"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?

Amazon Matchbook - Finally!

I don't own a Kindle. I'm not alone in that, but there's a certain peculiarity for me, as I'm a huge fan of technology and also of reading, so Amazon's marketers would expect me to be first in line.

But I never have been.

Not that I don't understand the appeal or the benefit - in 2011 I spent 6 months in America with my then-girlfriend (then fiance, then wife), and our shared appreciation of books meant we spent a fair amount of time in Barnes & Noble. Buying books. I purchased a few hardbacks and some paperbacks, all of which were quickly enjoyed. Then came the day of packing to board the plane and suddenly those hardbacks didn't seem like such a wise investment - they took up considerable space, but also, worse, valuable weight. Adopting the "We never leave a man behind" military approach I got each book home safely, tucked away into their appropriate places in the bookcase.

Shortly after, I bought my wife a Kindle, as she decided she wanted one. I saw the benefit - especially after that flight - but I wasn't ready to part with real books. I'm still not. Given the choice, I will buy a CD over a digital song purely for the fact that I enjoy the aesthetics and the effort that went into the liner notes and images. Music and books still represent art to me, total products, and increasingly the digital world seemed to be devaluing them to me, reducing the total products to commodities.

Romantic ideals aside, I wasn't ready for a Kindle for other reasons - I like scanning my bookshelf and having a title jump out at me, I enjoy flicking through a book, I like the smell and texture. I like books. The digital copies don't accommodate those facets, and I haven't been ready to sacrifice them for portability and convenience.

I could buy real ones and digital ones

I could, but I wouldn't (I am, however, more open to that now). What I never understood is why there wasn't the same solution for books there is for music and film - buy the physical thing and get the option to have the digital files too. Amazon couldn't do it because of the rights, and it seems publishers were too stubborn and felt it would undermine their business model - which has been eroding beneath them anyway. I'm a strong believer that if a consumer buys a product, they should be able to consume it in the way they desire, and not need to buy it multiple times. I was ecstatic when I bought a DVD one day and found a sticker explaining I could watch it on my electronic devices too, just like we've been enjoying with CDs for years

Welcome Amazon Matchbook

Finally, the publishing world has caught up. I read this wonderful news last week, and if you haven't yet heard of it, the gist of it is this: Matchbook will let you get digital copies of books you already own for up to $3 (and as little as nothing). It's not quite as good as the way it works with music and films, but it's a leap in the right direction. There's now a solution for people like me - buy the physical book, and enjoy the digital version for convenience (or, if you're very particular, read the digital one and keep the physical one in pristine condition. Maybe one day books will be so rare they'll be hugely expensive collectibles).

The bad news is that this is only in America for now, and most books aren't on it. But given that Amazon is behind it, it shouldn't be long before both of those things change. As soon as it hits the UK, my publishing company will be placing our books to Matchbook, so our customers can enjoy the books in both formats without having to pay out for both.

This new development is great for the consumer, and also great for the industry. With any luck it will end the arguments of whether or not 'real' books will die to digital books, and we can get down to what really matters: enjoying the output of the hard-working authors in whatever format we choose. It could also prove to be a big boost to the publishing industry - an indication that it will stop seeing digital books as the enemy and embrace them as a way to sell more copies, reach a wider audience, and increase its bottom line.

As I see it, writers, readers and publishers have a shared interest of appreciating literature, and Matchbook makes it easier for all three to come closer together.

An Agent Agent? Just Say No

Earlier this week I read an enlightening post at Jennifer Represents, the blog of literary agent Jennifer Laughran. In this particular entry, Jennifer posts a great mock conversation with her and an agent agent (which I won't reproduce her but I urge you to click the above link to read the entry), as well as the following, which I've included here to explain what an agent agent is:

Much more often -- every couple of weeks at least -- I get the same basic thing but in email form:

Subject Line: AUTHOR REFERRAL!

Hi Agent, I'm Random McNoname, and I'm writing to reffer [sic] my client Author Sapsucker to you. Sapsucker has a pHd in Neurocathology [sic] and 78 followers on twitter so he's the real deal. The manuscript is attached, I look forward to hearing from you by next week.

If you're not quite following, this is the gist: Jennifer is an agent. Authors need agents to send their manuscripts to publishing companies that won't deal with unsolicited submissions. Agents are easy to get hold of - they have to be, because their livelihood depends entirely on having authors to represent. Somewhere along the line, deceitful cunning people have created a new job, that of the agent agent - an agent that an author pays to find them an agent for their book. As if getting published wasn't hard enough...

Jennifer further explains:

These are what I call "agent-agents" or third-party queriers. They convince authors that their "services" are necessary to query (aka spam) literary agents*. Authors who are totally new and/or desperate will take the bait and pay, in the hopes that it will give them a leg up on the competition. 

But it won't give a leg up on the competition, all it will do is frustrate or anger the agent, cost the author a lot of money, and all but guarantee their work is rejected on the basis that the agent agent is causing problems. The agent agent works on the premise of 'if you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick' i.e. hit up enough agents and one may show interest. As such, they don't take the time to research each individual agent and find out what books or categories they represent; after all, a rejection doesn't matter to them, it matters to the author, so they need no qualms about accuracy. Spamming an agent is the quickest way I can think of to alienate an agent - and the very last thing any author wants to do is alienate agents. If they remember the title of the author or the book, that can haunt the writer if they approach the agent directly after ditching the agent agent - we all make mistakes and act in ignorance, but agents can afford to be picky about who they represent and who is going to want to recommend someone who doesn't do basic research into the appropriate steps to take?

Remember, budding authors, agents represent authors. By virtue of that fact, they need to hear from you, get to know you, and communicate with you and you alone. Querying is a step that authors need to take for themselves, and authors are already being represented - by their books.

Querying can be time consuming and tedious, but it isn't hard. It's made much easier by agents, because they post visibly on their websites how to approach them and clear instructions on what to include with a query. Paying someone else to do that for you isn't just expensive, it's alienating. 

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.