Editing already released books?

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by JoeD

But make sure all your existing customers are given the option to download the updated version.

Well the book is free... so that is not an issue, but if it was not, I would give everyone a Smashwords coupon who did not buy it there cause Smashwords lets you get updates free.

[jaxx6166]

Right...here's the issue with editing CONTENT after a book is released....

It kind of smacks as unprofessionalism or knee jerk reactions. I am of the opinion that if you're going to edit a book post-publication, you would in essence almost be enforcing whatever prior bad review forced you to knee jerk.

There's issues in every book. Typos, syntax, magic eyes, timeline problems...ya know.

You walk a fine line. If you publish a book with a traditional publisher, they're usually checked for syntax, continuity, etc. but mistakes happen. Things slip by. We're human.

You might see things like that changed in between hardcover/paperback and different edition printing, it's kind of why "rare book collectors" thrive.

The first edition of The Wise Man's Fear did not have a numberline. By the time it went to the bookstores, it was already in its 4th printing. That made the "true 1st" a collector's item.

With digital books you won't have people on ebay bidding for your typo filled original MSS.

As far as correcting minor glitches like the ones I mentioned above, I don't see a problem with it.

But, if you cave to a reviewer who said "Jimmy's story arc was unfulfilling." and now you release a second edition where Jimmy has a new subplot involving his unrequited love of Veronica, you're probably going to end up losing that battle.

Then we end up with Street Fighter IV Super Ultimate Fancy Shiny Edition.

You should take what the review said and if you can find some truth in there, learn from your mistakes and write the next book keeping that in the back of your mind.

Do you edit for style because one reviewer said they didn't like that you used short, blunt sentences instead of purple prose? Absolutely not.

That's like spitting in someone's eye and telling them its raining.

If you go through with that edit and push the new "updated pretty prose" to Amazon, they send out an email blast saying that there's a new edition available.

And I'll use small numbers here...say you've only sold fifteen copies. And fourteen people loved the fact that John's head exploded.

Now it reads "John felt the hot bullet pass through his brain, he thought of his long lost unrequited love with Jimmy Bell Dean and the mysteries of the world. He imagined that he did not get a chance to kiss her goodbye. Blah Blah Blah. Yakkity Smackkity..."

You're going to make those 14 people mad

Because you can't go back.

[VydorScope]

It is fairly interesting that the no's are killing in the comments, but losing 2:1 in the poll right now.

[jaxx6166]

Hey Vincent,

I just checked your smashwords preview of the book in question. I see the simplistic writing style that your reviewers are talking about, however given the narrative I think you should leave it as is.

Since it's told from a first person perspective I can get the point of your narrator actually, literally NARRATING the tale. The simple prose and almost Joe Friday like style works for me in the context of what I'm assuming is a kind of military science fantasy.

If you're determined to break the style and expand, then edit your next writing how you see fit. But, this stuff seems to work in context.

In the interest of full disclosure, I only looked over maybe the first six or seven pages. And I could see some things that you might want to improve in subsequent volumes

[VydorScope]

Jaxx... Would love to hear more, PM me your thoughts if you do not mind. Thanks!

[Anke Wehner]

Note that most "no" commenters said that correcting stuff like spelling and grammar is OK, but style changes not - maybe part of the "yes" voters didn't read to the end of your first post, and thus didn't even notice it was about substantive changes?

Or maybe I'm just a bit biased because I think it's a bad idea.

I was put off posting a review for one novel I'd read, because the author (just a few weeks or months after first publishing the book) did a revised edition. I did not read that one, but I saw that they had added a prologue that had not been in the book I read. The revised edition is a different book from the one I read, so my review might not apply to it.

I'd think fixing mistakes like spelling, grammar, eyes changing colour, or other things where usually you only have to change a word or a few in a sentence, are OK. Or rewriting a sentence here and there because it came out wrong and says something you did not mean to say.

Fixing big plotholes or adding subplots or a complete rewrite to change the style... Well, maybe if the book is over a decade old and you really want to revisit it. Stephen King did that with <i>The Stand</i>, and Terry Pratchett with his first novel, <i>The Carpet People</i> (with 20 more years of practise). But a book that's a few months old? I'd be for moving on.

(Since someone mentioned serialised fiction: I think it would be different there. A serial posted on a blog and a collected-and-edited ebook would be two different editions. I'd hope the editing would include stuffing plotholes.)

[avantman42]

I'd say that correcting factual errors is absolutely fine, and should definitely be done. So typos and grammar are good candidates for editing.

On the other hand, anything subjective (plot, style, etc) should be left alone. Some people will like it, some won't. By all means take on any constructive criticism and use it to improve future works, but don't mess with the story that you've already sold people.

[Stephen_Melling]

If you feel it needs another edit, then I'd say go for it. But only for grammar etc., and maybe to tweak style here and there. But anything further and you'd be rewriting. Anyway, mine's a yes.

[anamardoll]

In general, my thoughts would be:

1. Edits should be clearly communicated to the reader somehow, as with a "version" number. Many sites don't support that -- perhaps a page at the back to clarify (a) what version the file is in and (b) the version history info? Add an email address -- if someone doesn't like an edit and wants their older version back, you have an opportunity to work with them.

2. Every book could be tweaked for eternity, and as an author, you MUST stop, draw a line under your work, and move on to the next one. On the other hand, I just read an indie book yesterday that had great potential, but I felt failed on the execution. Since the point of that novella was to drum up publicity for the "real" series for sale, the bad writing could hurt the author in the long run. So I think there's room for a cost/benefit analysis: Is the book selling well and getting good reviews? If yes, leave it alone. Or are you getting, "Eh, could be better written" reviews? In that case, IF the book in question is meant as a "gateway" book to a bigger series, you might edit it a bit. If it's a standalone, there may be less potential pay-off.

Hmm. I had more thoughts, but they evaporated while I was pontificating.

[John Carroll]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since this thread first began. The key seems to be: edit for quality, not content.

At some point, I intend to go over some of my earlier short stories and do edits for quality. I've learned so much with each book written and my craft is becoming more refined.

I don't intend to go back over my first novels though. I could improve the quality in various ways, but as others have mentioned, the reader wouldn't be able to see the growth and transition of the writer's art.

The other thing is that going forward is much more vital than going back. One could spend the rest of eternity going back to fine tune what was done before, but going forward and creating new things is healthier and more productive.

[richrock]

I'll revise, but only once. I won't change any storyline, just minor word changes that don't affect the outcome, but make it easier to read.