The Challenge of Being an Author, After the Writing

Editing

So, I read this article:

How Much To Pay For a Book Editor

And it's fine.  Well stated.  Gives some pointers.

Just to clarify what we are about to discuss (in lieu of reading the article) these are the estimated costs they suggest:

~~~
For a 70,000-word book, your editing costs could be:

• Developmental editing: $.08 per word, or $5,600 total
• Basic copyediting: $.018 per word, or $1,260 total
• Proofreading: $.0113, or $791 total

It’s easy to extrapolate from this what your total expected editing cost could be. Fantasy, sci-fi, and epic novel writers should be forewarned.

For a 120,000-word book, your editing costs could be:

• Developmental editing: $.08 per word, or $9,600 total
• Basic copyediting: $.018 per word, or $2,160 total
• Proofreading: $.0113, or $1,356 total

~~~

Keep in mind, many authors want all three services to make sure their manuscript is as clean as possible.  Even the best writers need someone else to edit.  WE ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE!


Then the comments.  Why do we fall down this rabbit hole?  It's awful.

It starts with a few people saying that those prices are way too high.  Hey, if you want to shop around, more power to you!

Then there is this asshole:

• I can’t think of a world wherein I’d edit a 70,000-word book for $560. In fact, I would delete the email that asked me to do that, because the author either didn’t value my time and skill or didn’t have a clue what professional editing is worth.

It is completely within your rights to both act that way and feel that way, but... 

•  For editors who are charging pennies for what should be hours and hours and hours worth of work: I am saddened that you would ruin the market for those who have the expertise and ability to charge what it’s worth. 

Ruin the market?  It's called free market for a reason.  People are free to charge different prices.  I feel this bullying of "you must charge this much or you aren't being taken seriously as a professional" is bullshit.  I've seen it in the world of photography and heard about it in the world of balloon twisting.  There is a certain amount that covers cost of supplies.  Presumably no one is going to charge less than overhead.  That's just bad business.  After that, we're talking intellectual property, non physical goods and people can charge LITERALLY whatever the want.  I don't even think you have a right to an opinion about what they charge.  You only have a right to an opinion about what YOU charge.

The thing is, maybe some of these editors actually recognize that writing requires "hours and hours and hours worth of work" for which an author has not been paid yet and may never BE paid.

• Here’s the deal, guys: editing is a tough job, 

So is writing.

• and it’s worth every penny. 

While authors are in a world where sometimes the advances are quite small and the market so saturated, they can have a perfectly edited document, a great story, and a nice query letter and still never get published...

• If I’m going to edit a 70,000-word book, I know what I’m going to bring to the table that the cheap editors can’t.

Someone willing to charge less than $10,000 for a 120,000 word document isn't necessarily cheap.  Just reasonable. Don't bash people just because it makes it hard for you to make more money per hour than an author will ever make as an author in their entire lifetime.

Same editor in another comment said this:

• I can assure you every reader knows you skipped out on professional editing while reading your books. 

Which just pushes me toward seeing her arrogance.  I absolutely believe that you know editing was skipped when the book has errors.  I bet there are books that were not professionally edited that you CANNOT tell.  Disclaimer: I am not one of those authors.  Instead, my sister and I are learning a lot about editing (we both went to college, both write, and both enjoy learning) so that we can edit each other's work. I have that fortune...

I'll give you this, though:

• In fact, if you’re using a software for “editing,” that book is riddled with errors. Overflowing to the brim with them.

Some books almost make me cry.  Editing software is STUPID, guys.  Don't kid yourselves.  If you don't know when the computer is wrong and you are right and if you're not willing to fight an inanimate object to prove your point, then you NEED an editor because you probably don't know as much about punctuation and grammar as you think you do and probably less about things like continuity and objectivity.  Just saying.

It's like the time I was sitting in a writing group (which I have since left because, really, just... no) and there was this woman who had self-published in a dozen languages.  Someone asked how many languages she speaks.  "None," at which point her son jumped in to say, "You don't need to.  You just use google translation services.

The thing is, I've read a few books that went through an agent and a large publishing house and still escaped with multiple errors.  What's up with that?  It seems to happen more and more these days.  Cringe!  I've even found 3 in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, the eBook version I just purchased so I could start reading it again.  It's a problem!  I can see one or two errors making it through, but it's been more prevalent.  Get it together, people!

Artists

This just reminds me of the entire subject.  I have compared writing to other independent artistry before.  For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to compare to a painter.  Both are creative endeavors.  Both make investments of time, education, and ripping out the heart to present it to people who may very well stomp on it, then set it on fire without caring a whit about the artists as human beings.

There have been a lot of things going around pointing out that an artist may charge $1,000 for a painting because you have to consider their time, their mistake, their learning process, their investments.

Yet they paint and then they sell.  That's kind of it.

Authors write.  They may spend a year on a novel.  Even if they wrote a whole novel in one month (NANOWRIMO), they may have been putting in more than 40 hour weeks during that month and once the month is over, it's not complete.  Smart authors will edit as much as they can themselves before heading to an editor.  This can take 2-3 more months.  And what if they have a day job?  That's a long day, every day.  Now they have to send it to an editor who complains that anyone who thinks it should cost less than a couple thousand dollars is not professional.  They edit, return the book, probably in a month (because if I'm paying an assload, I want it to be FAST!) and now it's the author's turn to sell it.

Lest anyone complain that artists pay for paint and authors use a home computer (which, to be fair, they probably already have for other things, these days) the next step of the author's process isn't free. Take synopsis and query letters, mail them paying for return postage as well.  After mailing out 50, let's say, someone wants to see the manuscript.  Hooray!  Now they have to pay the postage of sending a box AND return postage.  The publisher or agent rejects manuscript, sends it back, and if the author gets another bite, they send it all again.  This is not cheap, guys!

And authors pay all of it up front with no guarantees and everything to lose.  Tell me again how we don't value you as an editor when you clearly see authors as a paycheck, not of value as the people who create the literature from nothing and give us all something to enjoy!

Women's Rights and Feminism which falls into a big Abortion...but it comes around again!

Wow.  What a huge topic.  Enormous.  I can't address all my feelings or all the nuances at once, so let's go back in time a bit to the Women's Marches that happened all over this great nation.

And, of course, how it relates to viral Facebook posts.  HAHA

What started to make me really lose my mind was when one viral post started about why this woman was not going to march because she basically felt uninvited.  She claimed that the webpage's clear stance on being Pro-Choice excluded her, a Pro-Life person, from inclusion.

First of all, the march was supposed to be for EVERY woman's issue, not just abortion so if you felt attacked, maybe that's on you.

Abortion

Look, I have an opinion on this.  I totally understand the opinion of others, but I still think I'm right.  And I doubt myself most of the time.

You see, Abortion isn't this grandly abused issue where fully formed babies are being decapitated as they come from the womb.

The question arose as to whether or not this was true.  A recent Catholic blog tried to explain how PP could get away with it.  Several other forums brought up ways in which they could do it however FactCheck.org, a page which has had a high rate of trust when challenged because their sources are well sited and well reviews, says "Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law."

This information may be slightly outdated as it was written in 2011, however, the LAW would have had to change - which it did not -  and if anything it should lend some credibility because it was long before Trump entered the political scene and people started to question this.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need abortions.  Frankly, and parent who doesn't teach their child PROPERLY about birth control is a contributor to the entire problem.  It is not the school's responsibility, however a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum has been shown to be insanely effective so WHY DO RELIGIOUS NUTS CONTINUE TO RUIN GOOD DATA!?

That said, being Pro Choice doesn't automatically mean I think everyone should run out and get abortions every time they get pregnant inconveniently.  It means I RESPECT the CHOICE that other human beings have to make about having babies.  To assume that women will have the intelligence and support system to make the right choice between keeping a baby and giving it up for adoption AND believing they don't have the right to make the choice about their own bodies is a paradox.

I know people are worried about the death of these babies, the end of this clump of cells, and there is a certain "moral" issue.  The thing is, my moral opinion on the matter is also different.  A woman is here, on the earth, living with her choices.  A baby who has not been born may not have a choice, but they also don't have the capability of choice.  "What if I had been aborted!" Is a stupid argument because, you know, you never would have had the comprehension to know differently. Neither would your parents.

And what about late-term abortions?  Well, they are nearly non existent, despite what Pro Lifers will have you believe, and those that do happen are due to medical necessity.  While the numbers for "Medical Necessity" over "Convenience" are vastly different, the "Convenient" numbers drop  dramatically as pregnancies progress whilst the "Medical Necessities" pretty much take over by the time you reach the point when a life outside of the womb can be saved.

I couldn't have babies of my own.  My daughter is adopted.  I often find women in my position who feel strongly Pro Life, but me?  I see children who need to be loved and adopted.  Maybe they aren't babies, but is your love really conditional?  If so, you probably shouldn't be having or adopting babies anyway.  The world is over populated and the society we are creating feels pretty hateful.  If ALL the babies who are aborted in a year were NOT aborted, HOW MANY HUMANS would Earth have to provide homes and food for?!?!?  

Feminism

The thing is, I felt this woman was saying that because she is Pro Life - a stance which does NOT respect other's opinions, btw, by its very nature, she isn't welcome, then isn't she doing the same things the rest of the world does?  Trying to define WHAT feminism IS?

Feminism is complicated, too. The majority of feminist women I hear from - the ones who speak the loudest - would have you believe you are not a true feminist unless you are breaking glass ceilings, working 60 hour weeks, raising children (because you're super mom.  "Trust me.  The kids aren't suffering!" LIKE HELL THEY AREN'T) and basically putting down other women.  Maybe that's not the perception they have, but it's the one the exude.  So many of them don't take into account the stay at home moms who stay at home for mental reasons.  The non-type-A personalities who just CANNOT.  The women who have made a different choice.

While I think a feminist is a woman who is strong of character and can do things for herself (change a tire), I also don't think I'm a weakling because I don't change the engine on my car by myself.  (I do, coincidentally, go to an auto repair shop that is owned and operated by a woman, but that's because A - she is awesome, B-the seem honest, and C-they never talk down to me or any other woman I've seen come in.  This is not that case at many mechanics, so BONUS)

And people sometimes have perceptions of religious women who are obviously patriarchal.  While I don't find Mormons to be particularly encouraging of the feminist agenda, they aren't quite as misogynistic as portrayed.  They simply believe men have one responsibility and women have another.  Women are not supposed to be looked down upon by their husbands (forget what happens.  Corruption of every system happens so any examples made could be made about ANY group) and women aren't made to serve their husbands.  The idea is that men hold the priesthood to help tune them in to the spirit while women tend to already be in tune.  In the general, stereotypical ideals, women ARE more sensitive so this idea makes sense.

But I probably shouldn't act like an expert about that since I no longer consider myself a part of that religion and I don't really believe in it.  It's just that I think it gets a bad rap.  There are way bigger things they deserve to be criticized over.  Putting family first should not be one of them.

And recently. an Islamic woman brought to our attention their idea of feminism.  Covering up isn't a way to suppress women from the world, it is a way to protect them.  Despite my opinion on the matter, women in that faith and similar faiths do not feel oppressed.  They often feel respected.

Feminism doesn't have one face.  Thinking that we should all have the goal of getting to the same place as women does not allow women to get there.  In reality, it holds them back because they are forever conflicted about what they want and what they are supposed to want.  Isn't creating conflict exactly what we are trying to get MEN to stop doing to us?  So let's take a step back and respect other women's choices and call THAT feminism.  THAT should be the focus of these marches; not the goal which, currently, seems to be trying to say "Unless you do this, this, and this, YOU are not a feminist!"

Take Me To Your Leader

I've been putting off some things I want to say for a while because I don't know where to begin.  It's all so complicated and intricate and every point gets lost in the crowd of other points.  No one is listening to each other.  No one is willing to see the other point of view.  No one is open minded enough to accept that maybe someone else is right.

I actually try not to read comment threads or get my information from FaceBook, but I fall down the rabbit hole and certain pieces of dirt just stick to me and I can't shake them loose.  So, let's talk about some of these points I see over and over again.

You lost.  Get over it.

It's not a game.  This isn't a hand of Go Fish with a clear winner, a clear loser, and no consequences.  The makeup of the Electoral College is shady, at best, because they are people chosen not by knowledge or experience, but by being somehow useful to the cause.  I mean, there are no boundaries on who can ultimately make our decisions and it's not assigned by their ability to represent the people in our nation who have no voice.  This means when one candidate wins popular vote and another wins the Electoral vote, no one is really being represented.

The fact is that the founding fathers attempted to set up our government with these checks and balances in an attempt to protect minorities (used here to mean 'under represented', not to discuss race, gender, orientation, etc.) so that the majority doesn't always rule.  So while it is definitely worth pointing out that Clinton won the popular vote, it is important that Trump won the Electoral vote.  Theoretically, this is to protect those voices who aren't being heard.  And it kind of worked because look at who's talking now.  The bigots and arrogant white males whose voices have been suppressed in recent decades.  So maybe it's an evil of our own making by daring to try to change the minds of people who want to hurt and insult others.

Of course, I still think I'm right.  Hurting and insulting others is wrong across the board.  This isn't a personal choice to be made.  This is something that everyone should adopt.

The Electoral College has a role, but just like the office of presidency and any other office, it is subject to corruption.  The problem I have is that there is no checks and balances for the position of Elector so the corruption can run completely out of hand.

So, let's elect the narcissist.

I'm the kind of person who always tries to see the other side.  Mainly so that I know how to best argue against it in order to gain arguments for my opinion, but also because I like to think I'm open minded.  In a strange way, it helps me put everything in it's place so that even when I disagree, I can be at peace with those who disagree.

But what I cannot seem to resolve in my brain are Trump supporters.  Trump is what he is, he clearly didn't have 0 votes so majority, minority rule aside, we have millions of people who said hey, this is the guy we want running the country.

And I can't figure it out.  How do you NOT see it!?  Every time someone questions him, it's fake news.  Let's invent a new term: alternative facts - because somehow if you put the right spin on it, you can change the actual truth?  When the media - whose job it is to show both sides of every issue - asks a question that Trump either doesn't know the answer to or doesn't like the answer to, it's them being "not nice".  It's not their job to be nice!  It's their job to get the answers for us, the public.  

Yes, there is corruption in the media.  There is huge bias these days that is out of control and needs to be called to attention, but he acts like the fact that there is bias in the media means the facts themselves are different.  NO.  It's the rose colored glasses being presented on those facts that is swaying people's opinion.  THE FACTS THEMSELVES ARE EITHER FACTS OR THEY JUST AREN'T FACTS.  Do you see how that works?  It either is or it's NOTHING.  It's not a lie.  It's not alternative.  It just ISN'T.  

I don't like the name calling and Psych 101 terms people bandy about, but at the same time, I feel that Trump couldn't be a bigger narcissist if he tried.  I mean, seriously, folks.  "See it my way" or "WAHHH!" like a freakin' baby.  I know everything.  Even geniuses don't know EVERYTHING.   NO ONE DOES.  There is too much information out there for that to be possible.

I guess we should have seen that blindness by the public coming.  I've observed over the last decade or so that people who have a little knowledge on a subject will declare themselves experts.  We have a bit of a virus running around lately where people think they are experts when they are novices and think it's enough.  They also tend to refuse to listen to others with even more knowledge and experience because, well, what do they have to learn?

They watch Fix It shows and even though they never lifted a drill, they know exactly how to make build a house.  Yeah.  I bet you could do it on your own.

Why waste money on college?  I read books.  I know stuff.  Or tech colleges are cheaper and don't make you learn all that liberal arts junk.

Notice that people who graduated from legitimate, well regarded schools might regret their student loans, but never seem to regret the knowledge they have.  Trust me.  If you haven't gone to college, you can't know the difference, but those who went know the difference and we can see it in those who didn't.  There are many things about higher education from a well rounded college that is different from just reading some books, watching DIY network, or going to a tech school.  It's in the details.  It's in the way you learn how to think, not just the knowledge you gain.

The same boat

I was at a dinner for a friend's birthday when one of her friends made a perfect assessment of the situation.  

Maybe we are upset because for years we thought we all had the same end goal; we just had different ideas on how to get there.  This election made many of us realize we don't all have the same destination.

This is painful and we have the right to speak our discontent because, obviously, America, free speech, etc, but also because we have got to get it together.  Having different directions is what pulls a country apart.  We are on shaky ground.