Please oh PLEASE hire an outside editor!

I feel for her. I did hire an editor, copyeditor, proofer, and a reader STILL found three errors in the POD proof. Fortunately, only those three. The thing should be 99% scrubbed now. I hope...

An editor can do more than catch errors. He or she can help you improve pacing and story structure, develop characters, eliminate inconsistencies, strengthen dialog -- you name it.

Traditionally published books get a lot of professional help before they hit the public eye. Self-published books often don't -- and it shows.

I'm in total agreement with the OP.

I'm getting ready to self-pub in the next 10 days. I spent the last month tweaking and polishing after working with a developmental editor who said the manuscript was already in good shape. Then I sent the manuscript to a copyeditor (and that was after weeks of proof-reading). We can self-edit all we want (and we should), but paying for these editing services, and a fresh pair of eyes, was the best money I've ever spent.

I sampled a self-pubbed book that had made it onto the top 100 Kindle bestseller list (at like number 5, I think). Cute story premise, but the author was raked over the coals for her grammar and spelling errors. I noticed she has pulled the book so she can have it re-edited. It might be hard for her to recover from that and yet it could have been avoided.

Tracey

Check out the credentials of any copy editor BEFORE contracting with them. Also, make sure you have a contract! Spell out all performance terms and payment arrangements. I hired a freelance editor on a handshake, did not have a written deadline and paid her 50% up front as a "good faith" payment. She was terrible! She did not meet our agree-to deadline and only paid back my money when I used her "edited" manuscript as evidence for incompetence or malfeasance in a small claims lawsuit. Here's my rule of thumb now:

1) Check them out before committing. (References and credentials)
2) Agree to terms. (Level of editing, deadlines, fees, fee payment schedule)
3) Put everything in writing...in essence, a contract.
4) Check on the progress from time to time; don't wait and be surprised.

Be very careful about using the editing services of the various self-publishing companies. From what I've seen (I've reviewed quite a few self-published books--see the link in my signature) those services are only copy editing, not structural editing; and they're not terribly good at copy editing, either.

In my opinion you'd do much better by frequenting the Share Your Work boards here at AW. I don't mean just put your work up there and expect other members to help you: get out there and post your own critiques. Critique as many pieces by other writers as you can, because that teaches you an immense amount of how writing works, and the common mistakes that are made and how you can avoid them. I learned so much about revising my own work by editing the work of others: it's a brilliant and often overlooked learning tool.

LindsayM said:

I just finished reading a wonderful self-pubbed book on my Kindle - great story, great message, great reviews! But in the first 20% of the book (Kindle counts by percents, not pages), I found over 45 errors.

Click to expand...

That averages to slightly more than one error per page in a 50,000 word manuscript, more if it's shorter, which is a lot. That makes me wonder what kind of shape the manuscript was in before the editor saw it.

I'd add to your plea: Detailed self-editing during revision is a great skill to learn, whether or not you plan on hiring someone. That can certainly cut down the error rate, and I think it makes people better writers. It can also make it less likely you'll put an embarrassingly error-riddled product out there, even if you get a crappy editor (and they seem to be everywhere lately like bacteria).

Shelley

I'm 100% behind the idea of hiring an editor but, some people just don't have the financial means to do so. And even though I don't write for the money (since I have yet to publish anything anyway ;p), I'd like to be able to buy little things like food and rent

As for what Old Hack was saying, yes, the SYW boards seem to be a pretty good place to give and take. I'm just not sure my mastery of the English language is enough to offer any kind of viable help. I mean, my spelling is almost perfect but, I can't structure my sentences correctly sometimes.

In any case, I agree, if you have the money, hire an editor ;p

FrederickCross said:

I'm just not sure my mastery of the English language is enough to offer any kind of viable help. I mean, my spelling is almost perfect but, I can't structure my sentences correctly sometimes.

Click to expand...

So many people say this kind of thing. What needs to be understood is very, very simple: The more you crit, the better a writer YOU will become.

If you want to improve your sentence structure, start analyzing the structure of other people's sentences.

Writers who don't get into the critique process, either by doing a serious analysis of their own work beyond just revision, or by seriously analyzing the work of other people, can write and write and write, but they'll probably keep writing the same mistakes over and over and over. It takes study to learn, not just writing. Crits can serve that purpose.

Offer whatever helpful comments you can, and dig deeper each time. You'll cut so much time off the learning process, you'll want to look me up later and give me a prize for ever suggesting it.

Well, maybe not. But you'll be glad you did it.

Shelley

I'm amazed at how many authors skimp on editing and how they justify it. But I have also seen plenty of authors complaining about "mistake" reviews post-publishing, this being despite the fact that they did pay good money for an editor.

The beta reading I have done suggests that the onus is on the author and how well they select the editor. Moreover, it is also down to how hard the author worked at the manuscript themselves.

shelleyo said:

So many people say this kind of thing. What needs to be understood is very, very simple: The more you crit, the better a writer YOU will become.

If you want to improve your sentence structure, start analyzing the structure of other people's sentences.

Writers who don't get into the critique process, either by doing a serious analysis of their own work beyond just revision, or by seriously analyzing the work of other people, can write and write and write, but they'll probably keep writing the same mistakes over and over and over. It takes study to learn, not just writing. Crits can serve that purpose.

Offer whatever helpful comments you can, and dig deeper each time. You'll cut so much time off the learning process, you'll want to look me up later and give me a prize for ever suggesting it.

Well, maybe not. But you'll be glad you did it.

Shelley

Click to expand...

All right then, I'll give it a shot. Thanks for suggesting that strategy.

As for the prize, I'll see what I can do ;p

FrederickCross said:

All right then, I'll give it a shot. Thanks for suggesting that strategy.

Click to expand...

To support what Shelleyo said, I've said for many years that I've learned more about writing from critiquing other people's work than from any one other thing.

It doesn't matter how much you think you don't know yet: you can always find something to suggest to improve someone's work. The very first time I went to an in-person crit group, I was a wee slip of a seventeen-year-old girl. The woman sitting on my left was a well-published novelist. She read out, and I noticed something that didn't make sense. As the critique went around the circle, clockwise, I kept waiting for one of the older, more experience writers to point it out, and when they didn't, I questioned whether I was even right. But when it FINALLY came to my turn (last of all), I summoned my courage and said what I had to say. And the woman agreed and everyone else was nodding their heads, too.

My point being: if a nervous, inexperienced seventeen-year-old can make a constructive comment about an experienced writer's work, anyone can.

And as you master critiquing others' work, you'll learn to apply the same analysis to your own work. Win-win for everyone.

Terie said:

To support what Shelleyo said, I've said for many years that I've learned more about writing from critiquing other people's work than from any one other thing.

It doesn't matter how much you think you don't know yet: you can always find something to suggest to improve someone's work. The very first time I went to an in-person crit group, I was a wee slip of a seventeen-year-old girl. The woman sitting on my left was a well-published novelist. She read out, and I noticed something that didn't make sense. As the critique went around the circle, clockwise, I kept waiting for one of the older, more experience writers to point it out, and when they didn't, I questioned whether I was even right. But when it FINALLY came to my turn (last of all), I summoned my courage and said what I had to say. And the woman agreed and everyone else was nodding their heads, too.

My point being: if a nervous, inexperienced seventeen-year-old can make a constructive comment about an experienced writer's work, anyone can.

And as you master critiquing others' work, you'll learn to apply the same analysis to your own work. Win-win for everyone.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Terie. I'm pretty much in the same frame of mind as the 17-year old you, ie I don't want to give bad advice, but I will try. I'll put that down as another step to get out of my shell and become more social / more involved with people

I highly recommend the Chicago Manual of Style. Many professional editors tackle manuscripts with CMoS and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. You can look up the correct use of semicolons, how to refer to military personnel, and you can set up style sheets for your manuscript (which help you remember what words you capitalize, etc).

Now that the CMoS is available online, it's much easier to use. And when you subscribe, you're sent periodic emails addressing common problems encountered by writers and students. You won't believe how fabulous it is—check it out. (And no, I don't work for CMoS; I'm a professional proofreader/editor.)

patskywriter said:

I highly recommend the Chicago Manual of Style. Many professional editors tackle manuscripts with CMoS and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Now that the CMoS is available online, it's much easier to use. And when you subscribe, you're sent periodic emails addressing common problems encountered by writers and students. You won't believe how fabulous it is—check it out. (And no, I don't work for CMoS; I'm a pro proofreader/editor.)

Click to expand...

That is good advice. Living in Australia we have The Style Guide, which is for people who spell neighbour and centre in the Queen's English.

Posted a blog today that is related:
http://thetysonadams.blogspot.com/2011/08/sum-werdz-too-wotch-owte-four.html

Frederick, I agree that you'll learn a whole heap of stuff about writing by critiquing other people's writing. It's the best learning tool there is. Read something; think about what you like about it, and then what you didn't like; see if you can come up with a way to fix the problems you've spotted; and congratulate the writer for being brave enough to post work for critique. It's remarkably easy once you get into the swing of it, it'll enhance your work in all sorts of ways, and it'll earn you a lot of friends here, too.

As for the Chicago Manual: I've worked with it and I disagree that it's great for writers. There's so much stuff in it that it can invoke emotional paralysis; and a lot of what's in there isn't really required by most writers as it's so in-depth and more about style than writing (there's a big fat clue there in the title). Strunk and White is good, if a little dictatorial; otherwise, thoughtful reading of good writing, and thoughtful criticism of any writing goes a long way to making you a better writer.

The Chicago Manual is okay, provided you keep a red pen handy to correct it when it's wrong.

I think you need to have something to edit, before you invoke the CMoS - like Old Hack says, if you start nit-picking too early, you can paralyze yourself. And with most writers writing on computers nowadays, it's easy to fix a manuscript with Find+Replace. If you find that you forgot to Capitalize something, it takes seconds to fix.

I agree with Old Hack. I'm a beta reader here (when I'm not involved with other stuff, as I am right now) and I learn a lot by nit-picking another writer's work. I've been lucky and found beta readers who are willing to tear my own work apart. They are the best there can be. A beta writer isn't just looking for typos and grammar errors, they are looking at the overall picture - story line and consistency of characterization.

I also believe in proofs of self-published work because errors seem to jump out from a printed book page. The horrible thing is that you can find errors even after releasing for publishing and then you go through the whole editing process again as I'm trying to do right now. I think it's worth it.

Well, I hire an editor. I sacked one after pubslihing my first book. In disgust at my first editor's efforts that book is going to get a revised edit from my new editor, who did a bang up job on my second book.

Sadly verry few editors are any good at all. It's not just self published. BigPub editors are equally bad in recent years. I mean, I read a HUGELY known big-pub book a few months back and they missed a spellcheck replacement of the word arms with anus. (among hundreds of other things) - every other book I read lately was similar but the anus line still wins.

"She linked anus with him and they walked down the hallway".

I laughed for days.

Never trust your editor. Allways check it when the edited manuscript returns to you. Read it AS A READER AND EDITOR at least three times. Even then you can miss things, but if the editor did their job, it should be ok. It is YOUR name on the cover. You get the flack for a poor edit while the editor goes on to rippoff others so you need to make it known if you are dissatisfied and walk.

I might also add, that not all editors specialize in all genres.

To give an example, I sent a sample chapter of a story to an editor I found online who specialized in Fantasy. When I got the sample chapter back, I had to laugh. The editor went way overboard with purple prose and wanted to turn my story into some type of Elf Quest adventure. Only later did I find out that she used to do editing of Elf Quest type books.

I thanked her politely for the sample edit but noted I did not think her style fit my writing, or story.

I also had an editor who specializes in romance do a sample chapter and while she was good, she wanted to eliminate anything negative about the female character in the sample. Now I know she can't get the whole drift of the story from a single chapter, but the female character is pure evil and she wanted me to eliminate the negative references?

I ended up teaching myself for now, but if I ever do self pub, I will look for a good editor who specializes in my genre and I will check their track record.

M R Mortimer said:

Never trust your editor. Allways check it when the edited manuscript returns to you. Read it AS A READER AND EDITOR at least three times. Even then you can miss things, but if the editor did their job, it should be ok. It is YOUR name on the cover. You get the flack for a poor edit while the editor goes on to rippoff others so you need to make it known if you are dissatisfied and walk.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to highlight this.

I've noticed a lot of similar comments here, and have wondered about them. The implication is that writers hand their work over to an editor who then makes all sorts of changes to it without any sort of consultation with the author. And that's not how it's meant to work.

A good editor highlights problems and makes suggestions about how to fix them; she doesn't make those changes herself. Editing is a collaboration between writer and editor, not something that one person does in isolation.

And there are several layers to editing: it's not just a single process, because a single pass can't find or fix every error.

It starts with a writer revising his work until it's as good as he can make it. After that, an editor will edit the book.

Good editors don't just make whatever changes they want: they suggest changes, which the author then approves or rejects. The author is the one who works out how to implement the changes which the editor has suggested, and who then actually makes those changes.

Once those changes are made (which can take several passes), the work is copy edited--checked for typos, grammar, continuity and so on. Again, those edits have to be checked because sometimes they can introduce errors into the text.

Then the work is changed in format from ms to book, and proof copies of those books are proof read and again, errors are found and corrected.

I've seen several self-published books which have apparently been edited: most of them seem to have only been copy edited, and not very well, either. I would be very cautious about using the editing services offered by some of the bigger POD services, for example.

If you're going to pay an editor to edit your book make sure you know what sort of editing they intend to carry out, and find out what qualifies them to do it. Otherwise your book, and your sales, will suffer.

Yes that is exactly right. There are a lot of 'editors' out there who don't understand their own job. The editor I now use has been fantastic. All changes are notified and suggested, and I go through and accept or decline what I want, she does a fantastic job and provides extensive documentation of all suggestions, reasons, etc.

When I say never trust, I don't mean that they are con artists or whatever, I mean that in the same way I say never trust yourself to edit. You cant dump all the editing on the editor and just expect it to be perfect. If you do that and they miss something, it is your own fault and not the editors. If you dump all the editing on the editor, you are little better off. You need multiple sets of eyes on the manuscript. The editor is a great set well trained, but still only one set. Two sets catch more than one.

Multiple sets of eyes is what you get with Beta readers. Find the nit-pickers on the list and you've got it made.