McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft

Switching between editor mode and creator mode

(1/5) > >>

slrogers:
In the process of publishing my first book myself, I realized that with the 650,000 symbols (letters, numbers, punctuation, etc.) in addition to the thousands of literary elements (characters, settings, conflicts, arcs, plots, sub-plots, emotions, ...) that even if I got 99.9% of it all perfect, it would still leave about a thousand errors. And with each error comes the possibility of kicking a reader out of the story (there might also be some that luckily add charm, which one runs the risk of removing through the editing process). In addition to this, my brain is able to compensate for errors far too easily, making it harder to see what problems exist in the book (which I hear is why even the best copy editors will probably only get about 80% of the grammar and spelling errors).

So I understand much better why even publishing companies with there teams of editors still leave a fair number of errors in books.

And while one perhaps shouldn't "look down" while setting such lofty ambitions of being in the top fraction of a percentile of authors just to be successful, I feel for those like Aaron Rayburn, author of The Shadow God ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Shadow-God-Aaron-Rayburn/dp/1418499757 ) who have the natorious reputation for being at the bottom of the barrel. A position that we, as authors, face taking up by putting ourselves out there for the full scrutiny of the world.

But I did always want to publish myself because I wanted to learn everything I could about everything involved with writing, and I'm glad that as a self-published author I am able to fix problems that are discovered as quickly as they are found.

The one thing, however, that I'm really struggling with at the moment (besides possibly a bit of stage fright) is now switching back to "creator mode" and turning off the internal editor so that I can write the next hundred thousand words. I think, with my first book, I've narrowed it down to as good as it's going to get. (Which is hopefully somewhere closer to J.K. Rowlings than Aaron Rayburn, but I know, realistically, is somewhere in between.) Perhaps it is in part because of the "stage fright" that I'm having a hard time focusing on creating the next story, which I want to be even more amazing than the first.

I think that The Deposed King makes it look too easy. I'm always amazed at how much he is able to do. I want to be more like that, but I feel stuck. How do you push forward and fall in love again with the writing? How do you keep the dream alive and still face all of the realistic problems that one must face to be successful?

I know that even James Patterson has his bad days (You've Been Warned was one of his that was at the bottom of the barrel). But as somebody new, like myself, how do you overcome the "you're not good enough" or decide that maybe this isn't for me? I'm not fishing for compliments (though I guess if you wanted to, I wouldn't mind a lot of more favorable reviews on Amazon  ;D ). I want to hear what you do on your rough days to stay motivated and keep pumping out words even if, like with Stephen King, most of them will have to be rewritten.

Shecky:

--- Quote from: slrogers on February 22, 2015, 02:41:13 PM ---In the process of publishing my first book myself, I realized that with the 650,000 symbols (letters, numbers, punctuation, etc.) in addition to the thousands of literary elements (characters, settings, conflicts, arcs, plots, sub-plots, emotions, ...) that even if I got 99.9% of it all perfect, it would still leave about a thousand errors. And with each error comes the possibility of kicking a reader out of the story (there might also be some that luckily add charm, which one runs the risk of removing through the editing process). In addition to this, my brain is able to compensate for errors far too easily, making it harder to see what problems exist in the book (which I hear is why even the best copy editors will probably only get about 80% of the grammar and spelling errors).

So I understand much better why even publishing companies with there teams of editors still leave a fair number of errors in books.

--- End quote ---

A few minor (and, really, not on topic, so apologies) points.

1) Grammar "errors." This is such a fuzzy, nebulous issue; "grammar" is not a monolithic, absolute, by-the-numbers thing. First, there's the fact that only the most academic register adheres with total fidelity to the "rules" (i.e., follows the top style guides with rigid insistence)—every other register is increasingly relaxed by comparison, following typical usage instead of external rules. Second, beyond that, any point of view that is not utterly detached from every character is at least somewhat flavored by the idiolect of one or more particular characters, so the grammar in the text necessarily becomes less "correct."

2) Non-grammatical issues. These are fuzzier and therefore less easy to pin down as errors except when blatant; even consistency, ostensibly the easiest issue to identify, does not necessarily apply if the narrator is even slightly unreliable (i.e., human and well portrayed as such). Furthermore, many "errors" of this sort are less mistakes than points of preference; for example, a choice to steer a plot in direction X, while not to the tastes of some readers, is not an error but, well, a choice.

2) "80%." Hmm. Now I'm wondering where that figure came from, because it certainly doesn't apply to every book I can recall reading; I'd estimate the typical percentage at mid to upper 90s. When it comes to the "particulate matter" level of editing (the simplest, least arguable questions such as spelling, much of the punctuation, syntax, etc.), any copyeditor who reached only a level of 80% accuracy would never work again, at least for that client. One of my fairly recent copyedits, for example, was observed by a thoughtful reviewer to have had, quote, "an error about every 100–150 pages," which comes to a foul-up every 25,000 to 40,000 words or so, an accuracy rate of at least 99.996%.

In short, if you're seeing inarguable mistakes (i.e., not questions of choice, appropriate register, etc.) much more often than that, someone really dropped the ball.

Sorry for the sidetrack; carry on.

slrogers:

--- Quote from: Shecky on February 23, 2015, 04:01:39 AM ---
2) "80%." Hmm. Now I'm wondering where that figure came from, because it certainly doesn't apply to every book I can recall reading; I'd estimate the typical percentage at mid to upper 90s. When it comes to the "particulate matter" level of editing (the simplest, least arguable questions such as spelling, much of the punctuation, syntax, etc.), any copyeditor who reached only a level of 80% accuracy would never work again, at least for that client. One of my fairly recent copyedits, for example, was observed by a thoughtful reviewer to have had, quote, "an error about every 100–150 pages," which comes to a foul-up every 25,000 to 40,000 words or so, an accuracy rate of at least 99.996%.

In short, if you're seeing inarguable mistakes (i.e., not questions of choice, appropriate register, etc.) much more often than that, someone really dropped the ball.

--- End quote ---

The 80% doesn't (and like you said shouldn't) come from the final product, which is why most publishing houses have several editors and proofreaders (in addition to not accepting book that have a large number of mistakes in them). The 80% came from what I've read on several web pages on (or from) copy editors and perhaps comes from the 80/20 rule. You might see it reflected in several self-published books, (even those that have gone through an editing process) because of lack of budget and because the author can too easily miss mistakes by over familiarity of the material (not seeing the mistakes because they know what should be there).

And while some "mistakes" may be more fuzzy, each one still has the potential to kick a reader out of your story and the more there are the worse it gets. The phenomenal authors are able to make their story more seamless to more people. (While the average "successful" author might only be able to find a couple of thousand people, and the average writer trying to get published has a much harder time.)

I paint a bleak picture on this because I think I'm starting to understand why writing is so tough and why so few  really do well, and even fewer knock it out of the park.

Shecky:
Ah, I see what you meant: 80% pre-editing.

As for the potential to "kick a reader out of your story," it's very often a question of targeted audience. One man's meat is another man's poison; what will cause Reader A to pause, blink and wonder will give Reader B no pause whatsoever. "Seamless" is, most of the time, purely an issue of which preferences the author and editor wish to attract.

slrogers:

--- Quote from: Shecky on February 23, 2015, 12:51:52 PM ---Ah, I see what you meant: 80% pre-editing.

As for the potential to "kick a reader out of your story," it's very often a question of targeted audience. One man's meat is another man's poison; what will cause Reader A to pause, blink and wonder will give Reader B no pause whatsoever. "Seamless" is, most of the time, purely an issue of which preferences the author and editor wish to attract.

--- End quote ---

No, I meant that roughly 80% of the errors will get caught with each round of editing. http://www.copyediting.com/error-rates-editing suggests that it's more like 80-95%.

I don't know if I'd trust an editor or proofreader that said that they could get all of them. But it sounds like with Publishing houses, the content editor will try and catch as many of these (typos, spelling, grammar) as they can as well as story-line problems that they think you might have. Then, after fixing those, a copy editor will try and catch as many hard errors (names mismatches, inconstancies, and typos, spelling, grammar, ...) as they can. Then after all of those rounds of editing, the proofreaders will try and check for typos, spelling, etc as well as any formatting problems. So after the whole process, you should have less than 0.05% of 0.05% of 0.05% = 0.0001% of the hard errors. But that's in addition to all of the editing they would like you to do in advance, which all totaled should hopefully get you to less than 0.00001% (which if my calculations are correct would be about 1 or 2 per book).  Thus for anyone hoping to have professional quality, it could be rather expensive ($4,000 to more than $25,000 depending on the editors that you use). If you are banking on the book making $100,000 or more than you have no problems. If your just hoping that it might make $3,000 than your in a different ball park.

And no doubt "seamless" differs from reader to reader but some books (like Harry Potter) get closer than other books which might have the same target audience. And no doubt there are other important elements of "style" such as creativity and the like that add into the mix that help the reader overlook whatever "problems" they might have with the story.

Unfortunately it feels like "eliminating errors" tends to kill "creative" thinking, but so much of both are needed to make it the best possible book for the reader.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page