Have you ever been through the process of writing and self-publishing a book? Writers who believe in their work, and are not rolling in traditional publisher advances and advertising, will pay to promote it. Self-publishing a book does not make you a publisher, it makes you a writer who is self-publishing a book. Also, editing is not just about fixing grammatical mistakes. It is also about pacing, dialogue, anachronism identification, and much more. If you didn't get these things the first time around, chances are you won't get them the second time. This is why you need a second set of eyes. Here is the point I am making. Editing is expensive to us poor writers. I get that. You have to ask yourself if what you've written is worth it. If it is, you will pay for it. If it isn't, you will sling a piece of crap out there for everyone to see and take a chance on ruining yourself before you even get started. This is just my view as a self-published novelist.
not to bust in on a random tangent but there are a lot of egocentric artists who felt they deserved recognition in some way. They had aspirations to be great artists and to be respected as an artist and when people with money or power to promote them laughed at them and pushed them aside, they went ape shit. Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler were aspiring artists before they decided to try to change the world in their image. They let the critics get to them and they gave up on their dreams. Then those thrown away dreams festered into something else. If you do art it should be for you, even if you have to die poor like Vincent Van Gogh or be obscure until after your death like Emily Dickinson or found drunk and half dead in a gutter like Edgar Allan Poe(why Poe, why). Seeking fame and glory from your works is probably going to lead you down a road you don't need to be on. I think that's one reason why art should be independent and not regulated by governments or companies. If your work is so precious to you that you cannot allow others opinions to come in, then maybe you have to be willing to stay poor to pursue it or whatever else... Giving up on your art though, is probably the worst thing a human can do. Regardless of getting published or getting recognition, never throw away that positive outlet.
Everything you wear, everything you watch, every app you download, every website you visit, needed an artist to create the design. I think your ideals are not only unrealistic, but discriminatory. What makes your chosen profession more worthy of money than mine?
There is no shame in making money from your art and anyone who tells you otherwise is a pretentious cluck. I am not sure I read anything discriminatory in Artist369's post.
Well, there have been lots of artists who were successful in their lifetimes and didn't turn into monomaniacal murderers. And there's a difference between "seeking fame and glory" and "trying to make a living". Even so, there's nothing wrong with seeking fame and glory, as long as you're mentally stable enough to deal with falling short of your goal. And your last paragraph has a pretty huge IF in it... IF someone's work is so precious to them that they can't allow others' opinions to intrude, then, yes, they probably shouldn't publish. But most people AREN'T like that, so there's no real connection between your IF statement and the idea that art should all be independent...
Either way you look at it, you still have to take on the responsibilities of a publisher. This includes things like marketing. If you really need a second pair of eyes, get someone to look at it for free. Seriously. Paying an editor four figures is absolutely insane. Besides, editors usually don't look at things like pacing and anachronisms. But a beta reader can easily look for those things. I think I mentioned in this thread that there are writers who are good enough that they don't even need to pay an editor should they decide to go the self-publishing route. Heck, there are a few writers on this forum that I would put into that category.
Slight correction - editors do look for pacing, plot holes, etc - if you choose a developmental and/or copy editor. If you choose a proofreader only, they'll look for grammar and typos, etc. I don't think it's a bad idea for a self-publisher to hire an editor, as long as they know what they need and how to select the appropriate editor. When an author puts on the publisher's hat, they should plan on investing both time and money if they want their book to have the best chance of success. Yes, one can do it all themselves, but the results often show that.
And what would an untrained, second pair of eyes do for any of the things I mentioned? Are you assuming that the average reader can identify any or all of the things I mentioned? Also, do you really expect the average person to drop what they are doing to read your novel and identify everything wrong with it? Not if you believe in your work. I am offering this advice because I made the mistake of slinging up an unedited copy of my novel (It is actually still up, but it is being edited before I put it to print). The point is, you are too close to the material to edit your work objectively. Stephen King, who is a better writer than anyone on this forum, uses an editor. Every author who takes their craft seriously uses an editor. I think what you are talking about is the rewrite. Is that possible? If so, yes, you are correct. We, as writers, as responsible for second, third, and maybe fourth rewrites. But even then...
Well, beta readers and editors look at different things. When an editor offers feedback about plot, characterization, etc., he's basically doing the exact same thing a beta reader does. At that point, why bother paying an editor at all? I'm assuming here that you can find readers who can offer some good feedback (there are loads of them out there). I'm actually going to disagree on this one, but that's a separate issue. Works by writers like Cormac McCarthy and T. C. Boyle are published with no changes (I read this in an interview of Boyle once). Of course, their books were published by publishers, but not all serious writers require editors. I'm actually giving self-publishers the benefit of the doubt when I say that some of them are capable of writing stuff that doesn't need editing. Writers are responsible for all drafts/revisions. Besides, you should only be sending a polished version to an editor.
There will always be exceptions to the rule, as you have correctly pointed out. I will disagree with you on the last point. If the version is polished, then why send it to an editor at all?
That was kind of what I was getting at earlier. If the writer can polish the manuscript himself, why get an editor at all? For me, the cost of hiring an editor just isn't worth it. Just my opinion of course.
As with writing, there really are no set rules to self-publishing. It is still rather new in its current state, and I guess we are all just learning by default. I got lucky with my novel in the respect that is kind of followed your experience. The story was apparently good enough that the holes were missed by most. It might be the perfectionist in my that sets me off on fixing every possible thing wrong with it, when in all actuality, no novel will ever truly get there. At some point we just have to ship the darn thing and hope for the best.
If writers can make their ms of publishable quality on their own, why on earth do trade publishers employ editors?
what are you talking about? I didn't say any chosen profession is better than another. What I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't give up on their passion regardless of who judges you and throws your work away. Regardless if you can't make　money or become famous. I think it's get to be able to make a living off of your art work. It's what I wish I was able to do now, instead of having to do other things to get by. But what I won't do is throw my own work aside and become bitter with the world simply because I can't get recognition for it or get paid for it. I don't understand what you thought I meant, so I'm sorry for being vague.
