"Editing Your Book: It's a Basic Requirement, Not a Selling Point"

Browsing through my Twitter feed this morning, I came across this pure gem:

Editing your book: it’s a basic requirement, not a selling point. http://t.co/fuSmeAGPTv @EditorJamieC #askeditor @RobertEdits
— Michelle Ule (@Michelleule) November 3, 2013

 I've written about the importance of editing before, including at Emlyn Chand's excellent Novel Publicity, but still too many writers are ignoring it.

The problem, as far as I can tell, is that editing costs money, is voluntary, thus writers want to skip it. There's a shared trait in many creative people - we don't like criticism. After dedicating months or years to a project who wants to pay someone to tear it apart? This, in my eyes, remains one of the biggest issues with self-published books; that anyone can upload their writing to Amazon with zero editing, fact-checking or accountability to quality means that for the first time in publishing there is no guarantee of a basic standard. When you buy Random House's latest book you can be sure that it's properly formatted, has been edited and proofed multiple times and non-fiction books will be fact checked. Conversely, when you buy a book on Amazon's platform, it could literally be the work of a toddler whose proud parents uploaded it to the Web in the hope that their child becomes the Mozart of the literary world.

Like many, I try to downplay this with the suggestion that the cream rises to the top, and these wannabe writers will quickly be found out. I'm sure that's true to an extent, and while I could discuss both sides of that argument all day long I'll mention just one point here: it doesn't matter too much. The people who don't yet own Kindles use that as a big reason why they don't want one, or why people who do own them won't buy cheap or free books from the store. Given that many new authors - even those who have put the time and money into making it as good as possible - will launch with a free or cheap price, the upshot of this is the platform is being affected by those who release garbage.

(And never underestimate how much garbage is submitted to publishers - but now, rather than the public being mercifully spared these offerings, they can be self-published with no warning to their inadequacy.)

Thankfully, plenty of authors fully appreciate how important editors are and put their book through the process. Unfortunately, plenty of authors think they're good enough at catching the errors, and friends will catch what they miss. I'll put it bluntly: this isn't true. It undermines what editors actually do - which far exceeds catching typos.

Self-publishing's popularity today, combined with bloggers and free marketing opportunities makes it possible for indie authors to gain a wide and loyal following, thus creating a lucrative career. There's every chance of that happening now if the work is put in. But it requires dedication and effort, and if you want to write and sell more than one book, each and every one needs to be professional standard.

I frequently tell my clients that they're not just selling books, they're selling their name. We all have our favourite authors and we will buy their books because their name is on the cover - if you have any hope of readers doing the same with your books, they need to be bulletproof in their quality. Your name and reputation is literally at stake here; what no author wants is for the word of mouth reviews to be "Yeah, the story was ok, but it was so full of errors and badly written that I couldn't finish it."

Good editing means readers don't even think about it, they can just read the book. A bad book is one that keeps the reader distracted with dodgy formatting and endless errors.

Yes, editors cost money. As they should, they're selling a professional service. It's an investment, that an editor will make the book good so you have a fighting chance of establishing a good reputation and selling your writing. You wouldn't build a house and not hire an electrician or plumber, so why write a book and not hire an editor?

Still wondering if you need a proofreader?

The answer is always yes.

And remember the December promotion of 10% all services, and 15% off services for NaNoWriMo books

What It's Like to be a Proofreader

If you've ever wondered what it's like to be a writer, editor or proofreader, wanted to know what it entails, then you'll be pleased to know you can find out.

In addition to learning the subtleties involved in checking a manuscript, you'll also learn - perhaps for the first time - the 'side-effects' of the job, like not even being able to order lunch without the editorial hat perched upon your cranium.

A humorous, but very true, article can be read here.

What do eBooks Really Mean For Publishing?

Yesterday I read this article about an author named Amanda Hocking, who has no publisher but sells 100,000 copies of her book a month on the Kindle for between 99cents and three dollars. What interested me most was the comments, with many people there saying this is the end for publishing and that the future lies squarely in digital.

I spent the evening pondering this. Was it true? What will happen in the long term? Could the industry really just die? And what would it all mean for someone like me, a humble editor?

Despite having self-published in the past, the concept is now somewhat worrying to me. With a reported 98% of submitted manuscripts rejected from publishers, there are many authors out there wanting to get their work known. Whereas previously there was very little or nothing these people could do to get their work released, now they can just sell it as an ebook. This is fine in itself, of course; it means good work can be found and purchased, with the author earning higher percentages from their work and consumers spending less. The problem that i see is, in my experience, a lot of those books get rejected for a good reason; indeed as my position now as a self-employed editor, i see a lot of books that require much work before being in a publishing-ready state. And looking at the comments from the article, there seem to be some people who take rejection far too personally and will now be able to release their book while believing it needs no work - and trust me, every book needs work from a detached party before it should be sold.

Where am i going with this? Simple: the daunting reality is that scores of authors will dump their work into cyberspace to be downloaded immediately and at low cost, while possibly bypassing editors. Not only will countless books be bured in obscurity by sheer weight of volume of titles on the market, but there will be a marked increased in the number of poorly written books now available, thanks to authors being able to sell their work commerically without professional advice, an edit or even a proofread. What happens when everyone is a writer and can sell their book with one click? I predict an increase in volume and a decrease in quality.

Is this how it has to be, though? Frankly, i think no, it doesn't. For a start, in no way do i think the traditional book is going anywhere. Sure, sales may decline but an even plateau will probably be reached at some point, in the same way that people can download music legally but CDs still exist. This works for authors too, because there is a definite sense of pride from seeing your book available in print as well as digitally, and it's an avenue many writers will continue to pursue.

That being said, however, this is a transition period for the publishing companies and they do need to adapt to the modern age. Whether they like it or not they need to update their modus operandi to incorporate the new way of writing, selling, marketing and, ultimately, buying. When all is said and done, the only reason writers will ever self-publish is because they either get nowhere with publishers or they don't think they're getting a good deal.

In my opinion, publishing companies need to embrace the Internet. This does not just mean offer their books on the Kindle or have an email address. If there's one thing that authors really need publisher for it's marketing - with no marketing, no one will be aware of a book's existence, and with no budget it is tough to advertise. So publishers need to utilise viral marketing campaigns, create an author bio page on the publisher's website, perhaps offer reduced-price digital copies, and generally create a new method of working that unites old with new.

Publishing will not die, but it can make an effort now to change ways in order to keep flourishing. Right now the entire book industry is in turmoil, not just the publishers but also the book stores, so now is a time when the entire system can be recreated in a way that will benefit the author more than it does currently while simultaneously securing a strong future for the publishing companies. If things remain unchanged for too long then it may be difficult to regain much mindshare and confidence, but by showing a commitment now to being flexible and adaptable, we could see an end to the war-of-words between ebooks and physical books, instead seeing them coexist without hyperbole about one killing the other.

Apostrophes: What they are and what they're not

As an editor, one of the most common things I notice is a person's confusion over how to use an apostrophe. Some use them anytime an 's' finishes a word, others are hit-and-miss, using them correctly in some instances and not in others, and others still don't use them at all. So just how should they be used?

As a general rule, an apostrophe is used to indicate a possessive i.e. something is the possession of someone, not to pluralise something. For instance, if a line read "John's hat is over there" the apostrophe is used because the hat belongs to John. Another example could be "the dog's bed belongs in that corner". Again, the bed belongs to the dog; the absence of an apostrophe indicates a plural, like "the photos are all beautiful". Using an apostrophe in "photos" would change it to being possessive when it should be plural.

In the case of a plural that ends with an 's' (sailors) and possessive, the apostrophe is placed after the end 's'. For instance, if a researcher was named Mullins, a sentence could be "Mullins' study"; if it read "Mullin's study" the apostrophe would be incorrectly placed, changing the name. (If a plural doesn't end in an 's', such as 'children', an apostrophe is used.)

Apostrophes are also used when two words are merged (known as a contraction), like 'that' and 'is' to becomes 'that's', or 'it' and 'is' to become 'it's'. This is the exception to the possessive rule.

'That's' always has an apostrophe, it's never plural. As an example, "that's the correct temperature", is "that is the correct temperature".

However, there are instances where 'its' doesn't require an apostrophe. Understandably, this can be confusing for some writers. An apostrophe isn't required when it doesn't mean 'it is'. For example, "the main selling point of the television is its screen size". This seems to contradict the rule of the possessive apostrophe, but 'it' is a pronoun, which have their own rules for possessives. Other examples are 'theirs' and 'yours'.

The other main offenders people mistakenly use apostrophe is after dates and acronyms/initalisms. If you bought some DVDs, it is plural and so no apostrophe is to be used, just as they aren't used for other plurals. The same is true with dates, the 1990s saw a number of global changes, not the 1990's.


Apostrophes can seem confusing, but bear the few simple rules in mind and it'll become easy.

1) Plurals don't require an apostrophe, even if they are acronyms or dates.
2) Apostrophes are used as the possessive (John's, not Johns as this would indicate there is more than one John being mentioned) or or in a contraction
3) Pronouns don't require apostrophes for the possessive