[bthrowsnaill]

I spent three years (part time) writing, and one year editing my book. Unfortunately, I didn't get all of the errors corrected (in retrospect), but I did get it to a point where I felt like it was worth $1.99. Since the initial release, as I've had reviews and reader feedback, I've continued to make edits because I've felt like I owed that to the people who've purchased the book; and I want the book to be as good as it can be (short of totally rewriting it or fundamentally altering it, since, fortunately, most of what I've been hearing so far has been criticism of errors and style).

This book release has been an experiment. I wrote what I think is a good book according to my personal tastes. I don't see that as a conceit, since I imagine that every author loves their books when they release them. I'm aware that my opinion is not objective.

The question was (and is) do others think that it's good too? I couldn't see going out and spending $2000 on an editor when the hypothesis (that I can write things that people want to read) was unproven. Then there's the cost/benefit analysis of the edit. Am I really expecting to sell 2000 copies of this book? I'd like to think that it's possible, but I'm not banking on it.

Let's also not forget that the origin of the term "Indie" is slang for the word independant. That means that I'm not reliant on someone telling me what I "have to do" to publish, nor do I have to conform to the editorial and content decisions of a publisher. I think Smashwords is a great forum for Indie books. Many of them are probably "experiments" like mine.

If the experiment is a "success", then that's when a professional edit (and cover) starts to make more sense. Every author is free to and will have to determine what success means for them. Indie readers will have to decide whether they want to endure some failed experiments in order to experience something akin to hearing Nirvana in a small club in 1990.