Editing/submission

[erastes]

The I Do anthology is filling up well and we already have a "short list" of some great stories by wonderful authors. It's interesting to see life on the other side of the coin, as part of the editing/choosing process. What's surprised me is the different formats that people use, instead of sticking to industry standard. Another is the fact that some stories submitted are not as polished as I would have expected them to be. If you work in a restaurant, you don't just plonk your food out any old how, so if you are submitting a story - even if it's for a non-paying charity anthology - you should give your story every advantage you can give it.  Perhaps it's because it's a non-paying charity that people don't think that it matters as much, or something.

Granted, everyone makes typos and mistakes - I'm one of the worst for that and my beta is constantly reminded as to my lack of knowledge when it comes to commas. But when I submit that story to the publisher, it's in the best state that I (and my beta!) can make it.  Because, frankly, unless your story is completely stand-out, must have-brilliant, just the fact that you didn't bother to use even the basic tool of Spellcheck is going to tell that publisher a lot about you.  Check every word - weed out incorrect homonyms such as lose/loose, there/their - and always always always!! get someone else to look at it!  They can't help you with whether the publisher will like it, but they will hopefully spot some of the errors you've missed.  Betas, specially good ones, are like gold dust, and the best way to get one is to beta for others.  This is a great exercise to help with proofreading your own stuff too. This is one thing I'm very grateful to fanfiction for - that's a medium where you learn to beta almost as soon as you write anything yourself.

So do your stories a favour and give them every single chance they have!!

Comments

[joyful-molly.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's because it's a non-paying charity that people don't think that it matters as much, or something.

Or maybe you shouldn't have told people that there would be a proof-reader and an editor? While I agree with you that one should go through each text with a fine-toothed comb, it's rather insulting to imply people wouldn't put care into their work because it's "only" for charity. I see how much time some authors dedicate to this; even if their stories might not meet your high standards, there's no reason to question their motivation.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I don't understand - all books have a proof reader and an editor. Any publisher that didn't supply one wouldn't be professional.

I'm just voicing my opinion - I can't think of any idea why people wouldn't do a spellcheck, and I'm not intending to offend anyone, but simply to point out that these things matter, no matter what kind of payment they get. These aren't "my high standards" they are the very least standards that any publisher would expect. I doubt any publisher, from New York to the smallest POD would be impressed by shoddy presentation. What I'm saying is that a story is more likely to be rejected for said slap-dash attitude, than one that's well-presented.

[joyful-molly.livejournal.com]

See my comments below; I wasn't sarcastic about the high standards bit (hence the lack of " "), by the way. You do have high standards, and that's certainly a good thing. :)

[mroctober.livejournal.com]

The notion that erastes has standards that are not the norm for the industry is rather ridiculous. Unless you're talking about really, really small presses, it's always in the best interest of the book to ensure there are as few errors as possible.

And call me snobbish but honestly... there is a direct correlation between the track record of the authors involved and the pay a market offers - while it might be nice to believe otherwise, I doubt someone like Christopher Rice or Ethan Mordden are supplying original stories to a charity work released by a small press.

[joyful-molly.livejournal.com]

Interesting interpretation of my comment... I wish Erastes' standards were the norm for the industry! Shelves in the bookshops wouldn't be filled with so many mediocre books then.

I simply stated that I disagree with the insinuation that people pay less attention to their work because said work is for charity. That's all. And that unexperienced authors might assume "we have a proof reader and an editor" means that they don't have to find somebody to proof read their work before submitting it. The posts on the yahoo group certainly could give that expression.

We all know what it's like, you read through your own work ten times and still you miss the sometimes most obvious mistakes. Doesn't mean somebody would go through her or his story less carefully because it's "just" for charity.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Hang on, please. There have been a couple of submissions that did not show much care at all, and Erastes is, I believe, trying to gently point that out to the authors in question without singling them out personally. A writer actually refused to make a small change because s/he 'wasn't getting paid for it, after all."

The suggestion didn't apply to you, but believe me--there's a reason for it.

[joyful-molly.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Lee. I didn't apply it to me (and not only because I haven't even submitted my story yet). I'm actually quite shocked to hear somebody would put less care into a job because it's for charity. Maybe I'm naive there, but if it's for a good cause, I feel one would put extra care into it...

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

That's how I feel, too... whatever the venue, it's still got my name on it. Hope you get something in soon--the collection has reached the point of embarassment of riches. So many people have sent in such good stuff that it's now a choice between good and wonderful.

[joyful-molly.livejournal.com]

You'll get it as soon as it's back from my editor (heh!) - and if the proceess becomes too complicated and time consuming, there's always the good old "heads or tails" method. ;)