Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
When to revise your book?
I confess, I'm unfamiliar with 'high street.' Interesting.
Randy wrote: "Steve wrote: "You also seem to be degrading your brand, reputation, and credibility."IMO, if errors are noted, and corrections can be made and aren't, the brand, reputation, and credibility are damaged further. Being stubborn and "standing by" a flawed product does nothing for me to help out the brand, reputation, or credibility."
I have to disagree with this completely. An author's chance to put words to paper (or word processor) is pre-publication. That's their chance to get their story right or correct errors. If they don't, and they put out a "flawed product", then that's the book they published.
You don't see artists going back to the museum that displays their work and "fixing" a perceived flaw. That's ridiculous. They work on it until they deem it to be done, or as close to perfect as possible, and then they sell it, or do whatever they do with it.
Revise and republish is a bad habit to get into, in my opinion. It says to me that authors are more concerned with getting their story out into the world than making sure it's one that's well-written and worth reading. It says to me that they are looking at readers as free guinea pigs who not only pay for the book, but will also alert them to errors, which they can then go back in and fix, and avoid having to pay for a professional editor.
Maybe that's not really what the deal is, but it doesn't actually matter, because that's what it seems like to me.
And I think the more the practice is defended, the more I'm leaning toward MrsJ's and Red's decision to avoid reading self-published authors.
I think you might be right, Red. I'm from the midwest and while I tend to pay attention to linguistic expressions, that one was unfamiliar. I suspect the only thing that sounds close (but clearly isn't in meaning) is "take the high road" which usually means "act morally superior/make the ethical choice, etc." Thanks for elaborating :)
Becky wrote: "Revise and republish is a bad habit to get into, in my opinion."I agree 100%.
But if an author pays for a professional editor, and takes their advice, doesn't that mean they don't "stand by" what they wrote? If you accept that process, you've already accepted that a writer's errors should be fixed.
It's just hard to republish DTBs. But there are a number of DTBs with multiple editions. More often with non-fiction, I suspect.
Becky wrote: "You don't see artists going back to the museum that displays their work and "fixing" a perceived flaw. That's ridiculous. They work on it until they deem it to be done, or as close to perfect as possible, and then they sell it, or do whatever they do with it."
Not even Pockets Warhol revises his published art! :)
Artwork such as paintings and sculpture are a lot more subjective than the written word. What is the equivalent of "professional editors" for an artist, so they can revise their work of art before it goes on public display? Would the original sculptor of the Venus de Milo be outraged at the armless statue we call great art, because it wasn't his vision?
They used to say a million monkeys on a million typewriters could reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Eventually. Although I think the Internet has disproved that. And I would hate to be their editor!
Are there any non-human writers with published novels? :)
Red wrote: "Perhaps we only say [high street] over here. I learn something new every day. :) It basically means the part of a town or city where retail outlets are located."According to the Wikipedia entry I read on it, "High Street" is the most common street name in the UK.
Over here in the US, the most common is "2nd Street," only because "1st street" is often renamed to be "Main Street," which is the equivalent of your "High Street."
Randy wrote: "But if an author pays for a professional editor, and takes their advice, doesn't that mean they don't "stand by" what they wrote? If you accept that process, you've already accepted that a writer's errors should be fixed."I never said that an author's errors shouldn't ever be fixed. That again is a ridiculous concept. Just because authors have the ability to come up with a story, it doesn't make them infallible writers. Everyone has different skills. Not every writer is an editor, and not every editor is a writer.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
What I said, and have said repeatedly, is that errors should be fixed ONLY pre-publication. It's too late after the book has been published. It's not a blog post. It's not a newspaper or magazine article. It's a novel, and the chance to perfect it is while it's still being worked on - not after you've said it's finished.
Becky, I agree. Pre-publication only. That's what the big publishers do, and I think they're right.
Anyway, at this point, I think this conversation is getting a bit ridiculous and circular. My opinion is that I don't think that authors should publish a book that they aren't 100% certain is the best book they could write, and that they are willing to accept, flaws and all. Nothing is ever perfect, but I don't agree with revising books post-publication for writing issues.
There's not really anything else to be said (that I haven't said already, anyway). We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.
G'night!
Olga wrote: "Becky, I agree. Pre-publication only. That's what the big publishers do, and I think they're right."Yes, me too.
:)
Have a good night!
Now if we could just convince Amazon (and other eBook publishers) to save the first edition of the eBook for you guys, so you can suffer through those errors that could be easily fixed. :)
Randy wrote: "Now if we could just convince Amazon (and other eBook publishers) to save the first edition of the eBook for you guys, so you can suffer through those errors that could be easily fixed. :)"I see we've descended to trolling.
Well, if you want any author to give the impression that they are NOT a professional and do not take their work seriously, then encourage them to do what you are taking about.
You'll do them the great favor of getting them placed on many DNR lists and help destroy their professional reputation.
The point that Becks, Red, AND all of the professional writers are trying to make is that PERFECTION cannot happen. EVER. Humans don't do perfection. But we do is to try our best to be perfect. Readers know this. I see typos all the time in traditionally published work. And while I may not like it, I accept it because it is not prevalent and I know the people who wrote/edited/published are human.
But, that doesn't change the fact that books are not blog posts. Readers dislike people putting out the same book over and over and over again. It's....trashy and tacky. And it shows a lack of respect for the reader. It gives the impression the author didn't care enough about the book to make sure it was actually corrected before publishing. And since traditionally published authors and self-published authors who enjoy great reader reputations do NOT have this habit...this habit also helps to destroy the reputations of fellow self-published authors.
Dear Author did a great post about this disgusting habit. So, please don't that we (here in FA) are the only people who feel this way.
When I bought your book, I didn’t sign up to be your beta reader
http://dearauthor.com/features/letter...
MrsJoseph wrote: "The point that Becks, Red, AND all of the professional writers are trying to make is that PERFECTION cannot happen. EVER. Humans don't do perfection."Yep.
A related question: what if I found a mistake in my review here, on GR? Should I revise it? Isn't it 'cheating'? I'm not talking about an update upon a second read of the book, just a typo or some such.
While I don't consider my reviews above editing once posted, I do think its a little bit unfair to people who read and 'liked' it if the review changes significantly. I remember a review of Twilight that I really, really, enjoyed, enough to comment on, and later when I followed a comment back, discovered that the review changed somewhat. I felt a little cheated, and honestly didn't understand the changes the reviewer made (it was a very well-done parody).Still, while I don't consider them quite permanent, I make every effort to make sure the review is 'finished' before I share it with my feed. I leave up books on my 'currently reading' until i have a review that i like. Once I feel like I've gone through it enough, I mark as 'read' and let it be published. Still, I may follow a 'like' back much later and re-read, and possibly edit. Usually my editing is small typos or a missing space, and I try not to annoy anyone that follows me by re-sharing it after those edits.
Thanks, Carol. How do you avoid re-sharing? As far as I can tell, it's automatic. It's defined in the profiles of the friends who receive your notifications. Can you control it?
After I edit, at the very bottom of the page before 'save,' I uncheck the 'add to my Update Feed' button. At least, I hope it works! I think the first time a book gets added to the three main shelves, it automatically shows up.
I agree with Carol. That's pretty much what I do, too. I do not change my reviews very much - only typos and only occasionally. Even with that I actually type them in WORD to do a spell and grammar check. I used to have friends proof them first - but that's a little hard on my friends.
I also type them in WORD first and keep the files on my computer. But sometimes spell check fails, and then a week later, I want to consult my file with a review for something else, and suddenly see a mistake. I hate such situations.
Olga wrote: "I also type them in WORD first and keep the files on my computer. But sometimes spell check fails, and then a week later, I want to consult my file with a review for something else, and suddenly se..."True! I find stuff all the time. Especially lately. I've been sick (it feels like forever) and I'm on tons of medication. :-( I've become most scatterbrained and rather forgetful. It's really affecting my writing/reading. Perfect example? It's taken me about 5-10 minutes to write this.
MrsJ, you should take care of yourself first. Your health is way more important than comments on GR. Send us all to Timbactu, relax and heal.
Steve wrote: "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. "
These are my takeaways as well. I've been continuing to follow along, so it's been helpful to read people's opinions. Thanks for the discussion, everyone.
I agree with Scott, this discussion has been helpful. Thanks!
MrsJoseph wrote: http://dearauthor.com/features/letter...
I have to say that after reading that I am floored. Either I missed something earlier on in the discussion or just thought we were speaking hypothetically about authors "possibly" altering content. This author clearly lacks any sense of professionalism not to mention conviction.
I may have some typos in my writing which I will fix as needed, but I'm not going to change the content of the story because someone wasn't happy with some part of it or thought it would be better told some other way. I'm my first reader and as long as I'm happy with the content, that's all that matters in that regard. And that's all I have to say about that.
Olga wrote: "MrsJ, you should take care of yourself first. Your health is way more important than comments on GR. Send us all to Timbactu, relax and heal."Thanks. I try. It's just that I've been ill for so long. When the meds start to wear off and I can think - I like to. I want to keep my brain from being rusty.
But, I think I'm getting better! I had a couple of dr's appts this week and they've changed some of my meds out for different stuff and gave me a new one. Hopefully I'll be off all this crap in a week or so. If not, I think I might end up seriously depressed.
Scott wrote: "I have to say that after reading that I am floored. Either I missed something earlier on in the discussion or just thought we were speaking hypothetically about authors "possibly" altering content. This author clearly lacks any sense of professionalism not to mention conviction.I may have some typos in my writing which I will fix as needed, but I'm not going to change the content of the story because someone wasn't happy with some part of it or thought it would be better told some other way. I'm my first reader and as long as I'm happy with the content, that's all that matters in that regard. And that's all I have to say about that."
Sadly, I have to say that I know more than one author who does this (not personally!). Which is why the practice dismays me so much. It wouldn't bother me too much if an author went back and tightened up a few typos only - but so often it seems that the ability to get back into the book tempts the author to do more than fix a typo or two. There is one author who *shudder* does much more than the one referenced in the blog post. This author not only goes back and fixes typos - she also has done major reconstruction AND completely changed the ending of her book - more than once - based off of reader reviews. I was SO horrified. It bothers me so much.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Scott wrote: "There is one author who *shudder* does much more than the one referenced in the blog post. This author not only goes back and fixes typos - she also has done major reconstruction AND completely changed the ending of her book - more than once - based off of reader reviews. I was SO horrified. It bothers me so much. "I really hope those authors are fringe cases. Not even George Lucas makes that sort of changes.
Watch, I'm going to jump onto reddit and find out that in the 3D release of Return of the Jedi, Han Solo dies on Endor and it turns out Luke and Leia weren't actually siblings.
I'm thinking about this more, and two indie authors in my library pop to mind who have made substantial changes post-publication. Nothing so egregious as asking for re-reviews, though. That I know of.There may be more. I only found out about these two because I directly interacted with the authors. One was somewhat forgivable because it was a publishing SNAFU--the author had done the due diligence of proper editing, but uploaded an old file by mistake.
I would never change the ending of my novel post-publication, no matter what the readers think. It's my story, my heroes, and what happens to them is my decision. Beta-readings - possibly, but I'm not even sure about that. If the story isn't already fixed in the writer's mind, if it's still fluid, then it's not ready for publication yet. Not even ready for beta-readers.
I really don't understand changing an ending, or something, based on what some readers said, because I'm sure there are other readers who would've preferred the original ending.I mean, that's how opinions work. Derp.
Any comments on this variation of "publication":http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BJVECP8
The barbarian Knight is a novella that is meant to grow into something bigger. The Kindle format allows writers to edit the content of their books and readers to upload it once done. Thanks to that particular device, the writer intends to continue this story as a free service to the readers, only asking them to show some support via mail or on facebook to give him the incentive to write. Furthermore, the ebook will always be available at the lowest price and will be free of charge the first five Sundays after its release so that people can acquire it free of charge.
I suppose it depends on whether he will be just EXTENDING content, or rewriting previous content as well.
If just extending, I think I'd prefer that to individual 18-page eBooks that each contain a chapter or episode. Although an update or new download of the eBook would wipe out any existing notes, highlights, and bookmarks.
This is a mockery of the writing craft. She makes us all look so pathetic. Yewww! If this writer needs "some support via mail or on facebook to give him the incentive to write" perhaps it would be better if we don't give this support. Then he would stop writing.
^lol, Olga. You might be right. :D
Agreed. 100% agree with Olga and Red. What a joke.
Red wrote: "If the story requires continuation, then don't publish any of it until it's done."I take it you don't think much of the "episodic" eBook series then? Quite few "serials" have arisen on the Kindle market. Some as little as a chapter or two per eBook. Others as large as a novella, but not a complete story.
To tell the truth, I find keeping up with them to be a chore.
But I've also read some 300- or 400-page novels that end with a cliffhanger that leads into the next book.
And I've seen a few "omnibus" eBooks where a "serial" or even something like a trilogy is republished as a separate work.
There have been many serial stories put out, and have been for hundreds of years, from Dumas to King, but what makes THIS scenario annoying and irritating is that the author requires "support via mail or on facebook to give [her] the incentive to write". It's basically begging people to tell her how great she is so she'll keep putting out snippets of story chapters. That is a joke. It's ridiculous.
But hey, thanks for the head's up. Another "author" to avoid.
Randy wrote: "I take it you don't think much of the "episodic" eBook series then? Quite few "serials" have arisen on the Kindle market. Some as little as a chapter or two per eBook. Others as large as a novella, but not a complete story.To tell the truth, I find keeping up with them to be a chore.
But I've also read some 300- or 400-page novels that end with a cliffhanger that leads into the next book.
And I've seen a few "omnibus" eBooks where a "serial" or even something like a trilogy is republished as a separate work. ."
Some people can deal with serials. Most of the readers I know dislike them (except under certain circumstances).
I dislike serials and I refuse to pay for them. When I find out that a book is a serial (after purchase), I refuse to read the rest. I usually also strike that author off of my "read" list. That's a personal preference - I hate serials. I prefer to get the story in one book. Or at least finish the damn thought and do a series. *shudder*
You're not going to like this, then:http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&n...
Personally, I don't have any strong feelings. I don't really see the point, though. I can wait until you're finished writing. The book will probably be better that way anyhow.
We used to see short stories only published in anthologies and in monthly magazines. We also saw serials published is monthly magazines. Even back to the old pulp magazines. For example, Robert E. Howard had 17 Conan the Barbarian stories published in Weird Tales, from 1932 to 1936. And Edgar Rice Burroughs had most of his Tarzan and Barsoom books originally published in the pulps.
I can remember anxiously waiting for the next James H. Schmitz stories in Analog magazine, back in the 70's.
It's just that now they can easily be published independently of those traditional DTB methods.
I read this discussion with great interest. I've finished a manuscript, and am now editing it for submission; but realism has led me to do some research into self-publishing as well. A lot of the information here is disheartening. I've been wondering why so many readers seem to view self-published books as automatically lesser. This discussion has cleared some of my confusion, but it also makes me angry and a little scared. Publishing is cutthroat enough without writers who struggle with craft automatically being classed with those who don't bother with copy or content editing, betas, more copy editing, fourth and fifth and sixth drafts...
You know, the stuff you do when you've written something you care about. When you want to make sure that what others see is work of which you can be proud.
It confuses me that people who care about writing (or reading) would behave this way, and it's disillusioning to see that so many people who write apparently don't care--about either. Any reader would know that revisions are a bad idea (outside of betas and editors), and should be used sparingly if at all, because any reader knows that rereading a book because of changes--rather than because you love it and want to reread it--is a pain. And anyone who cared about writing would know that no craftsman or artist ever puts her name on something that's anything less than the best she can produce at that time in her development.
Which brings me to the idea of book as product. Yes, readers see them that way--mostly. Every reader has books that are far more than that--books that are companions, cherished friends, art that's slightly re-angled or reinterpreted (on which more later) each time it's reread. Books are physically a product, yes. But they are also art--the art and craft of storytelling and wordsmithing--and the comments here have led me to think that one of the problems in self-publishing is that too many self-publishers see their books as product.
Readers might see books as product, and writers should understand that--though one hopes, when writing, that her words will spark a connection and intimacy that transcends the page. But writers shouldn't see their books as product. The fact that publication is the end of one's ability to reshape one's work, akin to being hung in a gallery, is something only an artist would comprehend. And no artist I've met, no matter her grasp of marketing or audience, ever sees her work as anything other than her art--it will never be a product to her, whether it's in her studio or hung on a gallery wall.
The other major issue that came up here (I thank those of you still reading) is the difference between revision and reinterpretation. The word 'revision' has consistently been used for both phenomena here, but many of the examples given above--the Bible, Shakespeare, asinine versions of "Huck Finn"--are not revisions. Talking about 'revisions' in terms of works by Twain and Shakespeare is valid only if their original text is changed--as with the different Shakespearean folios, for example. A revision changes the core text. Everything else--meaning, Lilliputians screwing with the works of giants--are reinterpretations. One may still read original versions of anything that's been reinterpreted (except in extreme cases of censorship, or, as with the Bible, loss of the original text). The same is not true of a revision.
Serialization of a story, which was also brought up above, is a phenomenon distinct from either revision or reinterpretation. It's a format with its own demands--which, as Dickens evidenced, can be met with a great deal of craft. It also does not involve revisions made after publication.
I'll wrap up this jeremiad by saying 'thank you' to all of you for a highly educational, if depressing, discussion. It's better to know exactly what perceptions I might be facing...even if it winds up feeling like looking across a battlefield while clutching a slingshot.
Sumi wrote: "I've been wondering why so many readers seem to view self-published books as automatically lesser. "Sumi - Keep your chin up. :) I compare self publishing to auditions on American Idol. (Or any other singing competition show.) They always annoy me when they televise scads of auditions from people who cannot sing a note. This is especially annoying when the friends and family are standing behind them, encouraging them. I always think, "why on earth do people tell this person that he/she can sing?" or dance. Then, a person walks up to the mic and just belts it. And, you think, "sigh. This is why I watch." The producers have the bonus of having built a fan base before an album is ever produced. But, please, be realistic. :)
Self-publishing is the same way. There are gems tucked inside. You just have to be patient. If you do your due diligence and have a good story, it will sell. For publishing houses, if your book is successful as a self-published selection, they have the added benefit of having a built in audience before they invest a nickel. And, just as it only takes a phrase or 2 to tell someone cannot sing, it only takes a page or 2 to realize a book is poorly written. (ebook samples are awesome!) To distinguish the truly excellent takes much longer.
That is, however, the reading public is much less likely to pay more than a nominal amount for a self-published work. We have to do the weeding out for ourselves. I am much more willing to pay more for the 2nd book. This is much the same as it is in publishing houses . . . How many times has an author had his first hardcover book released well into his career?
I, personally, really appreciate SPA. And, when I read such a novel I try to give a fair and honest review. I also understand why others are so opposed. I have been fortunate - the majority of the SP works I have read have at least been readable. When I read, I am not looking for great literature, I am looking for a few hours of entertainment to get away from the world. Others feel differently. Others have also been burned. Authors behaving badly is a real phenomenon. Just like any other area of life.
Sonja wrote: "Sumi - Keep your chin up. :) I compare self publishing to auditions on American Id..."Sonja, I appreciate you taking the time to offer realistic analogies while still being encouraging. Thanks.
Harrison wrote: "Sadly, even professional editors miss things..."Absolutely true.
I believe in trying to be perfect (or as close to perfection) every time out. Of course, there might be occasional errors but there shouldn't be anything so substantial that if you HAD to fix it, you didn't do it right on that second edition. Constantly updating would turn me off too.The two things I have really ever changed in my books were covers and adding a glossary per suggestion of not only a reviewer but several readers who felt they needed a glossary. And I agreed, because the magic system could definitely use it. At the same time when I did that second edition, I also made my map zoomable depending on device, since quite a few wanted to see it in more detail.
Beyond that, the story is the story, and it stays as is.
The object of trying to be as close to perfection that first time out is that first impressions can make you or break you.
I've seen authors go the other way: start out and become popular with some really good books, then when they have garnered a following, for whatever reason, they choose to put out some really, terrible efforts. One in particular who comes to mind is sitting in the top 10 in epic fantasy on Amazon currently.
As an author, remember that the smallest things reflect on you.
When you all say "constant updates"... how many/with what frequency does that mean to you? Is an update fairly behind the scenes or somewhat intrusive (e.g. a browser you can't open until you install updates)? I have never actually noticed an update - is that uncommon? I have a Kindle Fire, read about 50-60 books a year, about 85% of it is indie fiction (which I believe tends to have more post-publication revisions). I feel as if what the reader experiences as an update is important to consider. Is avoiding these updates more important than cleaning up a book for future readers?As a reader I am very much in favor of the author updating books to fix errors that readers (current and future) may find distracting. Of course I don't want them to treat the first book as a draft; I would hope an author would make every effort to get a book as clean as possible before hitting the shelves. Perhaps it is just a matter of determining how many is too many, and working around that?
I totally missed page three and just saw it - I have to admit to being surprised a lot of folks believe that errors should onlybe fixed pre-publication. I respect it, I just don't necessarily understand it. :-P Definitely pre-publication is where the most stringent effort should be concentrated, but the idea of being "stuck" with the errors for eternity seems so unappealing. Someone mentioned earlier about artists never going into a museum to change their art. I honestly believe that many artists would go back and make changes to their art if they could do so easily from a practical standpoint, and without stigma. (Admittedly there are other possible reasons for not wanting to change visual art after it has been released into the public.) However I think changing a piece of visual art is probably different from fixing a typo in a book. The former is an error only in the eyes of the artist, while the latter is an error in the eyes of most everyone. With the current onslaught of independent fiction, a lot of which is produced without many of the resources of traditional publishing, it just seems we may need to be more open-minded about the process. I don't think this lack of resources is an excuse for a poorly edited work- lacking the funds to hire a professional editor, one should be able to at the very least get several friends (or even better, strangers) to give the book a rigorous looksee. I do think that because each individual author working under their own umbrella will do things differently, there will always be some that let books out the door with a few too many errors. While I don't think they should just say "whatevs, if it's broke I'll fix it later", and would prefer more rigid pre-pub standards, I would still rather get an update removing errors later than read a flawed book simply because I didn't get an update.
Wow this discussion is bringing out some long-winded posts, sorry. :-P
I guess that's where our opinions differ. I don't care that the person is an indie and I do not give leeway to indie writers.None. Not a smidgen. Not a trickle. Not a drip.
If you drop an error loaded doc into Amazon and call it a book...and I have the bad fortune to read it, I'm calling a spade a spade. That is, someone was not ready to publish and pawned a draft out on readers. Which is an auto DNR for me.
Selling books is a business and authors need to treat it as one. Don't pawn your student efforts off on me and expect me to read (and PAY for) that crap. It just infuriates me. I could have been reading something that shows the author actually cared about their work.
And - let's be honest - there are TONS of indie writers who get it right the first time. I've read some damn good indie work. So...there's no excuse. Either it's ready or its not. There is NO EXCUSE for that disrespectful behavior.
There are tons of resources out there. The author has to have the gumption to find them.
And that "I don't have money for an editor" crap doesn't fly with me. I'm not here to be your kickstarter project. If you can't do it right...you can't do it.
/soapbox
Red, I could not agree more. Readers don't need to lower our standards, the authors should be striving to meet or exceed them.
Red wrote: "The introduction of self-publishing doesn't change anything from the reader's end."It's the eBook that has changed things, not self-publishing. When were you able to bring in your old copy of a DTB to Barnes and Noble, so you could trade it in for the new edition?
Randy wrote: "Red wrote: "The introduction of self-publishing doesn't change anything from the reader's end."It's the eBook that has changed things, not self-publishing. When were you able to bring in your old..."
I wouldn't want to. Beyond fixing formatting and spelling/grammar issues, I've had covers changed (which makes me SO angry) and have had endings and plot lines changed. I can't blame it all on self publishing, though those are the books it happens most often with, because even big publishers have changed my covers on me.
The fact that my ebooks have a tendency to be changed on their own, without warning or my permission, is the biggest reason I don't buy nearly as many as I used to. Now I only buy ebooks of books I'm not sure I'll like/don't care about or duplicates of my paper books for rereading. I've gone back to spending my money on hardcovers because they are mine and stay mine.
IMO, if errors are noted, and corrections can be made and aren't, the brand, reputation, and credibility are damaged further. Being stubborn and "standing by" a flawed product does nothing for me to help out the brand, reputation, or credibility.
And I would say changes validate reviews and discussion instead of undermine them. It's the author's actions after the revisions are made that may undermine THE AUTHOR. That is, do they acknowledge them or attempt to hide them?
For me, a positive example:
http://www.amazon.com/review/RLGWL5R0...
As a result, the book I read had no errors that I noticed. A better result for me.
But I am curious how many changes were made... :)