How much do tpyos bother the average reader?

[Brian W. Foster]

I think you're convinced by your own argument and don't, actually, want to hear what everyone else in the thread feels - that it's to the detriment of a book and an author to release a product that could be made better by some polish.

Actually, I've just heard both sides of all this before. The only difference in this particular forum is that everyone seems to be completely on one side of the issue. I was kind of hoping to hear something new.

You also didn't seem to pick up my comment that, these days, copy editing and proofing are done at the same step, by the same person - it's one of the consequences of the current publishing industry. Ergo when you say proofer, I see copy editor because there is, often, no differentiation anymore. (Because, um, a copy editor reads a mss for errors....)

I find that every draft that I do, beyond simple correcting of easy grammar mistakes, typos, etc. tends to introduce brand new typos and errors. Since a copy edit tends to address more issues than simple grammar, etc., I like having a dedicated proofreader be the absolute last person to look at the manuscript.

Contrary to your assertion, I haven't found that practice to be abnormal ...

So, since you seem to want me to essentially say that your story will be better and sell better for being less polished and less concerned with errors-craft (because that double negative is in place - why would a less error-ridden book ever be any worse if it still has the plot, the storytelling and the voice that appeals, presumably in both versions) and since I think that's terrible advice for any aspiring writer, or indeed any professional one

I'm probably not expressing myself well.

It's not that an error ridden book will sell better than an error free one, it's that there is an opportunity cost involved in making books error free. Every minute I spend in extra editing is a minute I'm not spending writing my next book.

So the question isn't which sells better between error-ridden and error-free, it's what makes better longterm financial sense more books that are of lesser quality or fewer books that are of higher quality.

Truthfully, you don't actually seem interested in the conversation. You just seem to want to say that quality and pride are important, so there!

 

[Overread]

It's not that an error ridden book will sell better than an error free one, it's that there is an opportunity cost involved in making books error free. Every minute I spend in extra editing is a minute I'm not spending writing my next book.

But what point is there in writing another book if your first book reviews poorly in part due to basic typos and errors? You'd either have to type perfectly the first time around so that you don't get those errors or you'd fast get a reputation as a pretty cheap writer; maybe has a good story here and there but otherwise is ignorable for producing a low-grade product.

So the question isn't which sells better between error-ridden and error-free, it's what makes better longterm financial sense more books that are of lesser quality or fewer books that are of higher quality.

Longterm financial sense IS about what sells better
Furthermore you have to consider that most authors don't have vast numbers of books to their name; those that do who also well well and strongly happen to often have most within the same setting or genre; the strength of the first leads to the second and soforth.

Heck most people who read and are avid fans of Discworld by Terry Pratchett have never read Darkside of the Sun even though its well published and by the same author (and even shares the same artistic cover style that his earlier novels had).

In the end you seem to be trying to nickle-and-dime your own work. I can say that that might mean you can churn out more but it will be lower grade. You might get a hit here and there but you won't make a good name for yourself if that is your overall attitude. Furthermore fans who get wind that a creator thinks poorly of their own creation not to spend time improving it with simplistic basic editing process might well get turned away.

Of course there has to be a limit to editing; there has to be a time-frame and point at which money and time spent editing is no longer practical.[/QUOTE]

 

[Brian W. Foster]

But what point is there in writing another book if your first book reviews poorly in part due to basic typos and errors? You'd either have to type perfectly the first time around so that you don't get those errors or you'd fast get a reputation as a pretty cheap writer; maybe has a good story here and there but otherwise is ignorable for producing a low-grade product.

When you're on a forum for writers or you're hanging around with editors or English teachers or whatever, groupthink tends to be that readers really care about all these kinds of issues.

My point is that I'm really not sure that that groupthink is correct.

The theory is that a certain type of reader is buying the majority of well-selling indie books. This reader consumes novels voraciously, cannot in fact find new novels to read fast enough. And this reader couldn't care less about typos and minor craft issues.

This reader cares about whether the book held his attention so much that he couldn't stop reading. He cares if the book made him feel something. He cares if he really loved the story.

The indie authors that seem to be doing the best understand what tropes that reader wants, understands how to keep him from putting the book down, understands how to make him feel, and understands how to make him love the story.

By putting out those books as quickly as possible instead of worrying about little minutia that simply doesn't matter to their reader, those indie authors are maximizing their income.

 

[Cathbad]

This reader cares about whether the book held his attention so much that he couldn't stop reading. He cares if the book made him feel something. He cares if he really loved the story.

Good luck finding enough of those readers. For me, I lose interest, if a book is poorly edited, and will stop reading it. And no, I'll not continue looking for that author's work, if it was self-published.

Bad editing takes away from a good story.

 

[Overread]

Well there is and always has been room in any market for the cheaper product. And yes cheap products can often sell well in volume, but its often a case that you've got to pump things out really fast; you've got to basically saturate the market with so much that something sticks and enough sticks to make a modest to decent income.

Thing is the book market has exploded; you're not 1 writer trying to saturate the market; the market is pretty much already saturated at the lowest end. There are loads of cheap indie-books on Amazon with around 10 or so reviews each on the first in the series and maybe the last in the series and whilst they might well sell they don't sell in anywhere near the volume of major publications.

So you run a risk - you can write 50 books that might well at a trickle or you write 5 books that could sell like wildfire.
On a forum where people are generally strong readers and who aspire to a high standard of course you've got those that focus on the 5 instead of the 50. That most here also find that many of their favourite authors that inspired them also wrote very few books likely reinforces that view.

This site and its members are likely not your target market for cheap consumer produced books and will present sound argument for why that approach is not a healthy one. Indeed short term it might work but long term it might simply result in you writing like a madman in the hope that something sticks.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

We get your point - or I do anyway. It's hard to miss since with every response you reiterate it. You say I don't seem interested to discuss it but in my first post I did. For some self publishers it works - for many, many more it doesn't (because the key skills like writing a book good enough to keep the pages turning are hard - and editors often help with that.) A writer has a better chance, long term, by ensuring their brand becomes synonymous with good books - and that includes being on market.

I also see - as stated above when I first engaged with your thread - more self publishers moving from the quick-release model and making their product more professional. Sp is a changing market with a wider readership emerging (one only has to look at the current stats on the decline of trad publishing to see that readership has shifted) - and that wider readership are more used to trad books and more discerning (according to a few of the big sp I chat to.)

So, I think your model is outdated and not conducive to a long term writing career for most authors.

I do hope I showed enough interest in the matter for your liking .

 

[Overread]

It would not surprise me if many self published authors don't use full editing and proof readers simply because

1) They lack the contacts to achieve such ends via cheaper or cost free ends (eg networking and forums for at least sample and guidelines)

2) They lack the justification to make such a significant investment into something that might well not be any good and likely started as a hobby or interest.

Thus as they start to make sales and income they can turn around and start to invest within their writing to achieve a higher level of quality and a better end product.

 

[Cathbad]

I'm not necessarily writing fir a "target audience". I want to share my stories with whoever wants to read them, and I love storytelling.

That said, it's me I have to please, and I want to put out a good product. The books I've written don't sell much, but I think (hope?) that's because I can't afford proper marketing. But I'll continue to write them, because it's what I enjoy doing. And I'll continue to put out the best product I am capable of.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

A lot of readers do care about things like misspelled words, poor grammar, and formatting errors. You can see that in the many one star reviews that say they couldn't finish the book because of typos, etc. If nothing else, a series of one stars pull the rating down. And many readers who read the actual reviews will be put off buying the book because of them.

(And I agree with Jo.)

 

[Ursa major]

A written story contains, at its most basic level, two elements: 1) the writing; 2) what the writing is trying to get across to the reader.

And, still at a basic level, the more attention the writing demands from the reader, the less attention is available to the story.

Now while there may be good** reasons for writers sometimes wanting to call attention to their writing, doing it by accident isn't one of them.


** - And less good ones, such as working jokes into the text of books that aren't primarily meant to be funny. (This is a hard habit to beat and addicts aren't always easily convinced that it is not the best of ideas. )

 

[Alex The G and T]

Catching a Rare typo is moderately annoying. Stumbling over multiple typos is like stepping in dog exhaust on a, supposedly, smooth walkway.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Many readers may say they don't care, and there are indeed a lot who wouldn't know the difference, but in (I hope) most cases it means that editing has made it so they don't have to care, because things are all in their proper places. If they read something that didn't have that polish they're used to seeing without even noticing, they would quickly realize that they do care. Fish don't care about water, either. Pour some alcohol into it, and they find out quickly that they did care about having clean water.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm probably not expressing myself well.

I suspect that's the case - I really don't understand the argument that's developing.

So the question isn't which sells better between error-ridden and error-free, it's what makes better longterm financial sense more books that are of lesser quality or fewer books that are of higher quality.

Lesser quality IMO just means less focus on plotting and character building in order to finish a book more quickly. Quite a few authors have been successful done this to build themselves a following while self-publishing ebooks was still a new and shiny thing. However, even these authors have pushed on improved editing standards.

I'm not sure there's any argument that typos are good, but I don't think that's the one you're making.

 

[HareBrain]

I'm sure there are a lot of indie readers who don't particularly care about craft elements like correct spelling, grammar etc. And if you knew how to get those readers to buy your books rather than someone else's, it might well be financially worthwhile to produce 5 books to a standard of 8/10 than three to a standard of 10/10.

But how would you target those readers anyway? Yes, they might have voracious appetites, but there are hundreds of self-published books coming out each day, so they're still over-supplied. And from the replies to this thread, there don't seem to be many of them here. (I'm not one either.)

I'd guess that apart from the odd fluke, the writers for whom this model works are those with a large existing fanbase who will devour all output from that writer. But how many would stop buying if quantity increased but quality took a drop, who knows? How can we know how much or little these readers care about typos? Do we have anything to go on apart from anecdotal evidence and reviews?

I think it's a worthwhile question. But for me, Like Jo and others, pride would trump the consideration anyway.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

As I've said elsewhere, there are certain differences between a writer and an author. Taking care is a hallmark of the latter.

 

[ratsy]

I'm not sure why we even need to discuss this. Even if readers didn't care one bit about typos, I would still do my best to make sure there aren't any. And for this, you need to hire someone.

End Transmission

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm not sure why we even need to discuss this. Even if readers didn't care one bit about typos, I would still do my best to make sure there aren't any. And for this, you need to hire someone.

End Transmission

The other thing that comes to mind - this is being presented as a time-saving mechanism, to get more books out more quickly. How long does a proof/copyedit/whatever you get take? 4 weeks, max, often less. It's hardly make-or-break in terms of the timescale of publishing a book.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Art takes time to create.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Art takes time to create.

But the original poster isn't talking about creating art.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Catching a Rare typo is moderately annoying. Stumbling over multiple typos is like stepping in dog exhaust on a, supposedly, smooth walkway.

Hitting a typo in page one will throw me off completely. There's a novel on my shelves I haven't gotten round to reading for years (despite my telling the author I would) because there was a typo in it before it even started. It's only towards the end of the opening paragraph that it becomes clear that what you are reading is spoken dialogue - because the opening quotation marks telling the reader that it is dialogue are missing.

And I dumped a book the other week because on page one the police were, apparently, investigating a series of 'grizzly' murders.