buy a cheap cover, and start the next one! 

The concept is what people are calling "write to market" -- learn the tropes (by which they mean cliches, not tropes), and bang out a book every 90 days.

The problem -- seriously -- is that THIS IS A WORKABLE BUSINESS MODEL. YOU CAN MAKE A LIVING WRITING VAPID, WINCINGLY BAD BULLSHIT IF YOU WRITE ENOUGH OF IT.

I seriously hope that the entire indie market implodes under its own hubris. No joke; I hope it goes down like the freaking housing market and takes these idiots with it. IDAGAF if it happens before I get my own book on the market; I'll go back to the trad route.

Amazon could singlehandedly save the craft if they'd just put in, you know, standards. This wouldn't be hard: keep the indie market -- Amazon is perpetuating this, of course, because they make money on it -- but introduce a top-tier line where you'd have to go through at least a partial beta read to ensure your manuscript met some kind of standard.

Before you go screaming about this: I can tell in the first page, I'm going to guess 95% of the time, if the author has had an education in writing, or has had their work professionally edited. I can't be alone on this. The occasional gifted amateur would slip through, and more power to 'em.

Submit the first page plus, say, five random pages in the middle. If you think this would create a massive backlog, consider that it would take an educated reader about thirty seconds to determine whether or not a writer is part of the problem. Amazon hires a stable of people with English degrees to comb through manuscripts and push the professional-caliber ones up to this higher tier line. Sell these books at a premium price; consider it one step down from being signed to a publishing house.

Discerning readers would have a place to go to find quality fiction, and the gibbering masses could still type vampire romances in first-person present tense with their elbows and people who can't use apostrophes would still support them. Everybody wins.


----------



## Devor

Malik, I'm locking this thread because it was revived from years ago to discuss politics.  But I'd invite you to open a new thread if you want to discuss indie writers and Amazon.


----------

