12% of ebooks are self-published; most are rubbish, claims editor

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I think anyone who isn't a professional editor (or beta reader) would be a saint to go through all the passages like this and point them out.

My dissection of this passage alone was several paragraphs. And I didn't think this one was that bad.

Generally speaking (with my editor hat) I would point it out in a few places and then let the author go back over it. There's no point in going through storyline editing to mark every spot and then have to go through it again to see if it is corrected. At least that is the way I work. My own word choice editor tends to read through the whole thing and give it back, but she only does one pass.

Most authors want to change it BEFORE the editor reads the whole manuscript, but every author/editor relationship is different. If I'm finding that the author does something chronically in the first 5 or so chapters, I usually give them the option of taking it back for another read. It saves us both a lot of time. That way if problem spots still remain, I can spot them and the story is still "fresh." Since I (and most editors) charge by the "pass" or "read" it also saves money.

And for authors who are used to editing and beta reads, they don't need to be told every instance--just a general, "watch this word use" or "you have a tendency to..." And they then know what to look for.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So, following that logic, you would think that the statement "films are fiction" is true? So documentaries don't exist?



So some isn't.

But that is silly. I gave poetry as one counterexample so it is enough that one poem is fiction and does not have a story for my point to hold.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Most authors want to change it BEFORE the editor reads the whole manuscript, but every author/editor relationship is different. If I'm finding that the author does something chronically in the first 5 or so chapters, I usually give them the option of taking it back for another read. It saves us both a lot of time. That way if problem spots still remain, I can spot them and the story is still "fresh." Since I (and most editors) charge by the "pass" or "read" it also saves money.

And for authors who are used to editing and beta reads, they don't need to be told every instance--just a general, "watch this word use" or "you have a tendency to..." And they then know what to look for.

Ah - fair enough. I will admit to being that type of author myself. I don't really want to hand an editor a pile of crap for them to sort through.

I am a bit surprised sometimes at what an author will hand to a reviewer though. A review from me isn't a feature spot on Oprah by any means, but there's only one chance to get it right. At least with an editor an author might have some negotiation power. My time isn't for sale so I only give what I'm prepared to give and I have no time for re-reads.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I'll give an example. It's certainly not the worst, but it happened to be on the page I was up to:

"He walked further in and was nearly bowled over by the stench. The smell hit him out of nowhere, like an invisible curtain that slapped him in the face. A scent of rot and decay filled the place. It was so strong that he felt his stomach buckling and was aware of a slight gorge rising in his throat."

Granted the description and word choice could be better, but my problem with your example is the repetition. How many times do I need to be told it stinks?

Doesn't "nearly bowled over by the stench" say the same as "The smell hit him out of nowhere, like an invisible curtain that slapped him in the face." Doesn't it also say "A scent of rot and decay filled the place."

I also wonder what is meant by "It was so strong that he felt his stomach buckling and was aware of a slight gorge rising in his throat." Is it his stomach that was aware of the "slight gorge rising in his throat" (which is what the sentence implies as written)? And what's the difference between a "slight gorge" and some other "gorge"? And do stomachs "buckle"?

I understand that this was likely taken from a novel and so there is more leeway for "loose" language use than in nonfiction. But even granting that, it seems to me that a good editor would have helped the author tighten the phrasing so that it had a better impact.

Overkill in writing is like roadkill in driving -- usually undesirable.

[rhadin]

First, an advance apology to Crich. I do not mean to point my finger at you. I do want to use your quote to make a language point, however.

Originally Posted by crich70

Aside from epic poems which tell a story about a hero i.e. El Cid, Beowulf, Roland, Odysseus, etc. . . .

The above quote is an example of a common mistake made by writers -- the misuse of i.e. and e.g. The former (i.e.) is a substitute for "that is", whereas the latter (e.g.) is a substitute for "for example." "That is" is used when the following named items are the only items or a complete list of items, not when they are just a sample. In contrast, e.g. is used when the following items are some but not all of the possibilities. In addition, "etc." is never used with either i.e. or e.g. because, in the case of i.e., there is no other possibility so there is no etc., and in the case of e.g., by definition the list is incomplete and thus etc. is redundant.

In addition, in American English, a "which" clause is separated by commas; a "that" clause is not separated by commas.

The above quote should have been

Originally Posted by crich70

Aside from epic poems, which tell a story about a hero, e.g., El Cid, Beowulf, Roland, Odysseus, . . .

I also disagree with this statement:

Originally Posted by crich70

Fiction tells a story with a clear cut beginning, middle and end. "I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree..." doesn't tell a story about a particular tree or have the classic story structure. For most intents and purposes prose and poetry are two different things.

Fiction, nonfiction, prose, poetry, all forms of writing tell a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end -- even a 1-sentence story. Granted the forms are different and the clarity of each part may differ, but all writing forms have the 3 parts. Sometimes two of the three parts are combined in a single phrase or word or sentence, but the elements are there.

If you must find something to distinguish poetry from prose, I think you would be better served by focusing on the rhythmic differences than on the content differences.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rhadin

If you must find something to distinguish poetry from prose, I think you would be better served by focusing on the rhythmic differences than on the content differences.

Poetry's primary concern being form while prose's primary concern is function (content), no?

Which is why you find so few engineer-poets.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Granted the description and word choice could be better, but my problem with your example is the repetition. How many times do I need to be told it stinks?

Doesn't "nearly bowled over by the stench" say the same as "The smell hit him out of nowhere, like an invisible curtain that slapped him in the face." Doesn't it also say "A scent of rot and decay filled the place."

I also wonder what is meant by "It was so strong that he felt his stomach buckling and was aware of a slight gorge rising in his throat." Is it his stomach that was aware of the "slight gorge rising in his throat" (which is what the sentence implies as written)? And what's the difference between a "slight gorge" and some other "gorge"? And do stomachs "buckle"?

I'm wondering if he had meant to write "bucked" instead of "buckled" for the stomach. I'm still not sure it's the best word, but there would have been less head-scratching on my side. And although the whole face-whipping curtain didn't do anything for me, I think "curtain" could have been used effectively in that paragraph.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Granted the description and word choice could be better, but my problem with your example is the repetition. How many times do I need to be told it stinks?

Doesn't "nearly bowled over by the stench" say the same as "The smell hit him out of nowhere, like an invisible curtain that slapped him in the face." Doesn't it also say "A scent of rot and decay filled the place."

I also wonder what is meant by "It was so strong that he felt his stomach buckling and was aware of a slight gorge rising in his throat." Is it his stomach that was aware of the "slight gorge rising in his throat" (which is what the sentence implies as written)? And what's the difference between a "slight gorge" and some other "gorge"? And do stomachs "buckle"?

I understand that this was likely taken from a novel and so there is more leeway for "loose" language use than in nonfiction. But even granting that, it seems to me that a good editor would have helped the author tighten the phrasing so that it had a better impact.

Overkill in writing is like roadkill in driving -- usually undesirable.

In reference to this and Caleb's posting above--it depends on the editor. It also depends on how much else is wrong. Most editors know that you have to focus hard on a few points to work on or the author will simply be overwhelmed. If the person's spelling and comma use is awful, you've GOT to mark and fix that or at least point it out. I've had that happen and talked to the writer to be told, "the copyeditor is going to get that." Okay, but that makes reading it more difficult. It can make a three-line description hard to read and evaluate. It can mean I'm going to hate the plot because I'm struggling to even make sense of sentences. Hell, if it's bad enough I might miss that there IS a plot...

Same thing goes with other storyline issues. Not all writers hand off a "clean" manuscript to the editor and whether they realize it or not, that means the editor CAN'T do as good a job. The onus is on the writer to get the thing damn near perfect so that the editor can find things the writer DOESN'T see. If the editor is fixing the same old mistake with every manuscript there is no opportunity for the writer to excel and get better. The books aren't going to improve.

If you wonder why a book gets to market that contains spaghetti writing even after being edited, it can be because there were multiple large issues (or a lack of a particular type of skill on the part of the editor). My early work was edited but not edited for word choice. That means the writing isn't going to be as strong. I don't think I overused words or mis-used word (the two most basic problems with word choice), but it wasn't until the second Sedona book that I started working with a word-smith editor. That was a real eye opener from a technique standpoint.

I've worked with multiple editors now and most of them have a particular talent. Some of them are very experienced and they can edit for multiple problems all in one pass. My word choice editor knows that is her strength and tells people right up front. She catches plot inconsistencies, but it's not her focus. My copyeditor is very focused on copyediting, but he is the only one who happened to catch that I had a white Mustang in two places at the same time--after 3 other editors and at least 2 beta readers had read it. Yet the first editor caught a north/south issue (THANK YOU, THANK YOU...it was a very important plot point...) and so on.

I think review books get sent out in a mess because writers are in a hurry. If they have had one beta reader or one editor, they assume it's perfect. "The oil must have been changed in my car because I hired someone to do it." I've read books where I KNEW the writer had had it copyedited...for a rather large sum of money. And there were too many typos for what she paid.

But part of the problem can also be money. Hiring one editor is enough of a problem. Finding and paying for two or three multiplies the time, effort AND cost. It can become a real balancing act. I'm not making excuses for anyone either, but sometimes you can't FIND an editor for a particular project. (You can always find someone, but it doesn't mean they are good at it.) Sometimes the good ones become so expensive you simply can't pay the cost because if you're self-pub'd you know your numbers. You know approximately how many copies you'll sell each month and that may mean you hire one out of three editors and swap the manuscript with four other writers instead or hiring the one editor you want.

FWIW.

[BearMountainBooks]

I should also mention that the hardest thing for many writers to do is cut prose. Each sentence sounds sooooo cool. That writer may have sweated over those curtain slapping, gut buckling stenches for days. Now some editor comes along and says, 'Too much, cut." WHAT???? THEY ARE GREAT SENTENCES! They TOTALLY ROCK.

And each one is fine. But together, they stink. (Pun intended.)

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Poetry's primary concern being form while prose's primary concern is function (content), no?

Which is why you find so few engineer-poets.

prose is primarily description and narration of external events
(lyrical) poetry is uttering the undescribable in your inner guts

regarding form, there's certainly a bit more effort into putting those utterances in either a sonorous and melodic package or in following certain structure very far from common everyday prose... poetry is regarding language as marble and a poem as sculpture.


I have to say I usually don't like a bit most of these self-published authors expecting a profit. The kind of guy who doesn't have a personal style because they don't want to woo possible costumers away and write in an overly polished sterile writing. They sound like they almost need to apologize for the reader to be, well, reading. It's dumbed down writing for a tweeter generation. we're fucked

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

It's dumbed down writing for a tweeter generation. we're fucked

Only if one runs out of reading material that meets ones personal exacting standards before one dies. How likely is that to happen?

"Well, I finished the last good book today. Nothing but shit for me to read from here on out."

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

prose is primarily description and narration of external events
(lyrical) poetry is uttering the undescribable in your inner guts

regarding form, there's certainly a bit more effort into putting those utterances in either a sonorous and melodic package or in following certain structure very far from common everyday prose... poetry is regarding language as marble and a poem as sculpture.


I have to say I usually don't like a bit most of these self-published authors expecting a profit. The kind of guy who doesn't have a personal style because they don't want to woo possible costumers away and write in an overly polished sterile writing. They sound like they almost need to apologize for the reader to be, well, reading. It's dumbed down writing for a tweeter generation. we're fucked

I have found more I really to read since getting an ereader. My want to read list is frightening in length. A very good thing overall but can be stressful as there is no way I can finish it and I add more every week

Last winter alone I stumbled upon four new authors first works that I thoroughly enjoyed and several books by authors who I had not read before that I also enjoyed. And of course many of my long time favorite authors are still alive and writing

While there may be a lot of unreadable material out there, the amount of readable and enjoyable books seems to be growing at as fast a rate as ever.

I don't begrudge anyone taking a shot at writing a book. If they are successful, good for them. If not, well at least they tried. Better than some ways of earning income and not like I have to buy their book. And if I accidentally do buy a bad ugly book on occasion, well I have bought a lot of useless stuff in my lifetime and lived through it. Caveat emptor.

Helen

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't begrudge anyone taking a shot at writing a book. If they are successful, good for them. If not, well at least they tried.

At least they had something to say and gave it a try.
Some are at least good enough to give their idea/story/characters a chance at reaching an appreciating audience. And, realistically, a chance is all anybody can hope for. Even good writers fail to find an audience.

There really are a whole lot less quick-buck "artists" in the indie publishing world than many would like to pretend. They do exist but you can usually tell a mile away.

[Andrew H.]

It's just weird that poetry would be described as a subset of fiction; possibly this comes from the fact that few people read (or write) poetry today, and modern poetry is more limited, because less popular.

But:

"Listen my children and you will hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere...." or

"'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
  Rode the six hundred."

or even:

"Lo! where the Moon along the sky
Sails with her happy destiny;
Oft is she hid from mortal eye
Or dimly seen,
But when the clouds asunder fly
How bright her mien!"

are not examples of "fiction".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It's just weird that poetry would be described as a subset of fiction

Not so much "weird" as just plain "wrong". "Poetry" is a description of the form, not the content. The content can be anything at all. Consider, for example, Lucretius's "De Rerum Natura" - "On the Nature of Things"; a physics textbook written in poetry.