Fantasy Aficionados discussion

We released our first book in December. Since then we have found a couple of mistakes. How many mistakes before doing the next revision? Your thoughts?

That would depend in no small part on just how difficult it would be to do the revising. After that, I'd suggest that it would have to be up to the author and the publisher.

All it costs is time. Update as frequently or as infrequently as you see fit. In my opinion, a single typo is probably worth a new revision, unless you're actively looking for more. If you found a few, then it's probably worth doing a full proofread and update after.

Steve
When you update and do a new revision, do you have to have a new ISBN for paperback? ebook?

What publishing service are you using? For most ebook services, you can retain all the same book-keeping information and just update the interior files. Createspace is the same way if you're using it for the paperback. When a reader buys a copy, they always get the most recently uploaded version.

What you may be envisioning, but don't have to do publish a 'second edition' as a stand-alone book. You COULD do that, but there's no real benefit.

Oh, that sounds great. We use Createspace for our printcopy. Thanks for the input.

Steve wrote: "All it costs is time. Update as frequently or as infrequently as you see fit. In my opinion, a single typo is probably worth a new revision, unless you're actively looking for more. If you found..."

*cringe*


FYI, a lot of readers hate to have books constantly updated.

Please, please, please! Just get a professional editor and let them do the work first. Then release the final updated version.

A lot of readers get the amazon updated notices, roll their eyes and don't do anything with it. If I get too many update notices for a particular book...I'm taking that author off of my read list because I know that the author has developed a habit of releasing drafts instead of final copies.

Sadly, even professional editors miss things...

Harrison wrote: "Sadly, even professional editors miss things..."

Life happens. The only perfection that exists belongs to God.

Readers don't demand perfection, we demand that you TRY to be perfect. There's a difference. ;-) You do the best you can at all times.

But that doesn't mean that readers enjoy constant updates. It annoys us quite a bit. TO get a pass for that you're gonna have to be Ilona Andrews or Stephen King or someone.

I'd mentioned this to my husband last night, because I generally have the same idea MrsJ does - you should make damn sure you're book is as close to perfect as you can before you release it.

He said, though, that more and more books are being looked at like software, with updates and revisions and whatnot.

It made me sad, to be honest.

But, then, maybe I'm just old fashioned.

But, anyway... I would say if you are going to do revisions, then just do it once, at least. You found a few mistakes you want to fix - well, take this as a sign to double, triple and quadruple check everything, and do your release.

Don't do, like, a new release every month... 'cause that will get really irritating, really fast.

Though I do think part of it depends on how it's done. Some SPA's seem to use their reviewers like beta-readers. I've seen authors ask readers to reread a book after the changes have been made, or even to change reviews because "it's been fixed".

No. Just no.

So, yeah, I think how you do it means a lot, too.

Colleen wrote: "I've seen authors ask readers to reread a book after the changes have been made[...]"

I've had one ask me to do that, but not to re-rate (thankfully)... At the time, I wasn't averse to the idea of reading the revised edition, because he was nice about it and I thought the book had promise... but over time, and after seeing many, many authors doing similar things and realizing that it's now "the thing to do", I've decided that no, I won't allow do-overs.

You release the best book you can, and stand by it. If it's not up to scruff, then it's not, and you do better next time. I'm going to rate and review the book I read, and that's the review that I will stand by.

I read for pleasure and entertainment, not to help hone an author's writing skills. My review is not "constructive criticism" for authors to learn from, regardless of how they may see it. There are professionals for hire or courses to take to help authors become better writers. It's not the reader's job.

TL;DR version: You stand by your book. I stand by my reviews.

Becky wrote: "I've had one ask me to do that, but not to re-rate (thankfully)... At the time, I wasn't averse to the idea of reading the revised edition, because he was nice about it and I thought the book had promise... but over time, and after seeing many, many authors doing similar things and realizing that it's now "the thing to do", I've decided that no, I won't allow do-overs. "


Agreed! There are exceptions for me (one book I DNF'd because I needed a glossary. I'd re-read that one. BUt that wasn't a "writing" issue, per se.

And Ilona Andrews, of course. But...she doesn't release stuff like that. She realizes that people are chomping at the bit to beta read for her and she takes advantage of that.

I missed out on her last beta request! She had 10 slots open, dammit!

Stephen King's book The Stand was "revised" - though, technically that was the book he wrote and was told to edit to shreds by his publisher and just got to release later after he'd made more of a name for himself.

Also, his book The Gunslinger was revised after years and years so that it would mesh better with the later books in the series.

But those are situations where the book was in publishable condition when it was released, and stood on their own perfectly well for years until the decision to revise was made. And still, I think of the revised editions as separate from the originally released editions.

This is not a situation of "Oops! Typo - fix - rerelease, rinse and repeat." but a situation where the revisions improve and change the story.

Becky wrote: "Stephen King's book The Stand was "revised" - though, technically that was the book he wrote and was told to edit to shreds by his publisher and just got to release later after he'd made more of a ..."

I don't consider those to be the same thing. I think of that more as the same thing when you get to see "The Director's Cut" of a movie vs the "movie version." My favorite Director's Cut is the one of The Chronicles of Riddick. It is SO much better than the "original" that they hardly ever play the original.

But, as you said, it's not the same thing at all. The author (or director) added a lot more to the story than just "fixing typos."

Yes. It's like that. Good analogy!

(And I totally agree with you regarding Riddick! *nod*)

MrsJoseph wrote: "Steve wrote: "All it costs is time. Update as frequently or as infrequently as you see fit. In my opinion, a single typo is probably worth a new revision, unless you're actively looking for more...."

I agree with MrsJoseph. Constant revisions and updates drive me insane.

I know this isn't what the OP was asking about, but I hate, hate, HATE it when the covers of my ebooks change automatically because the cover was changed by the author/publisher. I bought the book with a specific cover and that's the cover I want! In my mind, changing my cover like that is no different than someone coming into my house, pulling my first printing hardcovers off my bookshelves, and replacing them all with newer versions. It's obnoxious and makes me angry.

Oooh I hate that too, Thena! It annoys me when the cover of the book is changed on my GR shelves.

Which is, of course, silly, because otherwise I really don't care about the edition. I have tons of multiples on there and so my stats are wayyyyyyy off. But for some reason, the cover thing bugs me. A lot.

☃❄ ~Thena~ ❄☃ wrote: "I hate, hate, HATE it when the covers of my ebooks change automatically because the cover was changed by the author/publisher. I bought the book with a specific cover and that's the cover I want! In my mind, changing my cover like that is no different than someone coming into my house, pulling my first printing hardcovers off my bookshelves, and replacing them all with newer versions. It's obnoxious and makes me angry. "

Me, too!!!! O_o

I've even taken to stripping my ebook cover and adding the old one back (when I can).

MrsJoseph wrote: "Becky wrote: "I've had one ask me to do that, but not to re-rate (thankfully)... At the time, I wasn't averse to the idea of reading the revised edition, because he was nice about it and I thought ..."

Do you get update notices if the cover is changed? I don't think I have on any books I've purchased. In fact, I don't recall getting any update notices at all.

Judy wrote: "Do you get update notices if the cover is changed? I don't think I have on any books I've purchased. In fact, I don't recall getting any update notices at all.
"

Well, I get emails from Amazon if something has been changed...I just never re-download the change so IDK. lol!

Judy wrote: "Do you get update notices if the cover is changed? I don't think I have on any books I've purchased. In fact, I don't recall getting any update notices at all. "

No... I usually just see the wrong one on my shelf.

MrsJoseph wrote: "☃❄ ~Thena~ ❄☃ wrote: "I hate, hate, HATE it when the covers of my ebooks change automatically because the cover was changed by the author/publisher. I bought the book with a specific cover and that..."

I thought I was the only person anal enough about my books to do this!

It especially annoys me when the original cover art is replaced by movie covers. Grr...

I have to agree with publishing drafts. I don't see why authors would do that. As an author, whatever I'm writing is like a baby. You don't just toss a baby out there without giving it everything you can to help it survive. You raise it first! You want it to do well and be liked.

As far as the original question goes, I think that it depends on the person. If there's a plot hole, or something like that, I would definitely do a revision. As for typos and things like that...it would depend on how much it bugged me. If there was one or two but I wasn't too concerned because they were small, I probably wouldn't. But if there were a lot of, say, spelling errors through the whole book, I'd want to fix that.

But I still think you should do whatever you can - before publishing, and hopefully lots of revisions won't be necessary.

L.Y. wrote: "As an author, whatever I'm writing is like a baby. You don't just toss a baby out there without giving it everything you can to help it survive. You raise it first! You want it to do well and be liked."

I think that's about as far as the "baby" analogy should be carried. Once you publish, your "baby" has left the nest, ready or not, and needs to fend for itself. Mommy or Daddy Author has to cut the cord at some point and just let it go.

After all, it's NOT a baby, it's a product just like any other.

L.Y. wrote: "L.Y. Levand (LYLevand) | 27 comments I have to agree with publishing drafts. I don't see why authors would do that. As an author, whatever I'm writing is like a baby. You don't just toss a baby out there without giving it everything you can to help it survive. You raise it first! You want it to do well and be liked.

As far as the original question goes, I think that it depends on the person. If there's a plot hole, or something like that, I would definitely do a revision. As for typos and things like that...it would depend on how much it bugged me. If there was one or two but I wasn't too concerned because they were small, I probably wouldn't. But if there were a lot of, say, spelling errors through the whole book, I'd want to fix that.

But I still think you should do whatever you can - before publishing, and hopefully lots of revisions won't be necessary.
"

With the exception of the baby analogy...I agree 100%.


I do think that a lot of writers jump into the feild without really thinking about the expectations of their readers. I also think that they mistake the options they have available to them AND how "free" publishing can be.

There will ALWAYS be people who would love to beta read for others. Personally, I'd try a local college.

So, you can certainly get your betas for free. The editing...well...that's where the $$$ comes it. It's so very important and I hate that editors didn't get the publicity they deserved before the advent of popular self-publishing. I have a feeling that if editor names were as big as author names like Stephen King - well, people would have a clue how important they are. I kind of think of the editor of a book like a project manager or a movie director.

Back in college I was a journalist-in-training (yep, me). I learned the necessity of a great copy editor then. Cause I was just as wordy as I am now (better grammar, though) and they had to edit the crap out of me on a regular basis. That poor man. He hated to see one of my articles coming, lol! I had great ideas and they were interesting but damn I'm wordy! He would typically have to cut about 40% of the story and then perform major surgery. He should have gotten a medal.

MrsJoseph wrote: "FYI, a lot of readers hate to have books constantly updated.

Please, please, please! Just get a professional editor and let them do the work first. Then release the final updated version.

A lot of readers get the amazon updated notices, roll their eyes and don't do anything with it. If I get too many update notices for a particular book...I'm taking that author off of my read list because I know that the author has developed a habit of releasing drafts instead of final copies. "

Right, obviously the best solution is to not have a problem. Quality control should be done before release. Still, we live in an age when problems can easily be fixed.

I wasn't aware that Amazon sent out notifications when a new revision is up. That does change my opinion, because now you have to decide whether fixing that one typo that slipped past proofreading is worth annoying people with frivolous e-mails.

Steve wrote: "Still, we live in an age when problems can easily be fixed."

Would you do this with normal work assignments? Would you hand in a report to your boss and then 3 weeks later ask for it back because someone pointed out that you made some mistakes? It may slide one or two times, but after that your boss would wonder about the quality of your work, and it's going to reflect badly on you.

The same is true of publishing. Readers will notice and it will reflect poorly on you as a writer.

Sure, errors can be fixed, but I don't see that as a good thing. To me, that just leads to shoddy proofreading and editing beforehand. Why bother when you can just fix it if people complain? I've seen it quite a few times on Amazon where reviews are posted saying that the book was full of errors and typos etc, and the author pulls the book, "fixes" the errors, and republishes.

When I see evidence of multiple revisions, I steer clear. If you put out a book, it should be the book you feel is the absolute best book you could write. You should be confident enough to let it represent you. Constantly changing it says nothing but "You're right, this isn't good enough."

Revising it isn't evidence that you're learning or growing as an author, it's damage control. A bad first book isn't the end of the world. You can always improve with the next book. :)

Steve wrote: "Right, obviously the best solution is to not have a problem. Quality control should be done before release. Still, we live in an age when problems can easily be fixed.

I wasn't aware that Amazon sent out notifications when a new revision is up. That does change my opinion, because now you have to decide whether fixing that one typo that slipped past proofreading is worth annoying people with frivolous e-mails."

They...don't tell yall? Wow.

Yeah, AFAIK all the eRetailers send out notifications that books have been updated. I know that Amazon sends emails as well as puts little notifications by the book in question in the digital library. So, if I ignore the email there's a link for the update in my account. But I always have to do something to get the update - it doesn't d/l automatically. And, TBH, I normally ignore the update if I have already read or looked at the book.



While we do live in an age in which it allows books to be easily "corrected," I like to think of book releases to be something like a live play. There's no re-do. It's out there and its happening. Our director always told us that each day was the ONLY chance we had. You got your ass on the stage and you broke that damn leg. Or you tried your best. NEVER was the attitude "it can be fixed later" allowed. The fixing time was during run-throughs - not show time.

Becky wrote: "Would you do this with normal work assignments? Would you hand in a report to your boss and then 3 weeks later ask for it back..."

That is a great analogy. Even if it is self-published, I feel that holds true for the quality goal.

Becky wrote: "Steve wrote: "Still, we live in an age when problems can easily be fixed."

Would you do this with normal work assignments? Would you hand in a report to your boss and then 3 weeks later ask for it..."

That depends on the nature of the error. If it turns out I made a huge mistake, then I would absolutely make sure I'm the one my boss finds out from, and I'll make absolutely sure I fix it. Either my boss will lose respect for me because I made a mistake, or my boss will respect me for having the integrity to fix it. I'm willing to accept either outcome. The question is whether the boss would care about the error in the first place.

Becky wrote: "Sure, errors can be fixed, but I don't see that as a good thing. To me, that just leads to shoddy proofreading and editing beforehand. Why bother when you can just fix it if people complain? I've seen it quite a few times on Amazon where reviews are posted saying that the book was full of errors and typos etc, and the author pulls the book, "fixes" the errors, and republishes. "

Fundamentally, I agree with you. I'm not suggesting that people should upload drafts. You see the same thing in the software world: if a company develops a reputation for pushing patches every other week, then they do lose customers. I got sick of constant patches on Mozilla Firefox, for example, and switched to Chrome.

MrsJoseph wrote: "While we do live in an age in which it allows books to be easily "corrected," I like to think of book releases to be something like a live play. There's no re-do. It's out there and its happening. Our director always told us that each day was the ONLY chance we had. You got your ass on the stage and you broke that damn leg. Or you tried your best. NEVER was the attitude "it can be fixed later" allowed. The fixing time was during run-throughs - not show time. "

But continuing with that analogy, you CAN fix mistakes in the next performance, which is analogous to the next reader.

Never do I suggest asking people to reread your revised version and change their opinions. That's gross abuse of readers and I would probably avoid such an author from then on.

Where I was coming from is fixing a few problems here and there. Suppose I publish a book, and six months later I find out some problems. For the sake of argument, suppose this book has exactly the same number of grammar, punctuation, and spelling issues that the average traditionally published book has. I'm not talking about rewriting chapters or changing the ending. Should I let those issues stand?

By the way, here's the KDP page on updates. It looks like there's a button you can push to send out a notification when you make updates. Those authors likely wanted you to see that a new rev was out. I didn't look at other vendors.

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishin...

Steve wrote: "If it turns out I made a huge mistake, then I would absolutely make sure I'm the one my boss finds out from, and I'll make absolutely sure I fix it. Either my boss will lose respect for me because I made a mistake, or my boss will respect me for having the integrity to fix it. I'm willing to accept either outcome. The question is whether the boss would care about the error in the first place."

That is a valid point, and one of the differences in my analogy - because not all readers are equally critical of errors. Some will overlook errors in favor of story, and others will nitpick every misplaced comma.

But, in regards to the analogy - if you make mistakes repeatedly, it won't matter how often you catch it on your own before your boss does. You've handed it in as "completed" and it wasn't, and eventually your boss would question whether your "finished" work is truly accurate or finished, and whether you bothered to check it.

Steve wrote: "But continuing with that analogy, you CAN fix mistakes in the next performance, which is analogous to the next reader."

I see this as more analogous to the next book, not the next reader. I would be more than a little irritated to read a book and find out that it wasn't the same book others had read. I've felt like this many, many times, unfortunately - though that may have just been due to less critical readers lauding a book that wasn't very good.

Steve wrote: "Where I was coming from is fixing a few problems here and there. Suppose I publish a book, and six months later I find out some problems. For the sake of argument, suppose this book has exactly the same number of grammar, punctuation, and spelling issues that the average traditionally published book has. I'm not talking about rewriting chapters or changing the ending. Should I let those issues stand?"

I'm not sure what the comparison of errors with traditionally pubbed books has to do with anything. But to answer the direct question: Yes. I would leave them. If it's got plot holes, that's what you put out as your product. If it's got typos, then it does. If people don't like it because of these things, then that's the risk you take when putting out a product.

Becky wrote: "I'm not sure what the comparison of errors with traditionally pubbed books has to do with anything. But to answer the direct question: Yes. I would leave them. If it's got plot holes, that's what you put out as your product. If it's got typos, then it does. If people don't like it because of these things, then that's the risk you take when putting out a product. "

That was just meant to establish a reference point for that particular example.

I guess my stance was more based around the idea that you could quietly fix small errors. I seem to be wrong about that.

Steve wrote: "I guess my stance was more based around the idea that you could quietly fix small errors. I seem to be wrong about that. "

I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying that you shouldn't revise to "fix" errors in your books if you want readers to take you seriously as an author.

I couldn't take an author seriously if they treat their published product as a work in progress. You're putting out a book, not a blog post. If it's done, it should be done and left to speak for itself.

Becky wrote: "I couldn't take an author seriously if they treat their published product as a work in progress. You're putting out a book, not a blog post. If it's done, it should be done and left to speak for itself. "

Fair enough. As an author, it's difficult to find out a typo is still in the book and not do anything about it (because I put a great deal of effort into finding them all, and it's embarrassing to discover the ones I missed). I hadn't considered that going in and fixing it might actually be more off-putting to readers than letting it lie.

Just to give some perspective, if you assume an 80,000 word manuscript, average English word length of 5.1 characters, and that 99.999% of those characters are correct, you still have 4 typos. Squeezing out that last 0.001% can be a case of diminishing returns. It sounds like you agree on that point.

(Full disclosure: Most of my books have had one or two revisions to clear out the few typos that slipped through. My first got a new cover a few months in.)

I can understand the desire to correct errors, actually, Steve. I'm kind of a stickler for fixing typos if I find them, even in regular posts.

Readers do realize that errors will happen though, no matter how many times you've been over the work. A couple errors won't turn me off a book, but if I feel like it wasn't edited pre-release and then there are corrections post-release, that will, because then I feel like it's damage control rather than actually caring about the content that was put out in the first place.

Maybe that's unfair - in fact, it probably is. I have no way of knowing, as a reader, how many times you revised pre-release. But that's the impression that pulling a book to make changes leaves on me... that it wasn't finished, but released anyway.

Becky wrote: "...if I feel like it wasn't edited pre-release and then there are corrections post-release, that will, because then I feel like it's damage control rather than actually caring about the content that was put out in the first place. "

That's a fair point. I hadn't considered that. Ironic that making updates because you care about quality can give the impression that you don't.

Like I said, it's not fair, but I'm just saying that's how I perceive it when I see post-release revisions.

Granted, there are some really extreme examples that I've seen that likely wouldn't apply to you. For instance, one author I saw kept readers updated on her 12 day write, edit, & publish schedule, and then SHOCKINGLY there were complaints about the editing and she pulled, "corrected" and republished the same day.

That's just... ridiculous. That's the kind of thing where it was just transparent that next to no editing or even a final read-through was done. Type type type publish does not a good book make. O_o

Becky wrote: "Like I said, it's not fair, but I'm just saying that's how I perceive it when I see post-release revisions.

Granted, there are some really extreme examples that I've seen that likely wouldn't app..."

Oh my.

FAIL.

Becks is right, though. It's about perception in this case.

But simple things like asking fans to beta read for you first - especially via social media - can help to alleviate that.

For example, Ilona Andrews is in the middle of her 2nd beta read for her next book. She does all the betas with fans only. So people scream to the high heavens if they get picked to beta (though they never tell us what's in the books, *sigh*) We all know she's done betas AND edit rounds. So if the book comes out crappy...I know it was a printing error/typo, etc and NOT sub-par work on the part of the Andrews.


And yeah, I gotta thing for Ilona Andrews. What of it.

In fact, I'm going to go stalk her blog now. :) Maybe a new release has popped up.

MrsJoseph wrote: "The only perfection that exists belongs to God."

Hmmm? Wasn't The Great Flood a major revision in an established work?

Randy wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "The only perfection that exists belongs to God."

Hmmm? Wasn't The Great Flood a major revision in an established work?"

*snort*

Good one.

Lots of good points here.

I'm afraid that as a software engineer I'm perhaps a bit biased towards the "update frequently" side of things. We do "point releases" quite often to fix minor and sometimes major bugs, and while it's a great ideal to say the software should have been right the first time, that's not reality.

Granted, books are not software, though they can both be a very complex thing.

To that point, I had an editor comb through one of my books and, despite that, just recently a reader pointed out a couple of errors to me. After thanking her, I fixed them and re-released the book so the next reader who comes along wouldn't have to deal with those issues. That's my philosophy on eBook updates and I intend to stick with it.

I do try to minimize the number of releases, though. My next book will go through at least two different editors/proofreaders to at least attempt to achieve an error-free manuscript. While I'd love to do more than that, there is a cost to return factor that plays into my decision-making.

I'd love to have a horde of beta readers, but I'm not there yet. :-)

Steve wrote: "Steve Thomas said: By the way, here's the KDP page on updates. It looks like there's a button you can push to send out a notification when you make updates. Those authors likely wanted you to see that a new rev was out. I didn't look at other vendors.

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishin... "

That's interesting. So it's a manual process and done only if Amazon approves it.

Question for anyone who cares to answer: I updated both of my books with additional front matter--maps, cast of characters, that sort of thing. Also, both books have had minor typos fixed over time. Is this something worth doing a one-time notification to readers of, perhaps as I get closer to releasing the next book in the series?

These are things that will definitely be in the next book from Day 1.

Scott, I can understand wanting to prevent new readers from dealing with errors unnecessarily - and definitely coming from a software perspective I can see it, but I think it's confusing as a reader when books are revised like that. Not only could it put people off (as I stated before), but another issue I hadn't thought of before is that it could lead to reviewers being thought of differently as well. This is concerning to me, given the tendency for reviewers to be engaged in "debate" (read: flamewars) over their reviews, especially on Amazon - but here too.

For example: Say that Author A puts out a book with a plot hole they didn't catch pre-release and a few reviewers mention it. Author A goes back in, quietly fixes the hole, and re-releases. Then other people read the book, sans plot hole, and question the reviewers that mentioned it.

This makes legitimate reviews look untrustworthy unless it's clear that the book has been revised. That's not really fair to the reviewers who got to read the pre-revision book.

Regarding your question though - if you're adding maps and a cast of characters, I think the way you want to go about it is right. Do it before the next book's release, notify people that there's a new version with "extras" added to match the way the rest of the series will be and leave it at that.

Scott wrote: "Lots of good points here.

I'm afraid that as a software engineer I'm perhaps a bit biased towards the "update frequently" side of things. We do "point releases" quite often to fix minor and someti..."

I think the difference between software and books is that software MUST be fixed. Bugged software can leave itself open to security breaches and crashed programs. And, I agree, it is absolutely impossible to release a "perfect" version of software. So many different systems with different software and so many people trying so hard to exploit every possible breach. No matter how much you *want* to, you just can't.

Books, however, are another matter. They, in theory, *can* be perfect. Practice, however, is a totally different matter. Our eye so often sees what our brain thinks it sees . . . so we skim over typos (and homonyms) seeing what should be there instead of what is actually there. Especially if we either wrote it or read it before. On the other hand, a huge preponderance of grammatical errors should be avoided. Most readers will ignore (and forgive) the first but will resent and cringe at the second. (Again, a few of either will be forgiven - huge amounts not so much. We have paid you to write this - we expect that you have done your homework.) (IMHO, plot holes in a published work are unforgivable . . .)

Ok, that being said, and we will *assume* (even knowing what that means) that there are very few errors, while the public will tolerate software updates and recognize their necessity, it still cringes and grumbles. As books do not have to deal with such things as security breaches and program crashes, the toleration is *much* lower. Therefore, imho, revisions should be made on a very infrequent basis. And, only if there is a need - beyond omg it isn't perfect. We really do not expect it to be. We just expect you to have realistically tried. And, that does NOT mean you wrote and then read it through.

TLDR: Public toleration is based on this: Software requires updates. Books do not.

MrsJoseph wrote: "With the exception of the baby analogy...I agree 100%."

Becky wrote: "I think that's about as far as the "baby" analogy should be carried. Once you publish, your "baby" has left the nest, ready or not, and needs to fend for itself. Mommy or Daddy Author has to cut the cord at some point and just let it go. After all, it's NOT a baby, it's a product just like any other."

I think maybe my analogy was taken the wrong way. I'm sorry if anyone was offended by that. I just wanted to point out that if you're going to spend months or years of your life on something, putting it together, figuring it out, why would you just toss it out there? I guess it wasn't a very good analogy, and I apologize.

I agree, Becky. It's not a baby, it's a product, and you have to let it go eventually.

I think the issue that I have with the baby analogy is that babies have to be protected and defended against things that might do them harm, as they are unable to defend or protect themselves. No good parent is going to shunt their baby out into the world immediately after the creation process (gestation) is over and say "You're on your own, kid. Good luck."

A book is an inanimate object, but technically it's more of a vehicle for thought and idea conveyance. And I love that about them because there's nothing you can do to harm that. Rip it to shreds (literally), throw rocks at it, burn it... and the thoughts and the ideas that went into it still exist SOMEWHERE - even if it's only in the minds and memories of the people who read them.

A book can't be emotionally or verbally abused, because it has no feelings. It won't be altered one bit by universal love... or universal hatred. A book has no ego. People are affected by our surroundings, society, public opinion, etc. We learn, we change, we grow... Books remain unchanged. As they should.

That's why I feel like anthropomorphism regarding books is a bad idea in general. Authors project their own feelings onto the book they've created, and take personal offense to criticisms of the book, when it should be kept separate. It's not a reflection of the author, it's a piece of art that some will appreciate, and others won't, no matter how connected the author feels to the product.

Becky wrote: "For example: Say that Author A puts out a book with a plot hole they didn't catch pre-release and a few reviewers mention it. Author A goes back in, quietly fixes the hole, and re-releases. Then other people read the book, sans plot hole, and question the reviewers that mentioned it.

This makes legitimate reviews look untrustworthy unless it's clear that the book has been revised. That's not really fair to the reviewers who got to read the pre-revision book. "

Yes. I see what you mean and agree fixing plot holes is not really a good thing, especially when done iteratively so that readers/reviewers have conflicting experiences.

Thanks for your answer on the front matter question.

Sonja wrote: Public toleration is based on this: Software requires updates. Books do not.

True, for now. I think we think of books as static entities because that's what they've been for a very long time. But, with eBooks, not necessarily. I think the line between eBooks and software will blur over time to the point where that perception may not be so different.

Scott wrote: "I think we think of books as static entities because that's what they've been for a very long time. But, with eBooks, not necessarily. I think the line between eBooks and software will blur over time to the point where that perception may not be so different. "

I really, really hope not. This conversation alone has made me contemplate not reading independent and self-published authors, if the mindset is "revise at will". Authors get the chance to tell their story during the writing process, and then they put it out there for the world to see. If it's not what they hoped it would be, then either they learn and do better the next time, or maybe writing isn't their calling.

If ebooks start being viewed in the same light as software? I will absolutely stop reading ebooks if that happens. I read electronically now for the convenience, and because it's the same product I can get in dead-tree format. If that were to change, there's no question what my choice would be.

It may be convenient for authors to be able to edit their books post-publication, but not only would be it completely inconsistent for readers, but I'm fairly certain that even those who are tolerant of revisions would balk at being asked to keep downloading updates every time an author makes a change.

I can't imagine ever wanting that. It's one thing to add additional info, like the maps you mentioned, Scott, but I would hate it otherwise. Unless ebooks were to come with version numbers, which might be quite useful in determining the authors who consistently put out a well-written product, and those who do not.