Revised edition and audiobook

[skip.knox]

I'm working on making an audiobook for all my publications. As I prep, I realize there are mistakes to correct and amendments to make in the original. Fine, that means a Revised Edition for print and ebook.

When it comes to the audiobook, this will be the initial appearance. So, do I list the audiobook as Revised Edition (even though as audio it isn't revised), or just show this as first edition even though the source is changed from the original? I'm inclined to list the audiobook as Revised Edition, but wanted to check in with the Currently Assembled.

(and yes, I know author-narrated is generally not a great choice. I'm doing this mainly for friends and family but am not averse to making a buck or two)

 

[pmmg]

I think I would put out the revised edition of the print book and call them both revised editions. Cause the audio book is just a reading of one of the editions.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I think it probably matters very little. All people looking at the books will be new buyers who won't know anything about previous editions. And few people will look at both the audio book version and the ebook / paperback version. They go for one or the other.

That said, it's nice to be consistent and project a uniform message. So I'd probably also go with Revised Edition if you do that with your ebook / print books.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Depending on the level of revision, it matters little, I'd think. If the revisions are serious, I'd make them to the core work.

 

[skip.knox]

So far, the revisions have been minor, mostly at the proofreading level. Here and there I've added or struck a sentence. That's been the most of it. I'll go with Revised Edition. I'll publish the print and ebook first, then publish the audiobook.

Recording is its own universe. I knew this because of the years I spent making electronic music, but that was nearly all sans mic--samples, loops, and an Alesis QS7. Getting set up for mic recording has been its own exercise. Happily, there's clear and consistent guidance on how to do the post work. I've yet to plunge into the ACX publishing process, which no doubt will be its own hill to climb. Sisyphus was a whiner.

 

[pmmg]

Just a thought I have had. But if I was to do an audiobook, I think I would have to write an audio book script that was slightly different, which would allow me to remove extraneous attributions.

Why read the text.... "blah blah" he said in his Spanish accent, when I could verbally supply the accent?

 

[skip.knox]

I take your point. So far, I've not encountered anything where I would have to do that sort of rewriting. The closest would be where there's a bit of internal dialog. I establish from the outset that this is represented by italics, and there are places--only a few--where I did not write "he thought" but just let the italics serve. I did add "he thought" to the narrative. Did it in the moment because it did seem to be needed.

There are also a few passages where there's a quick exchange of dialog. That's clear enough when each statement is on its own line. It's less clear when spoken. In a few places, I have noticeably different voices, but these are few. I'm not a voice actor. If I feel it, I may add a said or two as needed. But a whole different script? Nah.

Oh, just in case this helps anyone else, I use the epub as the source for narration. This is primarily because it is easy to navigate by discrete screens. I started by using a word processor (Scrivener, then LibreOffice), but it just didn't scroll properly. The ereader is perfect: navigation is consistent and reliable, I can adjust fonts for easy reading, and I can set a bookmark between sessions (mostly I just leave the app open).

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Just the make the corrections, no need for "revised" unless there's some good reason for it.

 

[Prince of Spires]

At that level I also wouldn't go for a Revised edition. That's more a 1.1 edition than a 2.0. It's spelling changes and the like. Unless of course the added sentences completely change the whole meaning of the story...

Just a thought I have had. But if I was to do an audiobook, I think I would have to write an audio book script that was slightly different, which would allow me to remove extraneous attributions.

I think Brandon Sanderson remarked on this regarding "The Original". That was originally written to be an audiobook first (and only an ebook / paperbook second). And he indeed wrote it differently because of that. Things like speech tags were different.

 

[Foxkeyes]

'Revised Edition' does sound good. But it also adds extra words to your cover and could distract from the message your cover portrays. Potential readers could wonder why it is being revised, or will it be revised again at some point.

Then again, if a Harry Potter success story became successful after a revised edition, the original version could be worth a fortune.

 

[Rexenm]

Maybe try a radio edition. There was War of the Worlds, and Mere Christianity, and others I have witnessed.