[Hitch]

Originally Posted by gmw

Certainly the need for editing is not subjective, writers need as much help as they can get. But "good editing" is definitely subjective. I could list a large number of professionally edited books, published by big names, that in my opinion were poorly edited. Yes, their proof-reading pass was fine, very few obvious mistakes, but their structural editing was appalling and they let a 200 page story get published as 500 pages (or whatever).

That's a reasonable argument--sure. I've read some books put out by BNP (Big Name Publishers) that definitely could have used more curettage, less fat/excess.

The thing is that you can't really separate the writing from the editing. All writers do some of their own editing - it's just part of the job - and are responsible for implementing recommendations from external editors. Many passes are required but exactly how many will vary from work-to-work and the tastes of those involved. It's all subjective.

You're right about that. No way to tell. Could be one person's work or ten. But typically, I think most people who read avidly can tell if a book hasn't been edited at all.

All the reader gets to see is the end result, so they have no idea how much was the fault of the one or more editors, and how much was the author not following recommendations - or not even asking for them.

Again, true enough.

I am not defending the "I don't need no freakin editing" lobby, but unless you are charging $0.99c for Jane's work, and letting the buyer see the first 10% of it before deciding whether to buy, the analogy doesn't hold up all that well. A lot of the books you are complaining about are completely free, very few cost more than a couple of dollars, and pretty much all let the reader decide in advance whether the quality is good enough for their own tastes. And, if the reader finds out they were wrong they free to put a 1 star review and abuse the writer online - in the public eye for all to see for the rest of the writer's career.

In most cases the books from those that don't care at all about editing are pretty obvious. Once you start looking at the books put out by those that do care, the subjective nature of what constitutes proper editing begins to show.

I guess my issue is more about the attitude, the cavalier shrugging off of proofing/editing, than the end results being variable. God knows, it's probably quite difficult for even a well-intentioned author to find and pay for a competent editor, in this publishing world as it is now. Every Tom, Dick and Harriet hangs out a shingle, with no education + zero experience, claiming to be a proofreader or editor. I mean, want to entertain yourself? Randomly look around for 10 "editors" and read the purported credentials on their blogs. Know how many list them? Not 2 out of 100.

(Apparently, in today's world, if you've read a few hundred books, you think you're qualified to edit. Hoookay...)

Anyway...as I said, my kvetch is about the "well, I'm learning, readers should make an allowance for that" mindset, when the work is being sold. If they're giving it away on Wattpad, whatever, fine--but to my mind, if they are charging, they should have some obligation, however meager, to at least TRY to have it edited. If nothing else, at least make an effort to barter for proofing. I just don't think it's too much to ask.

I won't argue that you and Diap are right--we, the buyers, are viewing some percentage of the book upfront, and we have an opportunity to at least tell if it's been proofed, by and large. Edited, though--the cutting of fat, the tightening--we likely don't know that until it's too late. {shrug}

Hitch