Please Don't Ask Me to Read Your Book

I'm an editor for indie authors. As such, I recognize how difficult it is for some of them to get book reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, so I'm careful to always leave a review when I read a book. If it's great, of course I want others to enjoy it, and if it's terrible, I want to warn people to save their money and time.

Most of my reviews tend to be favorable because I have a general idea of what I'm picking up before I start, either from friends' recommendations or my own pre-purchase research. Even if a book is cheapie-cheap, I'll still read the negative reviews to see if they mention anything that's important to me. I don't usually bother reading very many positive reviews, partly because so many reviewers include spoilers without realizing it, and partly because I expect a book to be good. If someone thinks it's not good, I want to know why.

People on Goodreads ask for reviewers all the time. This is a dubious practice, and "officially" there is to be no review swapping (because those boil down to give-me-five-stars-and-I'll-give-you-five-stars) but still . . . authors are constantly pimping a free e-copy if someone—anyone!—will pleasepleasepleaseprettyplease review their book. (Author Gisela Hausmann has a great post, "What Authors Can Learn from Car Salesmen," that gives some great tips on how to not beg/sound desperate.)

So when people ask for reviews on GR . . . if I haven't offered (and I'm obviously very active there) then I am not interested. Why am I not interested? After all, I do love reading and I always review what I read.

Well, in a few words, here's why. By asking me to review your book, you are putting me in the position of either looking like a jerk by saying no because I:

1. don't have time 
2. saw the reviews and know I won't enjoy it 
3. know from experience that most who ask on random forums have books with numerous issues, and I will be put into the uncomfortable position of saying it out loud

Or I say yes to be polite and then am forced—because I won't say yes and then not do it—to read and pay attention to details I might otherwise not. It's weird . . . I naturally remember details of books I've chosen to read, but have to concentrate on books not of my own choosing. Perhaps it comes from the occasional assigned reading at my day job, where we are expected to discuss what we've read. If I have to read a book someone's asked me to read, I read it as an editor, and can't shut that off. This is an odd curse, but that's what I deal with.

Dear stranger, basically you are asking me to work for you without being paid for it, and I have wasted a lot of time and energy doing things like this that I later regret. As a freelancer, I do a fair number of free evaluations for writers, and if they hire me, that's great, but if they don't, it's hours put in that don't pay off. It happens, and it's part of the free eval package.

Those ones I don't mind nearly as much, except for these stats—the ones who don't hire me are typically broken down into these portions: 10% are people who simply choose someone else—a better fit, for example, of a British editor for a UK writer, or those who are truly shopping around and looking for the best price, fit, and timing on the calendar—and the other 90% are people whose manuscripts are nowhere near ready for editing, much less publishing.

Those 90% still get the same thorough editing eval as anyone else, because I believe in being fair, and I want to be as thorough in my explanation as possible when I'm telling someone their book is not ready for editing. Perhaps I could be mean about it and simply tell them it's not ready, but if they don't know why, then it may never be ready. Or they'll find an unscrupulous editor who will take their money, fix misspellings and typos, and never tell them how bad the overall writing actually is.

Unfortunately, in my experience, many of the "read my book for review" people are still in the second-draft phase and don't know it because they've already gone and published. So yes, I'm being asked do work for them for free, even if they're not aware of it. I even added a (hopefully polite) "please don't ask me to read your book" portion to my Goodreads profile, because I get a slow-but-steady flow of requests that wax and wane around the timing of my posted reviews, and I always feel so uncomfortable when answering. I hate to be rude, but on the other hand, they're not exactly being polite by asking a stranger to do them a favor when there's been no previous relationship.

What are your thoughts on the "please read my book" crowd? I'm not looking for everyone to necessarily agree with me, but would genuinely enjoy your input on this one.

*****

If you like what you're reading, I invite you to fill out the "Follow by Email" widget in the column on the right. You'll get my amazing insights right in your inbox! How thrilling is that? Or you can follow me on Instagram (as easyreaderediting) for completely different content—check out all that stuff on the upper right of my page where the Instagram feed is scrolling merrily along. I also have an Easy Reader Editing Facebook page I'd love for you to like and follow. I'm on Google+ as myself (Lynda Dietz) and my "follow" badge is . . . you guessed it, right there in the right-hand column for you to click. I try to share different things in each place so  life doesn't get predictable and boring, and you never know what you'll find—or whether I'll be sharing YOUR posts, too.

Editor's Notes #35: Edits Is Important

One of the editors I follow on Twitter posted a thought last week, and I instantly felt a kinship. She stated that she could not count how many books she'd edited after they'd already been published. I have done this a number of times, and for a number of reasons. Her comment ended with "Don't make this same mistake!"

Someone replied to her tweet with, "Why is this a mistake?" I think he thought she was saying it was a mistake to get a book edited after publishing, whereas I am 99.99% sure she was cautioning against publishing before proper editing. Tiny detail, but important. It is NEVER too late to get a book properly edited if you plan on writing more books. As the post title states (or should state), edits are important.

As an editor, I feel it's important to see what other editors are up to, so I follow a number of editing blogs and editors on the various social media outlets. There's so much information (and misinformation) out there that I figure by following them, I can only increase my chances of learning something I may not have found on my own—or without hours of extensive research. After all, I realize there are people who read my Editor's Notes who are astounded at what I've come up with, because it's the first time they've ever heard this stuff. Nouns? Verbs? What? She's a genius!

Work with me here, people. I can dream.

There are also those (probably the majority) who already know 90% of what I have to share. They most likely do what I do: you read the stuff you already know and consider it another mental nail to hold your knowledge in place on that particular subject. Repetition is great, and I'm always thrilled to not have to look something up because I've used that particular rule from the Chicago Manual so many times that "it's in there."

So why are edits (prior to publishing) important? I have worked with and spoken with a number of authors who have experienced the following (and I will use "him" as my pronoun here, though some are men and some are women):

• Wrote a book, had someone close to him read it, published it. Got bad reviews due to lack of editing. Hired an editor and republished. Didn't realize the editor was a hack, got more bad reviews. Hired a better editor and got the book fixed but found it almost impossible to get anyone to reread the corrected version because they'd already given up on that author, due to so many other books out there to sift through. Lost all the oomph and has had a hard time wanting to continue writing. Enough years have passed now that a fan base will have to be built from scratch all over again, should the writing ever recommence. 
• Wrote a book, ran the book portions through an online editing "help" service which helped a little but did not substitute fully for a real, live editor. Lack of edits was pointed out, he hired an editor, book quality and fan base improved.
• Wrote a book, hired an expensive editing house to edit book. As much was missed as was caught in a fairly clean copy to begin with, but enough had been overlooked that he hired a new editor for half the price and twice the trustworthiness.
• Wrote a book, published it. Realized an editor was needed and hired one. Editor was so-so but not horrible. Still, enough problems remained to prompt the hiring of another editor to proof. Book is cleaned up and shiny, ready to go.
• Wrote a book, hired an editor who turned out to be a hack. Same hack as the first example I listed, in fact. Realized after getting the edited MS back that the editor had actually made the book worse, and hired another editor, who "edited" many things back to their formerly correct selves and polished up the remainder. Book cleaned up prior to ever publishing, well received, won two awards.
• Wrote a book, published without an editor. Wrote another book, tried to hire an editor but did not want to make the changes suggested, so second book was also published without edits. Both books on Amazon have almost no reviews, and those only from admitted family and friends. I'm assuming the sales are in tandem with the number of reviews.

In some instances above, the writers didn't think they needed edits. In other cases, they truly thought they were doing the right thing by hiring someone who didn't come through. All cases mentioned (and there are many more) highlight the fact that editing is essential, and that it's not always possible to make a good impression after making a bad one. In some of the cases above, the writing was so impressive that people were willing to reread an edited version and subsequent books. In a few other sad cases, that was not the happy ending.

When in doubt, listen to those around you. Get some beta readers. Get some ARC (advance reader copy) readers. Research editors and get free sample evals. It's not just about subject/verb agreement. It's all about making sure that what seems "good enough" is actually correct.

Y = Years of Writing Doesn't Mean Your Book is Done

I’ve heard premature publishers, when confronted with criticism of their books, say, “But I’ve been writing this book for years! I just couldn’t wait another minute to publish!”

Some people write fast; others write more slowly. Some writers get it right during the second draft; others go through their work piece by piece, dozens of times. Everyone goes at his own pace. If your book isn’t ready, it’s not ready. Period. And if someone tells you it shouldn’t have been published yet, then no excuses on your part will give them back the hours they spent reading it. 

Take your time to get it right, but if you’ve been working for years on the same thing and it’s still not fit for public viewing, then take a step back and evaluate why. Are you burnt out on the book? Do you want to move on to something else but don’t want to trash the sheer volume of hours you’ve put into this book? Set it aside for a little while and write something for fun. Heck, write another book that flows easier. Maybe you’ll come back to your original project refreshed, and maybe it will sit in the drawer for years before you want to revisit it. Maybe absence will help it to rearrange itself in your mind so your path is clearer when you go back to it.

When it’s done, it’s done. And if it’s not, don’t publish yet. 

R = Revise, Revise, Revise

Consider everything you write as a first draft. Write with the intention of changing things later, for cohesiveness, details, consistency, and sensory input. Can you see it? Can you smell it? Can you hear it? Who’s talking? Can you tell by the dialogue? Is your dialogue appropriate to the time period or geological region?

Does your plot make sense? Does your first page capture the reader’s interest? Is your word count too big? Too small? Do you have clichés? Are you telling, or are you showing? Does everyone fit well into the big picture? Are there too many unnecessary characters?

Once that first draft is written, that’s when the real work gets underway. To take a good idea and turn it into a great manuscript is more than just a one-shot deal. The best of writers go over their work numerous times, and it shows. Their work may sound like it just flowed out of them, ready to go, but you can rest assured they worked hard to get it that way, and it wasn’t by typing “The End” and closing the file.

In the construction business, they say, “Measure once, cut twice.” I think in the publishing business, they should say, “Write once, sell once,” because if your first draft is what goes to print, you won’t have any repeat customers. You might fool them once, but . . . well, you know the rest.

J = "Just Get it Out There and Fix it Later" is Bad Advice

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard someone say, “I know it still needs work, but I’ve gone over it again and again, and I just can’t wait any longer. I can hire an editor to go over it after I have some profits from sales.”

Not only is that foolish, but it’s just bad business. You only get one chance to make a first impression. In regular life, you might meet someone who makes a bad first impression on you, but who gradually rises to a better status in your eyes as you get to know her better. Perhaps she was having a bad day when you first saw her, and wasn’t acting in her typical cheery fashion.

In the book world, you’re not likely to have someone give you a second chance if the first impression isn’t a favorable one. The reader gave you a chance already and didn’t care for what she read. She may have paid good money to not care for what she read. She’s not going to give you another dime if she can help it, because she does not know you personally, does not have to interact with you on a daily basis, and owes you nothing. She may even insist YOU owe HER something: a refund for a not-edited, poorly written book.

If you’re waiting for profits to pay for post-publishing edits, you’re doing it all backward.

C = Clichés Need to Go

Avoid them like the plague. Considering that I was able to find, in about three seconds, a multitude of Google results for “clichés in writing,” it’s amazing to me that writers continue to use and abuse them (there’s a cliché or two for you in this paragraph alone).

There are those who go for the obvious phrases, like “stick out like a sore thumb,” “like a kid in a candy store,” or “breath of fresh air.” Others are more subtle than that. 

http://authonomy.com/writing-tips/publishers-list-of-phrases-for-writers-to-avoid/ mentions the newer trend of “stock modifiers”—words that are commonly paired together that have become clichés of their own. Someone isn’t moved; he’s visibly moved. Another is woefully unprepared. Yet another is unfailingly polite.

Clichés don’t always have to be set phrases; they can also be storytelling clichés, as discussed on http://litreactor.com/columns/top-10-storytelling-cliches-that-need-to-disappear-forever. There’s an easy way to proceed, which usually turns into a cop-out. Describing your character’s looks by having her look in a mirror? Don't fall into that trap; be unique and don't follow the crowd. Is your character a bad guy? Blame bad parenting or past abuse. I’ll tell you a secret: the scariest bad guys are the ones who have no horrendous incident to blame. They’re just psycho and that’s that.

Editor's Notes #5: The Importance of Beta Readers

Statler and Waldorf: two of the most popular Muppets ever, because they say the things we wish we could say. 






W: That was wonderful!
S: Bravo!
W: I loved it!
S: That was great!
W: Well, it was pretty good.
S: Well, it wasn't bad.
W: There were parts that weren't pretty good, though. 
S: It could've been a lot better.
W: I didn't really like it.
S: It was pretty terrible.
W: It was bad.
S: It was awful.
S & W: Terrible! Eh, boo!

As much as we might laugh at those two, I believe many authors are worried that having a beta reader might yield the same results. After all, beta readers are supposed to be brutally honest while they tell us everything that's wrong with our books, right? And we just know the focus is going to be on the "brutal" part. It's much easier on our hearts and more convenient overall to have our friends and family read our manuscripts. Nobody wants a stranger to tell them they stink.

Thankfully, good beta readers won't tell you that you stink. Allow me to adjust that a bit: good beta readers might tell you that you stink, but they'll do it in such a way that you want to take their suggestions and improve, rather than tell them not to let the door hit them on the way out.

Beta readers work much in the same way as substantive/content editors. A skilled beta reader will pay close attention to your plot and whether it held his attention. Is your voice consistent? How's the pacing? Did he force himself to keep reading?

I'm reminded of the people who are chosen for a movie's advance screening: they watch a completed movie and give feedback on its good points and bad points, what might have slowed down the action, whether the characters were likable, and whether the movie-watcher was willing to stay put with a full bladder because the story was too fascinating to leave the theater even for a moment.

Betas offer that same kind of feedback. And much like a movie screening, if enough people hit on the same problems/negatives, the author is forced to recognize that there may be an adjustment needed here and there. A good author will take the feedback, mull it over, and sift the objective truths from the opinions. A good beta will try to keep opinions out of the equation to the best of her ability.

The advantage of betas who don't charge a fee is obvious: it's free. One less thing on which to spend your money. The trick there is to find someone (or a handful of someones) you trust with your manuscript. I've heard authors complain that they've tried betas who didn't "get" their genre, or worse, who never gave an evaluation at all, basically using the "I'll beta for you" game to get free reads. I'm hoping this is not a frequent—or even regular—occurrence. 

The advantage of betas who evaluate for a fee: you will get an evaluation, and in some cases you'll get input similar to that of a content editor for a fraction of the cost. They know what to focus on without having to be guided through, although they're open to any specific things the author wants them to look for. I occasionally beta for people, though it's a challenge sometimes to take off the editor hat and ignore specifics in favor of the overall package. The disadvantage of a paid beta is that you don't get the eval for free, but to my eye, that seems to be the only disadvantage.

Authors, don't be afraid to use betas, whether paid services or free of charge. It's their job to keep things professional and to be as objective as possible, whereas using only family or friends as your betas may get you many attaboys but not nearly enough of the type of critique you may need. Doing the tough thing now might save you from having to face the tough critics later.

S: Boo!
W: Boooo!
S: That was the worst thing I've ever heard!
W: It was terrible!
S: Horrendous!
W: Well, it wasn't that bad.
S: Oh, yeah?
W: Well, there were parts of it I liked.
S: Well, I liked a lot of it.
W: Yeah, it was GOOD, actually.
S: It was great!
W: It was wonderful!
S: Yeah, bravo!
W: More!
S: More!
W: More!
S: More!

[Statler and Waldorf skits taken from actual Muppet Show transcripts.]

Editor's Notes #2: The Reader Doesn't Care

I've been stalking the Goodreads forums lately, and having a wonderful time of it. Granted, I'm sure there are other great writers' sites out there, but I've found the discussions on GR to be stimulating, sometimes very uncomfortable, and always informative.

One of my favorite threads lately has been going 'round and 'round about self-published authors (SPAs), their problems, and how to get readers to buy their books. I could write a year's worth of blog posts based on any one of those threads, but the SPA thread has me captivated.

This week's topic deals with the not-ready-for-prime-time books out there that are damaging the reputation of those SPAs whose work is as good as—or better than, in some cases—that published by the Big Five. Specifically, we'll talk about excuses given for poor work.

The writers I like to call "premature publishers" (because "author" doesn't really fit their abilities) are the ones who are typically in a rush to get their books published because they want the world to see the results of their hard work. There's no time to wait. That book has to get out there because the world needs them!

The problem lies in the fact that the reader expects a published book to be finished. Completed. Done. As close to "perfect" as possible.

"Finished" to the premature publishers means "I'm done writing." Period.

Having an idea and getting it written on paper (real or virtual) is a wonderful start, but it is exactly that: a start. As S.K. Anthony stated in our second Coffee Chat, after the first draft is written, that's when the real work begins. Revisions, tweaks, overhauls—whatever name you call them, it boils down to the same thing: making your work the best it can be.

One of the things I find frustrating is when an author becomes defensive after receiving a bad review. If someone gives a one-star review based on something dumb, like "I've always hated that color of yellow on a book cover," or "I can't believe someone kicked a kitten in this book!" then yes, the author has every right to be indignant about that review. However, many new authors seem unable to deal with bad reviews that mention editing, immature writing habits or style, plot holes, or pretty much anything that doesn't include the words "OMG I loved it!"

Some of the authors I've conversed with on GR are quick to tell others they learned a lot more from the negative reviews than the positive ones, though they would always prefer good reviews over bad. But it seems those who learn from criticism (even when it's not constructively phrased) are in the minority. Many premature publishers are full of excuses—overflowing with them, really—as to why their book has uncorrected issues.

Guess what? The reader doesn't care what kind of problems you had. Whether your book was offered as a freebie or purchased for whatever amount, the reader has every right to expect it to be complete and polished. Someone (known only as Tura) on the SPA thread on Goodreads put it perfectly:

I think a good thing to remember is the reader does not care. Yes, just writing a book is an achievement, but it doesn't mean everyone has to praise you. So forget the excuses people use when they complain reviews are harsh:

*"It's my first attempt." The reader does not care.

*"I had a really hard time while writing, for one reason or another." The reader does not care.

*"I wrote from my own experience." Well, so did many others. The reader does not care.

*"My family and friends all loved it." The reader . . . And so on. 

The unknown reader has a million books to choose from, and will go to whatever pleases her/him. You can't really argue anyone into liking your book; you can only show it to them. 

I don't expect every book I pick up to be an instant classic. Nor do I expect every book to have the same level of writing skill. What I do expect is readability and cohesiveness, not excuses.

I've heard many writers talk about the expenses of publishing. Writing costs nothing as long as you have a pencil and paper. Publishing has its costs, though. Content editing. Cover design. Proofreading. Printing. This is all part of the package from the moment the first word hits the page. 

Think of it in terms of purchasing a home. You have the money to buy a house. Do you have the money to live in it? You'll need basic tools, money for utilities, furniture, and groceries. You may need a lawnmower. You need money for taxes. You need more than just the price of a building.

To simplify further, let's say you have the money for the down payment, but no way of paying closing costs. What do you do? You continue to save, cutting expenses for months or even years in order to set the money aside. You don't tell the Realtor he should still give you the house because you've always wanted one, or because you're having another child and need the extra room, or because you've been saving and saving and you just can't wait any longer. 

The Realtor doesn't care about any of those things. If you can't pay, he will find another buyer.

The reader can be thought of in the same way. If you can't produce an adequate product, he'll find another author. I've heard writers talk about eating Ramen noodles, red beans & rice, and peanut butter sandwiches for months so they could save, dollar by dollar, for editing and a decent-quality cover. If you're self-publishing, there's no rush to get your book out there other than your own urgency to get people to read it. You're following no deadline but your own. 

Count the cost. The full cost, from soup to nuts. Save for it and pay for it before hitting that "publish" button. The reader doesn't care what you couldn't do. He only cares about what you did. Why give something other than your best?