|
I would prefer that an unedited or poorly edited book not be published at all. I grant that I have a somewhat biased perspective in that I am a professional editor and have been editing books for more than 34 years. But it is because of that experience, and because I have spent hard-earned money on books that have turned out to be poorly edited or unedited, that I think as I do.
Poor/no editing leaves a confused reader and, depending on the book, can result in disaster. For example: My editing niche is medical tomes written by doctors for doctors. In a recent book I edited, the author called for a dosage of 25 grams, which would have killed the patient many times over. What the author really meant was micrograms. Absent editing, the book would have been published with 25 grams.
For pleasure reading, I like fantasy (among other genres). Not so long ago I read a fantasy novel that, I subsequently learned, was self-edited by the author, which had the hero as dark-haired, stocky, and short in early pages, and transformed as pages progressed to light-haired, slightly built, and medium height. That was typical of the book's problems. It wasn't even worth reading for free (and I eventually gave up).
Quality editing can be the difference between readable and unreadable.
|