The Importance of Eliminating Typos?

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

My thought is: work to eliminate ALL typos. Understand that this is an impossible goal, and some will slip through, and don't berate yourself when this inevitably happens.

If your 80,000 word novel has three typos in it, people are not going to complain. (Well, someone might, but don't worry about it.)

But DO strive to eliminate them all.

I would worry less about the whole "people give trad pub books a pass for things they will complain about for self pub". If you've done your job well, most readers will never know if your book was self published or not. Most SP ebooks that sell well are indistinguishable from other small press ebooks without putting in research work that most readers simply won't bother with.

You want your work to look polished and professional. That means as close to typo-free as possible. If trad pub is slipping in that regard (and they are), then it's not an excuse for us to be more casual. Rather, it is an opportunity to SHINE compared to the major publishers, whose work will look that much more shoddy compared to the stellar self published books.

(And yes, that IS happening right now...which I find fascinating. I find it related to Guy Kawasaki's concept of "artisanal publishing", because the professional SP writer simply pays more attention to every aspect of the work than a major press can afford to. Disasters like the formatting errors of "The Casual Vacancy" ebook just don't happen for professional self publishers, because they make sure everything is right.)

Line editing your own work is a skill, by the way. Anyone with a good grasp of spelling, punctuation, and grammar can learn it. I had a college class where we lost a letter grade (A down to an A- for example) for each spelling, grammar, or punctuation error on any paper. And we had a LOT of papers. Nobody passed unless they learned how to edit their own work very well. The idea that you cannot check your own writing is a MYTH. It is, however, a skill which must be acquired through work. (And having someone else check after is always a good idea!)

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think you might be looking at this the wrong way, Brian. 40 hours. What's that? two weeks? Isn't it worth it? I mean, I spent four months just editing my novel into second draft. Four whole months, on a novel it only took me eight weeks to write. And I'm only half done! After this, I need to write the ending, go back through and fix consistency problems that arose from changing details, and then give it one last sweep for nit-picks like word choice and typos. I wouldn't even think of not spending the time to eliminate typos, and I'm pretty darn great at grammar/ punctuation/ spelling. Also, right before sending it off is the perfect time to have readers looking at it for you. It's like a free line edit, getting your best critters on it.

Absolutely, you should get your eyes, your sister's eyes, and anyone else's who will read the book for you again looking at it one final time for typos and other last-minute things. If you don't, it might come back and bite you in the ass. Unfortunately, if you publish sloppy work (with more typos than people will tolerate, or silly minute mistakes that make you appear unprofessional and amateurish), people will remember it forever. You don't want to get a reputation for delivering unprofessional work, because it might taint people's view for years to come, whether it's warranted or not.

 

[C Hollis]

Worth it or is what I'm doing good enough?

Is your goal to put something out there that is just "good enough"?

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I can't remember off the top of my head if Storm of Swords had typos. At any rate, I catch them often in published books. My kids have a Disney Fairies book that has its first typo ('at' instead of 'as') on page 3!

I think you're doing the right thing by sending it to your sister, who's good at that, then doing your own proof, then letting the publisher take over from there. Bob (R.A.) Salvatore reads aloud when proofing his own books. One read-aloud, send it, write the next.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Is your goal to put something out there that is just "good enough"?

I think for some people 'good enough' is a healthier goal than 'perfect.' By that I mean, there are some writers (like me at times) who will literally edit a scene to death (as in worse than the typo-ridden original) trying to perfect everything.

In the context of the OP's question, here's my idea of a healthy 'good enough':

If you've carefully read your entire manuscript and fixed what you and your beta reader(s) caught, you've done your job. You might consider another read once all is fixed, but if you catch nothing else, it doesn't mean it's error-free. It's error-free to the best of your knowledge. No shame in the publisher's people catching what you missed or the editor saying 'I don't get this scene, could you…?'

 

[BWFoster78]

Is your goal to put something out there that is just "good enough"?

Absolutely.

The implication of your statement is that one should try to achieve perfection.

A. Perfection is impossible.
B. Since my goal is to eventually support myself through my writing, I have to treat writing as a business. At some point, the benefit you gain from extra work is eclipsed by the profit you hope to achieve from that effort.
C. If you keep working and working, you'll never get anything out there. At some point, you have to call it done.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

With my first (only) self-published novel, I proofread/revised three times before I was confident I caught all of the errors. I had it available on Lulu, CreateSpace and Amazon but would resubmit when I found new typos. It has other first-time-writer issues, but I'm pretty sure the typos are gone.

 

[Devor]

There's a problem with "good enough." It isn't.

The phrase implies that you're shooting for a work that's just above the line of where you need to be. But add in even just a little variability, and you're seriously at risk of falling below that line.

The only way to make sure your work is "just good enough" is to overshoot your benchmark significantly.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

My point up here was that the phrases 'good enough' and 'perfection' mean different things to different people.

To me, 'good enough' is ready to sell where 'perfect' is that unrealistic, undefined ideal that prevents me from finishing the job if I attempt to achieve it or even meet it halfway. I prefer the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' approach, which is where beta readers come it… or in the case of an artistic project, I consult a better artist.

To others, 'good enough' is 100% when you should be putting in 110%.

And then there's the question 'good enough for what?' To sell? To blow away? To be the best fresh new thing out there?

Endless story shortened, I think this phrase is vague enough to interpret different ways, so I threw in a specific: Bob Salvatore's advice to me regarding what level of proofreading is 'good enough' for a first-time author to send to a literary agent. (I think for a self-published author, it's no different: error-free/makes sense/entertaining as far as you know; submit and move on.)

 

[C Hollis]

If good enough is good enough for you, then go for it.

The Indie world is filled with stories the author's deemed good enough, and they are making money at it. Some even make enough to live on. And to them, that is good enough.

The implication of your statement is that one should try to achieve perfection.

Okay, I don't have a problem with that.

The implication of "good enough" is sending a product out the door well before a person reaches the limits of their abilities and resources.

 

[Devor]

My point up here was that the phrases 'good enough' and 'perfection' mean different things to different people.

That link is either a bad copy-paste or a secret little Easter Egg cleverly posted to promote Dragon's Egg. Definitely the second.

My post was more to BWFoster and how I interpret his interpretation of the phrase, based in part on a common interpretation implied by the word "just," which I interpret to mean "barely" good enough..... I'll shut up now.

 

[BWFoster78]

There's a problem with "good enough." It isn't.

The phrase implies that you're shooting for a work that's just above the line of where you need to be. But add in even just a little variability, and you're seriously at risk of falling below that line.

The only way to make sure your work is "just good enough" is to overshoot your benchmark significantly.

My wording was "good enough." C Hollis added the "just," which I used to determine the implication that he felt I should instead seek perfection.

I believe a high degree of quality is an absolute necessity for gaining an audience.

I also feel that I have a tendency to go farther in that regard than is profitable. I started the thread as a reality check for myself. What is the standard that I should try to achieve? I think it's been answered as: I should do a full proof of my final version before sending it out.

I feel that advice is perfectly reasonable.

At this point, truthfully, I'm not quite sure what we're discussing.

 

[Devor]

At this point, truthfully, I'm not quite sure what we're discussing.

At this point we're discussing attitude.

I'm sorry if I wound up put Hollis's words ("just") onto you by accident. I didn't intend to pan every possible use of the phrase.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think we're debating "good enough". For some people, that statement is almost offensive (which I have to admit being one of those people). I would never want to call my novels "good enough". I'd prefer to say I'm really proud of them, or I did the very best I could.

"Good enough" to some other people, means the best they could do without driving themselves mad over tiny, insignificant details. So I think that's where the confusion is occurring.

For me, a "good enough" ending, might be lacking in resolution or satisfaction for the reader, but be suitable to close the story. A "good enough" plot might be one that maybe relies on cheap tactics to explain why it had to happen that way, but it could certainly have been strengthened to make perfect sense and maybe surprise or inspire the reader.

I think "good enough" for some people is them being lazy and not wanting to put forth the full effort it takes to take something from "good" to "great". While for others, it simply means "I've done all I can to make this a work I'm proud to stamp my name upon".

The thing writers should understand about publishing, is that when you query an agent, you're asking them to stamp THEIR name on the work. They'll be picky over things like typos and plot consistency and a whole assortment of other things. Some self-published works have dodged those constraints, by saying "this is good enough for me", when in fact, it wouldn't be for an agent or publishing house.

So the inclination is to be concerned when someone says, "I'm striving for a good enough novel," because we would hate to see someone settle for less than their full potential. I believe everyone here would agree that if you've (or any of us have) done your very best to catch typos and make your manuscript as strong as possible, that's all you can do. Your plan to send it out to be read one final time is an excellent idea, and definitely worth your time. But I don't think anyone was ever implying anything negative about someone who's done their best and feels really confident about their work. Just that if a writer shoots for mediocrity, they'll probably end up suffering for that decision in the end. And reputations, once tarnished, are hard to polish.

 

[C Hollis]

When I read your opening post, it appeared to me you wanted someone to talk you down from going too far with the typo thing. My response was more geared toward whether you would be happy with just "good enough", because the tone of your post implied you wouldn't be.

I mean, nobody here has to live with your decision of when to pull the plug and throw the book out there. I don't know if you would be the person to brood over a review or two whining about typos, or if you would be the person to shrug it off.

Myself, I still get wound up over crap that I should've caught in my first book.

As far as the "perfection" derailment; we need a universal smart-a** font. That was never an intended implication.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree with Brian's comment about approaching things with a certain sense of pragmatism if you want to make a living at this. It seems to me that if you're spending 4 or 5 years on each novel, trying to get everything just right, you drastically reduce your chances of being a self-supporting writer in the near future. Particularly if you're self-publishing.

That doesn't matter to everyone. Some people approach writing purely as an art, and whether the work takes them ten months or ten years to complete, it's fine with them. It's not meant to be a self-sustaining income source. Nothing wrong with that. For others, writing is purely a commodity and they're focused on how much product they can move. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, I suspect. Knowing your goals will help with issues like this.

 

[BWFoster78]

There are so many consideration to the whole self publishing thing.

First, as someone putting out my first novel, I have to make sure that my quality level is "good enough" to earn me an audience. I put a lot of effort into improving my craft, and I'm driven by the motivation not to put something out there that is going to be an embarrassment.

On the other hand, I desire to be a professional, and I accept the advice that the only way to get to that point is to put out enough quantity. At some point, I have to put my work out there even though it isn't perfect.

Finding that tipping point seems tricky.

Not "good enough" and I'll fail because no one will care to advocate my book to others. If, however, I spend my entire life finishing my first book, I won't have a chance to follow it up, and there's little chance a single book is going to find the audience that I desire.

 

[Devor]

I agree with Brian's comment about approaching things with a certain sense of pragmatism if you want to make a living at this. It seems to me that if you're spending 4 or 5 years on each novel, trying to get everything just right, you drastically reduce your chances of being a self-supporting writer in the near future. Particularly if you're self-publishing.

There is a difference between spending 4 or 5 years on each novel, and spending 4 or 5 years on the first novel. There's editing to perfection, and there's editing to the point where it shows you've gotten over the learning curve.

I don't think that everyone struggling with the editing is necessarily fighting an overblown desire for perfection.

 

[Caged Maiden]

My personal feeling on this, Brian, is that while it hurts, it's better to take the time to make sure I learn every important lesson on my first publishable novel. For instance, exploring POV depth and learning how to strike the right balance between "show" and "tell". While I'm not going to be perfect, making sure I've thoroughly grasped those concepts, will help me to make certain my first book finds an audience that will hopefully love it and line up to buy the next. Also, while four years is a long time to spend on a single novel, by making sure I publish when I'm really ready, versus when I want to, I'm making sure that my quality isn't compromised and I appear every bit the professional. So following that first novel that shined like the polished turd it probably was, my following works will be quicker, better, and already have an audience awaiting them.

If you've done your best, there's really only a few options. Ask people who are very critical to read it and point out the things they have problems with and wouldn't accept in their own work. Ask a professional editor to have a look and pay them for their time. Ask some reviewers to read and review your book without publishing the review, just so you can get a feel for the sort of comments you'll be receiving. I can't think of any more, but I'm sure there's a couple more avenues.

If you're pleased with your work, consider it finished and move on to the next phase. This too, will be a learning process. If you receive bad reviews, you know more for next time, right? There's nothing wrong with learning that lesson. It's painful, but sometimes necessary to hone in on your goals. If you meet with success, you've got your confirmation that you've indeed done enough and presented exactly what readers are dying to eat up. You're going to get mixed reviews any way you slice it. Some people will hate your characters or style, others will love it and tell all their friends how great it was. the goal is to not get bad reviews for something you could have changed with a little more effort, right? I know you strive for technical perfection, so if you feel you've done your best, then the best thing is to jump into the deep end when you're ready. If you didn't know how to swim before you leapt, you'll learn very quickly how to, right?

Everyone is going to make mistakes. But sometimes it's not easy to see how big our errors are until we take a risk. You may have nothing to worry about.

Besides, there's loads of people who make profitable careers publishing things many people on this site call sub-standard. How that's possible, I don't know, but the point is, everyone needs to strike their own balance. Time/ effort, standard/ time, volume/ quantity, etc.

Do you have a good idea of the readiness of the novel? If you do, then you should probably pull the trigger. I'm not ready to pull the trigger just yet. I'm still learning and perfecting a few concepts I think are too important to miss on. When I do pull it, I want my aim to be a kill shot.

Best wishes.

 

[Steerpike]

There is a difference between spending 4 or 5 years on each novel, and spending 4 or 5 years on the first novel. There's editing to perfection, and there's editing to the point where it shows you've gotten over the learning curve.

I don't think that everyone struggling with the editing is necessarily fighting an overblown desire for perfection.

That's true. However, even with that first novel you've got to pull the trigger eventually. If you've had to spend 4 or 5 years revising, I tend to think you're spinning your wheels. I remember Brandon Sanderson commenting about the fact that he'd written 4 or 5 novels before his first got published. I've heard that said a lot by writers. If, instead of writing all of those works, they'd spent the entire time revising one novel, we probably wouldn't know who they are today. If your novel needs 4 or 5 years worth of rewriting and editing, you should at least consider whether it might be better to start on something else instead.