Why are so many unpublished or self-published authors so averse to having other people, namely editors, take a critical look at their work? I see this attitude regularly on social media, so maybe it doesn't completely reflect reality, but there seems to be this idea that their voice and style are so unique that any kind of revision or proofreading would somehow compromise them and diminish the work. Ironically, these are often the same people who write badly, overusing metaphors and clichés or constantly overdescribing the tiniest gestures and movements to the point of making their work almost unreadable.
Same reason they are unpublished/self-published, no risk of having to confront reality.
i get texts from publishers and i always get excited and happy to have a chance to break out but then they're scammers who want me to pay them for my own book. i think a lot of people just get demoralized.
>>25583094>nooo my book can't be good until it's revised by (((editors)))!!!!!cuck mentality
Imagine exposing you're heart to someone and their reply is>*your
Editors cost money. Also, most editors these days outsource their work to LLMs, so what's the point of paying money for that?
>>25583358>Editors cost moneyOkay and what if you have money?>Also, most editors these days outsource their work to LLMs, so what's the point of paying money for that?Find one that doesn't?
>>25583422>What if you have money?Then feel free to flush it down the toilet, for all I care.>Find an editor that doesn't outsource their work to LLMsHow? Editors lie.
If you're under 35 and American there's a good chance that you've only ever heard that meaningful criticism of you is always invalid. This is as true for lefty kids as it is for conservative kids, they just have different rationales for never needing to change or improve. Boomers are mostly also this way, by the way. The two generations before them were not. Probably it's related to whether or not you had any real adversity in your life growing up, but I don't know and don't really care.
>>25583094I have an irrational fear of my book being co-opted by the industry and forced into a commercial mould. Like if I want to write a novel about an alternate future where white people aren't suicidally altruistic, how is that going to get through the filters of women and jews, unless I invert its moral?
>>25583688>Like if I want to write a novel about an alternate future where white people aren't suicidally altruistic, how is that going to get through the filters of women and jews, unless I invert its moral?by actually writing a good novel with real characters, not just a manifesto disguised as a book
I would love an editor, but I can't afford one.
>>25583094Sure it'd be nice to have a smart person review your work, but if they were so smart, they wouldn't have ended up as editors.
>>25583690That's a mealy-mouthed, sophistic response, to assume I would write a manifesto. This is exactly the issue, you see? Not only did you focus on the second part of my post like I've rung an alarm. You are already policing and shutting down and censoring the mere wisp of an idea of something that isn't implicitly anti-white (politically correct). By writing a 'good' and 'real' novel, you mean to make it conform to commercial interests, which means political agendas. No sexism or racism, which is to say, normal male expression up until post-WW2.
>>25583778you've pretty explicitly made it about having an agendamy advice for getting through the filters is you have to actually make it be a good novel, i didnt say anything about changing the subject matteryou're talking about "my book" but it sounds like you haven't actually written onelike you need a protagonist that actually emobides what it means to not be suicidally altruistic, why he struggles with that, how the macro of a society cascades down to his micro situationfor the great societal struggle you imagine, how does that actually look like on the level of a person? that's the story you need to write. if you're going against the grain, you're going to need characters with true emotional depth, who aren't merely props for your novel as an ideological vehicleusually this means you yourself as a writer need to be emotionally fulfilled, complete or mature in some way, so that you can write this character sympathetically
>>25583094It's called vanity press for a reason anon
>>25583778if you can't make any money at writing you're not a writer.
>>25583688>complains about ideological gatekeeping>wants to write an obviously ideological polemic in novel form masquerading as literatureYou don't see the irony here, do you?
>>25583873>when it doesnt adhere to my childish worldview it's unsanitary polemicThis is why nobody's interested in paying you for your opinion
>>25583824>if you can't make any money by breathing you're not a breather.
>>25583816It's only vanity press if you pay for it. KDP is free. Of course, it becomes vanity publishing if you purchase any author copies.
>>25583094It's pretty common for new/young writers. Part of growing is accepting that you need critical eyes on your work
>>25583094I would fucking love to have a professional editor look at my work. Wow, thank you for this advice. I never would've thought of this. Question: Who's paying for this? Are you?
>>25583094I very much want someone to critique my work that I don't know. My friends biasedly like or dislike it. I don't have any money. I'm about a 3rd of the way through and want to know if it's working. I'm not about to pay for that though.
Ask yourself honestly what are the chances of getting an editor like say Gordon Lish, or even Ezra Pound (who edited Eliot) nowadays? Many self-pubs are delusional about their own ability but actually good editors are as rare as actually talented writers.
>>25583094If I want to hear somebody regurgitate the usual 3-4 little rules like "show don't tell" and "don't use adverbs" and acritically apply them even when they do more harm than good, I'd just go to reddit.
>>25583690Those creatures can't distinguish good from bad. They only ask themselves "does this book get points to my team?" and then alter it until it does.
>>25583824Only a jew or a woman would use that definition.
>>25583094Because they believe an editor will go in and actually change things in their writing contrary to what the writer wants, which is not how an editor works. Some also believe publishers are super into being sued for theft of intellectual property, and so will "steal" your manuscript that you very easily can prove you wrote. Some think they have unique ideas for a book, which is usually caused by not having read a lot of books outside their own narrow preferences, and so believe there is something to "steal" they will make a difference. But ideas are cheap, it's only quality that is scarce. Basically no book is unique in any meaningful way. All stories are chimeras. That's why you can do literary analysis of narratives to begin with: nothing is unique, nothing is new. The only unicity that matters in a book is the writing voice.
>>25583095>>25583094>>25583422>>25583690
>>25584010I didn't say or imply "doesn't adhere to my worldview", lol. Nice projection, though.It's polemic because based on your posts it obviously is. If you can't write a novel without making the underlying agenda blatantly visible, that's simply bad writing: moralizing, didactic, ideological and utilitarian.
>>25584582No need to be such a sarcastic cunt about it. Obviously I'm talking about authors who could afford an editor but choose not to use one because of their ego and the perceived uniqueness of their voice or style. I thought that was reasonably clear from the OP, but I guess not.
>>25585270>I'd just go to redditSure you would.
>>25583428>Then feel free to flush it down the toilet, for all I care.Thanks, I will.>How? Editors lie.Find one that doesn't?
>>25585578>noooo i was talking about a tiny fraction of writersSure you were.>i really wasThen give us one example.
>>25587620Do you tedious people just go around, shitting up threads for no reason and looking for arguments? I'll pass.
>>25587678Do you just go around, making threadbare arguments, then pathetically try to dodge when called out? If not, then give us one example of such a writer, someone that has money but chooses to forego an editor out of ego.
>>25583094Because spicy take but it's irrelevant. Ai can fix the grammar. Everything else doesn't matter when at best you'll get 3 goodreads reviews all just saying "it was okay" or "I didn't like how the main character was a Bi Christian".You probably did fine unless you actually did something wild and moronic.
>>25585552I don't know why she said this was controversial. I mean it's pretty obvious.
>>25587735>please argue with me!!I shan't be reading that.
>>25587750>Ai can fix the grammar>Everything else doesn't matter
>>25587805Asking you to back up your assertions isn't arguing with you.
>>25587750>Ai can fix the grammarI've asked multiple AI's to do this and they do, but they also change other things in the text that they were not asked to change. In spite of repeatedly asking them to ONLY change the grammar errors, they consistently and without exception "fix tone" or "change for clarity" even when you give them direct orders not to. And they do so because they are no in fact an intelligence. They are text prediction machines and they predict how a text segment with correct grammar is supposed to look like, then change the text to that. Which means your writing voice will get fucked in the ass, and while a faggot like you surely enjoys such things, most people do not.
>>25583094I am a genius in my own mindseeking confirmation from other people does not workwhy tho??
>>25587807Nope.>Muh pacingNo one cares unless it's slow.>Muh proseNo one cares as long as it's readable,>Muh plotNo one cares unless it's slow or pulls something mind-numbingly stupid.>Muh voiceNo one cares until it sounds like AIslop.Just give the audience what they want and you win. It's literally that simple. I plan to personally release MAGA borderline pornactionslop to the masses and make so much money. Then I'll make some eat the rich queerbaitslop to have a second money printer going on.
Writing is an artistic practice of creating something from nothing. the job of editing exists outside the would of art and out side the artist. editing solely exists for the commodification of art, which is the destruction of art.
>>25587815>he's still goingFind another thread, Mr. Debater.
>>25588658>oh noes debate on the interthingy waaaaaah
>>25589013Lol. You're like one of those tiresome grannies at counters who just won't stop trying to argue with people.
>>25585055>what are the chances of getting an editor like say Gordon LishA jewish editor? Very high.
>>25589588You started the argument and now you're whining because you can't finish it. Pathetic.
>>25583094>just pay someone to make your work gay and retarded
>>25589782>You started the argumentThat's how it works in your mind, huh?
>>25589815It's how it is. Reread OP and get back to me.
>>25583094As a self-published author, I can say I don't have any issue with the idea of an editor taking a critical look at my work. My next novel will hopefully be good enough to be properly published, and I look forward to the process. But as other anons mentioned, there's at least an 80% chance the editor is just going to throw a pdf into an LLM and ask the AI to edit it. At that point, why even have an editor?
>>25589849Okay, I did. Now what?
>>25583315That is the ideal editor. Imagine their response being>You're heart is problematic and suggests you are a bad person. Have you considered making it black?
>>25588175I care, therefore you are demonstrably incorrect.
>>25589920Stop pretending to be stupid.
>>25583094bullshit thread
