Editio Self-Publishing discussion

I'm watching a thread on this in another group, and readers as a rule seem to not like it when authors revise their books constantly. Lots of them feel that authors shouldn't publish 'drafts.' I'm agreeing with them, to an extent, and I was wondering what the author community thinks of this. I think that each book should be done to the best of an author's ability - before publishing, but I also think that revising can be done sometimes and in some circumstances.

Some of the readers there will not read an indie author if they revise for every typo that's found, while others think that typos are a sufficient reason to revise and republish.

What's your opinion?

Any book that gets published, should be written and edited to the best it can be BEFORE it gets published. To do anything less is almost like identifying yourself as an author who doesn't care about the quality of their work.

If you release a book full of typo's and plot holes, it's going to be read. It's also going to get negative reviews and people are going to tell their friends not to bother with the work, or even you as an author. Those are readers you won't be able to get back even if you do revise the work to fix mistakes.

Indie publishers have a stigma of being lower quality than the big companies of traditional publishing. To a degree, that idea is correct because self-publishing has lowered the bar for anyone wishing to see their name in print. Some people have exactly this attitude that they can just fix mistakes later, while others honestly don't care and just want to claim the title of a published writer. This means works are being put out there for the public which are full of mistakes, misspellings, plot holes and which are just badly written.

If we want the self-publishing industry to be taken as seriously as the big companies are, we have to strive to meet the standards they hold and then exceed them and we do that by editing our works to the very best they can be BEFORE the public gets a look. We need to do that not only for the good of the industry, but it's just common sense for anyone who wants to actually be a writer. Some industries you can get by on notoriety, but this isn't one of them.

On the other hand, as I have learned to write, I have taken earlier versions of a book off the market so that I could radically rewrite and reedit and release it under a new name. Typo revisions are no big deal. No needs to know and unless they get an automatic update from their Kindle or something, no one will notice. The idea of no revisions came about because in the old paradigm, you printed thousands of books which had to be sold before you could do any revisions. That is no longer true. Each book is printed or downloaded as it is sold. So revisions make no difference other than improving the product.

My first book had an editor, a concept editor, a copy editor, a technical editor, and a professional proofer from one of the biggest publisher names in textbooks. It was so full of typos that it really affected sales, but nothing could be done until the first four thousand which were printed were actually sold.

Your book will have typos. The good news is that we can now fix that immediately with no penalty.

I agree that you should only publish a final book. If an author chooses to add additional content then publish a new edition. This way you don't confuse your audience.

Almost all books have typo's, even after going through several editors and proofreaders! Even those that have been traditionally published. I don't see why it is a problem to fix these and re-upload the book? In fact, I think it would be more of a problem to leave them there once they've been brought to your attention?

Adding additional content or changing a storyline though, that's another story. I don't think that should be done so lightly.

It is true that all books will have typo's, no matter how many people read through it. Maybe I should clarify, if you're going to re-upload after fixing a few small mispellings or typo's, ok. What is aggravating to me and why I am so up in arms over the whole idea of just fixing the book later is the number of people who think that just because they can re-upload a book with fixes they can get away with publishing work which is rotten through and through. People that are effectively trying to use their readers as free editors so they don't have to deal with the expense of releasing a proper book.

If you need to fix a few small individual errors, fine. If you even want to go in and add on to the end of the work; meh, it would probably be just as well to write a sequel, but ok. If you need to go back and redo most of your manuscript because you didn't bother to edit anything in the first place, someone should slap you upside the head.

Totally agree. You should get decent editing before releasing the book.

Indie authors, just like traditional authors, need a professional editor before publishing their books. Using readers as editors just annoys the reader and gives the author a bad reputation. Yes, mistakes will still be in the book, but an editor will make the book much better.

I have four or five edits before a book is published. The first draft is really rough. The second and third is about fleshing out, and the last is about making sure everything is covered. With that said, I could continue to edit forever, but at some point you need to say it's done. My beta readers help with that. Once I'm done, then it goes to an editor for typos, grammar etc.

Anything that you're going to publish should be thoroughly revised and polished to the best of your ability, as well as reviewed by a professional editor before publishing. Anything less is unprofessional and shows that you are not really serious about your writing. It's also disrespectful to your readers.

While self-publishing is a great option for many first-time writers, it should not be considered a license to present sub-standard work to the general public. It seems that many who self-publish are under the impression that professional editing is unnecessary, though nothing could be further from the truth.

That being said, as a perfectionist (and editor, in case that wasn't obvious), I also think it's great that you can correct minor errors and re-upload easily, and I myself would do exactly that if I found an error in something I'd previously published. Typos are inevitable - you find them in even the most respected of publications. As Shaun said, fixing a few typos is a far different issue from major rewrites because you didn't bother to do it right in the first place.

Obviously when you publish a book you should be putting out the best work possible (especially when it comes to editing). But, I don't see anything wrong with putting out a revised edition after some time has gone by and your skill as a writer has grown. Lots of writers do this - even big name writers. I just bought the revised edition of the first Gunslinger book by Stephen King.

But, I do agree that you shouldn't be doing it excessively. Fixing a few minor typos can be done without even letting anyone know (and even traditionally published books come out with an error every so often), but big overhauls shouldn't be being done on a regular basis.

I could understand if you publish your first book, learn from your mistakes, grow as a writer and then revise it just before your second book comes out. Or say you have a five or six books out and decide to revise the first few as your writing has improved. But, if you're throwing up a new version of your book every other week, then I think you need to take some time to re-evaluate how ready you are for that book to be out there.

I tend to agree that it should be a finished work before you publish it. Your story should be completed and not a draft, and you shouldn't re-upload as a way to make drastic changes to your work. I feel like correcting spelling and grammar is ok, but my advice is to have it as polished as possible the first go round. I learned this the hard way.
My first book was finished story wise, however I made the mistake of trusting someone to edit it who did a lousy job. It was published as such and I quickly learned from my mistake in trusting this person's editing.
I'm not someone who can afford a professional editor, however, if you're like me make sure you find someone other than yourself to read your book first with editing in mind and make sure they are someone who has the ability and desire to do a good job for you. Even try finding more than one person to do this. That way when you first publish, your book has been polished.
I've had my first book re-edited, and have since uploaded it but that damage is likely already done for those who picked the book up the first time. I don't see the issue in uploading an edited copy that takes care of spelling and grammar mistakes, but don't constantly be updating the file.
Also, understand that if you make that mistake like I did that you may never regain the readers you might have lost due to the mistakes in your first upload of your story.
Self publishing can be a learning experience, and sometimes you learn by screwing up and having to fix things. Nothing is ever perfect, even professionally edited and published books manage to be perfect all the time. Make sure you aim for that first published version to be the final upload you need to make if possible.