Editors: Needing, Wanting, Getting

Writers need editors, good ones, to make the work better. Too often in this day and age, editing is not giving the pre-eminence it deserves.

The big traditonal houses cut many of their long-term in-house editors (and thereby their own throats), which may one of the reasons so much coming out of the big houses is absolute crap.

BUT-- you say, those books are on the (voice of awe) New York Times Best Seller List.
Well, big whoop. Doesn't mean they're good, just that someone said they sold a certain amount in a brief period of time, in what may well be a rigged game.

I point out that fast-food places sell a lot of pink-slime burgers laced with ammonia, but few would claim they're haute cusiine.

It's getting to the point where if a book claims to be a best-seller, it's got a good chance of being a steaming pile of pony poop. I continually see stuff that wouldn't pass my local critique group, yet it's touted as "quality" from a curated system.

Where are the story editors, the line editors? Heck, some books even lack the basic copyediting.

Why is this so? Because editors, especially good ones, cost money, and the big houses are about profit. So they skimp now, and it shows. They'll squawk about the poor editing of self-publishing-- and they're right-- but they should clean up their own backyard as well.

So the question keeps getting asked- how do you hire a good editor, and what kind of one do you need?

The answer lies in the post of Kristine Kathryn Rusch in The Business Rusch: Hiring Editors.

Says it all. Go read, and learn. She is the wise one.

Separating the good from the bad

With the new world of publishing, many pros of the traditional system are stuck in the former way of doing things, and if they've benefitted under the traditional system, they see no reason to change.
Sure, it's great if you have a publishing house that wants to push for you, but that's a tiny portion of the active writers out there. That leaves the 99% of writers who need something better, like small independent publishing or self-publishing.

Sue Grafton (A is for Alibi, etc) is a very popular writer of the traditional system, and she recently caused a firestorm with comments she made in an interview, describing self-publishers as "lazy."
Many people jumped on this remark to rip her, and the rhetoric has been rather heated.
For the record, I've met her, and she's very nice.
I don't believe she wants to harm other writers, but she does have an outdated and unrealistic view of modern publishing-- no surprise-- since she's been doing well under the old system for over 25 years.
She apparently based her remark on a couple of self-published ebooks she'd seen, which she thought were not of professional quality.

Granted, there are numerous inferior examples of self-published ebooks, but one should not make a sweeping judgement based on a couple of bad examples-- we can find similar bad examples of shoddy editing and printing in mainstream published books as well.

In the past, traditional publishing houses had in-house editors, and books did go through a better process. But now, editing has been relegated to junior people, or outsourced entirely.
So independent and self-publishers can outsource their editng services, same as the big trad houses do. But the perception lingers that independent and self-published books don't get the same level of editing.

With the modern advent of quick and easy "push-button publishing," the field is wide-open for everyone, including a lot of people who aren't going to take the time to learn the craft of writing,
or even decent cover art and formattingand here's where the problem lies--
how do we, as readers, separate the good from the bad?

A big publishing house product is no guarantee of quality, and independent and self-publishers can span the range of bad to extremely good.

Many bookselling sites have reviews, which are one way of screening, if a reader is careful to read into the review itself.
There have been a few incidents of writers posting multiple overly-complimentary reviews of their own work. Rather sleazy.
There have also been cases where some people trashed other works, to lower the desirability of what they see as competitors. Also sleazy.

You have to remember, independent and self-publishers don't have the reach of a professional review journal such as Publisher's Weekly or Kirkus, which in many cases are heavily influenced (and in some cases outright paid for) by the publishing house.
So a few independents are trying to stack the deck by adding a bunch of one-sided reviews for a particular book.

One way to check a review is to look at the profile of the reviewer, and see what else they've done.
So another good screen on what a book is like is to see non-selling review sites themselves: places like Goodreads, Library Thing, or Shelfari, sites where readers tell what they thought of a work. These are good places for book fans to say what they like or dislike about the books they read.
Some genres have particular websites that review books in that field. Usually you can find good recommendations.

The best way to separate the bad from the good, however, is to read a sample of the book itself- easy enough to do on Amazon, and with ebooks, the Smashwords site. You'll quickly see what the quality of the writing is like, and whether or not you wish to purchase said book.

Now there are some people who don't care-- they only want a good story-- but I find it rather offensive if a book is poorly written or worse, or if it's apparent the author hasn't learned basic grammar and spelling. I've spent years learning to do writing well, and someone who puts out junk is a blight on those who take care to put out professional work.

So screen those new purchases before you buy, and help out other readers by posting your own reviews-- tell people what you think and why-- good or bad.

Money For Nothing

Great post by April Hamilton on If You're Not Ready To Invest, You're Not Ready To Publish.

On the alarming sense of entitlement she's seeing out there among indies and would-be indies. Idiots who post crappy e-books with no formatting, grammar, basic editing, and usually horrible covers.

But they want a million downloads, and to get rich, even though they haven't even done the basics. They want money for nothing.

It's rather like some dimwit setting up a business without knowing the first thing about business. All you've got is a product, and you think that's all you need.

Well, it's more than that. Creating a good book is part of it, but the packaging is also of vital importance. 99 times out of a hundred (or possibly more) an amateurish cover means an amateurish book. A quick look at the contents will tell you what you need to know.

There's a lot of people calling themselves writers, who shoved out a piece of pony poo without getting even a simple edit. And these fools just muck up the marketplace, because no one will (or should) buy their hastily-extruded end product.

Read the blog post, and do what she says. As a start!

Write and Price to Value

Here's an Indie writer complaining about the low price of e-books. He's bemoaning the fact that some big-selling authors like John Locke and Amanda Hocking sell their e-books for 99 cents, and that drives the market expectations down, and doggone it, he wants more money for his book.

To which I say, "Dude, you're an Indie writer-- so charge what your books are worth!"

I mean, duh.

Sure, they sell a lot of books at that price. A lot of people like cheap crap. People stuff their e-readers with free and cheap e-books. I've got a bunch of cheap e-books, too. Haven't read them-- they're way down on the to-be-read list.

You know why? Because at that price, I expect most of them to be cheap crap-- which means they're very low priority. And I'll toss them aside, without finishing, and without a qualm if they don't measure up. I may never even get to them. Many are a waste of time.

In the Indie world, you write what you want to write, and sell at the price you want. If you decide your work isn't worth more than a cheap plastic comb, that's your choice. Me, I set my prices higher, because I write quality work that's worth more. I've spent years honing my craft, polishing the work, giving it value. And I sure as hell ain't gonna give it away for almost nothing.

Do you see good restaurants giving away nice meals at fast-food prices? I don't eat at fast-food joints-- I want a better experience and quality. Same with books-- I want something of value for the time I spend reading it.

I even bought one of those John Locke e-books at the 99 cent price, to see if he was worth even that piddly amount. You know what? He isn't. I didn't even finish the book, and won't read another by him.

So, fellow writer, put on your big-boy pants and write something of value. And put it up for sale at the price it's worth. And quityerbitchin. I don't care what crap is selling for, because I'm not writing crap. I want readers who are willing to exchange in fair trade, value for value. And I'm getting them, little by little. Fewer readers, maybe-- but they'll remember mine and want more.

How to Write a Best Seller

For years now, people have sought the magic formula for a best-seller, trying to divine the elements that make up what will hit, and trying to reproduce it. Here's another shot at it.

It is alchemy, trying to turn baser metals into gold.

No one knows what will hit, and many best-sellers are unlikely.
Bridges of Madison County? Head-scratchingly puzzling.
Harry Potter? Turned down many times.
Da Vinci Code? A thousand just like it, with far better writing and plotting, went nowhere.
Twilight? Almost everything similar was written far better. This one hit.
50 Shades of Gray? Someone please explain why women like this!

When I was taking writing classes from Stephen King, he told us of someone who'd tried to analyze best-sellers and write a book with their elements, in hopes of making it big. The result was God's High Table. Yeah, you've never heard of it.

These efforts don't usually hit, because someone conciously trying to write a best-seller is doing it for the money and the ego, not for the story itself. Even these awful hack writers who hit with one were writing what they liked, and their hearts were into it. The fact that dumb stuff occasionally gets popular and goes viral is just a facet of how it is. With over a hundred thousand books a year coming out, a few of them will get a great buzz. And not all of them will be good, so you could say they don't "deserve" it.

Someone asked me why I don't write something like "50 Shades of Gray" to make a lot of money. I said that although rolling around in stable muck might be popular, it wasn't my style. And imitation does not guarantee similar sales.
It ain't a fair game. Ah, well. That's just how it is.

Plot and Character

Last week when my interview aired on Author Radio, I'd said that plot was critical. I didn't mean that character was any less so, just that I concentrated on creating good, believable plots in my novels.

After reading the blog of noted mystery author Jane Haddam (I'm now a big fan-- she's a brilliant thinker and blogger), she said that she didn't think plots were all that important, the story was all about the characters.

So I thought about it, and we're both right. Yes, you have to have three-dimensional characters in your book, for without real ones, plots don't matter. For proof, study a lot of genre fiction from years past. Characters cannot be cardboard, or walk-ons. They have to live and breathe, and matter.

But without any action, any point, it's just so much academic fluff. Mere descriptions of people aren't enough, one needs a story. It's the framework which these characters move within.

I recently read two more blockbuster best-sellers with plots of immense stupidity. (I blogged on this awhile back.) Once again, it made me mad, as if the author and publisher had nothing but contempt for the reader. Where is this supposed, much vaunted editing quality that New York Big Publishing is supposed to provide? These dumbass plot idiocies would not have made it out of my editing/critique group.

Do people really not care if the plot is laughably dumb, as long as the writing is otherwise good? To me, it's all a package. If you've got really stupid stuff in there, I stop and roll my eyes, and consider the writer has not their job properly.

I've always said I don't write badly enough to have a best-seller. Two more data points of proof...

***

In other news, here's a flash for all those who defend Big Traditional Publishing as the kindly, gentle, fairy godmother who cares for all writers. It's Vincent Zandri telling us about his experience. "Hating Amazon and What Random House Did to Me and My Family..."
(Would love to show this to the clowns on Absolute Write who said that publishers would never let a book fail.)

Another Data Point for Decision

For any writer trying to decide whether to jump into publishing or wait around to "win the New York lottery" of traditional big-house publishing, here's another good data point from Rob Cornell, on the 5 reasons he went indie.

This is the insanity of the old method-- a writer who is told their writing and manuscript are good-- by the pros, mind you-- who also say they can't make enough money off it to make it worth publishing. WTF? The mystery market is down? On what planet?

Enter the world of Do-It-Yourself. And so Rob did, and now has books for sale. Voila. He took control, and is now published, instead of continuing to wait for supposed professionals to pull their respective heads from nether orifices.

As for the NY big-pub trad world, it's hard to sympathize with someone digging their own grave and who tells everyone they know what they're doing.

Bad Writing of Best-Sellers

As a writer, I check out the work of other writers. Lets me see how they write, their technique, and shows me what's popular in the field. With "best-selling" mysteries and thrillers, they're all too often disappointing, at best, and downright contemptible and ludicrous at worst. Have just found another example of the latter.

Now this guy sells millions of books, has rabid fans, and his name is spoken with reverent awe. He's the powerhouse of e-publishing and print. But his book is stupid-- insultingly stupid-- a reeking dungheap of ridiculous plot. The writing is good, the characters are developed, but the plot is so laughably bad. At least it would be laughable, if people weren't supporting this clown by buying his work.

"But he's popular, so he must be good," will be the response from the Booboisie. Well, no. Fast food is popular, but it's not good. And this guy makes it worse. He takes a fast food burger, slaps horse poop and ground glass on it, and shovels it up to the masses. And they eat this crap sandwich, and smile and say it's wonderful. Gah!

I'm in the Tyngsboro Writer's Group, and none of us are critics for the New York Review of Books, but we can spot a stinker. Any time writing doesn't pass muster, they let you know. I know, I've tried it before, and it just doesn’t fly. This guy's plot would have been shot down by everyone as too stupid for belief, and would have never made it out. You can let all the hot air out of this Bad Plot Balloon with one phone call, one person acting reasonably, or anyone doing what they'd do in Real Life.

We'd have told this writer not to insult the reader. He MUST like to insult his readers, he's got to have contempt for his audience. There's no other way to explain it. Me, I wouldn't have the money he's making for producing this bilge. If my name was on a piece of crap this bad, I'd take the Hemingway route with a shotgun. And I mean it. This kind of junk is really offensive.

There's absurdity and coincidence piled upon unbelievability and bullshit. The characters are simply marionettes, who do the writer's bidding, but do things that would not be done by anybody outside a Hollywood coke-fantasy film. And they do them at just the right time to creakily move the dumbass plot to the next Big Point. You know a book is bad when you keep rolling your eyes and saying "Oh, Pul-eeze!"

The plot setup is so ridiculous, it's akin to having a switch that will destroy an entire town, and where the authorities know that a guy is going to come in and throw the switch to slaughter everyone. All they need to do is lock the door. But they can’t, because the writer has put up a big sign saying "This door cannot be locked, or I won’t have a crap book to shove out!" Yeah, that simple, that mind-numbingly dumb.

If this was just one awful example of what's popular, it might not be so bad, But I've seen too many others like it, and I've had it. I strive to create good, believable plots with decent writing, and I screen the work with early readers and tough critique. This book has all the earmarks of a Hollywood pitch session, where everyone was on drugs.

Why does this bother me so much? Because I write with aspirations of craftsmanship, and don’t look down on my audience, but carefully build characters and situations that they can believe in. The good writers do this. The bad ones churn out senseless junk for mass consumption that cheapens all other books. He oughtta be ashamed.

Bad Writing

So I've had a stack of recommended books to get through, and recently tackled them. Wow. If that's the state of publishing, no wonder they're hurting. In book after book, the writing was amateurish and lazy and plain bad. I was appalled.

When I read a novel, I desire some measure of empathy with one or more characters, a plot that doesn't make me roll my eyes at stupid actions and impossibilities, and a minimum writing level that shows the author has spent some time learning their craft, and had an editor that keeps them from egregious mistakes.

Hey, I'm guilty of crappy writing sections in my early drafts. I take it to the Tyngsboro Writer's Group, and they point out the stupid stuff, the cliches, the patches of lazy writing where I shorthanded a section to "get to the good stuff". So I rewrite and try again, as many times as necessary until the rough edges are smoothed out. Then it goes to even harder editors, who rip apart anything that doesn't work with withering scorn. It's a very humbling, ego-smashing, painful experience, and a necessary one for real writers. It's why I don't have patience for wannabes who won't do the hard work it takes to make things good.

But if you survive all that criticism, by the time you get done, you've got something that doesn't suck. I'm not great, but sometimes I get out stuff that's pretty good, and once in awhile get a really great reaction to something I've written. Even on my stories that get turned down by editors, many of them are taking the time to write personal notes saying how good the writing is, with a request for me to send more. That, dear readers, is a professional accolade.

So-- I read the first book on my list-- a great idea, good atmosphere, but it just fizzled and left me feeling like it was a short story the guy couldn't finish.

Second Book-- Great idea, Dan Brown-style thriller, but lousy, Dan Brown-style writing: flat dialogue, hyperactive viewpoints, awful cliches, impossible coincidences, and characters who do utterly stupid things for no reason. A shame, really, because with a basic level of good writing, this could have been a real book.

Third Book-- The author mentioned she'd got her dream editor to work on the book, so I had hopes. The premise was exciting. But after eye rolls and tsks of disgust, I tossed the book aside before ten pages were done. Full of stereotypes, like a bad TV script. Most college freshmen could turn out a better page. This had a good editor and was still a piece of crap!

Fourth Book-- A mystery, but one of those with a premise so very cute and twee. I flung (past tense- flanged?) it aside. Please give me characters from this plane of existence, who resemble real human beings! I wanted real meat, and got a plastic egg.

Fifth Book- At last, a real novel to sink your teeth into: Double Exposure, by Michael Lister. Yowza- I recommend it. Full disclosure here- this book was published by Tyrus Books, who I've trusted with a sample of my novel. Even if they don't want my novel, they're committed to excellence, and it shows.

It took me five books to find one worthwhile. Not a good ratio. Is it too much to ask that writers do their damn job? These books are selling on concept, a pitch, like a Hollywood movie. But the execution is amateurishly bad. Most of these books wouldn't pass muster in my writing group, let alone for professional purposes.

So what are your recent reads that stand out as really good?