Lazy Editing

I’d love to say that I don’t read the reviews my books get, but that would be dishonest.  I don’t engage with reviewers, as I think that’s a horrible idea, but I’ve read most of the critiques I’ve gotten.  I simply have too few to just gloss over them the way someone with 1800 reviews can, and I always remember that reading tastes are subjective.

That said, comments about editing, as opposed to content, catch my eye.  I wish I could tell everyone that my work is error free, but it’s not.  I have two books that didn’t get the editing process the way they should have(ie, outside eyes) – Akeldama and Schism.  Akeldama was done out of pure arrogance.  I felt that since I’d meticulously reviewed my work, of course there were no editing errors.  Several resubmissions to my printer after publishing taught me one hell of a lesson in having proper humility.

Schism, on the other hand, was a combination of two things – the return of that arrogance, and my own laziness.  The arrogance returning thing was egregious, and I think that, much like a driver temporarily cured of speeding after getting a ticket, I’m at least temporarily cured of arrogantly thinking I can catch everything.  The second thing was simple laziness.  I just plain didn’t want to go through the process.  I wanted Schism out, and nothing was going to get in the way of that.  Again, stupid on my part.

If you have no time to get your work edited by an outside source, then you don’t have time to publish.  Sloppy work denotes an amateur.  If you want to be taken seriously as an author and not just a hobbyist, you’ll put out quality work, both from the perspective of content and editing.