Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors
There are some indie authors who have a great deal of peer review. People love their work so much that they volunteer to be editors, beta readers, do cover designs, etc. That says a lot more to me about a written work than going through a publishing house. Because it's something people have done because they LIKE the work, not because it's going to make them X amount of money.
I trust the organic form of peer review that is emerging more than the publishing houses. Because the publishing houses have shown themselves to be more concerned with money than quality. The organic forms of peer review are concerned with quality.
I think of this the same way I think of medical studies. I am heavily skeptical of what the drug company that invented a drug says about its efficacy and safety. I am less skeptical of what an independent study says about it. Same concept.
|
These people are not "independent." Author's fans would not make good editors. They would be biased. And are any copy editors? Can they fix the grammar mistakes?
I'd rather it be edited by experienced professionals completely apathetic to the author and the book. It would keep them focused on the writing and not on pleasing the author.