Revising and editing ...

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by CalmApparatus

Try not to consume yourself in perfectionism. Focus primarily on 3 things imo.

1) Short Pitch
2) Extended Pitch
3) First 20-30%

The logic being that their decision to buy it or not would be made during the first 20-30% ?

I'm not sure I would be comfortable with that. Apart from anything else you would just be lining yourself up for lots of negative reviews if the quality dropped off after the free preview. I think the whole thing should be the best you can manage at the time, otherwise why bother?

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I think the whole thing should be the best you can manage at the time, otherwise why bother?

Fully agree with this. The concept of striving for personal excellence seems to be lost in America (can not speak for the rest of the world) today. We have let the "good" become the enemy of the "best."

[Nancy Fulda]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Indie books are usually the writer's pure words. They lack a bit (or sometimes a lot) of polish, but they also give you the chance to read things that would never be profitable enough to be published any other way.

Unfortunately, the fact that a book would not be profitable for a traditional publisher implies that it does not have a very large potential audience. Therefore, the chance I fall within that book's audience is relatively slight.

I'm far more interested in indie books that might have been quite profitable for a publishing company, but were published independently by the author because he or she wanted to retain a higher percentage of royalties.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

Unfortunately, the fact that a book would not be profitable for a traditional publisher implies that it does not have a very large potential audience. Therefore, the chance I fall within that book's audience is relatively slight.

I'm far more interested in indie books that might have been quite profitable for a publishing company, but were published independently by the author because he or she wanted to retain a higher percentage of royalties.

I understand where you are coming from, but the weakness is that most indy authors can not get a publisher to even look at them. The book might have been massively profitable, but they could not even get their foot in the door to get that recognition. In fact I hear over and over the advice that it is best to start out as indy, create a body of work and prove yourself first, and then head to the traditional model.

I been reading a lot of indy works lately and there are many that great quality, hiding in the piles of flotsam.

[Nancy Fulda]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

The book might have been massively profitable, but they could not even get their foot in the door to get that recognition.

Good point. So we really have three classes of indie books, so to speak.

1) Those with a small, specific audience that could not be profitably published by a traditional publishing company
2) Those that could have been (or already have been) published with a traditional publisher, but were published independently by the author for financial reasons
3) Those that have a large potential audience but were unable -- for various reasons -- to gain a place at a major publishing house

I'd claim that rigorous editing and proofreading are critical for classes (2) and (3) and for most of class (1). Having listened to a number of readers online, it is clear that the audiences for some books are unconcerned with matters of grammatical consistancy. If the author is aiming to please one of these small audiences, then editing may indeed be an unwise use of resources.

For most indie books, however, I'd say editing is critical.

[HarryT]

Totally agree with you, Nancy.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

Having listened to a number of readers online, it is clear that the audiences for some books are unconcerned with matters of grammatical consistancy. If the author is aiming to please one of these small audiences, then editing may indeed be an unwise use of resources.

Personally, I do not understand not having your work be the best it can be. I know that there are errors my published worked, some readers have pointed them out to me, but that does not mean we did not make a real effort to put out great work. We just do the best we can with what we have to work with. Any author that says "I do not really need to edit" is likely not worth reading, imo. Typos get through, thats life... but at least make an effort to be your best, or dont bother writing, IMO.

[HarryT]

Agreed, Vincent. And another thing to consider is that it's repeat readers that bring success as an author. You may be able to fool someone into buying one book by editing the first quarter of it, and leaving the rest "raw", but are you likely to get that reader back for your next book? I doubt it.

[CalmApparatus]

My worst habit is using the words "very" and "though". So annoying! Writing how ones inner monologue speaks can be a treacherous path.

[swhibs123]

I think editing is the one thing that should not be skimped on. I sincerely believe it can make or break a book.

[sonofpendragon]

Hello, Damien, while I agree in spirit, I am sorry to say that I think being realistic, you are right, at the wrong time. When the 'net was new, and creative writing online was equally new, yes, it was a brave new world where it was all about 'getting it out there'. But, like it or not, and most do not I know, it has all become rather slick, and there is a demand for 'getting it right' before getting it out there.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sonofpendragon

Hello, Damien, while I agree in spirit, I am sorry to say that I think being realistic, you are right, at the wrong time. When the 'net was new, and creative writing online was equally new, yes, it was a brave new world where it was all about 'getting it out there'. But, like it or not, and most do not I know, it has all become rather slick, and there is a demand for 'getting it right' before getting it out there.

Why would anyone not like the idea that a book should be free from basic grammar and spelling errors? That just seems like "a given" to me. If an author can't be bothered to get those things right, why should I be bothered to read his or her book?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why would anyone not like the idea that a book should be free from basic grammar and spelling errors? That just seems like "a given" to me. If an author can't be bothered to get those things right, why should I be bothered to read his or her book?

You probably shouldn't, since it bothers you, but a few spelling/grammar errors don't bug me if there's a good story overall, so probably it's a YMMV thing.

I do definitely recommend using an editor, though. You can get very good editing work done for under $200 and I don't think that's an unreasonable investment. I'd rather an author hire an editor than hire a cover artists.

But, yeah, if an error slips through the cracks of the editing process, I'm not going to set the book aside. But maybe that's your philosophy, too, and you're talking about Once Per Page errors. That would bother me, too.

[mr ploppy]

A (paper) book I read last year had 7 or 8 mistakes per page, on every single page. It wasn't self published, either, so obviously both the editor and proof reader must have been dyslectic as well as the writer. The story just about carried me through, but it was a painful read.

[VydorScope]

Yeah for me it depends on how bad it is. A few mistakes here and there I am not likely to even notice any issues, but one book I read recently was so bad I had to just skip complete sentences because I could not figure out what the author was trying to say.