THE Group for Authors! discussion
Publishing and Promoting
>
Reviews of Indie/Self-Published Books
Linda wrote: "Why do you feel it's your place to tell other readers and reviewers how they should or shouldn't review?"Linda, you might have misunderstood me. I never once told anyone how to do it. I said I didn't understand this trend. I questioned it, to be sure, and asked those who do it why they do it, and I did speculate on why I thought it was done, but I didn't tell anyone how to review.
I wasn't trolling for a fight. I was looking for an honest discussion about this. This is an author's feedback discussion group and I wanted to hear from other authors on this. If I wanted to tell reviewers how to review I would have just written a blog post on it.
Jason, I agree with what you're saying. I didn't see it as forming an opinion on others. It does seem to be a trend right now in reviews to put these things out. Like you, I've found even the best of authors have these mistakes in their books. I also agree that if you're a writer, you write to the author and ask if they want you to point out the errors. That's what I do. It's never part of my reviews.
I had someone point out the ONE typo they found on Facebook. I cringed. They said they loved the book, but cited page number and Line number for all to see.
I'm an author, and I don't want to see typos or mistakes in anything I read either. It breaks immersion from the story. If a review said a piece was full of typos, I wouldn't buy it. To me it says something about the quality of the work and the mindset of the author.Mind you, in the case of Ed, above, that's just low.
I agree with you L.S., if they're valid. However, I read a review that condemned a book I'd read because of typos and grammatical errors. I saw very little problems in the book, but the reviewer certainly had several misspelled words and grammar errors. Every time I read the Harry Potter series I get caught on all the errors in that series.
Linda wrote: "@Jason -- You wrote: When an author does this to another author, they are simply trying to keep the other one down a notch. It may not even be a conscious thing.That's not a question, Jason, no..."
Linda, I certainly agree I could have worded that better. I guess my habits of discussion come from talking with people who aren't easily offended and are far too outspoken to worry about such things. I've removed my speculation on the question. Thanks for pointing this out. Mea culpa.
L.S. wrote: "I'm an author, and I don't want to see typos or mistakes in anything I read either. It breaks immersion from the story. If a review said a piece was full of typos, I wouldn't buy it. To me it says ..."L.S.
In the case of typos, I'm not sure what that says about the author's "quality" as opposed to his professionalism. Unless you only meant "quality" in regards to professionalism, and not his ability to write a quality story. Certainly, I'm not talking about a book full of grammatical errors, or even just plain bad writing. I can see where you want to warn people off from that. I'm more or less talking about a situation where you might find four or five typos in an 85,000 word manuscript. This I find all the time in books from Random House and the like. Which, actually, I think is a greater offense considering all of the eyes they pay to pass over a manuscript before publication.
Ed wrote: "I had someone point out the ONE typo they found on Facebook. I cringed. They said they loved the book, but cited page number and Line number for all to see."Ed, I'm sure that person even thought they were helping. Well, I hope they did! I cringe most when I get that first shipment of books from the printer. Always sure I'm going to randomly open the book and find something I've missed after all those proofreads. Like taking that first step when you know a sniper is out there waiting for you.
I expect the trend is because there ARE a lot of self-published books coming out that are riddled with typos and poor grammar. But I agree with the OP; even best-selling books have typos. A double standard in reviewing is not helpful to anyone; it gives the "big boys" a pass while punishing those who are trying to compete with them and do a better job.Our books go through extremely rigorous editing and proofreading, and our authors keep getting proofs until they sign off on them as "perfect." And still, despite our best efforts and theirs, sometimes typos get through. I don't have time to do a lot of reviews of books published by other presses, but I don't believe I would say anything at all about typos in any book. If a book is horribly written and poorly edited, I wouldn't waste my time on it at all. Bad books don't need help dying.
Part of the backlash against indie and self-pubbed authors about their typos could have something to do with the image some people have and which some people put forth, that indie and self-pubbed authors don't necessarily pay for professional editing and do it themselves. Meanwhile, the more consistent reviewers may be aware of how things work in traditional publishing, where an editor is assigned to a work and the author gets no say in the final copy, thus making any mistakes not the fault of the author. It also could be the idea that indie and self-pubbed authors are more accessible, through Facebook, Twitter, and the other forms of social media. People know the smaller authors are paying attention to what people say about their work a lot more than say, James Patterson, who probably has a bevy of publicists who merely keep an eye out for anything libelous.
Some people may be trying to be helpful, and in this day and age, a quick list of typos can easily be fixed and a repaired version of the manuscript uploaded in a matter of hours. Unfortunately, it's also in human nature to prove superiority, so a few people are probably also doing it in an attempt to puff out their chest on the internet and imply such things as "I would NEVER make these mistakes. Even though I'll probably never spend the time, money, and effort to write a book of my own."
Shaun wrote: "...the author gets no say in the final copy, thus making any mistakes not the fault of the author. ..."Well said on all fronts, Shaun. I've always been impressed when I see (usually in a brief acknowledgment section) an author say "all errors are mine alone." Especially when you know they in fact had many editors working on the book. I say the same thing, even though I was not the only proofreader. Because for indie/self, it really does come down to the author, no matter how many people proofread it.
For an indie or self-pubbed author, even when we have it edited and proofed multiple times by multiple people, we still bear the full responsibility for it, because we still hold the final copy and make the decision to put it out there for the masses. As well, we make the choice of which editors and proofreaders to use, so the quality that comes from them is a direct result of our decisions of who to trust and/or how much we're willing to pay. Self-pubbed and indie authors have no big publishing company to hide behind, which takes away our influence besides 80% of the story. It is a blessing and a curse at times.
I just got done reading
It had two typos and I didn't care. It did jar me for a second, but the book is so good, I don't care.
Because I have a blind character in my books, I get feedback from blind and visually impaired people.I had a funny moment when my first book, Reprobate: A Katla Novel was read by a blind person (who converted the epub to mp3 to 'read' the book), who found one sentence with a double word in it and one 'has' that should've been 'had'.
I'm happy those were the only typos he found, since a whole army of proofreaders/beta readers/editors went over that book. Still, the mistakes are mine, and indeed mine alone. A book with 111,000 words and no typos is virtually impossible, but I think more SPAs should engage the help of beta-readers before they publish.
I like the idea of asking an author IF he/she wants things pointed out to them before blatantly making a list. A friend of mine read my book and did not ask me - just emailed me with an opinion on how two sentences confused her. I was so taken aback! No one else ever mentioned it. My book has two 1 star reviews on Amazon for entirely different reasons. Gotta love those good reviews to balance the bad.
We do not live in a perfect world. I've read books by big name authors and publishing houses that contain the occasional error, and books by small, indie authors that contain the occasional error. As long as the story gets my attention, keeps me reading and fully entertained, what does the small slip matter? However, I do know that many self-published books out there should have been much more polished up before publication. Not all authors are aware of their (especially consistent) errors and if they are not pointed out, how can they learn not to make the same mistakes in the future? But a reviewer can mention flaws in a tactful manner, but often fail to do so.
There is a difference between 1-2 typos in a 85,000 word novel and something so error ridden on a basic level as to be unreadable.You can have an army of editors & proof readers but you can still have typos and can actually end up inserting them in the process of weeding them out. At the other end of the scale is Joe Bloggs who just wrote THE END on his very first novel and immediately uploads it to Amazon for sale - just so he can receive feedback. Yes I have seen this, there are writers who do not understand about having critique partners or beta readers (let alone editors) and expect the paying public to develop and edit their work.
I have mentioned spelling & grammar in reviews where they are so bad they detract from the story.
What's worse, I've seen a few self-pubbed authors with the opinion "I can't afford an editor, I'll just upload what I have and fix things as readers point them out." Of course, they still charge people for the privilege too. To be honest, despite being self-published myself, I can't blame readers or reviewers when they say they won't touch self-published books. Too many wanna-be authors put out work that is low-quality and have attitudes that a professional dog-walker would be embarrassed to have.
I recently had an author ask me what I thought about a couple chapters of her story. I told her the story has promise and with a good editor should be fine. Her response: "I can't afford an editor. I'm leaving it up to God."Oh,and it was after she hijacked my FB thread which had nothing to do with books.
Shaun wrote: "What's worse, I've seen a few self-pubbed authors with the opinion "I can't afford an editor, I'll just upload what I have and fix things as readers point them out."That's what beta-reader feedback is for. Reviews are for readers. When a book is published, it should be the definitive version, not a manuscript put up for critique.
Customers are not proofreaders.
Marilyn wrote: "Her response: "I can't afford an editor. I'm leaving it up to God.""Heaven helps those who help themselves.
Or, like the Quran says: "Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves."
Martyn that's what gives self-published books a bad name.
I have been a lawyer and a college professor, among other professions, and this is the first time I've ever read one of the group bashing others in the profession with such a unabashed intensity. Each person here and on a couple of other websites who are more professional and more "authorish" because they did traditional publishing, or had an editor. The person with the lowest score on the bar is still a lawyer. Same here, if they're published that makes them an author. It may not be a good book or up to your standardsbut what is with all the hate. Do what you can to make your book good, don't read the books of those you think can't write, or help them if you can. A entire post talking about your collegues. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
Book sale price $1 Amazon income 35c 1,000 books sold $350. Cost for professional editing approx 5c per word. 100,000 word book $500. Net loss $150 that is why people cannot afford professional editors and have to make do with the best they can. Yes the book can go up in price lets play again $5 price Amazon income $3.50 but only 100 sold because it's from an Indie' net income $350. BTW we are all supposed to pay TAX on that incomeDifference in approach I as the author have to find that $500 up front plus professional cover, marketing and so on.
It's my choice, I take the review hits over grammar, some of which are entirely subjective rules and typos which I try to correct, or do I dump a good mortgage or car payment on the potential sales of my book giving a return. I have asked before if editors want to take a share of the pain and a cut of sales I'd like to hear from you but editors want to live as well.
I know I might get very lucky and sell thousands which I could then use to reinvest in a second edition or a new book. Maybe I'll be that lucky maybe a fellow author will be instead or maybe we should all stop complaining about the whole mess and read and write what we want. When I see reviews that say they don't like my story for x reason or there is a major plot hole then fine, if they say I use a conjunction in the wrong place or in 150,000 words (my second book) I missed the closing dialogue marks on three sentences then...
Anyway, I'm done with rants about reviews, indie/self- pub and probably half the forums on this web site. I might try writing more instead
Donna wrote: "Martyn that's what gives self-published books a bad name."Could you elucidate what exactly you mean by 'that's'?
Yes of course. I was responding to your comment about the self-published authors who upload what they have a hope to fix the ms after comments from readers.
I like your style, Linda. And I completely agree. That's all I care about - making my writing better.
My $0.02 worth - putting an unedited book up for sale is like selling a car with no brakes, thinking "I'll add them later".Indie authors want to be taken seriously as professionals then they need to act in a professional manner. Economic times are tough, you are asking people to part with their money for a slice of entertaiment and you owe it to the market to ensure your novel is as polished as possible.
Yes it costs money for good editing (which is more than spelling/grammar, it is also about plot development, pacing and characterisation) decent cover art and having a slender marketing budget. These factors all impact sales, put the effort in people and you will sell more books. Low reviews affect Amazon's algorithms, meaning you are less likely to be returned in search results and then sell less.
Spending to sell is an investment, stop thinking "I will only sell 100 books this month" and take the long term approach. $500 for a decent edit is not much against a plan to sell 10,000 units over a couple of years.
There are people who take the work seriously. People who get their work edited, get decent cover art, and treat the language with respect. These people deserve to be called authors. The people who can't be bothered to edit, who don't care because they're just trying to make a quick buck, because they whine about not being able to afford it, because they talk about their "creativity" or their "voice". These people don't deserve to call themselves authors. These people are plain writers at best, and scam artists at their very worst. These are the people currently ruining the self-publishing movement for those who take it seriously. After paying for multiple books recently that I couldn't get through the first chapter, I can understand and sympathize with the readers and reviewers who say they won't touch self-pubbed books.
I was lucky enough to get a publishing deal, but to get to the point where a publisher would accept my book, I had to get it edited and proof read and reviewed by seven beta readers. It then got edited again. Every author should go through that process; it doesn't have to be costly. There are plenty of good editors out there who will help you get your book to publication standard. The you can either go for a traditional publisher, long shot, or self-publish in the knowledge that it is quality.
Wow, I've been away, beginning the process of sorting through a deceased aunt's belongings. A difficult process to be sure, but not as difficult as getting the main point of this OP to be discussed. While I agree clean manuscripts are important, I was more concerned with...oh, never mind, as you were...But I liked that whole "we lawyers are a kinder lot than you authors!" Man, I gotta use that in my next book. :)
I'm an author, and I strive to make my work free of typos and other errors. But some seep through, no matter how many people read it. It drives me nuts.But, as some of you have said, even professionally edited books from big houses have typos. Nearly every one I've read, and nearly every article on the internet have typos. But that does not relieve us as writers of the burden of striving to produce good, error-free work.
It's important to point these out, particularly to indie authors. If there's a typo or two, fine. Point it out as a courtesy, but don't let it affect your review. Good story, good characters, good writing, but a typo here and there, no problem. Tell the author and forget it.
On the other hand, many indie books are written by people who lack the skill and education to write. Bad spelling, atrocious grammar, and typos. Worse than that is using the wrong word, such as "there" for "their," or "here" for "hear," or the one that makes me want to kill myself, "your" for "you're." They have not bothered to learn English, let alone the craft of writing.
In such a case, the errors should be pointed out and the review downgraded. They give a bad name to all indie writers.
My books are not perfect, but I try to make them perfect. I'm glad to know if someone finds a typo. I can fix it.
Michael E. Henderson
Well said, Michael. Writing, just like every other profession/hobby, produces people who are less skilled (and who don't seem to either understand or care). The their/there etc. is so blatant and unnecessary. My problem is that I can NOT spell. Never could! And the problem gets worse with age. I have to second guess many words I've used. And I've learned that spell check often doesn't have a suggestion! Either I've spelled the word so badly it can't figure out a suitable correction, or the library isn't as complete as it should be. I've noticed this on Thesaurus too.
Donna Kirk, Author of Finding Matthew
Here is a quibble about something I have noticed in recently published books. I noticed it first when I was reading His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. Instead of writing had not, could not, was not in the course of his narrative, he chose to write hadn't, couldn't and wasn't, to use three examples. It would be more understandable if it was a first person narrative, maybe, but not in a third person narrative. Perhaps some writers think to write could not, for example, sounds too formal, so they choose to write couldn't. Looking back to Victorian and twentieth century novels, writers only used hadn't, for example, in reported conversations between their characters, otherwise they wrote had not. I am curious to know what others think about my quibble. According to the New Statesmen, His Dark Materials is "magnificently written". It is a good tale, well told, I think, but at times I found Philip Pullman's prose irritating because of what I have been here quibbling about.
Philip wrote: "Here is a quibble about something I have noticed in recently published books. I noticed it first when I was reading His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. Instead of writing had not, could not, was ..."I was always taught that all the various n't, isn't and so on were only to be used in character speech.
A.W. wrote: "There is a difference between 1-2 typos in a 85,000 word novel and something so error ridden on a basic level as to be unreadable."I totally agree with this.
I've read some first editions of works by wellknown authors where there have been a couple of errors - even with a team of editors things can still be missed. Also, some mass-market paperbacks can be pretty awful on this front and often they're second, third, fourth editions or further editions of a work!
But the difference for me is all down to the number of errors. If it's a very good self-pubbed author, I will comment, but I always put it in perspective with the rest of the work - I won't allow errors to detract me from the work as a whole (unless it's extremely bad and clearly hasn't been edited at all). I tend to hope that they'll get successful enough to go back and be able to afford a professional edit eventually, with a rerelease in years' time once they're fairly famous. Damn, I might even offer to edit if I really like the book, as I have experience with editorial work. But I personally would feel it as a diservice to a budgeoning author to say that a work was absolutely 100% perfect when it wasn't - positive criticism can go a long way in helping an author improve, whatever form it takes.
Philip wrote: "Here is a quibble about something I have noticed in recently published books. I noticed it first when I was reading His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. Instead of writing had not, could not, was not in the course of his narrative, he chose to write hadn't, couldn't and wasn't, to use three examples. It would be more understandable if it was a first person narrative, maybe, but not in a third person narrative. Perhaps some writers think to write could not, for example, sounds too formal, so they choose to write couldn't. Looking back to Victorian and twentieth century novels, writers only used hadn't, for example, in reported conversations between their characters, otherwise they wrote had not. I am curious to know what others think about my quibble. According to the New Statesmen, His Dark Materials is "magnificently written". It is a good tale, well told, I think, but at times I found Philip Pullman's prose irritating because of what I have been here quibbling about."Lee wrote: "I was always taught that all the various n't, isn't and so on were only to be used in character speech."
I've actually been encouraged to use shorter forms where possible to help the flow of the story. I'm following a creative-writing course and one of my teachers actually told me to change most of my "have nots" and "could nots" to their contracted form.
If a book is loaded with mistakes such as missing words every other sentence than I understand you saying something, but if there are a few mistakes who cares. That's why Indie authors should attach an email, so someone can shoot them an email instead of blasting them on facebook or on amazon because you can correct an ebook. With that being said when I was a kid you couln't start a sentence off with "but, or and " however, big time publishers do it all the time. As an Emmy Award Winning journalist I've logged a lot of interviews with educated people and you would be surprised how many of them don't use proper english when it sounds like they do. We actually did a drill one time, and wrote everything correctly and then voiced it, and it sounded awful because no one talks like that. I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, but sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes bad grammer just flows better. It's the Star Trek argument "to boldly go where no one has gone before " sounds better than "to go boldly where no one has gone before."
R.E. wrote: "It's the Star Trek argument "to boldly go where no one has gone before " sounds better than "to go boldly where no one has gone before.""It would sound even better as "To boldly go where none has gone before", but that's a minor quibble.
Yup. The editor I hired changed all the hadn't etc. to appear only in character dialogue. I didn't know that and was pleased to learn this valuable lesson. When I went over his proofs, the manuscript was much more pleasing to read and understand.
Interesting point Philip and I have just been through this with my editor. She contracted all my "could not" "would not" etc Sends a shiver down my spine, but she said it flowed better for the reader if they were shortened. So it seems to be a growing trend.
Regarding the "could not", "Have not, and what not, I actually used that as a little trick in my latest book. Most of the book is written in a human perspective and uses couldn't, haven't, etc. Some parts, however, are written in an alien perspective and use separated versions to help add to the difference and make it more formal. A neat trick, but probably irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The other thing I want to point out, regarding reviews of some of these books which are laden with errors. I have seen quite a few people here on Goodreads offer up the opinion that, especially with indie and self-pubbed books, if they would end up rating it less than three stars, they won't rate or review it at all. Some of these people have suggested contacting the author directly to point out the errors, but those are the very small minority. I think this does more harm than good, as these authors get to continue thinking their work is fine and the few people who do raise their voice about quality issues must just be being "trolls" or "bullies".
Lee wrote: "Philip wrote: "Here is a quibble about something I have noticed in recently published books. I noticed it first when I was reading His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. Instead of writing had not, ..."The English language is flexible. Times change...
A.W. wrote: "Interesting point Philip and I have just been through this with my editor. She contracted all my "could not" "would not" etc Sends a shiver down my spine, but she said it flowed better for the read..."It often does flow better, which is exactly the point. Think of it this way: if you've done your job well, the person reading your book is hearing your voice tell the story. You want it to flow.
The name of my book is not important. It recently went into the bestseller stratosphere on Amazon, but now it's falling like a rock. But my point is that it took me seven times as long to edit the damn thing than it did to write. And there are still a few typos. I have corrected them and will re-submit to Amazon and the other retailers, but I don't think anyone of us should put anything out there unless it's perfect. In my case I got indolent after reading my book 500 times or there about.
Philip wrote: "Here is a quibble … Instead of writing had not, could not, was not to write hadn't, couldn't, wasn't…"Within character speech, it depends on each character (are they British, for example, or street-wise in their speech). In the narrator voice, the writer establishes a relationship with the reader—is that relationship to be formal, as if teaching? or conversational, jocular, or letting-you-in-on-a-secret? Contractions have been used since Shakespeare's time. The rule should be to use the level of formality/informality that is appropriate.
To write had not or hadn't, that is the question, as Hamlet might say. Shakespeare remains one of the masters of writing the play and the sonnet. It is a pity he never wrote a novel, but of course, he died long before the craft of novel writing became established. In my original quibble, I did indicate that I had no problem in reading wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't, to take three examples, in the reported conversations between characters in a novel, only when the teller of the tale is speaking, alone. Firstly, I find the word hadn't, for example, distracts the eye when used in the course of a narrative when it is solely the narrator and not one of the characters speaking, and it also confuses the mind, at least it does mine. What is wrong with writing had not, after all? Using hadn't does not make the prose flow better for me, it makes it hit a needless snag in its path. As I wrote in my original quibble, it is only in novels published recently, such as His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, that I have noticed the use of wouldn't, for example, instead of would not, outside the reported conversations between characters. When a character speaks in a novel, they ought to do so in natural speech patterns. So it does not jar to my ear or in my mind when one of them might say: I wouldn't do that, rather than, I would not do that, because that is the way people speak. The way people tell a tale on the page is another matter. I must say I have been impressed by the responses to my quibble. I did not expect any at all, as it has nothing to do with the general topic here being discussed. So thank you all for your comments. I am fairly new to Goodreads, and I know I will never stop being amazed and intrigued by what I read here. Reading and writing both being solitary occupations, it is good to be here on Goodreads, among people who enjoy sharing their thoughts on literature.
Philip wrote: "To write had not or hadn't, that is the question, as Hamlet might say. Shakespeare remains one of the masters of writing the play and the sonnet. It is a pity he never wrote a novel, but of course,..."Sorry if the name confuses but we are different people!
Anyway, my take is that in my first book I tried to edit out all the non-dialogue n'ts - there is a probably a technical term for them other than abbreviations. In my second book I did not, mainly because it didn't feel right to write the main protagonist that way. There I've mixed them up again. For book three I used them but it's a fictional memoir from mostly a single person POV so I suppose that might be technically correct, or not?
My current book uses the shortened form once more but I have not edited it yet so I may change it. Back in the dark ages, at school, I am sure I was taught not to write the abbreviations except in dialogue, but language changes and now txt spk creeps in lol.
THE Group for Authors!
Books mentioned in this topic
Reprobate: A Katla Novel (other topics)UnWholly (other topics)
(And if this is just about a book that is full of errors, then don't review it. I've seen a few of them, and I simply declined to review it.)
If you do this in your reviews, why do you do it? Maybe you'll convince me it is a good thing to publicly point this out to non-traditional publishers in a public forum.