Be Careful for What Editor You Wish for

Book editors range from not only from proofreading, copyediting, content editing to critiquing, but also from perfect to terrible. Some of the editors I’ve had had changed something active in my writing to passive. Those editors aren’t good ones, and if they have a sample edit choice, and you see an active phrase in your work turned into a passive phrase… don’t use that editor.

Another important rule for choosing an editor is if you totally agree with your writing style. You have to be careful with that; otherwise, you might as well have wasted your money. I recently chose an editor whose style I didn’t agree with a hundred percent in the sample edit. Big mistake! When I got my manuscript back, I regret choosing that editor. Half of each chapter had been deleted and too many changes had been made. It was so overwhelming that I stopped making changes after the fourth chapter. From then on, my new rule was to try a sample edit and fully agree with the style before paying for the service.

Of course, sample edits aren’t totally necessary. It all depends on different authors. And, as always, it’s okay to reject some of the changes and suggestions. Just be wise when choosing an editor. They’re not all the same.

To Describe Characters, or Not to Describe Them

   Everyone has a different preference for seeing the characters. Some like when they're described, because it's easier for them to keep a consistent picture, particularly young children. Others, however, dislike it, and want to form their own pictures. I've been told a few times that describing the characters takes readers out of the story and to let the readers use their minds' eyes to fill in the blanks unless the description is important to the plot. One time someone read an old sample of my work and said, "I don't need to know that hair-color of every single character." When I told him that I only do it to tie it in with something, he said "That has to be hardly ever." I've also read on websites to "keep descriptions to a minimum." The author said that he or she is against the author of the book describing the characters to the reader, and that the reader should picture everything, except for something that's important to the plot, like an eye that has special effects. Then he or she said, "Other than that, who cares if the character has blonde hair, blue eyes, etc?" But why should that be such a big deal?
   Look at the Harry Potter series: most characters are described in more detail than in any other book. Anyone who's read the books know most of the character's hair descriptions, and what they wore to formal occasions. Yes, some descriptions are crucial to the plot, such as the scar on Harry's forehead, his green eyes from his mother, his skinny body, and Dudley's heavy body. But the fact that Hermione had bushy brown hair, Luna had waist-length, scraggly, dirty blonde hair, Dumbledore had a long white beard and half-moon spectacles, or even the fact that Tonks had short, spiky hair that changed colors, were not so important to the plot. However, they were important to their characterizations. If the idea of only describing what was essential to the plot and nothing else, and leaving the readers to picture the rest was that important, Harry Potter wouldn't have been so popular. There would definitely be no Harry Potter theme park, no Harry Potter products, no Harry Potter movies, maybe even no Harry Potter books after the first one. The first book would've received many horrible reviews about J.K. Rowling being a "control freak." People would've complained that they didn't need to know that Harry had black hair, Ron had red hair, and everything else described that wasn't important. If that had happened, J.K. Rowling would probably still be as poor as she was when writing the first book, maybe a little wealthier, but unlikely even working class.
    Most authors do believe in keeping their descriptions to a minimum and letting the reader picture about everything. I, however, tend to be a control freak. I like to describe my characters in lots of detail, and want my readers to picture them that way. However, I do leave some characters to not be described, or certain parts of their bodies to be pictured by the readers' imaginations. For example, one my characters is just described as "bald." The readers can picture everything else about that character. But my protagonist is described in lots of detail. I describe her hair as, "pale blonde, straight, and tailbone-length." I also say that she has narrow shoulders, blue eyes, her height, and what she's wearing (with two descriptive words at most). I'd suggest, though, that if you're planning to publish a book with detailed descriptions, do not info-dump. That only bores the reader. Instead, describe as you go along, and try to describe only when a certain situation ties into it. When I described my MC's body structure, I tied it in with a painful situation, where felt that narrow shoulders weren't the best for whatever the situation was (I don't want to spoil it).
   So there are two sides of describing your characters. It's really up to you to decide what you like, and what your intended audience might like. If you're into not describing, so that the readers can picture the characters their ways, that's fine. If you're into being detailed with your descriptions, like me, that's cool too. But remember to let the reader picture some things.

Times Change, and so do Publishing Preferences

   Back in the day, self-published books were turned down, thought to be poorly written, and only sold to mostly the authors' friends and families with fifty to sixty copies. But once e-readers came out in 2007, that saved self-published authors. Despite that, even today, many writers and people will discourage self-publishing if the writer wants attention and publicity. It's amazing how so many people still don't trust self-published books and think that few reviewers and publicists will with self-published authors. They also believe that most successful self-published authors were previously commercially published. So many people suggest the traditional route, because, according to them, the average self-published book sells sixty copies a year.
   However, some people are starting to support self-publishing, and prefer to self-publish instead of publishing commercially. With self-publishing, you have full control over what you want for your book, such as size, bounding, cover art, and page types. It even goes much faster, like a few months, verses one to two years in traditional publishing. You also don't have to worry about having unsold books delivered to your home and paying for them, because most self-publishing companies are POD (print-on-demand) publishers. If your book doesn't sell, nothing happens. I see plenty of well-written self-published books, lots of publicists, bloggers, and reviewers, willing to work with self-published authors, and, more importantly, successful and bestselling self-published authors, such as Amanda Hocking.
    Despite the benefits listed above, self-publishing has some downsides. Some independent bookstores won't mind stocking self-published books, but most bookstores will only stock traditionally published books, such as Barnes and Noble. While many people prefer e-books, a lot are also still shopping for books in brick and motor stores. So anyone considering self-publishing their books, keep that in mind.
    Many bestselling self-published authors, such as Amanda Hocking, were probably just lucky to have their stories become incredibly successful. But I'd advise self-published authors not to rely on that. In fact, I suggest that you don't publish (traditionally or self) until you not only feel confident in your work, but also have others read it and say whether they like it or not. Follow the rules of writing and practice as much as you can until you feel it's perfect, meaning that you've done the best you could, and others like it just the way it is.
   Self-publishing is becoming popular, and may be, in fact, the future of publishing. Lots of authors whose books are good enough to be published by a major publishing house, like Little Brown or Random House, are choosing to self publish. So would you rather go for the commercial route or self-publish?