Critique services worth it?

No, you are the one who made it personal. Who argued that we were wrong because we haven't been published. That is personal; it's ad hominen and it's both dishonest and wrong.

And, to answer back in the same tenor; are you telling us that you haven't succeeded following your own advice either?

No-one has ever argued that it editors are incapable of being helpful. All that anyone has argued is that it's hard to tell if they are helpful or not, and with that in mind paying for the privilege is wasted money.

What are you even arguing against at this point? You go on to say that:

Don't you see how this is what disproves your point? You clearly acknowledge that there's a dozen other variables that effect if you get published or not. Other factors an editor can't help you with. Other factors that can bury you (or not) no matter if your manuscript is edited. So why focus on editing as such an important factor? Why look to a paid person when you know that just sending your pitch on the wrong day might mean you never get read? Why spend money out of pocket when a publisher might be having a bad day and just throws your book away?

 

Did I say that? No, I did not. I said that improving the quality of the ms will improve the chances that an agent will be interested.

Thank you.

Yes, I did. Good for her.

Since I have not yet begun pitching the novel she edited, I can't answer that question, yet. I have entered it in this year's Freddie Award contest (run by the Florida Chapter of the MWA), and am anxious to see what feedback I get from them. As of now, my plan is to pitch my novel at the March New York Pitch Conference, and to begin querying immediately thereafter. I will let you know.

 

So let me ask again;

Why do you think an editor is making your work better?

Why do you think that an editor is better than a friend, a family member or a fellow writer?

How do you know that an editor has made your work better?

Why do you think that better even matters to agents and publishers?

And what does better even really mean when we know that different agencies, publishers and audiences have their own interests and you can't cater to all of them at the same time?

 

These questions have all been asked and answered, as the lawyers like to say.

 

Not unless you count fanfiction under a completely different pseudonym, which as far as I know my publisher was unaware of at the time of acceptance. Under the Knife was my first original work of fiction and was the only thing I'd ever submitted to a publisher at that time.

 

Excellent. How long ago was that?

 

No, they haven't. At all. Not in the slightest, not even once.

You've taken it as assumed throughout that editors will unequivocally make your work better in a way another person can't and thus make your work more publishable. And I take issue with literally every single one of those assumptions. If you aren't even going to try and explain why you think them then we may as well just dismiss your point of view as a piece of personal voodoo. You might believe that spilling chicken blood on your manuscript will help you succeed but if you can't tell us the mechanism involved then I'm not going to start molesting poultry.

You haven't answered at all why you think editors are better than other people; you've just said you think editors can 'teach you more' without for a second stopping to think that this depends very much on the editor themselves. And you absolutely haven't answered what you think better means. You've just kept saying better, better, better; an editor makes your work better.

If you were to argue that they made your work more commercial and more marketable then at least that would be something with some rationale to it; an editor should know the industry better than your readers and they should be able to tell you what sells and what doesn't even if they don't like it. But you haven't made that argument. You just keep saying they make your work better.

 

I'm not doing this. I've said what I have to say. Reread my posts. If you don't agree, then you don't. Good luck with your writing.

 

Now is when you decide you're not doing this? You've been doing it for two straight days!

And now you're backing away having personally attacked the people you were arguing with, claimed that anyone who isn't published doesn't know shit about shit, and having the only published writers we have on hand say they succeeded without an editor. What are we to read into that?

And for future reference, please don't call out other writers for not being published then throw up your hands when they take that personally, especially when you're in the same exact boat.

 

UTK was accepted in 2015 and was published on June 20th, 2016. So less than two years ago.

 

Over the years, I have found that the most valuable advice on this board is that given by people with experience. Others like to give advice based on what they feel, but have no actual experience with, and some of those are simply parroting what they've heard or read. When I ask about someone's experience, it is for the sole purpose of establishing their depth of knowledge on the subject on which they have chosen to expound and the reliability of their opinion. At no time have I attacked anyone personally. Not you, not anyone else. For two days, you've been demanding answers of me. I've provided them. You don't like them.

So, you don't.

 

Thanks, Laurin. For a moment, I thought you might be Tess Gerritsen, incognito, because she has a book by the same title (published in 2014). I see yours is a romance. Hope it's doing well.

 

And what is your depth of knowledge? What is your experience?

When you predicate your accepting someone's opinion on their success in publishing that is a personal attack. That's saying "You haven't sold anything so what do you know?". Notably, when you only start asking about the successes of the people you think haven't had any then that is personal. You manage to acknowledge Laurin and Bay without even answering their points, only arguing with people that you think haven't sold any books.

You haven't given any answers.

I tell you what; since you've answered this point before why don't you just copy and paste the answer you gave earlier:

Why do you think an editor is better than any other person providing critique?

Go on son; one minute, ctrl+c, ctrl+v. Lets see your answer.

 

That's all.

Unwatching.

 

Yeah, there's more than Under the Knife book out there - the one you mentioned above, along with a medical thriller by Kelly Parsons that came out in 2017 and a non-fiction true crime book by Diane Fanning in 2007. It's definitely not the most original title, but I do believe I have the distinction of being the only author who uses it as a food reference.

And thank you - both Less Than Three and I are very happy with UTK's sales, and last month they published my second book as well.

 

Which says everything about the depth of your experience.

To bring us full circle lets go back to the first page, the first thing you said that kicked this all off:

And finally we get to...

And all without approaching a professional editor... Lordy, lordy, who'd have thunk it.

Unwatch as you may, but when someone you think is right and someone you think is wrong tells you the same thing it's because they're right.

 

For all of you who don't believe acquiring a professional grade editor is worth the time and money, the above statement says it all.

If it's your goal/dream to be published by a major publisher, it would seem you'd want to do every last thing to improve your odds.
I've gone beyond hiring an Editor... my writing partner and I were very curious as to how our story works as an audiobook presentation, particularly how the dialogue comes off. I found an actress who does audiobook narration and handed over the second chapter of our story, and told her to have at it! We found out what worked, and what needed improving. Not only that, we got our feet wet in the dicey world of audiobooks. That was at a cost of $600US for an 8,000+ word chapter.

 

But what do you mean by improving the quality? Specifically. What exactly does that mean in a book? Do you think that there is just a sliding scale from 0 to 10 in terms of quality and things over 8.7 get published? Or, do you think that there might be a whole lot of intangible things that are very subjective that contribute to the quality of a book?

So should I take out a massive loan and employ a team of writers, editors and agents to ensure my success? Because surely if it's my dream to be published I would want to pay fifty grand out of pocket to see my idea come to life? That is doing truly every last thing to improve your odds. But you wouldn't advise anyone to do that would you? You wouldn't advise someone to put themselves in debt on the hope that they get published, or at least I hope you wouldn't.

You want to know the best advice you can give to any creative? They can't all be winners. Those five words sum up everything important. You can't put your eggs in one basket. You can write another book. You can learn and find a more marketable idea. You can try again, and you've lost nothing from trying. Unless you pay out of pocket for services that may make no difference.

If your idea isn't marketable no amount of editing will make any difference. Hell, even if your work is really good it won't matter if it's not what agents want. No matter how good, if they don't like it it won't matter what you spend. And thus it's just good money after bad.

If you truly want to see your work published then what you'll do is let your darling go and try again.

 

Assorted thoughts on that:

If my goal involved making money, I would need to consider the odds that the editor would cost more than I'd ever earn from the book--and that seems not unlikely. If my goal just involved getting readers, and if I have plenty of spare cash, I suppose those one element isn't an issue.

"Every last thing" should presumably be narrowed to things that are likely to improve the odds. And I still really have doubts about that.

I believe that to get published, I, myself, personally, need to become a pretty darn good writer, and a pretty good editor of my own stuff. Unless I have enough spare cash to hire an editor for months and months, I need to do the vast majority of the work myself. I'm not arguing against the idea that the book has to be really darn good. I'm arguing against the idea that I can buy that goodness.

Because who do I buy it from? Why would I assume that there are really good editors, editors who are better than I can become through all of my own stringent efforts, who have nothing better to do than look at my book? Yeah, sure, I would write them a check, but still, why does this business model work for them? The vast majority of the books they receive are going to be simply dreadful; why would they choose this form of work? If they want to teach writers, why aren't they teaching? If they want to edit good books, why aren't they working for a publisher?

There may be some of those out there--competent editors who for some reason choose to work freelance for amateurs. How do I know that the person in front of me, the person that I'd be about to write a substantial check to, is one of those?

 

Very well put.

Exactly.

Anyone who has the stature for me to know for sure that they are worth the money either costs more than I can afford or accepts projects on a strictly "if it takes my interest" basis. How can you trust anyone who claims to be so good but is still working at competitive rates? Especially when I have friends who are writers who smart and perceptive and will wrap my knuckles when I screw up who'll do it because they like me, it just seems foolish.

Presuming that because someone takes money for their service they are good at it is something that you can be disabused of by meeting some prostitutes.

 

For exactly this reason, I just can't see myself investing much of my personal money into writing. I don't mind the publisher taking their cut, but what I'm willing to lay out up front and out of pocket in the hope that I sell enough books to break even is fairly limited. While I'm not terribly concerned about making a profit (though I more than do so far with such limited expenses) I will do everything possible not to lose money on my writerly pursuits. I spent a long time as the owner of a sole proprietorship business that went deep in the red every single year, so I'm not anxious to repeat that experience anytime soon.

 

The best ones, mine included, have worked for one of the big publishers (usually more than one). She left the reliable paycheck and safety of a big publisher because she wanted control over what she spends her time on. And you're correct, a talented editor wouldn't waste her time on dreadful stories that have no chance at the prize. I chose her and she chose me. I have to schedule my week with her months in advance. That's at least a good sign that she's very busy. Sort of like automobile mechanics and surgeons... the ones that aren't busy are most probably no good.

 

Yes, exactly. Not because you don't have faith in your work, and not because you won't do everything that you can with it; it's simply pragmatism. You can keep throwing money at a book forever and still never see it published. Most of us are willing to spend money on things like Scrivener; forty bucks for something that you'll use on every book doesn't seem like a bad deal. But more than that? Well, no. Just no. I think most of us today wouldn't be willing to pay out at a printshop to submit by the post, even if it's a superb agency, just because it's time and effort and money and you can't keep throwing ten dollar bills at your submissions like that. You're going to do a lot of them.