MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - What Advice Can You Give Independent Authors?

Worldwalker · 01-23-2011, 03:32 PM

I'm quite fond of this xkcd strip: #808.

Publishing corporations are not in the charity business. While it may be argued (and I have) that they are making errors in their pricing structure for ebooks, I've never seen anyone argue that they err on the side of providing authors with too many services or giving away anything they don't have to. They spend quite a bit of money on editing and proofreading (which are not, by the way, the same thing). They're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Like any corporation, they're doing it for one simple reason: because it provides a positive return on investment. Since they're investing money, for the ROI to work out in their favor they must be getting more money back -- that is, the books sell more than those without such treatment, and sell enough more to make the extra work profitable. Publishers will avoid paying for anything that doesn't have an adequate ROI -- for example, reading the slushpile, in many cases. If they're paying for proofreading and editing, the ROI has to be there. Arguing otherwise, as xkcd says, really means that arguing that modern capitalism isn't that ruthlessly profit-focused. I don't think even our resident shills would argue that commercial publishing is some form of charity.

No, the reference to "vanity presses" was not any form of snide dig. That's the conventional term for publishing houses in which the expense and risk is borne by the author. There are plenty of snide digs possible on that subject; however, using a conventional and widely understood term for a particular category of publishing isn't one of them.

With regard to proofreading, your words are how you are presenting yourself. They are your story's appearance. James Wilde suggested library events, for example. Would you show up at one of those wearing torn pants and a shirt that smells? You wouldn't dream of it, I'm sure. But the people who will never see (or smell) what kind of shirt you wear will read your words, and have nothing but those words to judge you on. If your words are sloppy, they will believe that you don't care enough about them to make them otherwise. Whatever reaction you might want people to have to your writing, "what a slob!" is guaranteed not to be it.

Then there's editing, which is a different matter entirely. The reason you can't do it yourself is that you're too close to the story. For example, I recently wrote a short story (just a few thousand words) for a friendly challenge. After it was done (un-edited), someone said "hey, what happened to so-and-so? He was here, but when they got there he wasn't with them." I knew exactly what happened to so-and-so, of course: he had walked away to do certain other things that weren't relevant to the story (nor was he, any longer). I hadn't even realized I'd just "vanished" him because I knew exactly where he'd gone and why; I hadn't included him in my mental image of the people at their destination, so I didn't write him there. But, because I'd never said that he left, my readers by inertia expected him to be still with the group after their short walk, and I confused the heck out of a bunch of readers. As soon as someone other than me read the story, they could point at exactly what the problem was, one which I hadn't even seen. Putting in a single line to send that character on his way made it a stronger story. That, writ large, is the kind of thing a good editor will do. They're that second set of eyes who spots all the things a writer can't. There is a reason why the acknowledgments for just about any book include thanks to its editor, and that reason is not that the author gets paid any more for putting that in.

I want to read a good story. I don't care if it came from BigHugePubCo Inc. or some random person's desktop. Either it's a good story, or it isn't a good story. As far as proofreading, I don't give indie writers any special pass on writing correctly any more than I give them a pass on not smelling bad. And when it comes to editing, that's what can determine whether a story is good or not. I'm not going to read something and think "well, this story is actually pretty lame, there are two subplots that go nowhere, I'm not sure who that other character is, and OMG, the protagonist's girlfriend needs to be drowned, but it's not from a big publisher, so I'll read it anyway." If it's not a good story, it's not a good story, and I have plenty of good stories to read; I'm not going to subject myself to a bad story out of some charity toward the author. If I really think the author needs my charity, I'll send him or her a check. But I will not spend a slice of my lifetime on a second-rate story just because of where it's from, big or small.

01-23-2011, 03:32 PM	#23
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	I'm quite fond of this xkcd strip: #808. Publishing corporations are not in the charity business. While it may be argued (and I have) that they are making errors in their pricing structure for ebooks, I've never seen anyone argue that they err on the side of providing authors with too many services or giving away anything they don't have to. They spend quite a bit of money on editing and proofreading (which are not, by the way, the same thing). They're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Like any corporation, they're doing it for one simple reason: because it provides a positive return on investment. Since they're investing money, for the ROI to work out in their favor they must be getting more money back -- that is, the books sell more than those without such treatment, and sell enough more to make the extra work profitable. Publishers will avoid paying for anything that doesn't have an adequate ROI -- for example, reading the slushpile, in many cases. If they're paying for proofreading and editing, the ROI has to be there. Arguing otherwise, as xkcd says, really means that arguing that modern capitalism isn't that ruthlessly profit-focused. I don't think even our resident shills would argue that commercial publishing is some form of charity. No, the reference to "vanity presses" was not any form of snide dig. That's the conventional term for publishing houses in which the expense and risk is borne by the author. There are plenty of snide digs possible on that subject; however, using a conventional and widely understood term for a particular category of publishing isn't one of them. With regard to proofreading, your words are how you are presenting yourself. They are your story's appearance. James Wilde suggested library events, for example. Would you show up at one of those wearing torn pants and a shirt that smells? You wouldn't dream of it, I'm sure. But the people who will never see (or smell) what kind of shirt you wear will read your words, and have nothing but those words to judge you on. If your words are sloppy, they will believe that you don't care enough about them to make them otherwise. Whatever reaction you might want people to have to your writing, "what a slob!" is guaranteed not to be it. Then there's editing, which is a different matter entirely. The reason you can't do it yourself is that you're too close to the story. For example, I recently wrote a short story (just a few thousand words) for a friendly challenge. After it was done (un-edited), someone said "hey, what happened to so-and-so? He was here, but when they got there he wasn't with them." I knew exactly what happened to so-and-so, of course: he had walked away to do certain other things that weren't relevant to the story (nor was he, any longer). I hadn't even realized I'd just "vanished" him because I knew exactly where he'd gone and why; I hadn't included him in my mental image of the people at their destination, so I didn't write him there. But, because I'd never said that he left, my readers by inertia expected him to be still with the group after their short walk, and I confused the heck out of a bunch of readers. As soon as someone other than me read the story, they could point at exactly what the problem was, one which I hadn't even seen. Putting in a single line to send that character on his way made it a stronger story. That, writ large, is the kind of thing a good editor will do. They're that second set of eyes who spots all the things a writer can't. There is a reason why the acknowledgments for just about any book include thanks to its editor, and that reason is not that the author gets paid any more for putting that in. I want to read a good story. I don't care if it came from BigHugePubCo Inc. or some random person's desktop. Either it's a good story, or it isn't a good story. As far as proofreading, I don't give indie writers any special pass on writing correctly any more than I give them a pass on not smelling bad. And when it comes to editing, that's what can determine whether a story is good or not. I'm not going to read something and think "well, this story is actually pretty lame, there are two subplots that go nowhere, I'm not sure who that other character is, and OMG, the protagonist's girlfriend needs to be drowned, but it's not from a big publisher, so I'll read it anyway." If it's not a good story, it's not a good story, and I have plenty of good stories to read; I'm not going to subject myself to a bad story out of some charity toward the author. If I really think the author needs my charity, I'll send him or her a check. But I will not spend a slice of my lifetime on a second-rate story just because of where it's from, big or small.