June 22, 2011

Riding the Fence

      I've read a lot of indie books lately, and noticed that many of them seem to have skipped the use of an editor or proofreader all together. I'm not sure yet how I feel about that.
     On one side, I sort of like getting to look at a pure unfiltered work. Although writing is a different art form, Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali didn't have anyone go over their art before "publishing" it.

     And neither did Auguste Rodin, or numerous other artists. It's almost like looking straight into a writer and seeing all of their best traits along with their flaws. You get to see the words they overuse, the ones they can never seem to spell right, and the tidbits of passages that make sense to them, but not to any other mortal being. In a sense, I like seeing that I'm not the only one who screws things up.

     On the other hand... I have to consider that I spent hard earned money on this work. I tend to take someone's "art" only as seriously as they do. It tugs at me that someone who puts it out there without even reading over it first - didn't consider the consequences and didn't give enough effort. Can you imagine how many edits the songs on the Billboard charts go through?

    I'm not sure where I stand really, which is odd for me. Some say it's bringing down the quality of the literature industry, while other say it's allowing story-tellers who aren't so much writers to be heard. I can see it both ways. How do you feel about buying unedited work?

1 comment:

  1. I am an advocate of editors, and many revisions. A book isn’t worth reading if the grammar detracts from the story.
    It should be polished to shine… anything less is an excuses and pure laziness.