# So is most self-published material poorly edited?



## Zero Angel

I started reading my first non-me self-published Kindle novel today (apologies @ Ben but this one was free so I figured I'd check it out first). 

I do not want to make anyone feel bad (although I don't think this author is on our forum--it wasn't fantasy--but I don't think it is appropriate to "rip" on people that are in the same position as me for better or for worse), but I could not get past the first page.

Actually, I did get past the first page by skipping the rest of the prologue to see if I could get interested in the characters. 

Is this usual? I have no idea if the book was interesting or not because I had too difficult of a time reading it 

Do yins use/pay professional editors? Do you edit it yourself? Do you use beta readers and don't publish something if they are saying, "It's a great story but it seems like it needs edited better"?

I think I spent more time proofreading and editing my first novel than I did _writing_ it


----------



## Ankari

At a convention I went to, a few self-published authors stated that hiring an editor isn't that expensive.  One said for $600 you should be able to get a line-by-line edit done (for an agreed upon word count).  I feel that if an author doesn't hire an editor, even after beta-readers and self-editing, he's doing himself an injustice.  He is also telling his potential clients that he didn't believe in the story enough to invest in editing. 

I know people will post stating that coming by $600 isn't easy.  This may appear snarky, but do a few things:

1) Is the phone in your hand an Iphone 4S?  Are you already hyped about the Iphone 5?  You have the money.

2) Do you regularly go to a bar every weekend?  Skip a couple months and save up.  You have the money.

3) Do you go out to every weekend to a movie and dinner?  Skip a couple months and save up.  You have the money.

4) Do you eat lunch in a diner/fast food restaurant?  Pack your launch for two months.  You have the money.

5) Do you buy the latest PS3/Xbox 360 game?  Don't do so for the next couple months.  You have the money.

The point is, get the money together and invest in an editor.


----------



## FireBird

Based on how many books I've read that I've gotten off Amazon, I can tell you that tons of them were not edited or had a very poor editor. If I counted up all the free books I've bought and then count how many I've read all the way through, the number would be around 1/10, if that. Every once in a while you will find a great free one and wonder why the hell it was free in the first place.


----------



## Zero Angel

Ankari said:


> At a convention I went to, a few self-published authors stated that hiring an editor isn't that expensive.  One said for $600 you should be able to get a line-by-line edit done (for an agreed upon word count).  I feel that if an author doesn't hire an editor, even after beta-readers and self-editing, he's doing himself an injustice.  He is also telling his potential clients that he didn't believe in the story enough to invest in editing.
> 
> I know people will post stating that coming by $600 isn't easy.  This may appear snarky, but do a few things:
> 
> 1) Is the phone in your hand an Iphone 4S?  Are you already hyped about the Iphone 5?  You have the money.
> 
> 2) Do you regularly go to a bar every weekend?  Skip a couple months and save up.  You have the money.
> 
> 3) Do you go out to every weekend to a movie and dinner?  Skip a couple months and save up.  You have the money.
> 
> 4) Do you eat lunch in a diner/fast food restaurant?  Pack your launch for two months.  You have the money.
> 
> 5) Do you buy the latest PS3/Xbox 360 game?  Don't do so for the next couple months.  You have the money.
> 
> The point is, get the money together and invest in an editor.



....not to be snarky, but if you don't do any of those 5 things then saying you don't have the money is OK?

I think it's a worthwhile investment and I do agree that many people do not have their priorities straight. Unfortunately, I tend to not buy anything extra...Hell, I've been giving Benjamin Clayborne the run-around about not buying his book yet and it is only $4 (although I am planning on purchasing next week...)



FireBird said:


> Based on how many books I've read that I've gotten off Amazon, I can tell you that tons of them were not edited or had a very poor editor. If I counted up all the free books I've bought and then count how many I've read all the way through, the number would be around 1/10, if that. Every once in a while you will find a great free one and wonder why the hell it was free in the first place.


One in ten?! That's rough!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Professional editing & professional cover art, in my opinion, are both essential. A book designer is also a decent idea for internal layout.

Do you want to look and read like a pro or do you want to be an amateur?


----------



## Ankari

> ....not to be snarky, but if you don't do any of those 5 things then saying you don't have the money is OK?



No.  Even if you can't get the money by saving it, do something to get it in your hands.  Ask a friend, lover, brother, mother, or anyone that shares your gene pool.  Write a loan agreement with a favorable repayment plan (for you) and invest the money wisely.  There is a way, just find it.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I'm lucky to be skilled enough to be my own editor, so I didn't see any need to hire someone. (My wife very helpfully did two passes looking for mistakes, and found about 1 error per 10,000 words on each pass.) The technical proficiency of the words is separate from their artistic merit, and I'd never claim that my prose would make Fitzgerald weep with shame.

I can't do art for crap, though, which is why I hired an artist to create my cover.


----------



## Jabrosky

I typically edit as I write, and at the risk of sounding arrogant I've always had less of a problem with typos than most of my generation. Obviously I'll have reviewers point out any errors before I publish something, but typos aren't my biggest concern right now.


----------



## Ankari

> but typos aren't my biggest concern right now.



But it's not only about typos.  Its about grammar rules (when you _mean_ to use them), sentence structure, word choice (better clarity) and (if you're using a content editor) story consistency.

But you're right, you don't want to even think about an editor until you've completed your story.


----------



## Zero Angel

Ankari said:


> But it's not only about typos.  Its about grammar rules (when you _mean_ to use them), sentence structure, word choice (better clarity) and (if you're using a content editor) story consistency.
> 
> But you're right, you don't want to even think about an editor until you've completed your story.



Nice clarification there Ankari. I think some people think of editors as a glorified Word spellchecker/grammar checker.


----------



## Ankari

> Nice clarification there Ankari. I think some people think of editors as a glorified Word spellchecker/grammar checker.



I did too, until I took this craft more seriously.  I wish I had the guts to go to university with writing as my goal, not to get a degree for monetary gain (which didn't work anway!).


----------



## Zero Angel

Ankari said:


> I did too, until I took this craft more seriously.  I wish I had the guts to go to university with writing as my goal, not to get a degree for monetary gain (which didn't work anway!).



I don't know about getting a writing degree, although I'd be interested in a few classes, but just being able to dedicate that much TIME to writing would be amazing. Every day I feel like I am being literally shredded by my desires to write conflicting with my work obligations. 

This forum has been a godsend in that regard. The micro-writing and just being able to THINK about fantasy for short bursts of time is spectacular and much-needed.


----------



## Ophiucha

I'm honestly a better editor than I am a writer (and I'm not a bad writer), so that particular aspect is something I think I'll handle myself, with the help of a few beta readers I can trust to be honest with me about it. But the book cover? I'd have to get that done professionally. I have a novella that I am considering self-publishing (because novellas are hard as hell to get traditionally published, particularly in a genre that loves their 120,000 word epics) after a few more serious read-throughs, maybe three months work, but I just don't have the money to pay for a book cover right now, so I'm going to wait before I put it in the Kindle marketplace.

And before you say "just save up", I should say I have no form of income, and if I could get a relative or friend to lend me a few hundred dollars, I would far sooner use it to pay for groceries and rent than I would a book cover. I love to write, and I'd continue writing if I had to do it on the back of a cardboard box using pens people tossed away from the alleyway I was living in, but I'm not so eager to get published that I'll put myself one month closer to homelessness.


----------



## The Dark One

Thing is, the spelling and grammar is not the most important contribution an editor makes. Obviously those things are important but the main problem with bad self-published books (as opposed to good self-published books...there are such things) is that they've not had the benefit of a structural edit; ie, someone with judgment and skill asking the hard questions about the story and helping the writer to pull it all apart and put it back together in a tighter, more coherent and satisfying way.

It's the art of storytelling that's missing from bad self-published books...not just spelling and grammar.

I've been fortunate enough to have been through the structural editing process three times now and it's quite a challenge. The editor won't always win, but by god you'd better have a strong argument if you're going to convince the publisher that your vision is stronger than their editor's.


----------



## Ophiucha

Though true, it is a balance when it comes to self-published novels and the stories they tell. I think one of the best things the self-published market has to offer is its untraditional stories. I see this a lot on writer's blogs about how they had to fight the editor for the most basic things, like fighting to keep a character as a female, or black, or gay. Because it doesn't sell as well.

While, yes, a great deal of self-published books I've read are... borderline incoherent and lack any recognizable purpose, there are things an editor would want to change that you don't _have_ to if you don't have a publishers interests in mind. And of course, when you start fighting them on those things you're right about, the power dynamics between you and the editor become a bit foggy. You are the author, but you are also the publisher. You are the person whose vision is being challenged _and _the person who you have to defend your vision to. And if you are right about one thing - let's say, that Character A should be gay - you create a situation where the editor knows you'll value your vision above his/her opinion and where you become aware of your veto power over anything the editor says.


----------



## Chilari

Ankari said:


> But it's not only about typos.  Its about grammar rules (when you _mean_ to use them), sentence structure, word choice (better clarity) and (if you're using a content editor) story consistency.
> 
> But you're right, you don't want to even think about an editor until you've completed your story.



Not to sound smug or anything, but my written English is pretty strong. My teachers from school and my uni tutors commented on it; before I got my current job I was days away from starting my own proofreading business. Written English has always been a strength of mine. Not to say I don't make mistakes, because I do occasionally, but I intend to do several passes on a completed manuscript (after rewrites and story edits) for awkward sentences, typos, calling characters by the wrong names, and so on.

No editor required, not that I could afford one; I can honestly say no to each of those five points above - I can't afford a nice phone and have the cheapest contract I could find - Â£10 a month - I don't go out drinking much, I think the last time was about three months ago and I had lemonade, I don't eat out often, I go to the cinema about once a month but always go on the cheap nights and don't have popcorn etc. There's nobody I can ask for money and it's not fair to do so anyway.

Sum total of that is: I can't afford an editor, neither can anyone I can ask, but I can edit for myself and I can ask both my mum and my sister, who are both strong at written English too, to look over my final manuscript.


----------



## JCFarnham

You said it Chilari. 

There is no reason a professional editor is _absolutely_ better than doing it yourself. They may certainly be better suited to it than you, it is after all their day job, they do it enough, but that's not a given. They are just one more person you need to explain your vision to. 

While an good amount of editors work for you, I'm almost certain (it being human nature) that there are some who would rather take what you offer them and rewrite it their way. That's the kind of editor I would absolutely not pay for. Seeing as how it would be difficult to judge such thing, aside from trusted word of mouth reviews I'm more inclined to self edit at the moment. 

The simple fact is that the authors of those bad self-pub novels are not ready to publish and no amount of professional editing will be worth it. Just because you've finished your first book, does not mean your craft is good enough to put it out into the open market. "A polished turd is still a turd" is something I heard once in this regard haha.


----------



## TWErvin2

Sadly, poorly edited self-published works, in my experience, are the rule rather than the exception. It is an additional hurdle that more serious/dedicated/professional writers who choose to self-publish have to overcome.

Typos and grammar gaffs are often just the first clue as to a poorly edited novel or short story. As has been said above, editing includes more than simply finding those. Word choice, clarity, consistency, dialogue, plot, pacing, descriptions, all those things and more are reviewed by an editor. And as also been said, a good editor improves a work, but not by altering or shifting it away from the author's voice and storytelling--making it more like the editor's vision/voice, etc.

No novel is going to be perfect, self-published or traditional published, but the writing and editing has to be good enough that errors don't interfere with the reading and enjoyment.

I think that one of the reasons so many self-published novels out there are poorly written and edited is because the writers are impatient. One of the foremost reasons they self-publish is because they don't want to invest the time and effort necessary to go through the process to find and agent and/or seek out a publisher--it is often mentioned by many self-published authors, those that do it right and those that don't. Research and target markets, review guidelines, create the cover/query letter and prepare a submission package, send it off and then wait for the likely rejection but possible request for more (the full novel). Keep doing it until it finds a home or all solid markets are exhausted.

It seems the attitude is to self-publish, and just get it out there and see what happens. Put it out there for others to read, not because it's ready, but simply because they can at no cost.

I think there is a cost. Their reputation as a writer. And in truth, they chip away at the reputation of others that self-publish too. I don't see that changing any time soon.


----------



## Telcontar

It is true that many of the self-published novels are horrible, but as mentioned above those are not just for want of editing or anything else - those authors simply weren't ready to publish and jumped in too early. 

I've heard enough professional authors (many of them self-published) sing the praises of professional editing to believe that yes, it would likely improve the quality of my work if I could afford to hire it. However, the estimate of $600 is a drastic lowballing from what I have found through reporting and my own research. The quote I keep in my head is $1500 for a 100k novel. I can't remember if that applies to line-by-line or only editing for content (or some combo of those and a the third type) but that's the figure I tagged as "needed" in my mind to hire a pro editor.


----------



## JCFarnham

A quote I found some where was "Developmental Editing for $0.06/word". Which when you add up for a decent sized novel begins to look really rather costly. 

$0.06 * 120,000 words = $7200

Now even if I converted that to Pounds Sterling that's a huge outlay for something myself and a few trusted writer friends could do for free. And for 65k it's no better I'm sure you can see.

The rest of this editors fees are however flat rates of about $300 for anything except the "developmental" stuff. Whatever that means. She is however a well praised critiquer/beta reader/editor. And would like help no end if you could pay for her.

It seems to me that free lance editors price themselves to look worth it _for publishing houses._ That could explain some of the steep prices. They mustn't be working with any _normal_ amatuers.

If we take my example editor the only thing someone like me COULD afford is what MS Word already does... a spell check.


----------



## Jabrosky

Wait, does a quality editor necessarily have to demand money for their services? I thought beta readers, who can really help with editing among other things, cost nothing. At least they don't on other writing websites I frequent.

I will say though that if a piece of work is infested with basic spelling, grammatical, and other writing errors, the kind of writing you'd expect from grade schoolers still learning to spell, I personally don't want to spend the energy correcting every single error in the text. It saps energy that could better be spent on reviewing larger elements of the work.

Come to think of it, why can so few people nowadays write properly to begin with? Surely they're exposed to proper writing millions of times in their lives (how else would they know how to read instructions on the Internet?), so mere ignorance doesn't cut it as an explanation. I bet my money on a decline in modern civilization's collective attention span, which would also explain the impatience issue mentioned earlier. In an age saturated with conveniences, people don't like having to exert energy to perform basic tasks any more.


----------



## BWFoster78

My understanding is that there is a cheap option to use instead of doing a full line edit.  I plan to have an editor do a manuscript review for a couple of hundred dollars.  This level of edit won't get into the nitty gritty but will point out major problems and areas that are in need of revision.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> Is this usual? I have no idea if the book was interesting or not because I had too difficult of a time reading it



I don't know about usual, but it is quite common. You can go on various eReader forums and see that there are a number of readers who won't buy any self-published or indie-published book because of it. The amount of dreck out there hurts everyone. If you have a good, well-executed story, you can still find a good audience, but you have to resign yourself to the fact that some people will not buy it simply because it is self-published.


----------



## Philip Overby

> The amount of dreck out there hurts everyone. If you have a good, well-executed story, you can still find a good audience, but you have to resign yourself to the fact that some people will not buy it simply because it is self-published.



Unfortunately, I am one of these people that has this prejudice.  Not to say I'd never try self-publishing (never say never) but I typically don't buy anything that's self-published unless I know the writer or if someone I trust highly recommends it.  I have so much stuff I'm reading already, I just don't have time to pick through everything and find gems.  To me, it's a little like when I used to go the video store and see really cool VHS box art.  If the title, premise, and box art got me, then I'd rent it.  Most of the time I'd be disappointed, but sometimes I'd find a real winner.  

However, if the novel is by an indie publisher, I'm more likely to pick it up.  Looking at my Kindle now, I'd say it's about 99 percent traditional publishers (Tor, Del Rey, Penguin, BantamSpectra, etc.)  

I think just writing something and self-publishing it without actually trying to edit or anything is lazy and is sort of indicative of this Youtube culture of "I do it just because I can."  You know what I'm talking about:  the videos of someone with a webcam just talking with no music or production or editing.  It's just sort of lazy and most of the time, not very interesting. 

I hope something eventually changes my mind, because now that I've read some good self-published fiction, it makes me a lean a bit more towards giving them a try.


----------



## Steerpike

Actually just came across an article stemming from Sue Grafton's comments about indie- and self-published writers, and the article transitions into things for indie writers to think about. The first one is this:


> "Indie Authors – I Can’t Afford Editing, A Graphic Artist, Etc.
> 
> Yes, I’ve heard this…a lot.  If this is you, it’s time to take a step back and ask yourself if you’re really ready for self-publishing.  This is a business and it should be treated with the same professionalism as you would with your job.  You want to tell me that indie authors who make these kinds of comments are publishing quality material when they don’t take their craft seriously enough to, at minimum, get their novel edited by a professional?  Yes, a few people skip these steps and still succeed.  But the vast majority don’t."



Article here: Sue Grafton, Indie Authors And Stupid Comments

With regard to beta readers, they are not editors (unless I suppose you are lucky enough to have one as a beta reader), and the truth is that while they may point out obvious editing issues, that should not be their main focus. The cheaper "manuscript review" route probably isn't a bad way to go. 

Indie- and self-published writers already have an uphill battle in terms of generating sales. If you put out a shoddy product, that is going to become known and it not only has the potential to seriously impact the sales of that work, but your name as the author will become associated with it and that will hurt future sales even if next time around you do hire a decent editor.


----------



## BWFoster78

> The cheaper "manuscript review" route probably isn't a bad way to go.



I figure, at the very least, the editor can tell you whether or not you need a line edit.

I agree with you, if you're going to represent the book as something that people should want to pay for, it needs to be treated in a professional manner.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> I figure, at the very least, the editor can tell you whether or not you need a line edit.
> 
> I agree with you, if you're going to represent the book as something that people should want to pay for, it needs to be treated in a professional manner.



Yes, I agree with both points. I hadn't considered the first one, but you're right. If the editor doing the general manuscript reviews says you are in good shape, you probably are. If it is going to take more work than that, they can let you know. That may well be a more cost-effective way to approach things than to go straight to a full and complete edit.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> Yes, I agree with both points. I hadn't considered the first one, but you're right. If the editor doing the general manuscript reviews says you are in good shape, you probably are. If it is going to take more work than that, they can let you know. That may well be a more cost-effective way to approach things than to go straight to a full and complete edit.



It's a bit of a gamble, but only a tiny one.  If you feel that you've done a good line edit, it's worth it.  Besides, you're getting something out of the manuscript review anyway - finding out where the weak plot points are.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

My own "Muddle Puddle and the Whistling Shell" has been self edited. I read it aloud to my children and found that is one of the best ways of doing it yourself, if you trip over words then they need changing. If it does not sound right, it needs changing till it does. I went over it so many times that I could quote whole passages, it took me longer to get it right than it did to illustrate it and some of the larger illustrations took me over two weeks for each.
It is all right to suggest that paying someone $600 to edit it for you is the best way of doing it but I'm a single parent with two young children and shoes and school uniforms take precedence over luxury. I had to do it myself and I guess that now it is available for download I shall soon find out if I've made a good job of it.


----------



## ALB2012

Ankari said:


> At a convention I went to, a few self-published authors stated that hiring an editor isn't that expensive.  One said for $600 you should be able to get a line-by-line edit done (for an agreed upon word count).  I feel that if an author doesn't hire an editor, even after beta-readers and self-editing, he's doing himself an injustice.  He is also telling his potential clients that he didn't believe in the story enough to invest in editing.
> 
> I know people will post stating that coming by $600 isn't easy.  This may appear snarky, but do a few things:
> 
> 1) Is the phone in your hand an Iphone 4S?  Are you already hyped about the Iphone 5?  You have the money.
> 
> 2) Do you regularly go to a bar every weekend?  Skip a couple months and save up.  You have the money.
> 
> 3) Do you go out to every weekend to a movie and dinner?  Skip a couple months and save up.  You have the money.
> 
> 4) Do you eat lunch in a diner/fast food restaurant?  Pack your launch for two months.  You have the money.
> 
> 5) Do you buy the latest PS3/Xbox 360 game?  Don't do so for the next couple months.  You have the money.
> 
> The point is, get the money together and invest in an editor.



$600 dollars is utterly out of my budget- That is what about Â£450 in real money- well that is 2 weeks wages pretty much.


1) Is the phone in your hand an Iphone 4S?  Are you already hyped about the Iphone 5?  You have the money.- No I do not own an  Iphone- I do have a mobile but my partner pays for it.

2) Do you regularly go to a bar every weekend?  Skip a couple months and save up.  You have the money.- NO I can't remember the last time I went to a bar. I go out every few months with my mate to the cinema.

3) Do you go out to every weekend to a movie and dinner?  Skip a couple months and save up.  You have the money.- See above

4) Do you eat lunch in a diner/fast food restaurant?  Pack your launch for two months.  You have the money.- Not often- subsidised anyway and I tend to pack food from home.

5) Do you buy the latest PS3/Xbox 360 game?  Don't do so for the next couple months.  You have the money.- DO not own a console-last PC game I "bought" was Diablo 3 and that wad through the sub I pay for world of war craft.

Really do you think if I  "get the money together" I would spend the time self editing if I didn't have to.

Besides I am not paying someone to tell me what I should take out of the book I have written. Really not everyone can afford an editor. 

Yes there are crappily edited books on Amazon- a great many of them but as I often find even "edited" books and books by the "regular" authors have mistakes in.  I have read free books I thought were fantastic- errors or not and paid for books I havent got past the first chapter.

I don't tend to buy a book for free if I wouldn't actually consider paying for it. If I find a book with errors that are awful I might think hmm, should have maybe spent a little more time proof reading this but really I read for the story not to pick holes in the work of someone who may not be able to afford an editor.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Stuart John Evison said:


> My own "Muddle Puddle and the Whistling Shell" has been self edited. I read it aloud to my children and found that is one of the best ways of doing it yourself, if you trip over words then they need changing. If it does not sound right, it needs changing till it does. I went over it so many times that I could quote whole passages, it took me longer to get it right than it did to illustrate it and some of the larger illustrations took me over two weeks for each.
> It is all right to suggest that paying someone $600 to edit it for you is the best way of doing it but I'm a single parent with two young children and shoes and school uniforms take precedence over luxury. I had to do it myself and I guess that now it is available for download I shall soon find out if I've made a good job of it.
> iTunes - Books - Muddle Puddle & the Whistling Shell by Stuart Evison



Money can be an issue depending on your personal situation. However, as a writer, you aren't truly capable of seeing the errors in your work like an outside reader can. You have a certain knowledge of story, setting, and characters that your readers don't have when they start on page one. Because of that knowledge you will pass over details that may leave a true reader that is naive to the story, scratching their heads. Do this enough & they put that book down without reading further.

Yes, you can use people that you know as readers. Chilari above mentioned relatives & JC mentioned friends that can do the same work for free. I'm sorry but they just can't do it the same. Primarily, they have an unconscious bias toward you, the author. Your sister, mother, & friends are not likely to give you that unbiased, professionally detached, experienced editing (content-wise mainly but grammar as well) that you can achieve through hiring a real editor.

You may very well be strong in grammar, or story, or know every rule of punctuation in the English language. You will still make mistakes because it's your writing. It's a trick of the mind that we don't see the flaws in our own work that a true professional editor will notice.


----------



## ALB2012

Ankari said:


> No.  Even if you can't get the money by saving it, do something to get it in your hands.  Ask a friend, lover, brother, mother, or anyone that shares your gene pool.  Write a loan agreement with a favorable repayment plan (for you) and invest the money wisely.  There is a way, just find it.



Sometimes that is  not possible. My family are not well off, my parents are both very ill and very disabled. My sisters both have mortgages and a family to feed, I already have a loan and credit cards which are crippling me to pay off. Really  some times people simply cannot afford it. Yes maybe we should wait...maybe we should do the best we can and go for it.
If someone doesn't want to read my book because it is self -published or there might be the odd typo then... well that is their choice.

Surely it is whether the story is engaging is important. No book, no author is perfect. I sometimes wonder if people ask too much.


----------



## Steerpike

ALB2012 said:


> Really some times people simply cannot afford it. Yes maybe we should wait...maybe we should do the best we can and go for it.



I agree that this is the case for some people. I think it is very important in that situation to have a good, competent group of readers who are going to give you honest feedback and be able to identify problems with grammar, and other such things. The odd typo doesn't bother me, but when authors make grammatical mistakes or other mistakes where they simply do not understand something, those tend to be repeated with great frequency, and I think those kind of errors will make the vast majority of writers stop reading.


----------



## Zero Angel

I'm glad to see some defense of the non-professionally edited book (although that might say something for our egos/arrogance ). In a perfect world, everyone would pay for those things, but it's not a perfect world. 

Make do if you need to guys, but please at least proofread. I couldn't believe some of the material I've read recently that is out there. I self-edited half a dozen times before involving any other editors, and when it was all said and done I went back and changed some more things. At the end of the day, I felt that I did a lot more than any editor had done, which made me believe that it might not be 100% necessary for me, but some things were caught by them that I might not have been able to catch myself.

For those that are off bad for money, one possibility is seeing if anyone will do the work to add to their portfolio/resume. I recommend English majors at colleges/universities that have considered editing and might be interested in checking out your book. Sure you don't have the experience of a professional, but you do have more eyes on your work and the relationship might be mutually beneficial for the both of you short-term and maybe even long-term.


----------



## ALB2012

Yes that is good advice actually. I am currently going over book 2 and going "what the hell was I thinking?" or "oh look the comma fairy has been here again." I will definitely go over it again and then ask someone else to look at it. The fact is I simply cannot afford an editor. I do not have the luxury of being able to save up as at the moment there are too many things I need to pay for.

I recently had someone offer to do my cover art for free to add to her portfolio so that is awesome.


----------



## ALB2012

Steerpike said:


> I agree that this is the case for some people. I think it is very important in that situation to have a good, competent group of readers who are going to give you honest feedback and be able to identify problems with grammar, and other such things. The odd typo doesn't bother me, but when authors make grammatical mistakes or other mistakes where they simply do not understand something, those tend to be repeated with great frequency, and I think those kind of errors will make the vast majority of writers stop reading.



Yes and if someone points it out, take it on board. At least Kindle is easy to make changes and re-upload.


----------



## Zero Angel

ALB2012 said:


> Yes and if someone points it out, take it on board. At least Kindle is easy to make changes and re-upload.



Great point. Another positive for the electronic format


----------



## Chilari

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Chilari above mentioned relatives & JC mentioned friends that can do the same work for free. I'm sorry but they just can't do it the same. Primarily, they have an unconscious bias toward you, the author. Your sister, mother, & friends are not likely to give you that unbiased, professionally detached, experienced editing (content-wise mainly but grammar as well) that you can achieve through hiring a real editor.



For the record my mum is a writer too and my sister has been a beta reader for others including a traditionally published author; they both know what is required from a beta reading and from the times Mum has read things I've written in the past, she's not shy about being pretty starkly honest. I certainly wouldn't ask my Dad or my brother to beta read my writing, because Dad would just say it's wonderful and tell me how proud he is of me (oh god he does this all the friggen time) and my brother, if he even read it (I'm not sure his reading comprehension is that high, he reads the Daily Mail) would go "Yeah it's alright" and say nothing else. So while certainly there is a possibility of bias from friends and relatives, it does depend on whether or not they know what they're talking about with writing and beta reading.

I can understand the argument that if you're not dedicated enough to spend money on it you're not dedicated enough to publish, but for some of, spending money on anything but rent, food and bills is impossible. I've got a job but I know other writers don't, and we're not all free agents, some of us have loved ones to support.

The other issue I have, because I almost did become a professional in this regard, is that someone might be charging for a service but how do you know they're any good at it? I stressed over this from the point of view of trying to find out how I could prove myself, and there are means through professional associations to gain some level of accreditation, but they often have some sort of time limit on them - like you can't gain full accreditation until you've been doing this professionally for a certain amount of time or until a mentor has seen a certain number of pieces of your work and assessed it over a period of several months. Point being, anyone can claim to be an editor and charge for a service, but unless they've got accreditation you can't know that what you're paying for is worth it, and once they have accreditation it gets a lot more expensive very quickly.

So you might say "You can get your book edited by a professional for $600" but that might well be money very poorly spent when someone like me is equally qualified and experienced in proofreading or substance editing but willing to trade beta reads rather than charge for them. I might have only recently started my WIP but I have six people in mind I would ask at some stage to beta read for me and who would almost certainly say yes, and a further three or four I could ask beside, whose opinions I trust; and those of them who are writers, I would offer the same in return.


----------



## Zero Angel

Chilari said:


> The other issue I have, because I almost did become a professional in this regard, is that someone might be charging for a service but how do you know they're any good at it?



I recommend asking for samples of writing they've edited with their comments. 

Not everyone is willing to do this, but I am guessing people that are not established or certified yet would probably be more willing.


----------



## Chilari

Fair point. And I will remember that one if ever I do go professional, eg if my contract doesn't get extended come January.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Chilari said:


> For the record my mum is a writer too and my sister has been a beta reader for others including a traditionally published author; they both know what is required from a beta reading and from the times Mum has read things I've written in the past, she's not shy about being pretty starkly honest.



You are fortunate in this regard. Although my comment referenced you, it was directed more towards the general writer who doesn't have relatives in the business. If it were me, I'd still be concerned about bias regardless of how slight.



Chilari said:


> So you might say "You can get your book edited by a professional for $600" but that might well be money very poorly spent when someone like me is equally qualified and experienced in proofreading or substance editing but willing to trade beta reads rather than charge for them.



True depending on what you're looking for. The editors I'd hire would have an established record of success with authors whose work I know.


----------



## squishybug87

I'm one of the 'lucky' ones, I guess because I have my degree in Print Journalism and we were taught how to self edit. My husband also has a knack for the English language, though his focus is computers. However, I would get another pair of eyes to look at it. I know I'll be biased and my husband hates hurting my feelings, so there's that. I definitely second getting an English or Journalism major to look it over; I would have loved to have an opportunity like that back in school. 

I admit I do have the bias when it comes to self published books. I have read only a few good ones, and I really don't have the time to work with a book like I did a few years ago. I have two boys under 2. If a book doesn't grab my attention by the first...20-30 pages, I give up. Even if a book is traditionally published, I'm still sceptical. I read user reviews and I utilize that 'Look Inside' feature at Amazon. I know it's unfair to judge a book because it's self published but I have no choice because I have no time. I'm barely able to shower by myself, much less get time to read a book, so it needs to be good. That said, I plan to use my pickiness to my advantage as I'm writing my book, because I will be assuming that every reader is like me 

I think self publishing is a good idea because it is so hard to get published nowadays and very few publishing houses take risks anymore (hence, the prevalence of all this soft core vampire porn). It's just sad that most of the books read like bad fanfiction


----------



## The Din

Good to see everyone's adhering to the 'broke writer' stereotype and not just me. Still, if I ever give up on getting professionally published and decide to self publish, you can bet I'll cough up the coin to have an editor look at it first. 

Do the maths, you invest hundreds of hours into writing the damned thing, upon which you're effectively staking your reputation as a writer. Surely that's worth 10-30 hours of actual work. Don't feel like working? Pimp out the girlfriend, sling some crack, get a bloody paper route. 

I think a writer has to look carefully at their reasoning behind self publishing. _To make money? _Better odds buying a lottery ticket. _All those writer-groupies? _Well maybe skip the editor then and hope they don't read the thing. _Actually create a name for themselves?_ Then surely they want to do everything possible to make their novel a success and as wrinkle free as possible?     

Concerning the original post: Yes, sadly.


----------



## Chilari

T.Allen.Smith said:


> The editors I'd hire would have an established record of success with authors whose work I know.



A good way of making sure you get a good service, but bear in mind those editors will not be so cheap as $600 unless you're somehow very lucky indeed or you know them. Which brings back the "I can't afford it" problem.



			
				The Din said:
			
		

> Do the maths, you invest hundreds of hours into writing the damned thing, upon which you're effectively staking your reputation as a writer. Surely that's worth 10-30 hours of actual work. Don't feel like working? Pimp out the girlfriend, sling some crack, get a bloody paper route.



You seem to be making light of the kind of money that we're talking about here. Now, I'm lucky; I managed to find a job when one in four people my age in the UK is unemployed. If things go really south, I can lean on my Dad for a little while albeit at the risk of delaying his retirement. But right now I'm living paycheque to paycheque. And I'm one of the lucky ones. Finding ways to make a little extra is easier said than done, whether you're working full time already or not. Jobs just aren't that easy to get; one job I applied for back when I was unemployed, in an off-license, had 70 applications. Finding the time or energy - or the job - to get a little extra money is difficult. I occasionally babysit for my neighbours, and that's between Â£12 and Â£20 a time, depending on how long it's for, but it's never more than once a week and more likely once a month, so that kind of money doesn't really have an impact. And once you have that money, are you really going to spend it on an editor? Or are you going to make sure you can continue to eat food and have lights that go on and hot water for showers and washing up when you're living hand to mouth? Anyway, I think you grossly underestimate the number of hours it would take. 30 hours at minimum wage is Â£182.40. Not enough for that $600/Â£400 editor.

I can understand that putting work out there without professional editing has the potential to harm your reputation. I get that. But for some of us, at the moment, we simply aren't earning enough to spend that kind of money on what is at the moment a hobby, even as an investment. So we look for other ways of getting the same thing for free - like trading beta reads and getting friends and family so sense check or proofread. Get enough input from enough people with some writing experience, like people on this and other forums, then even if you can't afford to spend thousands on professional editing, it can be tight, it can be good.

If anything, though, this is an argument in favour of traditional publishing. Traditional publishers will foot the bill for editing, even if that translates as smaller royalties down the line, meaning you don't have to find money you can't afford to spend before publication.


----------



## Ophiucha

Indeed, Chilari. The kind of money to hire professional editors and artists - even marketers, potentially - for a novel just isn't something you can pick up on the side through a part-time job or ethically questionable acts in alleyways. I'm not getting a spare dollar until _at least _both my husband and I have a full-time job, and when we do? Frankly, for all that I love to write, my first priority is hiring an immigrations lawyer, because right now I am living in a different country. Every dollar we have over the cost of rent and groceries - usually about $30 to $50 a month - pays for the train ticket for us to see each other for a few days. Maybe in a year and change, once I can live in Canada and I've found a new job here (since I'll have to give up any job I find in Washington to live with my husband), I can save up that sort of money... but right now, I have to wait to self-publish. And frankly, while I'm sitting on this novella, I'm working on a novel that, yeah, I'll probably seek to traditionally publish. Because I want to get my work out there one day, but I just don't have the money to pay for anything more than postage right now.

Though there _is _always the Kickstarter option. Relies on some damn good marketing tactics, having a friend with a good camera and maybe some basic film editing skills, some strong excerpts, and ideally some concept art, but I was pretty inspired by how many people donated to The Girl Who Would Be King, so let it be said that it's not impossible.


----------



## BWFoster78

I'll probably put around $1000 into my self published book.  Expenses that I know I have:

$400 for cover art
$200 (minimum) for manuscript review by editor
$100 (or thereabouts) establishment of domain and web hosting for website

I'm budgeting at least another $300 for miscellaneous costs.  I'll need business cards, and I might end up paying for some advertising.  I might need to hire a graphic artist to complete the cover.  

Could I get by with less?  Probably.  I want to represent myself as a professional though.  It's important to me that I'm sure I'm not putting out a crap product.  

There are very few ways to make money that do not require some kind of investment.


----------



## Devor

Great discussion everyone.

I'm moving this to the Publishing forum.


----------



## Zero Angel

Chilari said:


> Jobs just aren't that easy to get; one job I applied for back when I was unemployed, in an off-license, had 70 applications. Finding the time or energy - or the job - to get a little extra money is difficult.



It's absurd how many over-qualified people are applying for low-level jobs too. I have my master degree in mathematics (no way of getting to a doctorate because of distance and money to institutions that offer it) so I am stuck with being qualified for adjunct faculty jobs (part-time professor) and full-time at community/technical schools. 

But every job I've applied to for the last three years has had hundreds of applications with DOZENS of doctorates applying! I consider myself lucky to have two part-time jobs--the second I only got 8 months after I submitted my application (my guess is they went through all the people that applied and when they left the job (high turn-over rate) they finally came to me).


----------



## Chilari

In the four months I was unemployed I must have applied for nearly a hundred jobs. I was asked to do a trial shift at a restaurant, who subsequently messed me around over money and never asked me back after the second shift (it was on a "come when we call" fill in sort of basis, and i suspect my age - being over 21 and thus subject to the higher minimum wage - that clinched that one), asked by Blockbusters back in the city I did my degree in to come for an interview (which I had to decline because I don't live anywhere near there any more), and eventually got an interview with my current boss. I still don't have a permanent contract though. No other interviews, dispite chasing up via phone and email almost every job I applied for. Some I was underqualified for, the majority I was vastly overqualified for.

Anyway, enough of the jobhunting rant. It's the same for everyone looking for work at the moment.

Editing aside, I don't know where I'll get money for other things like cover art, ISBN number, website and the rest; maybe I will try traditional publishing for all the royalties are worse and the marketing takes just as much effort. With all the up-front expenses of self-publishing, and the assumption evident in certain linked articles that self-pubbed books are probably crap and not worth the effort, it's starting once again to look like by far the best option. I can always return to self-pub at some point in the future if the traditional route doesn't pan out, when my fiance has made millions with his energy ideas and I've been promoted and risen by a pay bracket and I've won the Euromillions lottery and we've found something of immense value buried under all the junk in my fiance's mother's house*. ALL OF THESE THINGS WILL HAPPEN one day and we'll be super rich so just you watch out.

*At least I'm using my archaeology degree - searching through my future mother-in-law's pantry and discovering items that went out of date longer and longer ago the deeper down and further back we go is really like an excavation, except without the seiving dirt for four hours a day to make sure we've not missed anything bit. I think we've reached 1996 now. And those were lentils - they last for ages. Before long we'll reach things without a date. We passed long ago the point at which Sainsbury's bags changed from white to orange, and are nearing the Somerfield bags - the supermarket that was in this town before Sainsbury's.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

I must admit with "Muddle Puddle and the Whistling Shell" I have had considerable professional help, that is I have very old friends who have been in the magazine publishing industry for over thirty years. It was an obvious move for me to consult them when I first considered getting the work published. To my relief when they saw and read the work they decided "you've got something really good here" and took for them a left field punt and became my publishers. It has taken ten months from that decision to getting it into Apple's bookstore. During that time it has been read by most of the staff that work there and if any editorial faults were evident they would have told me straight away. The main shareholder of the company even took it on holiday with him to read aloud to his grandchildren, he I know would certainly have told me in no uncertain terms if there was anything wrong with the prose, he's an absolute perfectionist.
I know I have been extremely lucky so far in making my dream a reality but any one else given the same situation would surely have followed the same path. As I have said before the true test of whether the work is any good will be if it sells or not. If it starts getting significant numbers of downloads then we will consider going to hard copy and seek distribution deals.
Take a look or even a punt and buy it, read it for yourselves, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to get feedback from fellow mythic scribes. Even if you all think it's rubbish that is at least a reaction better than being ignored.
The book has not only been edited it has been designed and although I'm biased having written and illustrated it, I know it will pleasantly surprise the reader since it is not just what it first appears to be, that is a fairy tale.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Chilari,

I would agree that if you don't have the money to do self-publishing professionally then that's an argument for the traditional publishing route. If your writing is good and you get picked up you can always decide to self-pub at another time when you're more solvent.

I wish most writers thought this way. The biggest problem with self-pubbing is the massive amount of crap flooding the market that should've never been published by any means. 

Many readers and writing professionals believe that if the work is good enough then it is published through a traditional house. For the vast majority of books, I agree that this is true. There are exceptions to this of course. Self-published authors who approach the work with the utmost dedication & professionalism can approach or near the level of reading & appearance that you get with a big 6 publisher. That takes more than just time & effort. It takes a financial investment. 
If the book looks amateurish (cover design & interior layout) chances are that readers will expect it to read amateurish. People do judge books by their covers.
If you can't afford to do this part of the business well, just concentrate on the writing alone. If its good enough a publisher can handle the other business ends for you.


----------



## Butterfly

Been doing some digging. Possibility - apply to the Arts Council England/Wales/N. Ireland/Scotland for funding. I don't know how difficult it is to get funding from them, but they do offer support to new writers.  Might be worth a shot though.

Applying For Arts Council Funding | How Publishing Really Works

Literature | Arts Council


----------



## Zero Angel

Chilari said:


> I don't know where I'll get money for other things like cover art, ISBN number, website and the rest; maybe I will try traditional publishing for all the royalties are worse and the marketing takes just as much effort.



One route that I went that _DID NOT PAN OUT_ for me was having a "publishing drive". Basically, sell your books before you print them. Now that Kickstarter is up, I would recommend going that route and just "charge" (by rewarding their investment) whatever it would cost you to print them and send them to that person. Make sure that you don't go to the presses unless you've earned enough money to cover the expenses of getting enough books to start working with. The only big issue I see with Kickstarter is that you have to put a time limit to get up to the required total investment. 

I never made enough money with my non-Kickstarter publishing drive, so I ended up offering refunds or a spiral-bound "pre-publication" galley version to the people that bought copies.


----------



## BWFoster78

Zero Angel said:


> One route that I went that _DID NOT PAN OUT_ for me was having a "publishing drive". Basically, sell your books before you print them. Now that Kickstarter is up, I would recommend going that route and just "charge" (by rewarding their investment) whatever it would cost you to print them and send them to that person. Make sure that you don't go to the presses unless you've earned enough money to cover the expenses of getting enough books to start working with. The only big issue I see with Kickstarter is that you have to put a time limit to get up to the required total investment.
> 
> I never made enough money with my non-Kickstarter publishing drive, so I ended up offering refunds or a spiral-bound "pre-publication" galley version to the people that bought copies.



There's no reason to do a print run nowadays, and you can certainly sell preorders for your POD book.  I'm planning on doing that: offering to send autographed copies if you order it through my website.


----------



## yachtcaptcolby

In regard to editing and cover art, I'd advise you to network. I'm a good editor myself, so I trade editing tasks with other good editors I've befriended. And I write and edit for the artist who did my cover, so that was free. All us little guys are in the same boat, so it makes sense to make friends with people that are willing to help each other out.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

yachtcaptcolby said:


> In regard to editing and cover art, I'd advise you to network. I'm a good editor myself, so I trade editing tasks with other good editors I've befriended. And I write and edit for the artist who did my cover, so that was free. All us little guys are in the same boat, so it makes sense to make friends with people that are willing to help each other out.



I could not agree more, without the encouragement and help of talented friends I for one would not have gotten as far as I have with my own work and I shall keep plugging it here for as long as you all will put up with it.
iTunes - Books - Muddle Puddle & the Whistling Shell by Stuart Evison


----------



## ALB2012

Chilari said:


> I
> Anyway, enough of the jobhunting rant. It's the same for everyone looking for work at the moment.
> 
> Editing aside, I don't know where I'll get money for other things like cover art, ISBN number, website and the rest; maybe I will try traditional publishing for all the royalties are worse and the marketing takes just as much effort. With all the up-front expenses of self-publishing, and the assumption evident in certain linked articles that self-pubbed books are probably crap and not worth the effort, it's starting once again to look like by far the best option. I can always return to self-pub at some point in the future if the traditional route doesn't pan out, when my fiance has made millions with his energy ideas and I've been promoted and risen by a pay bracket and I've won the Euromillions lottery and we've found something of immense value buried under all the junk in my fiance's mother's house*. ALL OF THESE THINGS WILL HAPPEN one day and we'll be super rich so just you watch out.
> 
> *At least I'm using my archaeology degree - searching through my future mother-in-law's pantry and discovering items that went out of date longer and longer ago the deeper down and further back we go is really like an excavation, except without the seiving dirt for four hours a day to make sure we've not missed anything bit. I think we've reached 1996 now. And those were lentils - they last for ages. Before long we'll reach things without a date. We passed long ago the point at which Sainsbury's bags changed from white to orange, and are nearing the Somerfield bags - the supermarket that was in this town before Sainsbury's.



Not sure if it is any help but Lulu.com give you a free ISBN. In fact if you purchase your own ISBN and wish to use it you must pay for their global reach package ( which last time I looked was $79). If you wish to just use their ISBN and sell it through them on lulu and amazon  (or just lulu) it is a free ISBN.

I am not sure about create space but it may be the same. Of course Kindle is free. I know Vistaprint were offering cheap business cards and a free website but I think that may end today.

You could search for photographers/art students who want the experience and portfolio entry. I had an offer from the partner of a friend of mine to do the cover art she is working on for free if she can put it in her portfolio for her business and I give her a bit of publicity.  You could probably get a website for free or promote on facebook/google or whatever.


----------



## Christopher Wright

Going back to the second post, I don't feel I need to ask anyone's permission to make decisions about my budget, regardless of what I own. But thanks for the snark.


----------



## robertbevan

i didn't pay for editing or cover art. i found another writer on a different forum, and we did a beta swap. she suffered through three drafts of my book. she was great. she caught the sorts of things that spellchecker can't reign/rein, canvas/canvass, those sorts of things, and gave me a whole lot of "this paragraph is really confusing" and "come on, bob... you can do better than that" sort of comments. and of course, i did the same for her.

as for the cover, i came close to paying for a professional cover artist, but then i got an idea for what i thought was a cool cover, and my brother in law took care of the photographing and photoshopping. a professional probably would have gone with a different font, but i'm happy with how the cover came out.


----------



## Ankari

One other thing I would suggest.  If you think your work is gold but don't have the money to do all the post-writing stuff to make your novel great, submit it to a traditional publisher.  Why not?  try shopping your work for a year.  While you're doing it, start on the second novel.  Also, invite more people to beta read your novel and offer feedback.  After a year, even if no publisher bites, you'll have a highly polished book for free.  And perhaps a bit more money to invest into a cover.



> Going back to the second post, I don't feel I need to ask anyone's permission to make decisions about my budget, regardless of what I own. But thanks for the snark.



You're welcome?  Sometimes I can come off a little strong, but I do it with the best intentions in mind.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

This post is to show that editors have been winding authors up for at least 300 years. I have a reprint of the first edition(1726) of "Travels into several remote nations of the world in  four parts by Lemuel Gulliver" , "Gulliver's Travels" to thee and me. There is a footnote at the beginning in "A letter from Captain Gulliver to his cousin Sympson."                                                               
"The publishers of this edition have thought it advisable to follow the text of the first edition, but the following note will be of interest:-
'That the original copy of these Travels was altered by the person through whose hands it was conveyed to the press is a fact; but the passages of which Mr Gulliver complains in this letter are to be found only in the first editions; ---------. There is, however, scarce one of these alterations in which he has not committed a blunder; though while he was busy in defacing the parts that were perfect, he suffered the accidental blemishes of others to remain.' "
This letter to Sympson was written tongue in cheek as part of the fantasy itself. However the point is that it is obvious here Swift is complaining about editors and the way their input in his own journey to get published has wound him up.
P.S. If Swift's manuscript was submitted to publishers today his archaic eighteenth century prose, which I find refreshingly different and long winded would be totally obliterated by an editor. What they would do to Shakespeare if he time traveled and submitted a new play today does not bear thinking about, though that idea itself might make a good novel.
Stu.E.


----------



## Zero Angel

Stuart John Evison said:


> P.S. If Swift's manuscript was submitted to publishers today his archaic eighteenth century prose, which I find refreshingly different and long winded would be totally obliterated by an editor. What they would do to Shakespeare if he time traveled and submitted a new play today does not bear thinking about, though that idea itself might make a good novel.
> Stu.E.



This reminds me of an anecdote I've heard a few times. Here is the quote (from multiple sources):


> In the 1940s a Pulitzer Prize-winning young-adult book titled The Yearling was published, made into an excellent movie starring Gregory Peck, and continues to be a good backlist seller. In the 1990’s a writer in Florida, where The Yearling’s story takes place, performed an experiment. He converted the book into a raw double-spaced manuscript and changed the title and author’s name— but the book’s contents were not touched. He then submitted the entire manuscript to about 20 publishers on an unagented/unsolicited basis. The submissions weren’t addressed to any specific editor by name. Eventually this writer received many form rejections, including one from the book’s actual publisher. Several publishers never responded. A small house in Florida did offer to publish the book.



Although this was more to illustrate the results of unsolicited/unagented submissions than anything about luck in getting published.


----------



## Christopher Wright

Do the people who try that stuff ever think to consider that MAYBE these editors have actually READ all these famous books, and think "oh, great, another guy is trying to plagarize a classic" and just throw it in the trash bin?

The most famous example of this is the guy who tried to do the same with Pride and Prejudice.

NOTE TO IDIOTS: EVERY EDITOR WHO WORKS FOR A PUBLISHING COMPANY HAS READ PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. IF THEY HAVEN'T THEIR SLUSH READERS HAVE.

It makes me want to bang my head into a wall until the hurting stops.


----------



## Devor

> He then submitted the entire manuscript to *about 20 publishers* on an unagented/unsolicited basis. The submissions weren’t addressed to any specific editor by name. Eventually this writer received many form rejections, including one from the book’s actual publisher. Several publishers never responded. *A small house in Florida did offer to publish the book.*



Assuming that a few of the publishers did recognize the book, and that a few more might have priorities that keep from them giving it their full attention (and what did the query letter say I wonder?), I find it pretty telling that 1 in 20 _*did*_ say publish.  If that test was conducted to prove that old successful books would never get published today, I call bull.


----------



## Steerpike

I think the take home point is that even good,  highly successful books have a low acceptance rate,  so don't be discouraged.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

FireBird said:


> Based on how many books I've read that I've gotten off Amazon, I can tell you that tons of them were not edited or had a very poor editor. If I counted up all the free books I've bought and then count how many I've read all the way through, the number would be around 1/10, if that. Every once in a while you will find a great free one and wonder why the hell it was free in the first place.



If you are "buying" free books is it any wonder that they aren't edited to your satisfaction?  Remember the old adage you get what you pay for?  Personally I don't think that putting  a whole novel out for free (other than for a  short period as a promotion) is a good idea.  Writers need to value their work and put a price tag on it...and yes edit it properly.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Telcontar said:


> It is true that many of the self-published novels are horrible, but as mentioned above those are not just for want of editing or anything else - those authors simply weren't ready to publish and jumped in too early.
> 
> I've heard enough professional authors (many of them self-published) sing the praises of professional editing to believe that yes, it would likely improve the quality of my work if I could afford to hire it. However, the estimate of $600 is a drastic lowballing from what I have found through reporting and my own research. The quote I keep in my head is $1500 for a 100k novel. I can't remember if that applies to line-by-line or only editing for content (or some combo of those and a the third type) but that's the figure I tagged as "needed" in my mind to hire a pro editor.



Prices can vary wildly I've gotten quotes for $350 - $5,000.  I've "tested" the editors I've used with a few sample pages and I've been able to get very similar quality at the lower end as the upper end.  You just have to shop it around.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

Zero Angel said:


> Nice clarification there Ankari. I think some people think of editors as a glorified Word spellchecker/grammar checker.



I think I prefer to think that editors should stick to checking the spelling and the grammar, agents and publishers and it is they who employ the good editors, are too often driven by the idea of commercialism not by the art of the storyteller.  Story telling was an oral art for far longer than it has been a written one and as such is still practiced today especially in places like the Irish Republic. 
I would advise anyone to read their work out loud as if they were reading for the benefit of another, edit and punctuate it as you go. If it trips off the tongue and sounds good, chances are it is good.
If you look at my profile you'll see I'm an artist first and best, a writer second and I'm a fen born and educated Englishman, I write how I illustrate and talk. Shakespeare, Swift, Steinbeck and Twain they all speak for their times and place, commercialism has nothing to do with them; its just art.
Not so long ago an agent expressed interest in my own "Muddle Puddle" except first of all he wanted to exclude the illustration of the pregnant naked lady and all reference that two of the characters (one of them a leprechaun) might be 'gay' . That's not editorial licence, that's misogynist homophobia; needless to say I told him what he could do with his consideration.


----------



## Rosered

Apologies for the long post. It's my first one on this forum (or any forum to that matter) and I'm on a roll.
I'm an arts editor and trained as a sub-editor for a Scottish newspaper. I can't read even a menu without finding a spelling mistake.
Quite a few self-published novels of local writers land on my desk for review. Out of 20, perhaps one is possibly readable; most are so poorly written, the grammar and spelling errors so profuse, that I find it impossible to read on. It's a pity because many of the plots sound really interesting and the synopses promise a great read.
That's not to say that all self-published works are bad. On the contrary, there are some very fine works out there that buck a depressing trend and there are very many highly successful self-published authors who produce wonderful work.
New writers, and even well-published ones, face a downwardly spiralling chance of having their precious work accepted by mainstream publishers who, in turn, are battling to keep their shareholders happy. Publishers are more reluctant to take on new work than ever before because the risk factor outweighs a healthy bank balance. 
Self-publishing, and particularly e-publishing, is becoming increasingly popular for an author who would not otherwise have a chance of seeing their manuscripts in print or in the public domain.
Someone on this thread spoke of the need to maintain quality and professionalism in any work. Books are a product and I think there's the rub. Just because an author has gone down the self-publishing route does not mean that the standards of their product should be any lower than that expected from a professionally published book. They should be the same: well-written; well-edited; and packaged professionally.
No matter how much I try to edit my own work, there's always a mistake I've missed. Unfortunately, once it's printed, it's there forever. It's always best to get someone to edit any work properly. Notwithstanding the need to correct typos and grammatical irregularities, a good editor will tell you which bits are too rambling; which parts of the plot are weak; which bits are difficult to understand, the list is endless. Of course, it's always down to their opinion but you pay them to be the ones who know what sells and what doesn't.
In my humble opinion, if you feel your work is worthy of publication and you can't attract the interest of an agent or publisher (or even if you just fancy cutting out the middle-men and publishing your book yourself), then someone's got to invest in it so why not you?
That said, $600 (even in British pounds) is such a lot of money and most people put themselves at the bottom of the list of financial priorities when they are juggling meagre household funds.
I think the idea of beta readers sounds like a good compromise. There is also a number of websites where authors help each other by reading each other's work and critiquing it. Failing that, most people at least know someone who reads a lot and is good at English.
As authors, we all want to produce as near to a perfect product as possible because, believe me, there's nothing worse than seeing errors in your writing after it's been published.


----------



## BWFoster78

Rosered said:


> Apologies for the long post. It's my first one on this forum (or any forum to that matter) and I'm on a roll.
> I'm an arts editor and trained as a sub-editor for a Scottish newspaper. I can't read even a menu without finding a spelling mistake.
> Quite a few self-published novels of local writers land on my desk for review. Out of 20, perhaps one is possibly readable; most are so poorly written, the grammar and spelling errors so profuse, that I find it impossible to read on. It's a pity because many of the plots sound really interesting and the synopses promise a great read.
> That's not to say that all self-published works are bad. On the contrary, there are some very fine works out there that buck a depressing trend and there are very many highly successful self-published authors who produce wonderful work.
> New writers, and even well-published ones, face a downwardly spiralling chance of having their precious work accepted by mainstream publishers who, in turn, are battling to keep their shareholders happy. Publishers are more reluctant to take on new work than ever before because the risk factor outweighs a healthy bank balance.
> Self-publishing, and particularly e-publishing, is becoming increasingly popular for an author who would not otherwise have a chance of seeing their manuscripts in print or in the public domain.
> Someone on this thread spoke of the need to maintain quality and professionalism in any work. Books are a product and I think there's the rub. Just because an author has gone down the self-publishing route does not mean that the standards of their product should be any lower than that expected from a professionally published book. They should be the same: well-written; well-edited; and packaged professionally.
> No matter how much I try to edit my own work, there's always a mistake I've missed. Unfortunately, once it's printed, it's there forever. It's always best to get someone to edit any work properly. Notwithstanding the need to correct typos and grammatical irregularities, a good editor will tell you which bits are too rambling; which parts of the plot are weak; which bits are difficult to understand, the list is endless. Of course, it's always down to their opinion but you pay them to be the ones who know what sells and what doesn't.
> In my humble opinion, if you feel your work is worthy of publication and you can't attract the interest of an agent or publisher (or even if you just fancy cutting out the middle-men and publishing your book yourself), then someone's got to invest in it so why not you?
> That said, $600 (even in British pounds) is such a lot of money and most people put themselves at the bottom of the list of financial priorities when they are juggling meagre household funds.
> I think the idea of beta readers sounds like a good compromise. There is also a number of websites where authors help each other by reading each other's work and critiquing it. Failing that, most people at least know someone who reads a lot and is good at English.
> As authors, we all want to produce as near to a perfect product as possible because, believe me, there's nothing worse than seeing errors in your writing after it's been published.



I agree for the most part but do have a minor quibble.  

Even with a professional editor, I think it's almost impossible to eliminate every mistake.  I find typos in professionally published books all the time.


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree for the most part but do have a minor quibble.
> 
> Even with a professional editor, I think it's almost impossible to eliminate every mistake.  I find typos in professionally published books all the time.



Agreed.

But don't you also generally find it incredibly jarring when you come across those? I do.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> Even with a professional editor, I think it's almost impossible to eliminate every mistake.  I find typos in professionally published books all the time.



You are quite right. But there is an expectation that a self-publsihed book will be poorly edited so you have to be twice as good to get half the credit. A typo in my traditionally published books is looked upon as, "Oh someone missed something, no biggie." Whereas the same mistake in my self-pubished work would be met with, "I can't believe anyone would release something without taking the bother to have it edited."


----------



## Rosered

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree for the most part but do have a minor quibble.
> 
> Even with a professional editor, I think it's almost impossible to eliminate every mistake.  I find typos in professionally published books all the time.




Mistakes are, sadly, an occupational hazard!


----------



## Chilari

Rosered, thanks for your very informative first post. It sounds like you read a lot of self-pubbed books. What would you say is the most common problem with them besides grammar and spelling? Would you say hiring an editor is a worthwhile investment? Can you make the case for using our hard-earned cash on hiring an editor?


----------



## Rosered

Chilari said:


> Rosered, thanks for your very informative first post. It sounds like you read a lot of self-pubbed books. What would you say is the most common problem with them besides grammar and spelling? Would you say hiring an editor is a worthwhile investment? Can you make the case for using our hard-earned cash on hiring an editor?



Thanks Chilari. It's fun to be here and I'm getting so much out of this site.
The most common problem I find with first time authors is that, although most have good plots and a great story to tell, their writing lets them down. It's really common when you first venture out into the world of novel writing to get the story down as you see it and not to trust the reader to draw his or her own conclusions: ie showing and not telling. I have also noticed a popular tendency to ramble (a bit like I'm doing now!) - overuse of hyperbole - and saying in two paragraphs (and, in one book a whole chapter) what could be said in one sentence.
There is a pressure on authors to keep their writing tight - every word must count. Sometimes simply removing most of the unnecessary "had"s and "was"s and "that"s makes a huge difference to the flow of the narrative and the ultimate interest of the reader.
Poorly crafted multiple points of view is also a common mistake (one that I was very guilty of when I first started writing). Head-hopping can work with some novels but often causes chaos if used badly, completely confusing the reader.
From what I've seen from much self-published work, the authors haven't invested in themselves. That does not necessarily mean financial investment, but perhaps taking "time" to read up on the craft of creative writing or heed some of the solid free advice on the web. This site, for instance, is filled with really good advice from authors across the publishing spectrum who don't tell you anything more than a professional editor will.
I truly don't believe that a professional editor is going to make much difference to the quality of your work if you can't write in the first place. What an editor will do is point out the weak points and the errors to make your project commercially viable. That said, all works of art and imagination are subjective and not all people who put themselves out as professional editors are necessarily helpful to all authors.
Editors follow trends and, like publishers, work to a formula that may not suit a particular writer who is not interested in his or her works being moulded and compromised just to serve an artificially conceived market.
I wouldn't pay for an editor simply because I am fortunate enough to work in the business. I know authors who swear by them but have also read many seemingly professionally edited books that have made me shudder.
I've just been looking through the forum posts and the "showcase" does a better job than any professional editor will. It puts writers who are struggling with confidence on the right track and the advice will ultimately make them better writers.


----------



## D.P. Prior

Ankari said:


> But it's not only about typos.  Its about grammar rules (when you _mean_ to use them), sentence structure, word choice (better clarity) and (if you're using a content editor) story consistency.
> 
> But you're right, you don't want to even think about an editor until you've completed your story.



Absolutely. I'd add things like pace, voice, atmosphere, character development, plot structure, immediacy, consistency of style ...

More and more indie authors are using editors these days, but not all editors are created equal.


----------



## ALB2012

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree for the most part but do have a minor quibble.
> 
> Even with a professional editor, I think it's almost impossible to eliminate every mistake.  I find typos in professionally published books all the time.



Yep. Book I am reading at the moment- "closing" spelled "clsoing," odd paragraph splits and also the same person was described at the beginning of the paragraph as "young and respectable looking family man," then later as "scruffy and sullen-looking."  What is he? 

I find typos, odd grammar etc in pretty much every book, waffling text, info dumps whatever you want to call it. I read a lot of 19th Century books and they have more archaic language and ways of writing. Tastes change.

I agree an editor- be it the author him/herself, a professional paid editor, a critique group should do the best they can but no book is perfect, no book will please or be enjoyed by everyone, no book is beyond criticism but I do feel people are too picky. Surely it should be about the story far more than whether someone accidently put a comma in the wrong place. 
Everyone has to start somewhere and not everyone has the money  to hire an editor, confidence to submit to traditional publishers who receive so many submissions but are talented and have a good story to share. 

Personally I couldn't care a toss if someone is Self Published if I like the book. I have read very many traditional books I have thought were crap. As I said you can't please everyone.

I agree there are some dreadful self published books around, but there are also some good ones, some enjoyable ones.  Would someone say they wouldn't listen to a song because the singer wasn't with a main stream music house?


----------



## yachtcaptcolby

A friend and I have been debating if there's a market for a "seal of quality" service for self-published authors. The idea is that self-published authors would pay a small fee to submit their work to the service for review. All this service does is make sure the formatting is consistent, that it's mostly free of grammar and spelling mistakes, and that it's written at a reasonable level. Basically, that the work is professional; the service wouldn't comment on whether the book is enjoyable to read, just that it's technically sound. Works that pass would receive a seal they could attach to their cover art and would be listed on the service's site.

We don't really have the time or the money to set anything like this up, but it's been a fun thing to talk about.


----------



## Devor

yachtcaptcolby said:


> Basically, that the work is professional; the service wouldn't comment on whether the book is enjoyable to read, just that it's technically sound. Works that pass would receive a seal they could attach to their cover art and would be listed on the service's site.



There's definitely an opening.  But if you don't already have a reputation in the industry, you'd have real trouble getting enough good books using your service to build one.

Also, there's a big difference between editing and proofreading.  At the very least you'd need to work on the narrative's flow and not just grammatical issues.


----------



## Zero Angel

yachtcaptcolby said:


> A friend and I have been debating if there's a market for a "seal of quality" service for self-published authors. The idea is that self-published authors would pay a small fee to submit their work to the service for review. All this service does is make sure the formatting is consistent, that it's mostly free of grammar and spelling mistakes, and that it's written at a reasonable level. Basically, that the work is professional; the service wouldn't comment on whether the book is enjoyable to read, just that it's technically sound. Works that pass would receive a seal they could attach to their cover art and would be listed on the service's site.
> 
> We don't really have the time or the money to set anything like this up, but it's been a fun thing to talk about.



I think paying for a review would be worth a lot more of the author's money.


----------



## BWFoster78

yachtcaptcolby said:


> A friend and I have been debating if there's a market for a "seal of quality" service for self-published authors. The idea is that self-published authors would pay a small fee to submit their work to the service for review. All this service does is make sure the formatting is consistent, that it's mostly free of grammar and spelling mistakes, and that it's written at a reasonable level. Basically, that the work is professional; the service wouldn't comment on whether the book is enjoyable to read, just that it's technically sound. Works that pass would receive a seal they could attach to their cover art and would be listed on the service's site.
> 
> We don't really have the time or the money to set anything like this up, but it's been a fun thing to talk about.



These services already exist.  I've seen at least one of them.  I'm still trying to decide if it will be worth the cost.


----------



## BWFoster78

Zero Angel said:


> I think paying for a review would be worth a lot more of the author's money.



What's your logic here?  I'm trying to figure out exactly how reviews contribute to a book's success.


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> What's your logic here?  I'm trying to figure out exactly how reviews contribute to a book's success.



My logic is the following:

Seal of Approval consists of saying book is technically sound
Review consists of saying book is "good" which includes technically sound

Thus, Review > Seal of Approval

But wait, there's more:
Seal of Approval is a mark of quality but not something that people look at by themselves, more like a trademark stamp when already deciding to make up their mind about a book.
Review is a mark of quality AND something that has its own entertainment value and is something that has its own audience that might draw people to it.

So again, Review > Seal of Approval.

That's my logic.


----------



## Devor

Zero Angel said:


> My logic is the following:
> 
> Seal of Approval consists of saying book is technically sound
> Review consists of saying book is "good" which includes technically sound
> 
> Thus, Review > Seal of Approval



It depends on whether the process of gaining the "Seal of Approval" makes the book a better book or not.  If they actually proofread and fix issues of flow while granting that seal, then it would lead to better book reviews.




BWFoster78 said:


> I'm trying to figure out exactly how reviews contribute to a book's success.



Every time someone reviews your book, it's someone talking about your book.  Maybe people don't "buy the book" because of a review by itself, but they might "take a look" because of a book review.  Especially if they've seen more than one.


----------



## Chilari

But surely if you're paying the same kind of money for a review as you would pay for an editor or even a prrofreader, the integrity of the reviewer is in question (assuming the reviewer's audience is aware of it) - are you paying for the review or are you paying for the review to be good? Whereas if you use an editor or proofreader, what you get out of it is a better book, and you will thus find your book is spread more widely through word of mouth and that the free reviews you receieve, whether requested or not, will average a higher rating and you will thus get greater sales through that, though perhaps not the greater level of advertising which the paid for review is giving you. Better book means better reputation down the line when you've got more books, too.

You might get 100 sales off a paid-for review but how many of those readers will think "actually this isn't that great, it's full of mistakes, this character isn't well developed and the ending drags on a bit; I won't buy from this author again"?

While if you shell out for the editor, or even a proofreader, then rely on word of mouth and free reviews and whatever else, maybe you won't get as many sales in the first place, or take longer getting to 100, but you will have more readers thinking "I liked that, I wonder if s/he has anything else published?" Which means they (a) are more likely to recommend your book to friends and (b) are more likely to buy anything else you've published or go on to publish.


----------



## Devor

Chilari said:


> You might get 100 sales off a paid-for review but how many of those readers will think "actually this isn't that great, it's full of mistakes, this character isn't well developed and the ending drags on a bit; I won't buy from this author again"?



Mostly it's not about paid reviews.  There's only a handful of places with any credibility where an author can pay to have a book reviewed.

What's more common is to spend the money on printed copies which you send to a number of reviewers with a letter asking them to look through it.  Even if it's an ebook, you send a paperback, which means there can be a relatively big cost to it compared to other activities.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Thus, Review > Seal of Approval



I can see that, but I think the point of the Seal is that they're doing some marketing for you.  The post a picture of your book on their site and say "this book meets with our approval."  If they have a decent following for their site, that approval may gain you quite a bit of sales.

For a review, what are we talking about: for a blog or on Amazon?  I'm just not sure how much a single review can do for you on Amazon.  I do, obviously, see the value in reviews, but I'm not sure I'd think that paying for one is a good idea unless the number of people following the reviewer is large enough to give your book a bump in sales greater than the cost of the review.


----------



## BWFoster78

> What's more common is to spend the money on printed copies which you send to a number of reviewers with a letter asking them to look through it. Even if it's an ebook, you send a paperback, which means there can be a relatively big cost to it compared to other activities.



It's my understanding that most book reviewers take ecopies of books now.  However, each one differs on what they will accept.  It's quite important to review the submission criteria for each one and make sure that you follow it completely.


----------



## Devor

BWFoster78 said:


> It's my understanding that most book reviewers take ecopies of books now.  However, each one differs on what they will accept.  It's quite important to review the submission criteria for each one and make sure that you follow it completely.



All true.

It's still going to be more effective to send a paperback whenever possible, just like it's still more effective to send your resume unfolded in a big envelope.  You'll do a much better job of getting someone's attention.

Regardless, I was only trying to explain where the costs commonly come into play, rather than saying "This is how you right now need to do it."  Of course you can solicit free reviews by email, just like you can get a schoolteacher friend to edit your book.  If those reflect the resources you have available and the extent of your network, I can't tell you otherwise.  But top professional marketers would start by distributing printed copies, and if you can, I would suggest doing likewise.


----------



## Zero Angel

Chilari said:


> But surely if you're paying the same kind of money for a review as you would pay for an editor or even a prrofreader, the integrity of the reviewer is in question (assuming the reviewer's audience is aware of it) - are you paying for the review or are you paying for the review to be good? Whereas if you use an editor or proofreader, what you get out of it is a better book, and you will thus find your book is spread more widely through word of mouth and that the free reviews you receieve, whether requested or not, will average a higher rating and you will thus get greater sales through that, though perhaps not the greater level of advertising which the paid for review is giving you. Better book means better reputation down the line when you've got more books, too.
> 
> You might get 100 sales off a paid-for review but how many of those readers will think "actually this isn't that great, it's full of mistakes, this character isn't well developed and the ending drags on a bit; I won't buy from this author again"?
> 
> While if you shell out for the editor, or even a proofreader, then rely on word of mouth and free reviews and whatever else, maybe you won't get as many sales in the first place, or take longer getting to 100, but you will have more readers thinking "I liked that, I wonder if s/he has anything else published?" Which means they (a) are more likely to recommend your book to friends and (b) are more likely to buy anything else you've published or go on to publish.


The question wasn't about an editor--which I think is a must before you pay for reviews. The question was about a seal of approval saying the book was technically sound. I don't think it's a good idea to pay for reviews either. I was just saying that it would be better to pay for a review than it would be to pay someone to say that your book qualified for their seal of approval. 



BWFoster78 said:


> I can see that, but I think the point of the Seal is that they're doing some marketing for you.  The post a picture of your book on their site and say "this book meets with our approval."  If they have a decent following for their site, that approval may gain you quite a bit of sales.
> 
> For a review, what are we talking about: for a blog or on Amazon?  I'm just not sure how much a single review can do for you on Amazon.  I do, obviously, see the value in reviews, but I'm not sure I'd think that paying for one is a good idea unless the number of people following the reviewer is large enough to give your book a bump in sales greater than the cost of the review.



I think paying for an Amazon review is nuts. I was referring specifically to these services that I found when trying to get my book reviewed for free (because I'm a starving artist and don't believe in paying for reviews):

https://www.forewordreviews.com/services/book-reviews/
Kirkus Indie | Kirkus Book Reviews
Book Reviews, Bestselling Books & Publishing Business News | Publishers Weekly

At first I scoffed and cried "scam!" ...and then I saw Publisher's Weekly doing it too and sobbed quietly to myself instead of _crying_ "scam". 

Still, I'm against it. But if I was like some of the people on here with apparently hundreds to thousands of dollars of disposable income, I might consider it.


----------



## BWFoster78

Zero Angel said:


> The question wasn't about an editor--which I think is a must before you pay for reviews. The question was about a seal of approval saying the book was technically sound. I don't think it's a good idea to pay for reviews either. I was just saying that it would be better to pay for a review than it would be to pay someone to say that your book qualified for their seal of approval.
> 
> 
> 
> I think paying for an Amazon review is nuts. I was referring specifically to these services that I found when trying to get my book reviewed for free (because I'm a starving artist and don't believe in paying for reviews):
> 
> https://www.forewordreviews.com/services/book-reviews/
> Kirkus Indie | Kirkus Book Reviews
> Book Reviews, Bestselling Books & Publishing Business News | Publishers Weekly
> 
> At first I scoffed and cried "scam!" ...and then I saw Publisher's Weekly doing it too and sobbed quietly to myself instead of _crying_ "scam".
> 
> Still, I'm against it. But if I was like some of the people on here with apparently hundreds to thousands of dollars of disposable income, I might consider it.



Okay.  Just trying to get clarification.

I've been doing a lot of research on marketing lately.  The only thing I've come up with as a constant seems to be: get a lot of reviews.  

I've also read that some authors pay people to produce a bunch of reviews on Amazon for them.  Theoretically, this mass of Amazon reviews somehow increases their sales.  I'm trying to determine how this is supposed to work.  (Not that I'm considering this as a method.  My interest is mainly is trying to determine how hard I should work to get a bunch of reviews once I publish my book.)

Thanks.


----------



## BWFoster78

Devor said:


> All true.
> 
> It's still going to be more effective to send a paperback whenever possible, just like it's still more effective to send your resume unfolded in a big envelope.  You'll do a much better job of getting someone's attention.
> 
> Regardless, I was only trying to explain where the costs commonly come into play, rather than saying "This is how you right now need to do it."  Of course you can solicit free reviews by email, just like you can get a schoolteacher friend to edit your book.  If those reflect the resources you have available and the extent of your network, I can't tell you otherwise.  But top professional marketers would start by distributing printed copies, and if you can, I would suggest doing likewise.



Interesting point.

I've read that it's pretty much impossible, though, for a self published author to get reviews from any mainstream outlets.  Unless I'm missing something, that pretty much leave book blogs and people on the Amazon review toplists.  These people, from what I read, tend to respond to personalized emails requesting reviews much better than to unsolicited mailings.


----------



## ALB2012

Hmm I have issues about paying for a review- here is Â£50 please say lovely things about my work.  That sounds a bit dishonest to me.  I would rather someone be honest. If they don't like the book, then they don't. If they think it is badly written, and they actually know what they are talking about then fair enough. So long as the review is honest it seems reasonable.

I agree that it is a good idea to get an editor/proof reader if possible and you can afford one, I don't think many of us contest that, it simply isn't always possible. 

I dunno about not getting customers for the indie editors. I reckon if you said- "ok we charge I dunno Â£50 to edit your book." then people would sign up. Anyone who wants a professional edit can pay for one but a service to look over, spot obvious errors or inconsistencies would be good.


----------



## Steerpike

I think there are some people for whom it probably really isn't possible. I suspect the majority of self-published writers who forego a good editor really just don't want to pay for it, and could probably put a few bucks a month away for it if they were really so inclined.


----------



## Devor

I think for a lot of people it's less about the money and more about trying to deny the implication that our work needs so much editing.  It's really not enough to give a book to a friend - even one who's in some ways a language professional - to look it over.  It makes a huge difference to find someone who has experience approaching the kind of material you're trying to publish.


----------



## BWFoster78

Devor said:


> I think for a lot of people it's less about the money and more about trying to deny the implication that our work needs so much editing.  It's really not enough to give a book to a friend - even one who's in some ways a language professional - to look it over.  It makes a huge difference to find someone who has experience approaching the kind of material you're trying to publish.



I get what you're saying, but, from past threads on the subject, I'm not sure this represents the opinion of a lot of people on this forum.  

(I'm trying to head off a hundred posts from people who are in dire financial straits saying that they simply cannot afford an editor.)

I think that you have to do what you have to do.  If people advise you to consult a professional editor and, for whatever reason, you don't, you need to accept the consequences for that decision.  If you ever plan on being a professional writer, I would not counsel you to think about publishing your work unless someone with experience has blessed it.  Doing so may hurt your long term prospects.


----------



## BWFoster78

Getting away from the whether or not to hire an editor argument: I've now read a total of three self published books.  Two of them, Critical Failures and Queen of Mages, have been fantastic.  The other shouldn't have been published.  So, from my POV, 67% of self published stuff is pretty good.

(Note: I am not counting Flank Hawk as self published.  My understanding is that the book was published by a company.  For the record, I enjoyed that book as well.)


----------



## Steerpike

Wait, is the third one my kid's book?!


----------



## Devor

BWFoster78 said:


> I get what you're saying, but, from past threads on the subject, I'm not sure this represents the opinion of a lot of people on this forum.
> 
> (I'm trying to head off a hundred posts from people who are in dire financial straits saying that they simply cannot afford an editor.)



I don't mean to tell anyone specifically what they can or cannot afford or what they should or shouldn't sacrifice to get something edited.  I only mean to say, the difference is significant, substitutes aren't as effective, and most works need it more than an inexperienced author is likely to admit.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> Wait, is the third one my kid's book?!



I haven't read that one yet.  I'm a little unsure as to how to go about reviewing a story for kids.


----------



## BWFoster78

Devor said:


> I don't mean to tell anyone specifically what they can or cannot afford or what they should or shouldn't sacrifice to get something edited.  I only mean to say, the difference is significant, substitutes aren't as effective, and most works need it more than an inexperienced author is likely to admit.



I agree with you completely.


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> Okay.  Just trying to get clarification.
> 
> I've been doing a lot of research on marketing lately.  The only thing I've come up with as a constant seems to be: get a lot of reviews.
> 
> I've also read that some authors pay people to produce a bunch of reviews on Amazon for them.  Theoretically, this mass of Amazon reviews somehow increases their sales.  I'm trying to determine how this is supposed to work.  (Not that I'm considering this as a method.  My interest is mainly is trying to determine how hard I should work to get a bunch of reviews once I publish my book.)
> 
> Thanks.



I heard about this back in the "Worst Author of All Time" thread (or whatever it was called). That fellow had either paid people to review their book or made hundreds of dummy accounts himself to review his book. From my understanding, Amazon has cracked down on this and deleted nearly all of the reviews--I don't know how successful new people doing this would be or if some of the "top reviewers" hire their services out. 

When I was looking for online work, I heard about a site that paid you to do basic bookkeeping type things for companies on a job-by-job basis. I signed up for it and was alarmed to see that they were offering $0.01 - $0.20 for reviews and this was a majority of the work this company had. There was nothing I could use my skills for honestly on the site so I never went back, but I believe this is where many of the "fake" reviews come from. I doubt that people getting paid pennies and nickels would purchase a book and then submit a review. And the "job poster" also was able to sign off on the review before paying! So this meant that the reviews were almost guaranteed to be fluff so that the people doing them would be guaranteed to get their $0.01 to $0.20 for the review.

To the people saying that the reviews are positive, at least for the three services I linked to, they are supposed to be "honest" and not guaranteed to be positive at all. So you're paying $100 to $600 for a guaranteed review (except I think Publisher's Weekly isn't guaranteed) but it's not guaranteed to say anything good. I guess they go by "any press is good press" market value model. 

I am working on building up my blog and Amazon review status to the point where people will send me freebies  but I am more interested in writing short stories so it's more like something I do when I am bored.


----------



## BWFoster78

Zero Angel,

I am still wondering though: does having a bunch of reviews on Amazon help?


----------



## Zero Angel

BWFoster78 said:


> Zero Angel,
> 
> I am still wondering though: does having a bunch of reviews on Amazon help?



In my opinion no, but having a bunch of reviews elsewhere definitely does. I think you just need some high quality reviews on Amazon. I don't know many people that read the 2000+ reviews on Twilight before deciding to buy it. I read some of the highest rated positive and negative reviews and see what they're actually saying instead of just what their star count is.

Sort of along the same topic, just got an update from free Kindle books advertising the free books of the day, and they credited the one book with having over 400 reviews as though this was a mark of quality. I guess this is a mark of quality if there are actually 400 people that bought this book and thought it was worth reviewing, but when you have free books have that many reviews it screams suspicious to me.


----------



## Devor

I don't know about Amazon's algorithm.  Based on what I know of data mining, I imagine that Amazon counts reviews and weighs them based on their rated usefulness and the reputation of the reviewers, but that's just a guess.

However, reviews definitely drive sales, even on Amazon, among the people who view your product.  There's no doubt about that.  "Hey, this self-piblished book has two reviews, but this one has twenty.  Let me look and see what people are talking about . . . .


----------



## BWFoster78

> However, reviews definitely drive sales, even on Amazon, among the people who view your product. There's no doubt about that. "Hey, this self-piblished book has two reviews, but this one has twenty. Let me look and see what people are talking about . . . .



This makes a lot of sense.

Again, I trying to figure out how much effort to put into getting reviews.

I definitely want on as many relevant book blogs as possible.  Another tip that I've read, however, is to approach the top reviewers on Amazon and try to get them to check out your book.


----------



## Devor

BWFoster78 said:


> Another tip that I've read, however, is to approach the top reviewers on Amazon and try to get them to check out your book.



Soliciting reviews is a lot like querying publishers and agents, or writing cover letters for a resume, or soliciting at a sales job.  It's not a skill that comes naturally to people.  A lot of people recoil at thought of doing it, and most have no idea what they're doing when they try.  I might post something about it.  But basically study queries and cover letters to figure it out.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I might post something about it.



I, for one, would welcome that post.

I've got a while before I have to send them out.  Right now, I'm focused on my overall marketing plan.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

Just put your work out there, if it's any good readers will say so and that's a review. If it's not any good (shit happens) readers will say so and that's a review. More good than bad and you're on a winner but any reaction is better than being ignored. I also think every writer like any sort of artist has a different journey to undertake in getting there and all the time it is about that journey and not the destination. Van Gogh never saw his destination, live with the idea and don't cut your ear off.  Someone once asked Jimmy Hendrix how often he practiced, he answered that he didn't, he played all day. If you are a writer, you write all day and like the monkey on the typewriter eventually odds are you'll get your moment in the sun.
Too much anecdote and metaphor there?
Stu.E.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Just put your work out there, if it's any good readers will say so and that's a review.



The point of my posts is that you need a marketing plan, which is what I'm trying to develop.  With the huge amount of books being published, just putting your book out there is going to result in the sound of crickets.


----------



## ALB2012

I would just like to say something here. 50 shades of grey- not a self pub as far as I know and it's um a pile of poop. Badly written, badly edited and well badly everything.

Check the best seller list.


----------



## Steerpike

50 Shades was self-published, I think, and then became enough of a sensation that a traditional publisher picked it up.


----------



## The Dark One

50 shades wasn't self published, but it was published by a very small new online only publisher in Australia.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

ALB2012 said:


> I would just like to say something here. 50 shades of grey- not a self pub as far as I know and it's um a pile of poop. Badly written, badly edited and well badly everything.
> 
> Check the best seller list.



Precisely my point, it does not matter how you put it out there, if it's any good people will take notice.


----------



## BWFoster78

Stuart John Evison said:


> Precisely my point, it does not matter how you put it out there, if it's any good people will take notice.



Forgive me, but I don't understand how the quoted statement relates to your point.

50 Shades, by all accounts, is terrible.  There are probably a thousand other books of similar quality and content available.  This one somehow captured the attention of the public.

It's incredibly difficult to get your stuff noticed even if it's of high quality.  You need to have a marketing plan and devote significant effort to that plan if you want to get your stuff noticed.  Even then, I think it's iffy unless you have significant resources.  Leaving your marketing to luck and the concept that it will get noticed if it's good seems unwise in the extreme.


----------



## Steerpike

I'm pretty sure 50 Shades was self published online in some form before the Australian publisher. It began life as a Twilight fan fic.


----------



## ALB2012

It is still a pile of poo. 

She already had a following on the twilight blog thing she did apparently.

A lot of it is luck.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Rosered said:


> From what I've seen from much self-published work, the authors haven't invested in themselves. That does not necessarily mean financial investment, but perhaps taking "time" to read up on the craft of creative writing or heed some of the solid free advice on the web. This site, for instance, is filled with really good advice from authors across the publishing spectrum who don't tell you anything more than a professional editor will.



I'm not sure you can say this. It may be they have made tremendous investments and just because your personal preference is to be very "tight" writing, some may adopt a style that is more verbose.  People often say book "x" was "poorly edited" but without seeing the way it was originally, and the final product, you really can't say what choices the author and editor made and why.  As you mentioned there is a great deal that is subjective - and what one person likes, another hates.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

D.P. Prior said:


> Absolutely. I'd add things like pace, voice, atmosphere, character development, plot structure, immediacy, consistency of style ...
> 
> More and more indie authors are using editors these days, but not all editors are created equal.



I agree that all those aspects are important...but in many respects if your writing has "issues" at this level...i.e. you need structural editing rather than copy editing. Then I think you should go the route of traditional publishing.  Finding experienced copy editors is fairly obtainable...but the issues you discuss require someone who REALLY knows how to build a story.  This is a much more subjective aspect of the work, and a bad, or inexperienced structural editor can screw a book up even worse than it originally is.  This type of editing is a) very expensive and b) almost impossible to find someone who has years of experience doing so.  

Bottom line...if you can write a good solid story with proper pace, voice, atmosphere, character development, plot structure, etc then you are a candidate for self-publishing...just get some copy editing help.  If you don't have the above then you need to improve your craft more. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

yachtcaptcolby said:


> A friend and I have been debating if there's a market for a "seal of quality" service for self-published authors. The idea is that self-published authors would pay a small fee to submit their work to the service for review. All this service does is make sure the formatting is consistent, that it's mostly free of grammar and spelling mistakes, and that it's written at a reasonable level. Basically, that the work is professional; the service wouldn't comment on whether the book is enjoyable to read, just that it's technically sound. Works that pass would receive a seal they could attach to their cover art and would be listed on the service's site.
> 
> We don't really have the time or the money to set anything like this up, but it's been a fun thing to talk about.



There is definitely a need...but I don't see how it can be done.  Sure you can have some "typo metrics" but that doesn't mean anything.  What's really needed is some determination on "professional" verses "amateur" and that is a much more subjective determination.  Such a system would only work if you have a significant rejection rate.  If 90% submitted "passed" then it's just buying a stamp and has no real value.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Devor said:


> What's more common is to spend the money on printed copies which you send to a number of reviewers with a letter asking them to look through it.  Even if it's an ebook, you send a paperback, which means there can be a relatively big cost to it compared to other activities.



I'd never pay for a review at any cost but for those that are considering it ... the expense is high - I think Kirkus is like $450.  Printed copies with postage is about $6.50 for a 320 page book printed with Createspace that's 70 reviews (assuming you make sure that you have a high likelihood of a review as opposed to just blindly sending).  

In my whole career the only "marketing" budget I ever allocated for is review copies -it has an extremely high ROI, so I wouldn't classify it as "relatively big cost compared to other activities" - just my opinion of course.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> Zero Angel,
> 
> I am still wondering though: does having a bunch of reviews on Amazon help?



Yes, it shows third-party validation.  In many respects people don't care "what" the reviews say but more that "many people have read and posted about the book.  Look at a book like "Wool (Omnibus edition)" it has 1,800 reviews and a 4.8 rating.  People who are "leery" about a self-published book will say..."Hey it must have been read by many more people than 1,800 and everyone seems to like it so I'll give it a try."

Generally a book with 2 or 3 reviews is looked upon suspiciously.  Once you get to 20 - 30 then they get more comfortable and will "take a risk.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> I, for one, would welcome that post.
> 
> I've got a while before I have to send them out.  Right now, I'm focused on my overall marketing plan.



I did write a post on "dues and don'ts of getting reviews"

My wife's blog also has something on this subject: Marketing 101: Reviews


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> The point of my posts is that you need a marketing plan, which is what I'm trying to develop.  With the huge amount of books being published, just putting your book out there is going to result in the sound of crickets.



Very true.


----------



## Devor

MichaelSullivan said:


> . . . that's 70 reviews (assuming you make sure that you have a high likelihood of a review as opposed to just blindly sending).



How would you reccommend jumping the hurdle between blind sending and a promising chance of getting a review for a self published work?


----------



## BWFoster78

> Generally a book with 2 or 3 reviews is looked upon suspiciously. Once you get to 20 - 30 then they get more comfortable and will "take a risk.



This may answer the question that I asked in your other thread.

I'm interpreting this to mean that you would set your goal in this range and stop trying hard to get reviews when it gets to this point.


----------



## Zero Angel

Devor said:


> How would you reccommend jumping the hurdle between blind sending and a promising chance of getting a review for a self published work?



I don't mean to answer for Michael, but I would suspect that a prior relationship with the reviewer (such as they've reviewed previous material you've sent them) or a query letter would be the first places to start.


----------



## Zero Angel

MichaelSullivan said:


> I did write a post on "dues and don'ts of getting reviews"
> 
> My wife's blog also has something on this subject: Marketing 101: Reviews



Wow! These are great articles. I haven't read your wife's yet (although it's my next tab to get to ), but I read the article you wrote and the article you linked to in your article. Great articles. They say commonsense information but has most of it in one place. I really liked your idea of doing a blog spreadsheet and am starting mine right away (although I am also adding local newspapers and such). 

I am also impressed by the e-mail your wife came up with. When you send it like that does it show up as though the e-mail includes attachments or does it show up normally? I've never played around with multimedia in e-mails before...but I will now


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Whew, lot of new material since the last time I was here. Some thoughts:

On paying for reviews: it's not just indies, of course. Example: A Macmillan imprint recently published a fiction book with the same title as an indie book by a friend of mine, so she was watching their PR carefully (because it was pinging her standard searches for her own title). She saw a multitude of examples of an account tweeting about how excited they were to finally get the book, and then ten or twenty minutes later, an account of the same name popping a five star review up on Amazon. Big six publishers are actively hiring PR agencies to do fake tweets and fake reviews, and by rough indications, they are pouring a lot of money into making it happen. Frankly, I'm still not in favor of paid reviews for any book, but let's face facts: the major publishers ARE doing this, they ARE paying a lot of money to make it happen, and indies who buy a dozen "reviews" on Fiverr or whatever are simply following what is now an industry standard practice.

On an "indie seal of approval" system:
Here's the main problem. The big publishers, for all their years in business and hundreds of millions in annual revenue, do not have effective brands. There are very few cases, especially in fiction, where a person asks for the latest book from a given publisher (Harlequin and maybe Baen stand out as exceptions here). Mostly, readers look for the latest book by a favorite writer, or a book by a new to them writer on a favorite subject. Publishers lack an effective brand because to be effective, a brand must be CONSISTENT. If a reader likes one book by a publisher, and can then pick up pretty much any other book that publisher puts out and like it, too, then that publisher has brand consistency. But most publishers produce books with far too great a range of topic and style to have that sort of consistency. Readers like books based on personal taste, and it's exceptionally difficult for a large publisher to retain consistency for any one taste (indeed, it is generally against their interest to do so).

So publishers really don't have effective brands, from a resder's perspective.

The problem with a seal of quality is the same. Suppose the seal was used on 50 Shades. Hey, it's an exceptionally well loved book. MILIONS of people have loved it so much they've gone on to read all the sequels. The movies will undoubtedly be blockbusters. But lots of people hate the books, too. So say a book like that gets stamped as OK. Everyone who dislikes the book stamped will instantly relegate that seal as useless. Obviously, it can't be any good as a real seal of approval if the seal stamped a book you hate, right?  What's actually happening, of course, is that the reader feels the seal is useless because it does not give them what they need: a good idea whether that book is something they will enjoy reading or not.

ANY seal which stamps books based on quality, rather than based on taste (like, say, a book blogger does) is effectively useless to readers. It's not giving them the information they need. They don't care if a book has been proofread, if it's a book they will hate anyway.

And of course, that's ignoring two other major issues:
1) Writers are already in a very anti-gatekeeper mindset. Anything which smacks of trying to set up a new gatekeeper is probably going to experience an extremely negative reaction from most indie writers. For less reasonable reasons than mentioned above.
2) How is a seal system supposed to differentiate itself from any other such system? What I mean is, if I start my own seal of approval system tomorrow and stamp my books with the "Top Indie Books Seal of Approval", how are readers going to have any clue which seals are legit and which are made up by an author to put a seal on a book? It takes enormous marketing and ad budget to reach even a small fraction of readers with an idea like this. So how would the group come up with the cash? Charge for the seal? Then you have money involved, and the entire thing is suspect.

It's a nifty idea and all, but there are simply too many issues.

I find that most readers are checking samples today, anyway. So they're not buying books that are really terribly written. And if they do by accident buy a terrible book, they can just return it. So frankly, the best "seal of approval" right now, in my mind, is the Amazon popularity ranking of a book. Popular books are being bought a lot. Which means a lot of people have read the sample, liked it, and bought the book. That is an effective system. It's already working pretty darned well, IMHO.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Getting reviews for self-published or traditionally published is pretty much the same.  There are reviewers who accept only self-published, some that won't look at self-published, and some that do both.  It mostly is the same process as getting agents.  In other words:


Do research to make sure they handle your genre
Sending a professional query to pique their attention

I did a post for this on reddit. Here is a link to it.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

BWFoster78 said:


> This may answer the question that I asked in your other thread.
> 
> I'm interpreting this to mean that you would set your goal in this range and stop trying hard to get reviews when it gets to this point.



Yes precisely...early on your marketing effort should be on getting review copies into people's hands...once you have a good number then you can focus on driving people to your pages.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Zero Angel said:


> Wow! These are great articles. I haven't read your wife's yet (although it's my next tab to get to ), but I read the article you wrote and the article you linked to in your article. Great articles. They say commonsense information but has most of it in one place. I really liked your idea of doing a blog spreadsheet and am starting mine right away (although I am also adding local newspapers and such).
> 
> I am also impressed by the e-mail your wife came up with. When you send it like that does it show up as though the e-mail includes attachments or does it show up normally? I've never played around with multimedia in e-mails before...but I will now



Glad you like them.  

As for the emails - Depending on their settings the picture of the book may be shown or not (some people turn off images).  But even without the cover - the rest of the formatting looks well.


----------



## Weaver

This is only my personal observation/experience; your mileage may vary, as the saying goes.

The aspiring writers who most need help to improve their their stories are the ones least likely to seek out such assistance, even when it's being offered for free.  (I used to spend far too much time on various peer-review sites for writers, and I had quite a reputation - _mostly_ good - as 'that guy who proofreads _everything_.')  It all goes back to this thing called metacognition, and the awareness of one's own competence level:  In any area, people with a higher level of competence are actually likely to underestimate that competence, and thus constantly try to get better, whereas those with a low level of competence don't even know enough to know that they're not any good - they _over_estimate how good they are - and so won't try to improve.  These are the ones who think editing is never necessary.  If some writers won't take help when it's given away, they're certainly not going to take it when they have to pay $15-20 per 1000 words.  _And why should they?_  After all, they can self-publish their stories without having to go through all that time-wasting stuff, just type the thing send it on its way, and without having to worry if stodgey old publishers with a grammar fetish like it, they can get their stories out there immediately and have a million adoring fans before the end of the week...

(Ever think about how much easier life would be if English had a punctuation mark specifically for indicating sarcasm?)

That's my own explanation for why, although not all self-published material is poorly edited, a lot of it is.


----------



## Zero Angel

I think this goes more with self-awareness & confidence. 

It is possible that the better you get, the more you know what you lack and so want to improve it, and that those that are hopeless are so ignorant they are oblivious of the need for improvement; but I think more likely that they are over confident and even if they are aware of issues in their writing they make excuses for it, while someone who lacks confidence may seek to improve themselves no matter their skill level.

Still, every individual is different.


----------



## BWFoster78

Weaver said:


> This is only my personal observation/experience; your mileage may vary, as the saying goes.
> 
> The aspiring writers who most need help to improve their their stories are the ones least likely to seek out such assistance, even when it's being offered for free.  (I used to spend far too much time on various peer-review sites for writers, and I had quite a reputation - _mostly_ good - as 'that guy who proofreads _everything_.')  It all goes back to this thing called metacognition, and the awareness of one's own competence level:  In any area, people with a higher level of competence are actually likely to underestimate that competence, and thus constantly try to get better, whereas those with a low level of competence don't even know enough to know that they're not any good - they _over_estimate how good they are - and so won't try to improve.  These are the ones who think editing is never necessary.  If some writers won't take help when it's given away, they're certainly not going to take it when they have to pay $15-20 per 1000 words.  _And why should they?_  After all, they can self-publish their stories without having to go through all that time-wasting stuff, just type the thing send it on its way, and without having to worry if stodgey old publishers with a grammar fetish like it, they can get their stories out there immediately and have a million adoring fans before the end of the week...
> 
> (Ever think about how much easier life would be if English had a punctuation mark specifically for indicating sarcasm?)
> 
> That's my own explanation for why, although not all self-published material is poorly edited, a lot of it is.



What I got out of this is:

People who doubt their work are really good.

I doubt my work.

Therefore, I must be really good.

Thanks!!!


----------



## Devor

Highly competent people are less likely to think they know it all because they're aware of how much they don't know.

It's like going to visit San Francisco and thinking you've seen all of California.  Someone who's really been around the state knows how big it is, how much more there is to see.  Even though this person knows the state really well, he knows that he can't see everything.

However, he could also have learned that by looking at a map.  So don't make too much of it.


----------



## ThinkerX

> The aspiring writers who most need help to improve their their stories are the ones least likely to seek out such assistance, even when it's being offered for free. (I used to spend far too much time on various peer-review sites for writers, and I had quite a reputation - mostly good - as 'that guy who proofreads everything.') It all goes back to this thing called metacognition, and the awareness of one's own competence level: In any area, people with a higher level of competence are actually likely to underestimate that competence, and thus constantly try to get better, whereas those with a low level of competence don't even know enough to know that they're not any good - they overestimate how good they are - and so won't try to improve. These are the ones who think editing is never necessary. If some writers won't take help when it's given away, they're certainly not going to take it when they have to pay $15-20 per 1000 words. And why should they? After all, they can self-publish their stories without having to go through all that time-wasting stuff, just type the thing send it on its way, and without having to worry if stodgey old publishers with a grammar fetish like it, they can get their stories out there immediately and have a million adoring fans before the end of the week...



To an extent, yes,  Another site I go to, there is a poster who continually boasts about his great writing abilities and how he is going to make a fortune off his self published (non fiction) e-book.  At times, he includes excerpts from his masterpiece in the posts to prove his points.  Problem is, he cannot write, his logic is badly flawed, and he is completely oblivious to this. Point these problems out - even in a helpful way - and he responds with personal attacks.  In his mind he is a scribe for the ages - period.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

This isn't a new phenomenon though. Ten years ago, folks with this attitude submitted their books to agents and publishers, and when rejected railed at the hacks who were refusing their greatness. 

The only difference is that now they put up their books on Amazon where nobody ever sees them, instead of placing them into a desk drawer where nobody ever sees them. Net effect is virtually identical. People who refuse to admit they have something to learn don't learn.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

My own "Muddle Puddle" received its first review on itunes yesterday (apparently it is frowned on to put a link here so if anyone fancies taking a look you'll have to go via my profile). "So what," I hear the cry. The point is I know it seems to be the accepted practice to stack reviews up by paying for them but that idea makes me uncomfortable so I've drifted to just letting it happen naturally. I'm 61 years old this year, so whilst grumpy I'm not stupid, I know this means "getting it out there" will take longer but I just don't want to feel like I cheated to do it. "Slowly, slowly catchee monkey" (sorry if this is misquoted?) and as I've said before if the book is any good eventually it will be noticed and talked about. I'm a Cambridgeshire fen man, we are a patient people, even if we can't spell.


----------



## Zero Angel

Stuart John Evison said:


> My own "Muddle Puddle" received its first review on itunes yesterday (apparently it is frowned on to put a link here so if anyone fancies taking a look you'll have to go via my profile).



You can use Showcase to announce self-promotional things unless it comes up naturally in a thread.


----------



## BWFoster78

> My own "Muddle Puddle" received its first review on itunes yesterday (apparently it is frowned on to put a link here so if anyone fancies taking a look you'll have to go via my profile). "So what," I hear the cry. The point is I know it seems to be the accepted practice to stack reviews up by paying for them but that idea makes me uncomfortable so I've drifted to just letting it happen naturally.



There's a thread on the notice board that's all about us helping each other out.  I've reviewed works by three authors already and am about to start reading another one this weekend.

If you're willing to give back by doing a few reviews yourself and are willing to give and accept honest opinions on your work, that may be a good option for you.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Stuart John Evison said:


> The point is I know it seems to be the accepted practice to stack reviews up by paying for them but that idea makes me uncomfortable so I've drifted to just letting it happen naturally. I'm 61 years old this year, so whilst grumpy I'm not stupid, I know this means "getting it out there" will take longer but I just don't want to feel like I cheated to do it. "Slowly, slowly catchee monkey" (sorry if this is misquoted?) and as I've said before if the book is any good eventually it will be noticed and talked about. I'm a Cambridgeshire fen man, we are a patient people, even if we can't spell.



Well, the jury is still out on paid reviews: both on the ethics and on how much they help, if at all. It's a known fact now that multiple major publishers are *actively* getting paid reviews on Amazon for their releases, either by having employees from their own marketing departments put the reviews up, or hiring a PR agency which does it for them. Functionally, in other words, the same thing Locke got so lambasted for doing. 

My suspicion, although I can't yet prove this, is that it's not just a few "big six" imprints doing this, but the majority of them.

However, I'm also not seeing very strong evidence that lots of padded reviews help much. Sure, having some nice reviews can help, especially if those reviews are actually complete reviews of the work. That pretty much requires the reviewer to have actually read the book, however, and that doesn't usually happen with paid reviews (the exception being major paid review sites like Kirkus).

If you want reviews and don't want to pay, you don't HAVE to just wait. I mean, you can. Reviews will come, in time. But you can do what other writers do, and get ARCs out to fans or potential fans, offering a free copy of the book in exchange for a fair review of the book. Variations on this method seem to have worked very well for a lot of writers.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> However, I'm also not seeing very strong evidence that lots of padded reviews help much.



I think they do, actually. If there's enough of them, people will say: 'well, they can't all be friends, family and sockpuppets' or 'with this many 5* reviews, I'll have a look'. I've done it myself. And it may affect Amazon's popularity lists, too, and suck in sales that way.

On the original point - it's not so much that a lot of self-published material is poorly edited, because with ebooks it's easy enough to fix typos and wayward apostrophes after event, it's that very often the first book self-published is also the first book the author has ever finished. A writer's still an apprentice at that stage, and the work is often very rough. I read quite a number of self-published books in a year, and it's noticeable how often the writing improves dramatically in the second book, or even in the second half of the first book. 

My advice would be - tuck it away somewhere with a label on it, saying: 'Do not open for 1 year'. Then write, and finish, another book. Put that away, too. After the third book, take out the first one again. If it's still awesome, great, publish it. In my opinion, writing is like a coffee machine - you have to throw away the first two or three brews before you get something drinkable.


----------



## Stuart John Evison

Write, rewrite and rewrite again. Tell me about it. The first version of "Muddle Puddle" was written nearly thirty years ago, there have been a lot of words and illustrations from my pen since then. This first edition on itunes was always intended as testing the water, the second edition, if there is one depends on the feedback. How it all goes will govern the release of other work.


----------



## StuartEWise

Evening all

I have the honour of being an 'official' reviewer for fantasybookreview.co.uk. (Unpaid) The site receives a fair amount of requests for reviews as you might imagine, both from established publishing houses as well as small independents.

We do review work by self published authors, however the rule of the thumb is that the book has to be of reasonable quality to have an official review posted on the site.

The general consensus is that the vast majority of self published works submitted to the site are poorly written, lacking in basic spelling, grammar, syntax etc. At least if they have come to us via one of the publishing houses (even small independent ones) there will have been an element of quality control, proof reading and editing before publication.

I cannot speak for the other reviewers, but my own personal stance is that if I am allocated a book, I will read the whole thing. (May seem obvious, but how many people stop reading books if they are bad?). As far as I am concerned that is the least that the author deserves.

If it is terrible, then I will write to the author and give them a critical friend review, which will not be posted on the site, but will explain exactly where I feel they have areas for improvement.

If it is something that I feel others should share, then the review goes on the site.

Unfortunately, I have not submitted an official review for any self published piece of work yet, despite having read a fair number. But, I am confident that sooner or later I will uncover a nugget amongst the dross 

However, on the plus side I am about to write a proper review for a debut novel from a small independent publisher - Sky Warrior Books. The novel is 'Grace under Fire' by Frog and Esther Jones and I was pleasantly surprised by how good it was. The reason I mention this is that the book was not submitted for review by the publisher. Esther Jones and I first communicated via twitter, she sent me a copy of the book and now I am going to place the review on the site.


----------



## laurencewins

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I can tell you from personal experience that most people don't seem to really care about grammar, punctuation and accuracy. I work as a writer and a proofreader and I have even had to proofread a whole schools reports for the kids. There were so many errors from the teachers. I find it incredible that people would care so little about their websites and books. So I am more than happy when people come to me for proofreading because I can make money from other people's laziness or apathy.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

StuartEWise said:


> The general consensus is that the vast majority of self published works submitted to the site are poorly written, lacking in basic spelling, grammar, syntax etc.



My own experience is a little different. When I first got my Kindle 2 years ago and discovered the joys of self-published books, this was certainly true. Nowadays, almost everyone has discovered the spellchecker and learned to get at least some basic proofreading, so what gets through is mostly ubiquitous grammatical errors that only pedants like me notice (does no one use the past perfect tense properly any more?), and sound-alike spelling mistakes (reign, rein, rain; aisle, isle).

What I do find is that most are simply unpolished. Great ideas, great plots, very often, but without well-rounded characters. Terrific world-building, but dumped in unpalatable lumps. Too much tell, not enough show. Too much detail - or not enough. Too much wandering through the landscape describing the leaves - or else skip the boring stuff, and just jump to the next action scene. Not enough balance, in other words.

I try out self-published books in exactly the same way I try any other book before I buy it: read the blurb, read the reviews, read the sample. A couple of pages of the sample is usually enough - if there's something in there to draw me in, whether it's a character, a setting, a situation or something mysterious, and there's no obvious typos, I'll keep going. Even if I buy a book, I'll give up if it loses my interest. Life's too short to read stuff you're not enjoying.

Mind you, some of them really are just badly written: 

"She tossed her waist-length auburn curls and scanned the horizon with her piercing jade-green eyes. The flame-haired mage lifted her staff and..." 

<Click> Next!


----------



## Chilari

Stuart, thanks for giving us an insight into the other side of the coin in terms of review sites. Interesting to know the relationship between self-pubbed books submitted for review and reviews of self-pubbed books posted. And thanks for being the "Good Guy Greg" of reviewers by reading the whole book and giving self-pubbed authors feedback.

Lawrence, do that many teachers really have such a bad track record with grammar? That is surprising; I'd have thought teachers at least would have to hold themselves to higher standards of written English. And then I recall that one of my best friends is currently doing teacher training and I keep having to correct him on uses of there, their and they're, your and you're, etc. I even wrote some sentences down for him to help him remember (The boys threw their boomerang into the neighbour's garden; they're going round there to collect it. You're right about your brother, he is a gossip.) But back on topic, amongst those of your clients asking you to proofread novels and short stories, what is the general level of grammar and spelling you come across? As in, is it normally fine but for a few incorrect forms of its/it's, their/they're/there, missed capitals or misplaced apostrophes; or is it normally laden with errors of all kinds from spelling errors, poor understanding of punctuation etc in every sentence? Have you ever had a client whose writing is almost perfect but for a few minor errors scattered across several pages? And have you ever had a client whose prose was so bad you couldn't work out the meaning sufficiently well to determine what the correct grammar is? It would be interesting to know the range and level of grammar amongst potential authors.


----------



## Chilari

PaulineMRoss said:


> and sound-alike spelling mistakes (reign, rein, rain; aisle, isle).



Homophones. The one I come across most often is cord/chord. As in umbilical chord... argh!


----------



## Stuart John Evison

StuartEWise said:


> Evening all
> 
> "I have the honour of being an 'official' reviewer for fantasybookreview.co.uk. (Unpaid) The site receives a fair amount of requests for reviews as you might imagine, both from established publishing houses as well as small independents."
> 
> StuartEWise, with a similar play on words with your name as mine and a post as this quoted then I have to ask if you would take a look at my own "Muddle Puddle". A link to my facebook page and itunes can be found via my profile. Were you to be so kind as to consider a revue I could post you a free copy from issuu via facebook (the simplest way for semi computer literate me).
> Stu.E. of Ely.


----------



## StuartEWise

No problem Stuart, I am in between reviews at the moment, having just sorted out 'Boneland' by Alan Garner and a couple of Frankenstein prequels by Kenneth Oppel. I am waiting for a new list of books pending reviews to land in my inbox from the site, so am happy to have a meander through yours over the next couple of days.


----------



## Zero Angel

Stuart John Evison said:


> StuartEWise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evening all
> 
> "I have the honour of being an 'official' reviewer for fantasybookreview.co.uk. (Unpaid) The site receives a fair amount of requests for reviews as you might imagine, both from established publishing houses as well as small independents."
> 
> StuartEWise, with a similar play on words with your name as mine and a post as this quoted then I have to ask if you would take a look at my own "Muddle Puddle". A link to my facebook page and itunes can be found via my profile. Were you to be so kind as to consider a revue I could post you a free copy from issuu via facebook (the simplest way for semi computer literate me).
> Stu.E. of Ely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no moderator, but I recommend private messages for this bit. But Fantasy Book Review does have its own submission process (About Fantasy Book Review plus contact and submission details | Fantasy Book Review) as well if you haven't built up a relationship with a reviewer.
Click to expand...


----------



## MichaelSullivan

StuartEWise said:


> I cannot speak for the other reviewers, but my own personal stance is that if I am allocated a book, I will read the whole thing. (May seem obvious, but how many people stop reading books if they are bad?). As far as I am concerned that is the least that the author deserves.
> 
> If it is terrible, then I will write to the author and give them a critical friend review, which will not be posted on the site, but will explain exactly where I feel they have areas for improvement.
> 
> If it is something that I feel others should share, then the review goes on the site.



A very sound approach. BTW I really enjoy your site. You guys (Ryan Lawler) reviewed the first in my series Theft of Swords and gave it an 8.9/10.  If you want review copies for the second and the third (and final) book in the series, just let me know.


----------



## laurencewins

@Chilari,

I mainly deal in non-fiction stuff like website content, articles, etc. but the school reports was a lucky break due to a referral from an old school friend from a reunion we had last year when I handed out business cards. I have rarely found material without flaws. Sometimes it is not much and other times I have had to ask what they mean as it has been too hard to interpret. I had a case of needing to write an article for a client and I had to do it 4 times as he did not clearly explain the actual brand name. I thought it was one thing and he was describing it but the description was the brand name so finally I got it right.


----------



## Frog

StuartEWise said:


> However, on the plus side I am about to write a proper review for a debut novel from a small independent publisher - Sky Warrior Books. The novel is 'Grace under Fire' by Frog and Esther Jones and I was pleasantly surprised by how good it was. The reason I mention this is that the book was not submitted for review by the publisher. Esther Jones and I first communicated via twitter, she sent me a copy of the book and now I am going to place the review on the site.



Hooray!  I love that it was Esther who got hold of you, and not my posts on this very site.  I'm glad you liked it.

To get back on topic, we can't really use our book as an example of a poorly edited self-published book.  Grace Under Fire isn't self-published, it's small press, as you say.  Furthermore, we were subjected to several passes by a professional editor, who pounded the living crap out of our writing until it became as good as it is.  I wish I could say Esther and I were just that good naturally, but the editing had a huge role.

A lot of self-published books skip that step, and I think that's where the problem lies.  It's hard to edit your own work, because the image of what you're saying is so clear in your head that _not_ thinking about it is difficult.  Having an editor helps so much in making sure that you've conveyed the image in your head to the page, and that's the difference between good editing and no editing.


----------



## Rosered

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree for the most part but do have a minor quibble.
> 
> Even with a professional editor, I think it's almost impossible to eliminate every mistake.  I find typos in professionally published books all the time.



A result of staff and freelance budget cuts in publishing houses, no doubt.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Rosered said:


> A result of staff and freelance budget cuts in publishing houses, no doubt.



While I'm sure there may be some of that - it's also just a matter of being statistically impossible.  If you consider a book of 100,000 words and consider that you can have all kinds of errors - including misplaced commas, or formatting, then the number of "potential" errors could be as high as 500,000 even if you have .01% errors (a better tolerance than any other product can be held to) that would still mean 50 errors per book.


----------

