I read all books pretty much the same. The only difference is when the typos are in a trad book I'm more pissed because I've probably spent a lot more on it. And then, I'm pissed at the publisher rather than the author / publisher, because they're the ones letting the author [and therefore the readers] down.
I'm reading a book published by a small press, and oh my, the formatting is horrendous, there a re typos and grammatical errors everywhere. The book is a page turner and the author wrote their heart out, but the publisher let them down. I wonder if they even know?
I kind of expect an author / publisher of a long novel (over 80k) to have a few typos - they rarely have the funds to pay for three rounds of edits, like a published work might receive. Like you say, when you're up to your neck on words, it's difficult to weed out the most offensive from the good guys.
My first novel (120k) is a constant nightmare, everytime I read through it I find something. It's receiving a second edit (after several CP's and Beta's) and I'm sure there will still be a few left over to irritate me (and critical readers), but I don't expect perfection in a book, I expect an entertaining and/or informative read.
Michael L. Dales - 11 years ago
Yeah, it is true- I do read self-published books differently. It's a truth I've worried about because I am close to self-publishing a book... a book that could have some blow-back for other reasons too. A little more for me to try and not fret about.
Ann Stanley - 11 years ago
I just read a traditionally published book which contained horrible grammatical errors, and it isn't the first traditionally published book I've run across which had been very poorly-edited. If I were to review it, and I probably won't bother, I'd be tempted to critique rather than review, especially because it contained factual errors as well, which should have been fixed.
So, if a novel so published calls for a critique, it isn't any different than a self-published book, except for one small detail: one perhaps has the concept that the author can fix a self-published book before selling more copies. This is especially true for books which only appear in e-book form. Also, since the only person in charge of the problems is the author, instead of nameless faces at a publishing company, why can't they just make the book more to the reader/reviewer's liking? Perhaps that sense of interacting with the person in control is the source of the critiques more than the shoddy grammar inherent in self-published books.
Without actually realising it, this was the question that was going around my head a couple of weeks ago. I had the option of self-publishing or of being published – by the same company! I sat down with a notepad and tried to list the pros and cons. But in my heart, it was already decided – for this very reason. Being 'published' is a validation, so the reader (hopefully) already has a degree of trust and can sit back and enjoy, rather than being perched on the edge of their seat, wondering what they've let themselves in for. So, I signed over my book....
Julian Greene - 11 years ago
Yikes! I used paragraph breaks. One big block of text, another pet peeve.
Julian Greene - 11 years ago
I am a professional reviewer (not meaning that I get paid for reviews, but that I do it for a specific literary site). I have been steeped in literature for nearly 50 years. I don't remember a single typo ever in a professionally published book until about 20 years ago. Even then, it was only occasionally, and most often a single typo.
I truly resent any implication (not from you) that self-published books should be judged by a different standard than any other book. Just because the entire nation is going down the tubes, grammatically, doesn't mean I will lower my standards. A typo or two I wont mention. However, a book that is littered with them will get a mention in the review whether anyone cares or not.
I read self-published books that are not perfect in plot or characterization, but if the text is correct, and it's an entertaining read, I likely won't even realize it's not "perfect." I've read many a classic that wasn't perfect in those things, but it made the canon of literature nonetheless. However, poor grammar, spelling and word choice, simple lack of adequate editing, I find inexcusable.
Why would you excuse typos in a manuscript that has been edited but apparently missed? If they could publish for a hundred years or so without them, why would we dismiss them now? Perhaps the editor is relying too much on their grammar or spellchecker and not doing the job for which they're being paid.
As far as word choice in concerned, if you use "you and I," instead of "you and me" in dialogue, that's excusable--that shows a character quirk. But if you're using it in prose, it's unacceptable. That doesn't show us your voice, it simply shows us that you don't care about being correct.
One of the ones that drives me nuts is seeing "try and" instead of "try to." And the things that disgust me most are things like "Wah-lah" instead of "Voilá" or something that is obviously a misunderstanding. Perhaps the author was raised with it, but if they were actually schooled, they would know the difference. I'm referring to things like "mold cider" instead of "mulled cider," etc. There are much more common examples, none of which come to mind at the moment.
It's all about commitment to integrity and excellence. Reality TV has taught us that "because Joe's doing it," I can excuse myself from higher standards. Sure, us oldies will die off someday, leaving society to the lowest common denominator. Hopefully, one day the pendulum will swing back.
I try not to read the two differently, but it's hard when the editing is poor. A woman recently sent me a few chapters of her book and asked for my opinion. I told her that a good proofreader and editor would be able to polish it into a good read. She informed me there would be no proofer, no editor - too expensive. For me, editing is not an option. I doubt I'll buy her book.
I did buy a book last year because the title and the subject matter interested me. It had to be the most poorly written book I've ever read. Self published, the book obviously had no professional editor. It could have been a good book.
It's hard not to read traditional and self published differently.
This is such a time of change as more and more authors move into the non-traditional publshing mode. I try to use the same criteria for both indie books and books published by the traditional publsihing company. I do become incredibly irate when reading a book published by the big companies and find typos or as recently a half page of print repeated on the next page. With all the books I read I think I review them based on the content, though in both I comment on the lack of editing.
To me, every published book has the hard work of the author behind it. I respect it an indie author's work as much as I do a traditionally published one. Mind you, I've read some dreadfully edited trad. pub. books and wonder how they even made into the book store!
I read all books pretty much the same. The only difference is when the typos are in a trad book I'm more pissed because I've probably spent a lot more on it. And then, I'm pissed at the publisher rather than the author / publisher, because they're the ones letting the author [and therefore the readers] down.
I'm reading a book published by a small press, and oh my, the formatting is horrendous, there a re typos and grammatical errors everywhere. The book is a page turner and the author wrote their heart out, but the publisher let them down. I wonder if they even know?
I kind of expect an author / publisher of a long novel (over 80k) to have a few typos - they rarely have the funds to pay for three rounds of edits, like a published work might receive. Like you say, when you're up to your neck on words, it's difficult to weed out the most offensive from the good guys.
My first novel (120k) is a constant nightmare, everytime I read through it I find something. It's receiving a second edit (after several CP's and Beta's) and I'm sure there will still be a few left over to irritate me (and critical readers), but I don't expect perfection in a book, I expect an entertaining and/or informative read.
Yeah, it is true- I do read self-published books differently. It's a truth I've worried about because I am close to self-publishing a book... a book that could have some blow-back for other reasons too. A little more for me to try and not fret about.
I just read a traditionally published book which contained horrible grammatical errors, and it isn't the first traditionally published book I've run across which had been very poorly-edited. If I were to review it, and I probably won't bother, I'd be tempted to critique rather than review, especially because it contained factual errors as well, which should have been fixed.
So, if a novel so published calls for a critique, it isn't any different than a self-published book, except for one small detail: one perhaps has the concept that the author can fix a self-published book before selling more copies. This is especially true for books which only appear in e-book form. Also, since the only person in charge of the problems is the author, instead of nameless faces at a publishing company, why can't they just make the book more to the reader/reviewer's liking? Perhaps that sense of interacting with the person in control is the source of the critiques more than the shoddy grammar inherent in self-published books.
Without actually realising it, this was the question that was going around my head a couple of weeks ago. I had the option of self-publishing or of being published – by the same company! I sat down with a notepad and tried to list the pros and cons. But in my heart, it was already decided – for this very reason. Being 'published' is a validation, so the reader (hopefully) already has a degree of trust and can sit back and enjoy, rather than being perched on the edge of their seat, wondering what they've let themselves in for. So, I signed over my book....
Yikes! I used paragraph breaks. One big block of text, another pet peeve.
I am a professional reviewer (not meaning that I get paid for reviews, but that I do it for a specific literary site). I have been steeped in literature for nearly 50 years. I don't remember a single typo ever in a professionally published book until about 20 years ago. Even then, it was only occasionally, and most often a single typo.
I truly resent any implication (not from you) that self-published books should be judged by a different standard than any other book. Just because the entire nation is going down the tubes, grammatically, doesn't mean I will lower my standards. A typo or two I wont mention. However, a book that is littered with them will get a mention in the review whether anyone cares or not.
I read self-published books that are not perfect in plot or characterization, but if the text is correct, and it's an entertaining read, I likely won't even realize it's not "perfect." I've read many a classic that wasn't perfect in those things, but it made the canon of literature nonetheless. However, poor grammar, spelling and word choice, simple lack of adequate editing, I find inexcusable.
Why would you excuse typos in a manuscript that has been edited but apparently missed? If they could publish for a hundred years or so without them, why would we dismiss them now? Perhaps the editor is relying too much on their grammar or spellchecker and not doing the job for which they're being paid.
As far as word choice in concerned, if you use "you and I," instead of "you and me" in dialogue, that's excusable--that shows a character quirk. But if you're using it in prose, it's unacceptable. That doesn't show us your voice, it simply shows us that you don't care about being correct.
One of the ones that drives me nuts is seeing "try and" instead of "try to." And the things that disgust me most are things like "Wah-lah" instead of "Voilá" or something that is obviously a misunderstanding. Perhaps the author was raised with it, but if they were actually schooled, they would know the difference. I'm referring to things like "mold cider" instead of "mulled cider," etc. There are much more common examples, none of which come to mind at the moment.
It's all about commitment to integrity and excellence. Reality TV has taught us that "because Joe's doing it," I can excuse myself from higher standards. Sure, us oldies will die off someday, leaving society to the lowest common denominator. Hopefully, one day the pendulum will swing back.
My tuppence--or three or four. :)
I try not to read the two differently, but it's hard when the editing is poor. A woman recently sent me a few chapters of her book and asked for my opinion. I told her that a good proofreader and editor would be able to polish it into a good read. She informed me there would be no proofer, no editor - too expensive. For me, editing is not an option. I doubt I'll buy her book.
I did buy a book last year because the title and the subject matter interested me. It had to be the most poorly written book I've ever read. Self published, the book obviously had no professional editor. It could have been a good book.
It's hard not to read traditional and self published differently.
This is such a time of change as more and more authors move into the non-traditional publshing mode. I try to use the same criteria for both indie books and books published by the traditional publsihing company. I do become incredibly irate when reading a book published by the big companies and find typos or as recently a half page of print repeated on the next page. With all the books I read I think I review them based on the content, though in both I comment on the lack of editing.
To me, every published book has the hard work of the author behind it. I respect it an indie author's work as much as I do a traditionally published one. Mind you, I've read some dreadfully edited trad. pub. books and wonder how they even made into the book store!