What to do if an old book was completely revamped?

[Wilmar]

Hello Librarians,

This has always been a great group to ask questions and I've received useful advice in the past. I have a new one that I'd like to get sorted out before I make preparations for a new book addition to my published library.

QUESTION:

This book The Silver Ninja is being completely revamped from the ground up. I'm releasing a 2.0 version of the book which revamps the plot, characters, and prose and is so different that it is an entirely new book altogether.

Which brings me to the question.

I don't technically want to add a 2nd Edition to the original book because I fear that the negative reviews and ratings will carry over to the new book where these critiques will no longer be applicable.

So essentially I want The Silver Ninja 2.0 version to be the new series starter and then I will release a 2nd edition of the follow up Indoctrination which will retcon the content to match the new version.

Here my ideal solution
[The Silver Ninja 2.0 - 0 rating, 0 reviews, The Silver Ninja #1)] [Indoctrination - 9 Ratings, 5 Reviews The Silver Ninja #2)]

[1st Edition The Silver Ninja ((Out of Print))]

Any ideas or solutions?

[Lobstergirl]

If it really is "an entirely new book altogether," you should publish it as such. Give it a completely different title. Stop talking about it as a "2.0 version." That is the only way to keep the bad ratings segregated from what (you hope) will be higher ratings.

If it really is only a new edition of the original book, it will be combined with the original book and all the ratings will intermingle.

[Wilmar]

Lobstergirl wrote: "If it really is "an entirely new book altogether," you should publish it as such. Give it a completely different title. Stop talking about it as a "2.0 version." That is the only way to keep the ba..."

Thanks you for the response.

2.0 is just a placeholder to differentiate between the original book and the new one.

I can't rename the book completely because "The Silver Ninja" is a registered trademark that I own.

Would calling it something like: The Silver Ninja - When Dreams Kill or just adding a subtitle be enough?

It would be truly unfair for the new book to have to carry the scars of the old one. My fear is that new readers will jump to the bad reviews and see comments and feedback to issues that have already been addressed.

To my knowledge GR doesn't have a system that says "This review is from the 1st Edition" so it would be really unfair to have the book judged from the mistakes I made on the first one which have now been addressed.

[Lobstergirl]

To my knowledge GR doesn't have a system that says "This review is from the 1st Edition" so it would be really unfair to have the book judged from the mistakes I made on the first one which have now been addressed.

Actually GR does indicate which edition someone reviewed. Sometimes readers will shelve multiple editions of a book, perhaps they will read, or have read, several different editions which have different covers, or introductions, or translators. However this depends on the reader accurately shelving which edition they read, and reviewing the proper edition.

It would be truly unfair for the new book to have to carry the scars of the old one. My fear is that new readers will jump to the bad reviews and see comments and feedback to issues that have already been addressed.

I don't really understand why today's self-published authors think they deserve multiple bites of the apple. In the olden days, or even today with traditionally published authors, you write your book, it's published, people read it, and they like it or they don't like it. The author doesn't then go back and rewrite parts of the book in order to accommodate the criticisms of readers, and republish the same book but with corrections and revisions.

With the strange system of self-published authors (or whatever they are called now) having beta readers, authors now expect to have bad opinions about the original book expunged from the record. In the real world it doesn't work that way, unless the Catholic Church agrees to annul your marriage, or unless President Obama pardons your conviction.

It is what it is. I always wonder, do authors in the age of the internet and Goodreads investigate what will happen when they release a book to their beta readers, and then to the wider public? It seems like this is often a surprise to authors. You certainly aren't the first author to want your bad ratings expunged.

[Lobstergirl]

My advice would be forget the first book, just take the lessons you learned from the reader criticism and apply them to the second book in the series. Not the "2.0" book, but the actual #2 in the series.

[Wilmar]

Lobstergirl wrote: "To my knowledge GR doesn't have a system that says "This review is from the 1st Edition" so it would be really unfair to have the book judged from the mistakes I made on the first one which have no..."

I don't need the bad ratings expunged. I already accepted that the 1st book did terribly and I was unhappy with the final product myself.

For my own satisfaction I chose to re-write so I could be happy with the final quality of the product. Don't mistake me for one of those entitled woe is me authors. Feel free to look at the bad reviews and see how many positive comments I left with the reader.

My only intention is to give the new work (which it is) a fair shot. It has a revamped plot, revamped characters, and different story line that to compare the two wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison.

It would be apples to steak. So I personally wouldn't want the review on how the apple tastes to apply to the steak. I don't think that's unreasonable.

They can trash the newest book and say it's 1 star, garbage, not worth the effort, waste of time. That's fine with me. I'll gladly share the review on my website and take the review into consideration.

Anyway, if GR does have as you say "this review is from the 1st edition" then I will simply add this one as a second edition.

I understand that a lot of author's have a problem with their ego being bruised but you don't have to be so snarky with your response. I was just looking for solutions to something I foresaw to be a problem in the publishing process. Not a lecture on why I shouldn't re-publish my book to be a novel I would be happy with.

[Lobstergirl]

I wasn't being snarky, at all. Perhaps somewhat hectoring though. You did ask for advice, and I gave it, but certainly you should disregard it if you want.

You should ask for advice in the author feedback group. This isn't really the right group for the kind of answers you're looking for.

[Wilmar]

Lobstergirl wrote: "I wasn't being snarky, at all. Perhaps somewhat hectoring though. You did ask for advice, and I gave it, but certainly you should disregard it if you want.

You should ask for advice in the author ..."

Thank you, I'll see what they say.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

In general, Goodreads policy is that a revised book is an edition of the original book and would be combined with it.