12% of ebooks are self-published; most are rubbish, claims editor

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Sadly, this is a correct view of the perspective of many authors. However, it is an incorrect view. I try to convince authors that grammar and (a little less so) spelling are also the concerns of the authors because if left to the editors and proofreaders, they may well find that what they meant to convey is not conveyed because the editor/proofreader had to interpret and guess at the authors' meaning.

It is not necessary for an author to have perfect spelling or grammar; it is necessary for the author to have a skill level that ensures that the message the author wants to deliver is delivered and received. Editors and proofreaders are not coauthors, yet a sloppily written manuscript puts them in that position.

You are correct. It is the author's job to get all of these things as close as possible. I do editing on the side. And let me tell you, there is nothing more frustrating than an author who hands over a sloppy manuscript and then wonders why it's going to take 3 or 4 passes to get it right (I charge by the pass and the first fee includes two passes as a base).

These are the authors who generally MISS at least 10 percent of the things I mark on the first pass. I miss stuff too because I'm marking something in almost every single line. That creates a mess of color and reading is harder. Following the storyline and finding continuity mistakes is MUCH harder (that's a separate pass from copyediting by the way and there's a reason for it being a separate pass!)

I think it takes an author a while to find an editor he/she can work with. And also for an author to find his/her own weak spots. If the author isn't good enough with the first book out, they may never get there because people aren't going to buy it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I think it takes an author a while to find an editor he/she can work with. And also for an author to find his/her own weak spots. If the author isn't good enough with the first book out, they may never get there because people aren't going to buy it.

That's why when people say "I can't afford to use an editor", I generally respond by asking "can you afford not to use an editor?" If you have an unedited book out there, it's going to hang around forever, and people will use it to judge the standard of your work, even if you do use an editor for your later books.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

You are correct. It is the author's job to get all of these things as close as possible. I do editing on the side. And let me tell you, there is nothing more frustrating than an author who hands over a sloppy manuscript and then wonders why it's going to take 3 or 4 passes to get it right (I charge by the pass and the first fee includes two passes as a base).

Wonder if some of these guys proofread it themselves before submitting it. I usually find a c--pton of mistakes the first pass or two.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by teh603

"That's putting it mildly, 007."

It did have a fairly decent grammar section in it, but you're right. The school was completely nuts.

In that case, your complaints about the rules of grammar are based on a faulty premise--you've been criticizing grammatical rules that don't exist.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I recently read something in which the author had (completely consistently) used the word "of" instead of the abbreviation 've; eg "we should of gone out", "we might of done this", "we could of done that". Of course I realise that "should've" sounds like "should of", but to actually write "should of" is really going too far.

If it was within speech or a first-person narrative that fit the character I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'd agree when it's anywhere else. Still something for the editor to fix though.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by shalym

Have you tried David Dalglish's books? http://www.amazon.com/David-Dalglish...r_dp_pel_pop_1

Shari

Looks good, giving it a go.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If it was within speech or a first-person narrative that fit the character I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'd agree when it's anywhere else. Still something for the editor to fix though.

Yes, I agree. It was the fact that they'd released it in that state that I found annoying.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But you're a proof reader too. Writing and proof reading are different skills, and it's rare to find them in the same person. With fiction it is the story that counts, not where they put their apostrophes. Things like that can be fixed later.

No, it's easier to get it as nearly close to right as you can the first time. It will still need proofreading.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's why when people say "I can't afford to use an editor", I generally respond by asking "can you afford not to use an editor?" If you have an unedited book out there, it's going to hang around forever, and people will use it to judge the standard of your work, even if you do use an editor for your later books.

Only if it's already escaped out onto the pirate sites. Otherwise you could just fix whatever was wrong with it and nobody seeing it for the first time would be any the wiser.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by shalym

Have you tried David Dalglish's books? http://www.amazon.com/David-Dalglish...r_dp_pel_pop_1

Shari

I started one of his first ones. The story is strong, but the writing is a little choppy? ...well, I hear it gets better as it goes. He does a lot of head-hopping, which is a style that is hard to follow. He's been very successful and I think that is because of his strong stories and characters. I didn't notice grammar or spelling problems (I think he does have at least a copyeditor). I think his characters are strong enough that they pull people in around some of the little things he doesn't finesse. And mind you, he probably picked a few things that were pet peeves of mine when it comes to conventions.

We all have different pet peeves and expectations and that can make a huge difference when turning pages or stopping. (And again, I'm not talking grammar or spelling with his stuff.)

[mr ploppy]

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

So if more Indie authors worked with editors and proofreaders, their stories would be easier to read for many folks and people would be less whiney about finding the good ones.

Actually, I think poor grammar and spelling are just the most convenient reasons for throwing babies out with the bathwater (not that I'm one who thinks those basic things should be ignored, by any means). I think the predjudice against self-published authors runs quite a bit deeper than that in the industry (and thus society) as a whole. The complaint would simply change to "how do I find the indie authors who actually have a gift for plot|characterization|dialogue in this unnavigable sea of perfectly edited/proofed drivel."

Not saying anyone in THIS thread would necessarily do that.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Actually, I think poor grammar and spelling are just the most convenient reasons for throwing babies out with the bathwater (not that I'm one who thinks those basic things should be ignored, by any means). I think the predjudice against self-published authors runs quite a bit deeper than that in the industry (and thus society) as a whole. The complaint would simply change to "how do I find the indie authors who actually have a gift for plot|characterization|dialogue in this unnavigable sea of perfectly edited/proofed drivel."

Not saying anyone in THIS thread would necessarily do that.

Well, if they'd be any good they would have been contracted by a real publishing house, isn't it?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Actually, I think poor grammar and spelling are just the most convenient reasons for throwing babies out with the bathwater (not that I'm one who thinks those basic things should be ignored, by any means). I think the predjudice against self-published authors runs quite a bit deeper than that in the industry (and thus society) as a whole. The complaint would simply change to "how do I find the indie authors who actually have a gift for plot|characterization|dialogue in this unnavigable sea of perfectly edited/proofed drivel."

Not saying anyone in THIS thread would necessarily do that.

The point is that adequate spelling and grammar are the minimum requirements that must be met. I can be generally confident that a book published by a traditional publisher will meet these minimum requirements. But I don't have any idea if a self-published book is a first draft or a polished work--and the only way I can find that out is to read it, which requires an investment of time I'm not willing to make.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The point is that adequate spelling and grammar are the minimum requirements that must be met. I can be generally confident that a book published by a traditional publisher will meet these minimum requirements. But I don't have any idea if a self-published book is a first draft or a polished work--and the only way I can find that out is to read it, which requires an investment of time I'm not willing to make.

Precisely. Reasonable grammar and spelling are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a good book.