Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
When to revise your book?
Becky wrote: "I really, really hope not. This conversation alone has made me contemplate not reading independent and self-published authors, if the mindset is "revise at will""I hope not, either. But technology does have a tendency to change things.
I think it's more "revise when there's a typo". The rest should already be set before it's released. Otherwise it's just a rough draft, IMO, as was pointed out above.
Scott wrote: "I think it's more "revise when there's a typo". The rest should already be set before it's released. Otherwise it's just a rough draft, IMO, as was pointed out above."I just feel like it's dishonest, and damage control at best. You may want to prevent other readers from having to see the typo, or it may just really bug the shit out of you once you see it yourself, I don't know. Regardless of your motive, it's a fix to make your work look better than it was in its original form, and it's a misrepresentation of the book you actually published. It doesn't benefit the reader, and in fact may even do them a disservice.
That just bothers me... but I'm sure I've made that pretty clear. *shrug*
Becky wrote: "This conversation alone has made me contemplate not reading independent and self-published authors, if the mindset is "revise at will". Authors get the chance to tell their story during the writing process, and then they put it out there for the world to see. If it's not what they hoped it would be, then either they learn and do better the next time, or maybe writing isn't their calling."Hmmm. On another discussion topic, people are discussing which Stephen King book of The Stand is better -- cut or uncut.
So maybe writing isn't his calling? :)
Randy wrote: "Becky wrote: "This conversation alone has made me contemplate not reading independent and self-published authors, if the mindset is "revise at will". Authors get the chance to tell their story during the writing process, and then they put it out there for the world to see. If it's not what they hoped it would be, then either they learn and do better the next time, or maybe writing isn't their calling."Hmmm. On another discussion topic, people are discussing which Stephen King book of The Stand is better -- cut or uncut.
So maybe writing isn't his calling? :) "
Randy, I know about that discussion, I'm a mod there. ;)
I've actually already mentioned The Stand here, and The Gunslinger too, if you're headed there next ;), and how I feel like those situations are different than revising to fix writing issues. MrsJ put it perfectly - it's like a Director's Cut. King originally wrote The Stand with all of the stuff that the publisher made him cut, and then released it over a decade later as the unedited edition. I see them as separate books, not a "fixed" version of the same book.
That wasn't a situation where the book's editing was shoddy and he went back to fix it. Completely different.
Also, if you read through my comments, it's clear that I don't think adding content to a story as a re-release is necessarily always bad. I just think it's not the best idea to fix writing issues and republish. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It seems disingenuous to me.
{Edit to add}: Coming back to Stephen King, it's inaccurate to say (even sarcastically to try to make a point) that writing isn't his thing. He shelved or trashed perfectly good books that he didn't think were ready. Just a few examples off the top of my head:
Carrie: He trashed it and his wife found and read the MS and told him to keep with it.
Pet Sematary: He shelved it for a few years because he thought it was too dark to publish
Under The Dome: Originally conceived of it as The Cannibals, he couldn't make it work for years, and so he sat on it until he got it right.
He learned, and that's why he is as successful as he is.
I agree totally, Becks. Plus, you can STILL buy the cut version of The Stand...if you should so choose.
A book will NEVER become like software. Because then you will never know who read what when. That type of confusion will be not tolerated by the reading public.
ANd speaking of software updates. I hate them quite a bit. I hardly ever update my software. I don't update my iPhone or any of my apps. And I don't until the app/phone stops working. I currently have 1 iOS update and 17 app updates pending. And they shall continue to pend. I hate that shit. Customers hate that shit. Just because you CAN doesn't follow that you SHOULD.
I hate plugging my phone into iTunes now. SO many updates have turned iTunes into a bloated joke and I will stop reading ebooks if they turn into a constantly changing joke.
Just the idea of it makes me want to stop reading ebooks. How can people have book conversations???! We would all read different things. How will any new book ever make it into academia?? You can't teach a constantly changing, living document. I think I'm getting a headache.
MrsJoseph wrote: "I agree totally, Becks. Plus, you can STILL buy the cut version of The Stand...if you should so choose."
As I have. I plan on reading it soon, actually. :)
Ugh, and I agree completely regarding iOS updates. I just did the latest one and I had to delete a LOT of apps just to make room for it. And I can't even tell the difference, except for the loss of my apps. *sigh*
Becky wrote: "Ugh, and I agree completely regarding iOS updates. I just did the latest one and I had to delete a LOT of apps just to make room for it. And I can't even tell the difference, except for the loss of my apps. *sigh* "Dang. It's that big?? I'm glad I didn't d/l it.
MrsJoseph wrote: "You can't teach a constantly changing, living document."You're joking, right? How many versions of the Bible are there? :)
The meanings of things written in the Torah, the Bible, or the Constitution (which has amendments), are constantly evolving. They are living documents, if only because of how people interpret them and rewrite them.
Didn't they just recently issue a major update to some type of Physicians Handbook, which reclassified several psychological disorders?
How about the textbooks they use in schools? Many have little resemblance to those that were used when I was a kid. I recently helped a home-schooled kid with some of their math homework. I had to translate everything back into what I was taught.
MrsJ is likely referring to literature, specifically. Of course the kinds of books and documents that you're talking about are going to change - that's their nature because they change as society and the extent of our knowledge does. The same isn't true of literature.
MrsJoseph wrote: "ANd speaking of software updates. I hate them quite a bit. I hardly ever update my software. I don't update my iPhone or any of my apps. And I don't until the app/phone stops working. I currently have 1 iOS update and 17 app updates pending. And they shall continue to pend. I hate that shit. Customers hate that shit. Just because you CAN doesn't follow that you SHOULD."Ha, ha. You sound like my wife! She feels the same way. I, on the other hand, update immediately! I love dealing with the repercussions. :-)
Becky wrote: "The same isn't true of literature."How many movie versions of The Odyssey are there?
Even O Brother Where art Thou? is based on it.
All attempts to "modernize" it.
How about the classic A Christmas Carol? I'll bet very few people have actually read the original book. But everyone knows the basic story.
Same for almost any of Shakespeare's works... :)
One of my favorite jokes, which is related:
A new monk arrived at the monastery. He was assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He noticed, however, that they were copying copies, not the original books. The new monk went to the head monk to ask him about this. He pointed out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.
The head monk said, 'We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.' The head monk went down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.
Hours later, nobody had seen him, so one of the monks went downstairs to look for him. He heard a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and found the old monk leaning over one of the original books, crying.
He asked what was wrong.
'The word is 'celebrate,' not 'celibate'!' sobbed the head monk.
Has everyone seen "Medieval Help Desk"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=...
But they do reflect the NEED for change...
Randy wrote: "But they do reflect the NEED for change..."If you say so. What's the reason behind all of the other remakes of modern stories then? I'm going to go with: It's already proven to be successful and can be capitalized on again and again, lack of new ideas, and laziness.
But even if it does reflect a "need for change" (which I disagree with) - that's still not the same thing as what we're discussing here.
Not sure where you're going with this.
Randy. *sigh*Firstly, in discussing the Bible...each "change" is not a revision. The "change" is in how the language is presented to the reader. AND STILL - the Bible is available in almost all of the PREVIOUS languages as well. And YES, I do know some people who have read the Bible in original languages.
And Jeeze...are you really bringing up MEDICAL texts?? Seriously? Derail much? I would hope that medical texts would be updated upon new inventions in medicine.
Are you then telling us that there has been a new invention in the language that you write in? Cause I haven't seen it.
And everything else you mentioned - as Becks pointed out - is an adaption of another person's work. So...what you are really telling me is that anything currently being released in not in any way as good as the previous books. Otherwise...why would people continue to go back to the classics?
But I don't think it shows a need for change at all. It shows the lack of imagination of those who are putting out content. But, this is a derailing comment as well. Because it does not address the OP which is "How many times should I revise MY BOOK." And the answer to that has not been addressed at all in your comments.
Becky wrote: "MrsJ is likely referring to literature, specifically. Of course the kinds of books and documents that you're talking about are going to change - that's their nature because they change as society a..."Thank you, Becks.
I think y'all miss the point here. It may be in the nature of these types of documents to change - and change they should - but *how frequently* do they change?Yes, the Bible is around in several variations . . . but each variation is NOT updated daily - or even weekly - I doubt they are even updated yearly. Nor were the revised that frequently. When your book has been around for hundreds of years, THEN lets talk about how many revisions have been done.
And, sure as tooting, these works have *not* been revised because of a mere typo - though, a discovered typo is probably corrected when another, actually *important* change is made.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Are you then telling us that there has been a new invention in the language that you write in? Cause I haven't seen it."Then why the recent controversy on Huckleberry Finn? Better to lose a classic, or revise it?
MrsJoseph wrote: "it does not address the OP which is "How many times should I revise MY BOOK." And the answer to that has not been addressed at all in your comments."
I don't think future readers should have to suffer through typos and bad grammar if they can be easily fixed. The question is how many make it necessary to update.
I have a lot of books I've gotten from Amazon that I haven't read yet. I'd rather download updates of them than find the same old errors previous readers have found.
But it does bring up the issue of "version numbers".
I had one zombie book I reviewed where I complained that the word zombie was never used in the story, despite the fact that the characters in the story discuss the undead nature of vampires. Totally in disconnect with today's mainstream recognition of zombies.
I received a note from the author that she had added the word zombie in a number of places, and added a scene in the book where the characters talk about a zombie movie.
About a week later, my review got a comment about often the word zombie was used in the book. :)
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2D1N6X7...
Randy wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Are you then telling us that there has been a new invention in the language that you write in? Cause I haven't seen it."Then why the recent controversy on Huckleberry Finn? Bett..."
You're asking the wrong person. I feel that the change to Huck Finn is as close to blasphemy as you can get outside of religion/spirituality. I am disgusted by it and feel that it has fundamentally changed the work.
Randy wrote: "I had one zombie book I reviewed where I complained that the word zombie was never used in the story, despite the fact that the characters in the story discuss the undead nature of vampires. Totally in disconnect with today's mainstream recognition of zombies.I received a note from the author that she had added the word zombie in a number of places, and added a scene in the book where the characters talk about a zombie movie.
About a week later, my review got a comment about often the word zombie was used in the book. :)
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2D1N6X7... "
Thanks Randy, you've just given a perfect example of what I mentioned in post 45 as a consequence of revisions. Your review now looks inaccurate and untrustworthy, or at the very least overcritical, because newer readers are reading a different text than you did.
And I agree that changing Huck Finn is ridiculous and wrong.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Randy wrote: "You're asking the wrong person. I feel that the change to Huck Finn is as close to blasphemy as you can get outside of religion/spirituality. I am disgusted by it and feel that it has fundamentally changed the work. "Agreed. That was a case of a change completely undercutting the book thematically. Censoring out the racism in a book where the portraying injustice of racism is a major point is completely asinine.
Becky wrote: "...because newer readers are reading a different text than you did."Which is why my reply to her was, "You're welcome." :)
Becky wrote: "Thanks Randy, you've just given a perfect example of what I mentioned in post 45 as a consequence of revisions. Your review now looks inaccurate and untrustworthy, or at the very least overcritical, because newer readers are reading a different text than you did."Yep, I saw that. If I were you...I would have been pissed.
This reminds me of a book I read last year. The book was a total rape fest and was written that way on purpose. But the author did not note that in the blurb,on the book sales page or give any warnings in the book.
When I write a very upset and angry review the author showed up to my review. Showed her ass. Called me a liar and claimed the book had warnings and so did the books sales page.
Then she ran as fast as her feet could carry her to Amazon to do some updating. Luckily, several people also saw what I saw (or rather didn't see) and they also called her on her bullshit.
So yeah. I hate that shit. I'm glad she updated with the warning for others. But what I didn't like is that she can call me a liar, make a few changes and suddenly I really look like a liar.
Randy wrote: "Becky wrote: "...because newer readers are reading a different text than you did."Which is why my reply to her was, "You're welcome." :)"
You could only reply that way because the author advised you of the changes she'd made. If she hadn't, it's nothing more than a case of he said/she said.
But either way, what it resulted in is you unnecessarily having to defend your perfectly legitimate and accurate review of the book you read against arguments based on newly minted text.
I just don't really see why anyone would ever want that kind of hassle.
I remember that, MrsJ. Ridiculous on so many levels.
Becky wrote: "But either way, what it resulted in is you unnecessarily having to defend your perfectly legitimate and accurate review of the book you read against arguments based on newly minted text.I just don't really see why anyone would ever want that kind of hassle. "
*nods*
I don't think a review should be updated when a book is updated. In fact, there is a problem there that most people overlook. The finished book shouldn't be updated at all, but why the authors do it? Because of the poor quality, of course. And here is the kernel: Most self-pub authors or even authors with small publishers don't revise enough.Speaking as a writer: one of my short stories was recently accepted for publication by a magazine. It was revision #9.
On the other hand, I was on a writers' forum a few days ago, and one writer wrote: "I'm typing as fast as I can. The novel will be ready in a week."
She is TYPING!!! What about revisions? What about the editing process? I was appalled by her words, but that's the prevailing attitude in the indie world. Hence - updates. They can do it, so they do it. Terrible practice!
Randy, wonderful joke about the monk! LOL
Olga wrote: "On the other hand, I was on a writers' forum a few days ago, and one writer wrote: "I'm typing as fast as I can. The novel will be ready in a week."She is TYPING!!! What about revisions? What about the editing process? I was appalled by her words, but that's the prevailing attitude in the indie world."
I don't know if it's fair to say it's the prevailing attitude among indie authors. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I like to think that people care about professionalism. But then everyone does seem to have their own horror story of an author reacting to reviews with updates, then trying to get the review updated as well.
But I will agree that people publishing drafts is a problem. Fortunately, sample chapters make it easy to weed those out.
EDIT: Originally said "posting drafts," which is the mode of thought that leads to this problem in the first place.
You're right, Steve. That's what people do: they are 'posting'. It's so easy now, that many keep forgetting that a written product should be just as good, if not better, than any other. A jeweler wouldn't 'post' his first draft - nobody would buy it. He would work with a pair of earrings or a necklace as long as it takes to make them beautiful. So should we, writers.
Olga wrote: "Olga Godim (olgagodim) | 189 comments I don't think a review should be updated when a book is updated. In fact, there is a problem there that most people overlook. The finished book shouldn't be updated at all, but why the authors do it? Because of the poor quality, of course. And here is the kernel: Most self-pub authors or even authors with small publishers don't revise enough.Speaking as a writer: one of my short stories was recently accepted for publication by a magazine. It was revision #9.
On the other hand, I was on a writers' forum a few days ago, and one writer wrote: "I'm typing as fast as I can. The novel will be ready in a week."
She is TYPING!!! What about revisions? What about the editing process? I was appalled by her words, but that's the prevailing attitude in the indie world. Hence - updates. They can do it, so they do it. Terrible practice! "
QFT!
I totally agree! I am dismayed that the freedom of Self-Publishing has turned ebooks into posts. *shudder*
I can't imagine turning in a draft. O_o Who does that crap?? And WHY. Just...why?
Red wrote: "When I buy a book I expect to get a finished product, read it once (unless I reread later for my own amusement, but NOT because it's been 'updated'), and then write a review that stands as valid for that edition of the work. Of course some works later receive different translations or an Author's Preferred Edition (like The Stand and American Gods) with substantial additions, but here's the thing: Not only do those add a whole new perspective on the work rather than changing a few typos, they are issued as new books with new ISBNs, and typically new cover art, a foreward explaining the changes, etc. They are not slyly snuck in to the same ebook so that readers who believe they have read the same material are confused as hell when they try to talk to each other about it."Agreed.
For me, if an author is aware of typos and such in their eBook, it's disrespectful for them NOT to change the book for future readers. I don't need them to "stand by" something that is knowingly flawed, especially when it can be fixed so easily. That just tells me the author doesn't care about their readers.But I will agree that more work should be done to ensure that such situations don't occur in the first place. That lack of work on the front end is even more disrespectful to potential readers.
Randy wrote: "For me, if an author is aware of typos and such in their eBook, it's disrespectful for them NOT to change the book for future readers. I don't need them to "stand by" something that is knowingly fl..."Dude, constantly revising your work shows you not only disrespect your readers...you also disrespect your work. You may not feel that way...but you also have a different view of what a book is than I do.
Try putting out new EDITIONS. With new ISBN numbers and a clear list of updates. Since you want to treat a book like software...most software updates I've seen tell me what's in it. Like "bug fixes." So...you should then add a list of the changes. It can be a list a mile long of:
Typo fixed - changed "hear" to "here"
plot hole plugged
Typo fixed - changed "line" to "link"
etc
So the readers KNOW what they are getting into. Cause that review you posted where the author threw in the word "Zombie?" That shit would take her ass permanently off my reading list. I would never read her because I know she is an untrustworthy author. In fact, I will never read anything by that author. Ever.
Just the fact you bring up ISBN numbers shows you're living in the old world. Of the nearly 4000 Kindle books I have, I'd say less than 5% have ISBN numbers.I'd be all for change logs and revision numbers though.
When Amazon tells me a Kindle book has an update, I'd like to know what updates there are. It would also hold the authors to a higher bar, if they had to document the issues they needed to fix.
Maybe the reason I treat books like software is that I've been a programmer for nearly 50 years.
I certainly wouldn't go back to a restaurant that sent me out a bad plate of food and refused to fix it because they "stand by" what they initially served.
Hmm. What other product or service would it be acceptable for the provider NOT to fix a problem with their product or service? Auto mechanic? Surgeon? Most products come with warranties, which mean they WILL fix something that is wrong. I'm sure happy when they recall tainted food instead of leaving it out there.
By the way, related to ISBN -- what about eBooks that DON'T match their printed counterpart? Should they be corrected?For example, my mom ran into this last year on an eBook for a well-published author:
"...someone, or sever also me ones, ..."
...which should have been:
"...someone, or several someones, ..."
Both the eBook and the DTB have the same ISBN, yet their content is different. Obviously, they just scanned some print version of the book and ran a spell check on the results. Since that phrase spell-checked properly, it never got fixed.
Should it be fixed?
Randy wrote: "Just the fact you bring up ISBN numbers shows you're living in the old world. Of the nearly 4000 Kindle books I have, I'd say less than 5% have ISBN numbers.I'd be all for change logs and revisio..."
Hold up. Seriously. Did you just say that? I'm so done with you cause you obviously don't know what end is up.
This is going to be short then I'm done.
In case you DIDN'T know...AMAZON IS NOT THE ONLY EBOOK SELLER IN THE WORLD.
So, yeah. Go get a freaking ISBN number. My GOD.
But, thanks for talking me out of reading more SPA fantasy books this year. If your thoughts are the prevailing thoughts of SPAs, I'm done with them all.
I don't READ food. I don't READ software. I don't READ auto mechanic, surgeon, etc. I read BOOKS. And I don't read books that are constantly being changed because that's not a BOOK. It's a freaking blog post that you packaged up, didn't bother to get an ISBN for and apparently only sell at Amazon.
*facepalm*
You know, that is unfair to the SPAs who do take the time and energy to actually do the work necessary not to revise, revise, revise. I personally know and have read several SPAs who have never done the revise game.
But I surely cannot read anymore SPAs without serious vetting. I have a headache and my heart hurts.
MrsJoseph wrote: "In case you DIDN'T know...AMAZON IS NOT THE ONLY EBOOK SELLER IN THE WORLD."Years ago, I started out with FictionWise, which no longer exists. One reason I chose them is they supported multiple eBook formats. Now that my FW library has been moved over to B&N, I no longer have access to Kindle editions of those books.
Amazon is so easy to use, and has far more content than I can keep up with. Why would I go elsewhere?
I've used SmashWords a few times, but found it inconvenient to use.
I got a few from Baen, which is no longer how it used to be. (Argh! They edited their published web site!)
What sources would you recommend?
Amazon's lack of ISBNs for Kindle books isn't "the future", it's just Amazon being arbitrary. Other ebook retailers still use ISBNs because that's the accepted standard. But I digress. Regarding your example:
"...someone, or sever also me ones, ..."
...which should have been:
"...someone, or several someones, ..."
Absolutely that should be corrected, and readers should get the updated edition and an apology.
But AGAIN, that's a different situation than what we're discussing, because that's a formatting issue with ebooks, not the author slyly trying to fix their own mistake.
Red wrote: "Every single person I know in real life reads traditionally published books which have an ISBN number"No doubt from those brick and mortar stores that are dying out, while Amazon's eBook sales climbed 70% last year.
I just checked -- my last purchases from both Border's and Barnes and Noble were in 2000.
No, you're right. I would NEVER describe myself as "high street" on any product or service.
Randy, have you published a book or have you worked in publishing at all? Red, MrsJ, and I are all readers, and we've heard from authors, so I'm just curious about where you fall in the spectrum.
Ah. I interpreted it as "top of the line" or "highest quality."I've never heard the phrase before.
Becky -- just a reader. I don't have enough imagination to be a writer of fiction. Which is why I write software. :)
Even my book reviews are fairly straight-forward, and not much more than whether I liked the book or not.
So the summary of the discussion seems to be:Arguments for revision:
-Even well-edited books may be published with errors
-Ebook revisions are cheap and easy
Arguments against:
-A few tyops aren't a big deal
-Frequent revisions give the appearance that the author is posting drafts
-Some authors make major changes that undermine reviews and discussion
-Readers only know that there was a revision, but not what changed
I can relate to either side, but as this thread goes on, I'm increasingly convinced that my original statement of "All it costs is time," was incorrect. You also seem to be degrading your brand, reputation, and credibility.
IMO, a book should be a finished product before it is released. There are no outside influences that affect a novel after it is written. There are with software. There are those who do not even understand that software interacts with other software and do not understand why Windows updates 5 times a week (Do not get me started on these conversations with my mother . . .) I get it. It annoys me, but I get it.
I *love* ebooks. So very much. I can tote a library around with me. Makes me so happy. And, I read MUCH more having that flexibility. But, like Becky, I totally agree that the authors making changes will cause me to adapt in an unfavorable way.
I stand by my earlier comment that a book should be considered a finished product when it is released. Just like a college paper - once it is turned in, it is too late.