Pulp Fiction discussion
Writer's/Blogger Corner
>
Are Self Published Books Inherently Inferior?
date
newest »
newest »
I have 40 years of experience as a reporter, both for newspapers and for national magazines. I have also self-published three novels and a short story antho and am currently looking for a small indie press for my fiction. I believe that anything -- and I do mean ANYTHING -- can be made better by a good editor. (Hell, even Facebook posts would benefit from having others check them for spelling, grammar, factual accuracy and so forth). I also agree with the statement above that writers see what they thought they wrote, not necessary what they actually did write. Having said all that, however, I have seen novels and non-fiction books published through the big five that make it clear they had received little or no editing prior to publication. Perhaps not as many errors per page as self-published writers, but enough to be noticeable to a nit-picker like me.
I would say errors creep into self-published copy because the person who wrote it is sloppy or in a hurry to get his or her book, article or story in front of readers. As for the "legacy" press, they do a slovenly job of editing because the company is more interested in profits than quality. With the concentration of the industry in a handful of heavily conglomerated companies, it seems likely to me that this trend will not only continue, but will worsen. Hopefully the burgeoning small press movement that has grown up around e-books will help to correct this tendency...
William wrote: "...I have seen novels and non-fiction books published through the big five that make it clear they had received little or no editing prior to publication. .."I agree. It's very disappointing.
David wrote: "James, as a traditional editor, you have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the ideas that even pros need another set of editorial eyes. The ebook revolution is upon us. I respectfully submit that not only can a writer learn editing skills (as Twain did; somethings do not change, and one is the potential of the human mind), but that beta readers and even readers of books today can offer authoritative advice for the writer. I care a lot more about what most readers think of my books than I would about an editor who's getting paid to offer advise."ideas>idea
ebook>e-book
somethings>some things
about>from
advise>advice
Yes, I know this is just a post in a discussion forum, but it's a bit ironical to read so many errors (and the awkward phrasing of 'that beta readers and even readers of books today') in a post by someone who eschews the use of editors.
William wrote: "Having said all that, however, I have seen novels and non-fiction books published through the big five that make it clear they had received little or no editing prior to publication. Perhaps not as many errors per page as self-published writers, but enough to be noticeable to a nit-picker like me."That's also one of the reasons why I don't understand that so many authors see publication by a trade publisher as their highest goal: you relinquish all control, and for what? Sloppy editing, virtually no marketing/promotion, your book stuffed on a shelf in a bookseller who will return it after three months, restrictions that won't allow you to self-publish stories with the characters you created, et cetera... And in return you get the lowest percentage of the profits while you delivered the most important part, i.e. the content.
Oh, yes, you get 'validation'. Someone will put up money to publish your book. So, that means what? That your book is quality? Nah. It just means someone thinks that your book might have commercial mass appeal.
Martyn, you make a good point about the value of traditional publishers. They aren't adding the value they should be. One of the big advantages that I thought they brought to the table was an editing team. Obviously, they don't always. I quit reading the Dresden series because the 6th book was so poorly edited. (Harry's staff was in 2 places, his manual shift car could be put into drive, & such.) Of course, that's not new. The Ace reprints of the 90's were awful, too.I have the impression that a good editing team is even more difficult for most self-published authors to find, afford, & trust. I've read a couple of books that new authors paid a fair amount of money (about $500) for a single editor & the job was very poorly done. I'm not sure what all the editorial roles are or how they're typically portioned out, but I noticed spelling & punctuation errors plus problems with structure & consistency.
Anyway, I wonder if the lack of solid editorial options isn't one of the things holding self-published writing back. If there was a 'seal of approval' or some sort of validation of basic quality, it would give me more confidence that the book would be worth purchasing. Right now, I usually only read cheap to free self-published books because half of them are too poorly edited. It's only the price point that makes them worth taking a chance on. That becomes a problem when an established author like Eisler or Konrath self-publishes for $2 or $3, though. That makes it tough to justify $1 or $2 on an unknown.
Jim wrote: "Anyway, I wonder if the lack of solid editorial options isn't one of the things holding self-published writing back. If there was a 'seal of approval' or some sort of validation of basic quality, it would give me more confidence that the book would be worth purchasing."You and me both, Jim, but even the ones that start out honest seem to become corrupted (Awesome Indies?). I joined The Source, where we try to find well-crafted books and weed out the professionally offensive ones, but even so there's difficulty reaching consensus on what's acceptable.
Jim wrote: "Right now, I usually only read cheap to free self-published books because half of them are too poorly edited. It's only the price point that makes them worth taking a chance on. That becomes a problem when an established author like Eisler or Konrath self-publishes for $2 or $3, though. That makes it tough to justify $1 or $2 on an unknown."
I think that, as an author, it's a good principle to have loss-leaders and/or provide review copies of books. I rarely burn myself buying crap, because I always read the full sample of a book before I buy it. I've heard there are authors who only polish the sample and disregard the rest of the book, but most authors I know want to gain an audience. I don't just want people to read my first book, I want them to read the whole series. And that won't happen if I cheat them in the first book.
My first few sure were, and after a strong start it set me back months.
I don't understand, Greg. Your first few were what? What set you back?
I keep clicking reply to William and it throws James' text up. Ah, well. Perhaps GR needs a "good editor"? Now, I don't use three drafts and a final revision for any of my posts here. Advice turned into a British Advise, and the like on my last post. Okay, William, with respect to your 40 years experience in journalism, I offer 50 years experience in writing and teaching writing. But experience aside, I have to agree with you when you say "good editor," because "good" makes all the difference. I don't see editing as mainly finding typos, words left out, missing quotation marks (one of my failings) and the like. Beyond mechanical aspects very few editors today can offer the sort of help that makes a MS significantly better, and in a search for such an editor an Indie can blow a pile of cash. When I went to writing fiction for submission a couple of persons who claimed the editor hat scammed me, in effect, so I'm somewhat biased. I've heard many such horror stories.
My point is, a writer doesn't have to be "snowblind" by what he's written, if he knows how to go about using multiple passes for specific elements to edit/revise. Agreed, some writers have the creative talents but lack analytical skills. Such a writer, if given the will and the time, can learn what sorts of things editors are good at; given enough time in the drawer to "age" a MS while working on another, for example, can "see" beyond such blindness and read the MS with fresh eyes. Twain spent 9 years writing Huck Finn, his masterpiece, and years writing others. Save for his wife Livy, he never used a professional editor -- that is, he never paid anyone to edit or revise his work. He did have Wm. Dean Howells who read a few and offered suggestions (beta reader) and a few publishers who offered suggestions (usually rejected), but from 1867 until his death in 1910 he never paid for editing. Now I'm no Twain, but have worked hard to learn editing skills and believe I can "see" my own work clear enough to present it as intended. Is it without flaw on every page? As a published Twain scholar, I leave you with this quote: "Perfect grammar -- persistent, continuous, sustained -- is the fourth dimension, so to speak; many have sought it, but none has found it." - Autobiography 1925 by Wells.
David wrote: "Advice turned into a British Advise, and the like on my last post."I'm confused about what you're saying here. The word "advice" (as in, to offer advice to someone), is spelled the same in British English and American English.
Or "spelt the same," if you prefer. :-)
Anyway, I agree with you that a good editor is very difficult to find. But "I don't need an editor" seems to me like a very different statement from "I can't find an editor who will truly help me improve the plotting of my book."
David, you make a good case for self-editing yourself. In my experience as a reader, you are the exception, not the rule.I agree with you that many editors aren't very good. Is it possible that the functions of a good editor can be replaced by an author that isn't in a rush & has a good team of beta & ARC readers? That seems reasonable to me & would be easier on the purse.
There are plenty of traditionally published books that are poor in quality as well. The quality of a self-published book says a lot about the author in general. If you don't go through the editing process, the quality will generally not be good. I have read books by so-called estimates on self-publishing and there are two camps with regard to the quality standards that self-published books should adhere to. The first, with which I don't agree, is to throw your book online and then correct it as mistakes come to your attention. Platforms like Amazon allow you to do this. I compare this approach to throwing a bucket of paint at the wall and then using a small brush to touch up what you missed.
My first novel, of which I am very proud, was carefully edited by a friend of mine. Since publishing it back in April, I came across two minor errors in it that the average reader probably would not have noticed. I fixed these errors, however, and uploaded the book. Books are like milestones in your life. Your first book may not be as good as your last, but you should always approach it as if it will be. If Harper Lee had skimped on her first book, To Kill a Mockingbird might not have achieved its place in literature the way that it has.
I am going to continue to strive for high quality. My second novel will be released in October. I am going through the same painstaking editing process that I did for the first. I will continue to do so with all of my books.
There's a difference between 'I don't need an editor, I'm perfect at self-editing' and 'I don't need to pay for an editor, I use beta-readers'.Plus, there are many different types of editors, all with a specific specialty.
I have a big group of beta-readers who enjoy participating in improving my writing. Two of them are editors, one is a proofreader, the others are all specialists in different fields. One is a magistrate, another a senior lecturer at a prestigious institution.
I'm profoundly grateful for their help, because they all bring their feedback and through their many eyes I can see my work in other ways and make sure the work conforms to my vision while simultaneously conveys the story without the risk of misinterpretation.
The most important part for me is that my work has reached the highest standard I can attain before it's published, so I don't have to treat my readers like beta readers. And I think my efforts are appreciated, judging by the favorable reviews I've received so far.
David wrote: "James, as a traditional editor, you have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the ideas that even pros need another set of editorial eyes. The ebook revolution is upon us. I respectfully sub..."Your choice David. If you don't mind glaring errors in your books, in some instances on the first page, then I'm happy for you. Would you like me to tell you which books have errors in the "Look inside" sample? A hint - look to your common pronouns. Another hint - buy a book on punctuation. The Elements of Style is always a good starting point. A final hint, ignoring editing issues, get yourself a competent proofreader.
As for your rather insulting insinuation, as I do not edit indie writers or self published eBooks, I have no "financial interest" vested or otherwise.
David wrote: "I keep clicking reply to William and it throws James' text up. Ah, well. Perhaps GR needs a "good editor"? Now, I don't use three drafts and a final revision for any of my posts here. Advice turned..."I love when someone says they've spent 50 years doing something. That does not necessarily mean that you've done it well. It is beneficial in all types of detailed work to have a second set of eyes look at it. Your mind knows what it meant to write and may skip over errors that are obvious to those of us who are not Twain scholars.
Finally, I'm a musician as well as a writer. When I was in music school, I new plenty of brilliant technicians had fast fingering and could read music flawlessly. Did that make them good musicians? No. You have to have talent as well as an ability to understand the rules.
Credentials and years of doing something mean nothing if you do not have talent.
Don wrote: "Credentials and years of doing something mean nothing if you do not have talent."There are some who say you have to put in 10,000 hours to learn a profession...
I've studied Namikoshi shiatsu and I had to perform the basics 500 times before I could progress to the advanced classes. Some of the students would perform the 500 sessions on the same person, but the idea is to learn how to perform basic techniques on different bodies (fat, thin, wide, narrow, long, short, male, female, young, old), so you learn the differences and how to adjust to these differences. So I put out an ad offering 3 free Namikoshi Shiatsu sessions. That's how I got an eclectic bunch of people to practice on.
Don wrote: "...The first, with which I don't agree, is to throw your book online and then correct it as mistakes come to your attention. ..."I don't understand this at all. Generally if I dislike one book by an author, I'm not interested in reading a second. I'm sure as hell not re-reading a book because it's been corrected. Well, maybe if the author is willing to pay me, but that's never happened. I'm a customer paying for entertainment.
My TBR pile is huge & growing all the time. I read about 150 books a year & have been for over 40 years. Millions of books have been published in that time. I read a lot, but comparatively it's a statistically insignificant amount. My choices are so wide that an author best grab me immediately or I'm off to read one that does.
I've tried a few books that were self published. Wasn't impressed. Had the same effect from published authors as well.I guess I've got the mindset that if your story and skills were -that- good, you wouldn't need to self publish.
David wrote: "I keep clicking reply to William and it throws James' text up. Ah, well. Perhaps GR needs a "good editor"? Now, I don't use three drafts and a final revision for any of my posts here. Advice turned..."Using Sam Clemens or anyone from his era as an example is disingenuous. In those days English was taught correctly. Grammar usage, form, and sentence structure were all a part of an everyday high school curriculum. Anyone with a high school education could write well. Read ANY of the popular novels from his era and find the same standard - they knew what they were doing. Read in French, German or Italian also - they all were properly trained in grammar and structure.
Show a modern - with our current very low language standard - writer who didn't need an editor and you might have an argument.
Matthew wrote: "I guess I've got the mindset that if your story and skills were -that- good, you wouldn't need to self publish."That's a common mindset, Matthew, but it's a misconception that authors turn to self-publishing because they couldn't interest a publisher in their work.
I know several mid-list authors who became self-publishers after their publishers didn't renew their contracts because they sold less than 10,000 books per year. Or authors, like me, who didn't like the boilerplate contracts and dismal royalties offered by trade publishers and decided to become author/publishers. Personally, I rejected three publishing contracts for being too restrictive (non-compete clauses, et cetera).
The main thing offered by publishers nowadays is 'validation'. And I got the validation, because they wouldn't have offered contracts if my work hadn't been up to par.
I admit that there are many self-published authors who couldn't get a publisher interested in their work, but not everyone self-publishes for the same reasons.
Carrying on from that train of thought there are many traditional publishers that simply look at the sales figures of self-published authors and offer them a deal if it makes good business sense for the publisher or agent to do it. The self-published author has sold ten maybe fifty thousand books, has a solid fan base, maybe sold a couple of movie options, runs blogs, has hosted literary events. All by himself. Mainstream publishing has, in this sense, become a less risky business. Pick the fruit once it is flourishing. Publishing has always been risky. Why pick up a new, ripe writer with no idea of how to promote him or herself when you can pick up a writer who has a solid career already self-made. The interesting part of this is when the self-pubbed writer turns around and says, which some do. "No, thanks. I'm doing okay without being on the shelves of the airport bookstore."
James wrote: "Carrying on from that train of thought there are many traditional publishers that simply look at the sales figures of self-published authors and offer them a deal if it makes good business sense fo..."Exactly.
Most of the time, the contracts offered to those SPAs are tailored and not boilerplate anymore. My main gripe was that I didn't have the clout to change the boilerplate contracts and didn't want to sell my soul for validation.
Barry Eisler rejected a publishing contract with a 200,000 dollar advance. Presumably because he didn't like the contract. And because self-publishing is a viable option for him, as he has the fanbase already. He has since signed on with Thomas & Mercer, I believe, because the contract was fair and didn't contain hidden clauses.
Many authors are so eager for validation they only realise the mess they're in after they signed the contract.
Martyn V. (aka Baron Sang Froid) wrote: "...Barry Eisler rejected a publishing contract with a 200,000 dollar advance. Presumably because he didn't like the contract...."J.A. Konrath did an 'interview' (more of a bull session) with Barry Eisler several years ago in the former's blog when he decided this.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/02...
While agreeing comprehensive editing is important in regards to presenting a quality product, there are other factors to consider.Like many readers, I utilize the major online distributor of books. The 'read sample pages' feature generally gives a clear indicator if the story is decently edited.
As a self-published author who also reads many traditionally published books, I have seen gaps in regards to quality to past self-pub efforts, but the gulf is narrowing.
I'm an avid thriller/suspense reader and have noticed a trend in the genre with many long-time authors. Their editing has, in many cases, appeared to be less taut, like the suggested edits have been overridden as ego blossoms. Many have repeat characters who've become cookie cutter products.
Where self publishing has improved is the offering of fresh, new ideas for stories and characters. They appear less designed with a demographic target or staid characters in mind.
Both approaches have their merits and pitfalls, but I believe self-publishing in general is improving as traditional published quality is degenerating.
I look forward to the evolution as it breathes new life into literary entertainment.
Pulp Fiction
Authors mentioned in this topic
J.A. Konrath (other topics)Barry Eisler (other topics)
Donald Hamilton (other topics)
Lee Child (other topics)
Roger Zelazny (other topics)
There are also different types of editors. Catching mistakes in grammar & punctuation is one sort that I'd be happy to have help with. It's even more important for authors to have someone trim their words though. It's not uncommon for them to fall in love with a phrase & overuse it. It's worse when they write something very good then edit the story around it until it really doesn't fit well any more. No, I think authors that believe they don't need an editor are fooling themselves. A good, professional editor adds a lot of polish & takes a lot of burden off the author.
ARC & beta readers with a diverse set of skills & knowledge are also a good idea. A novel can be OK without them, but a really good one usually has a lot of depth in many areas - more than most people can have knowledge in. When an author doesn't know much (worse, when they think they do) about a subject & still tries to write about it, the results are awful. For example, compare how Donald Hamilton & Lee Child write about guns, especially shotguns. It's very easy to tell the difference even if you don't know much about the subject yourself. It doesn't matter how many editors Child gets, it's just polishing a turd. If he had & listened to a beta reader who knew something about guns, it would improve his books a LOT.