Indie Book Club discussion

I've been reading blog posts here and there about self-pub vs traditional pub with a number of comments saying that with traditionally published books, they at least know they're getting a well edited book.
So... With the explosion of self-publishing that's going on, and IF the big traditional publishers become minor players (which I don't believe will happen for many years, if ever), would editors gain more prestige in the publishing world?
For example, would "Edited by........" be the new stamp of quality for books, both self-pubbed and tradional? Instead of certain readers only buying traditionally published books, these same people would look to see who the editor was, in order to ensure that they're getting a well-edited book?
Just a random thought that was bouncing around in my head that I had to get out.
:-)

Good question. I guess it would depend on the editors. Are they:

1. Willing to stand by their editing work and face scrutiny in case anyone still complains?
2. Would they want their names somewhere in the book?

Speaking for myself, I have no problems giving credit where credit is due. One of our members here, Brandy, did an outstanding editing job for me on my 2nd book. I have her and her new editing company credited in my Acknowledgements section in book 2. I would think if you hire someone to perform editorial work on your book you'd want to advertise that somehow.

Just my two cents!

Big J

I agree with Big J on the depending-on factors. Credit should be given where credit is due, if they want it, but I'm not sure if it will ever necessarily become "oh, I'll buy that book because it was edited by..." so and so, because even the best edited book can be a terrible story.

Now, if it came to a point where Editors only chose to work with certain books - like if they had their names attached to it - that would another thing. Like, you knew a certain editor would only edit books with great stories in certain genres, and you liked the work they chose. Then you may follow them. But when editing is a paying gig, that isn't likely to happen, I think.

I know that I would like to bop someone on the head who says they only buy traditionally published because they are assured of a well-edited project. I've seen too many errors in Big Six books to think that way. (Seriously, I wanted to red-pen Piers Anthony and Terry Brooks a couple of weeks ago. They had editors who apparently fell asleep on those books.)

When an author gets big enough it seems that editing only involves the technical errors. Editing should also involve tightening the manuscript into a well tuned whole, whereas in reality there are many examples where popular authors release material which, while technically free from error, is short of a good edit. In these cases, an editor has little leeway to ply their craft fully.

Mia wrote: "I know that I would like to bop someone on the head who says they only buy traditionally published because they are assured of a well-edited project. I've seen too many errors in Big Six books to think that way."

I agree, but there are a lot of people, readers and reviewers alike, who won't even consider self-published books.

Their loss.

G. David wrote: "I agree, but there are a lot of people, readers and reviewers alike, who won't even consider self-published books.

Their loss. "

I really don't understand that. It's not like it causes physical pain to read a book produced outside the major publishing system (most of the time). There is good and bad in all things and personally when I can score a great book for under a buck I don't care who published what. I don't even mind making notes of typos to help the author tighten the book up a bit and have thought about charging for basic editing, but my skills aren't up to par enough that I would feel comfortable taking someone's money.

I've found self-published books that shouldn't have been published as they were, but I've found books in digital publishers' stores and on the shelves at Barnes & Noble that shouldn't have seen the light of day, either. It's just a stigma, like many things are until it passes.

Personally, unless it's a really grievous amount, some spelling and grammar won't turn me away from a book. It is the big stuff that bothers me: like making sure your plot makes sense, there are no holes, are characters sympathetic, consistency, continuity, show versus tell, etc.,

I wouldn't personally welcome any such development. I know some are very strident about paying for editing - your editing isn't worthwhile if it wasn't done by someone "properly trained" (i.e. with a certificate of some kind) and expensive. That, to me, is as logical as saying all traditionally published books are well edited. Or even that all expensive editors are great at what they do.

There is (as in all other things) more than one way to get the job done to a high standard. Not all authors have access to (skilled) name-recognisable professionals, but that doesn't mean their books aren't well-edited. Placing too much focus on who edited a book seems like going in the wrong direction to me.