USA Today Reports ebook Self Publishing Successes

[sierramcconnell]

Editing can be a good thing, guys.

Editing for grammatical errors and sentence structure? Yes.

Changing the characters and story until it's no longer yours? No. Neither is having someone say, "Oh, no, this ending won't do. You need to change it so that this person doesn't die and these people go over here and-"

No. Absolutely not. This is MY story. If you want to write fanfiction, that's nice. But you don't get to tell me what happens. That's as bad as a psychologist I once had telling me that 'no, I don't want a smaller, weaker mate, I want a big strong guy to take care of me' and then yelling at me that I was wrong when I told her she was trying to tell me what I wanted.

Editing is fine. Changing the story to make it 'new, fresh, and popular' isn't. I've never been a clique person and I'm not starting now.

[Margo]

Editing for grammatical errors and sentence structure? Yes.

Changing the characters and story until it's no longer yours? No. Neither is having someone say, "Oh, no, this ending won't do. You need to change it so that this person doesn't die and these people go over here and-"

No. Absolutely not. This is MY story.

I think you might have an slightly skewed view of what other kinds of editing are actually like. You have betas, right? It's not that different a concept, just someone with a sharper eye from so much experience.

The stories about trying to turn a literary novel into a Dan Brown thriller or an epic fantasy into an erotic paranormal romance are rare exceptions, not the rule. If they have something highly specific in mind it's more cost effective for them to ask an established author to write it than to try to drastically rewrite the manuscript of a debut author. That's how Patricia Briggs go into urban fantasy, if I recall. The publisher asked if she'd be interested in trying it - they didn't try to turn one of her other books into an urban fantasy.

[sierramcconnell]

Editing for grammatical errors and sentence structure? Yes.

Changing the characters and story until it's no longer yours? No. Neither is having someone say, "Oh, no, this ending won't do. You need to change it so that this person doesn't die and these people go over here and-"

No. Absolutely not. This is MY story.

I think you might have an slightly skewed view of what other kinds of editing are actually like. You have betas, right? It's not that different a concept, just someone with a sharper eye from so much experience.

The stories about trying to turn a literary novel into a Dan Brown thriller or an epic fantasy into an erotic paranormal romance are rare exceptions, not the rule.

I've had many betas and I usually take their advice. Like almost always. Because they tend to give advice such as "maybe a little more on this character" or "I didn't really connect with this one because there wasn't enough" or "there are too many characters, I can't keep them straight" and I know to cut a few because the smaller ones (red shirts, so to speak) can be snipped out because they aren't important to the story.

But if I took my book into a editor and they said, "Oh, this is far too Christian-y we have to take all this Heaven and God stuff out and tone it down" I would immediately stand up, turn around, and walk away. Because THAT is the book. Yes, I realize it might be a little too harsh for Christian Fiction and that's why I'm planning on going the mainstream route, but I'm not taking anything out that will change the meaning of the book.

Also, I've said it before, I can cut things out. Scenes and paragraphs and whole chapters have been rearranged and thrown to the binder because they didn't work. I'm not that attached to it. But I am attached to the story and the meaning and the word of it. What it speaks is what needs to be said, and if they want to change that, I'm not going to work with them, period.

[Margo]

Also, I've said it before, I can cut things out. Scenes and paragraphs and whole chapters have been rearranged and thrown to the binder because they didn't work. I'm not that attached to it. But I am attached to the story and the meaning and the word of it. What it speaks is what needs to be said, and if they want to change that, I'm not going to work with them, period.

I was updating my post as you were responding. As the update points out, that kind of editing is not cost effective. They are not going to spend that amount of time with a debut author. If they want those kinds of changes, they are much more likely to just turn the project down entirely. If they have something specific in mind, they will ask someone to write the book from scratch, not spend an horrendous amount of time trying to change an existing, incredibly different project.

[Guardian]

Editing can be a good thing, guys.

True. But as I have a good editor and trustworthy beta readers, and the overall feedbacks are also good, I don't have to worry about that part. In the very last rewrite I do some necessary changes based on the advices and suggestions. But we're speaking about a different thing; when the suggested change is about dumbing down the WIP or turning an original idea to an ultimate mainstream crap. As I written, I lived this once, when a "brilliant" decision maker wanted to add his very own "visions" to MY work to create an ultimate mainstream thing from it. Now, that won't happen.

There is a difference between advice and advice. I've seen both side of the spectrum; the helpful and the desctructive side. Right now betas are helpful, but in many cases decision makers are rather destructive elements when they want to add or remove something, dumb your work down, or they want to change your ending just to fit the WIP to some sort of mainstream scheme, because they believe they can sell it better (Quantity against quality.).

They are not going to spend that amount of time with a debut author. If they want those kinds of changes, they are much more likely to just turn the project down entirely. If they have something specific in mind, they will ask someone to write the book from scratch, not spend an horrendous amount of time trying to change an existing, incredibly different project.

Sounds good in theory, but the practice is used to be a bit different. When you encounter with publishers with money, the practice is usually something else, especially if they like the core idea, but want to shape it further, because "They know everything better as they have the money". In this case the quantity against quality comes into the picture. In the present, publishers doesn't really have a good reputation, partially because of this (Playing the elitist is the other reason.).

[wordranger]

Hey, Guardian...

Every time I read something on self-publishing, I can't help but think of you. I was really glad, actually, to see you posting here, sounding positive about self-publishing.

Your novel is EXTREMELY artistic, and you are very passionate about it. With your incredible artwork that you've already done... and with that web-site to back it up, you'd have no problem getting a few bites, and hopefully word of mouth would follow.

All you need is for someone to review it as a "piece of art" rather than commercial fiction.

[Guardian]

EXTREMELY artistic

People called CSA on various names, but "extremely artistic" is new to me. Thank you very much. This means a lot. :) Although it wouldn't be anywhere without trustworthy beta readers, like you, Jen. Your comments helped a lot.

All you need is for someone to review it as a "piece of art" rather than commercial fiction.

I rather hope it will be reviewed as a simple fantasy novel. :) But yes, one or two review is always necessary to spread the word.

I was really glad, actually, to see you posting here, sounding positive about self-publishing.

I always had good opinion about self-published products (In every possible industry), because self publishing is requiring a lot of bravery. And as I see in this and every other industry (Gaming, movies), creativity and soul lies in self-published indie products the most. Products with publishers are usually loosing these two elements.

[wordranger]

Guardian:

I don't think anyone would call CSA a "simple fansasy novel" It's like an onion... you peel off a peice, and there's another layer underneath. Peel off that layer, and there's another one. It's more than what's just on the surface.