Critique Services Unethical?

Dale Emery · Dec 3, 2008

scarletpeaches said:
Sure, you could say paid editors do too, but why pay for someone's opinion when:

"Why pay" is about the wisdom of paying, not about the ethics of charging.

a) You can get it for free and

If someone charges for their opinion, then you (probably) can't get their opinion for free. You can get someone else's opinion for free. That's not the same thing, unless everyone's opinion is equally valuable.

b) You'll get an editor all to yourself when you go through the publication process anyway.

You gain access to those editors only after the publisher accepts your book. If you need feedback to help you make your book acceptable, those editors won't help, so you'll have to seek feedback elsewhere.

Dale

JRTurner · Dec 3, 2008

Thanks everyone, for the great thoughts. I'm relieved to know my thoughts about a good critique service (editing service, book doctor) are pretty much more in line with the industry's take on it: when it's necessary and the pro is ethical, more power to the writer who will do what it takes to polish their book until it shines.

I guess because I respected the original author so much and truly hadn't been paying much attention to the industry (beyond my genre and publication dates, etc.) that I lost confidence in my ability to discern general industry sentiments.

With y'alls help, I feel much better about all this. I personally know some freelance editors, just from hanging in different groups over the years, and I find them to be highly ethical and have values I respect. It would have pained me to no end if it turned out that the sentiment in the industry was they were all amoral scam artists.

Thank you for that!

One last thing about getting critiques for free:

My original group was formed by all unpublished authors struggling to hone their craft and break into print. While we all brought special skills to the table (I was the Action Girl, we had the Comma Queen, the Diva of Description, etc.) none of us had the experience or years working in the industry to know how close we were to being on the right track or not.

That of course isn't a bad thing--it's actually a common thing. Personally, if I felt the need for a pro to help me overcome a writing obstacle, I'd be hard put to use anything BUT a paid-for service of some kind. I just don't have the hours to offer for an in-kind sort of exchange right now. Not trying to be selfish, just realistic. (I know this was mentioned elsewhere, but it resonated with me and I thought it bore repeating.)

But, before I begin boring everyone with repetitions here, I'll simply offer my gratitude once again: Thank you!!

Warmly,
Jenny

ideagirl · Dec 3, 2008

JRTurner said:
I just had a long conversation with a well respected author and he mentioned that all critique services (which he says are no different than book doctors) are unethical because they take money away from the writer, instead of the money going to the author.

How totally ridiculous. Grocery stores, bars, book stores, gas stations, cell phone companies and more also take money away from writers, instead of giving money to writers. They do so because they provide products or services that writers want.

I hired an editor to critique my book and she's been a godsend. My book is much, much better now. That's why I hired her, duh. And that's how she EARNED her money.

Darzian · Dec 3, 2008

JRTurner said:
I just had a long conversation with a well respected author and he mentioned that all critique services (which he says are no different than book doctors) are unethical because they take money away from the writer, instead of the money going to the author.

I do not understand this part. Why would money have to go to the writer for someone else correcting the writer's work?

That's like getting on a bus and asking the driver to pay for your fare.

JRTurner · Dec 4, 2008

Darzian said:
I do not understand this part. Why would money have to go to the writer for someone else correcting the writer's work?

That's like getting on a bus and asking the driver to pay for your fare.

There's a general rule of thumb in the industry that money should flow to a writer, rather than away. I had always seen it used in the context of choosing an agent or a publisher.

A publisher who charges their writers for editing, or is affiliated with a paid-for editing service and has the author contractually obligated to use that service, is considered to be "scamming" or "exploiting" the author. This isn't always the case though, as there are brand new publishing houses that often don't have the in-house editors yet and farm that out. I'm of the opinion however, that if one wants to consider a house 'traditional' this a practice better left to self-publishing companies. It makes sense then--because the author retains all their rights AND all the profits above and beyond production costs.

An agent that charges fees for copies, mailings and/or other related operational costs for shopping a manuscript *before a book has been contracted with a publishing house* is considered to be shady. The reason for this is that the expense of operating is part of their business model and shouldn't be shouldered by the author. For instance, if you order a meal in a restaurant, you'll not get an itemized bill that includes a percentage of the water and gas bill the restaurant has to pay. An agent's fifteen percent is supposed to cover those operational costs and while one that charges up front is definitely frowned upon, it's still considered a "bad" deal for an author if those fees are billed after the contract has been sidgned.

So, the rule of thumb about money flowing to the author, not away, was developed as a quick standard for vetting just how *traditional* an outfit actually is, and whether or not an author should choose to affiliate themselves with that outfit.

Personally, I believe any well-informed decision an author makes is up to them--and part of the freedoms we enjoy. I don't recommend paying money for what one should or could get for free--but I'm not aware of every individual's personal circumstances or goals and I'm of the mind that someone else's choices just aren't my business--unless I'm invited to offer my advice.

Hope that helps!

Warmly,
Jenny

veinglory · Dec 4, 2008

In my experience most people offering these services are not well-qualified or charge above the level their skill set could justify. I also think authors should learn to edit their own work to the standard necessary for submission.

That said, a skilled book doctor can be like a master class in write in your genre--and a low rate copy editor can also be helpful to a beginner.

Dave.C.Robinson · Dec 4, 2008

Most of my opinions have already been stated.

Paying for a critique isn't unethical, unless you're sent there by someone who would normally be sending money your direction.

Some critiques are worth paying for. Others aren't. The trick is knowing the difference before you write the check.

IceCreamEmpress · Dec 5, 2008

veinglory said:
In my experience most people offering these services are not well-qualified or charge above the level their skill set could justify.

I think that finding editors through the editors' professional organizations (the Society for Editors and Proofreaders in the UK; the Editorial Freelancers' Association in the US) should avoid the "ill-qualified" folks.

Those organizations also publish suggested rate sheets, so clients can compare their editor's projected charges with the industry standard.

I also think authors should learn to edit their own work to the standard necessary for submission.

I think people who want a career as a writer should DEFINITELY learn this skill. But not everyone who writes a book, or a couple of books, wants a career as a writer.

That said, a skilled book doctor can be like a master class in write in your genre--and a low rate copy editor can also be helpful to a beginner.

A copyeditor who charges less than the prevailing market rate is probably not worth it, though. Skilled copyeditors aren't likely to be taking on bargain-basement jobs, and having your work edited by an unskilled copyeditor is probably worse than just running a spell-check program on it.

ajkjd01 · Dec 5, 2008

You know, it occurred to me in reading this thread, that just because someone pays an editor for a line item edit, doesn't mean that they won't learn anything in the process.

I must admit that I've never paid for an edit or critique, unless you count critiques and edits at workshops that are part of the tuition. I'm not published yet. I can say unequivocably that I refuse to give up...and I have no desire to publish one book and give up. I'm in it for the long haul.

I've been a member of a local critique group for two years. I've done over ten drafts of my now (I think) finished novel. I've workshopped it, had it critiqued, and edited and rewritten my little heart out.

Yet I'm still striking out. I'm not sure why. At this point, I think I've proven that I'm willing to put in the work to get better, so I'm not trying to get anyone to do the work for me. I'm starting to wonder whether this project should be trunked in favor of the new projects I've been working on during the submission process on the first. Everyone who's read the first has been encouraging.

I've tossed around the idea of paying for a professional critique just to figure out if it's the writing, the story, or the timing (you know....it might be right where it needs to be, but the market might not be ready for it yet, kind of thing). If I've missed something in all my work on this project, then maybe it would be caught here. And maybe it's something unfixable...which tells me immediately that I shouldn't waste any more time on the project.

And I would expect to take those paid for notes and scrutinze them carefully to see if they would in fact improve the story. Obviously, even if you pay for the critique, it's one person's opinion, and as the writer, I might not agree with what's said. I would assume that paying for the critique would give me the right to discuss the comment, and see what the reason for it would be (NOT argue), and maybe it would help me continue to improve as a writer. I would expect that changes to be made would be made with MY work on it, with those notes...not having the editor FIX it themselves...

Whaddya think?

ideagirl · Dec 5, 2008

JRTurner said:
There's a general rule of thumb in the industry that money should flow to a writer, rather than away.

...when the writer has done the work, yes. But here, where someone else has done work for the writer, money flows to that someone else--as it always does: you do work, YOU get paid.

JRTurner said:
I had always seen it used in the context of choosing an agent or a publisher.

Even in the agent context, money flows to the agent (10% of what the writer is paid goes to the agent). And to the publisher (the proceeds from book sales flow to the publisher, who then passes royalties--not ALL profits, but just the royalties--on to the writer.

The basic logic is that people get paid for their work. The writer gets paid for her writing, and the people who do other tasks (representing the writer as an agent, helping the writer fix the manuscript as an editor, etc.) get paid for those tasks. The other basic logic here is that people get paid by the people who hire them: if the editor works for the publisher the publisher pays her, but if the editor was hired by the writer, the writer is who pays.

JRTurner · Dec 6, 2008

ideagirl said:
...when the writer has done the work, yes. But here, where someone else has done work for the writer, money flows to that someone else--as it always does: you do work, YOU get paid.

Even in the agent context, money flows to the agent (10% of what the writer is paid goes to the agent). And to the publisher (the proceeds from book sales flow to the publisher, who then passes royalties--not ALL profits, but just the royalties--on to the writer.

The basic logic is that people get paid for their work. The writer gets paid for her writing, and the people who do other tasks (representing the writer as an agent, helping the writer fix the manuscript as an editor, etc.) get paid for those tasks. The other basic logic here is that people get paid by the people who hire them: if the editor works for the publisher the publisher pays her, but if the editor was hired by the writer, the writer is who pays.

I think that the gist of my post was lost somehow if I was so unclear as to garner this response.

Agents (who get 15% these days) shouldn't charge upfront fees to cover their operating expenses. That is where the money is flowing away from a writer.

Publishers shouldn't charge their authors upfront fees to read a manuscript or expect payment for their in-house or affiliated editors. That is where money is flowing away from the writer.

Those two "red flags" are what is generally meant when using the rule of thumb under discussion as a device for vetting reputable or scam entities within the industry.

That was what my post was addressing--where the rule came from and why I had never heard it before in relation to the legitimate services that writers can use to prepare or create a work for submission.

Here a link that might help sort this out:

http://www.sff.net/people/yog/

Hope that helps!

Warmly,
Jenny

FennelGiraffe · Dec 6, 2008

JRTurner said:
Here a link that might help sort this out:

http://www.sff.net/people/yog/

In case anyone isn't already aware, "Yog" is AW's own Uncle Jim.

Critique Services Unethical?

Dale Emery

is way off topic

JRTurner

ideagirl

Darzian

To-to-to-ron-to

JRTurner

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Dave.C.Robinson

... with the High Command

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago

ajkjd01

I just have to be faster.

ideagirl

JRTurner

FennelGiraffe

It's green they say