Torquere. Again. Sigh.

[valarltd]

http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/09/22/guest-review-uneven-by-anah-crow/
Dear Author reviewed Anah Crow's novel. They gave it a good review, mostly.

But a couple of sentences have ignited a firestorm:
"Anah claims on her blog that she wrote Uneven in a few weeks. While you couldn’t tell that from the story, you can tell it from the copy-editing. There are a lot of dropped or extra words that can get distracting, which is a shame in such an engrossing book."

There are about 37 comments, most of which are talking about Torquere's editing.

Worse, this is not the first time such comments have turned up on reviews of Torquere books.


If I were a publisher and saw something like this, I would be ashamed. I'd be calling meetings and demanding to know how such stuff was escaping our house.

Instead, all the author list is saying "Well, My Editing Experience was wonderful and they're just big poopyheads." Lovely. Circle the wagons and break out the pompoms and yell, "No, no problem here!" (That's the catchphrase of the Cereal Professor from _Cujo_) The owners are saying, "We're working on it."

To be fair, I have seen signs of progress on that front, but the entrenched image is going to be hard to overcome.

****

At base, it's NOT "Your Editing Experience" that matters. It's the readers' perceptions that count. If they think TQ puts out badly-edited stuff, they're going to go elsewhere. Enough houses are putting out GLBT work that they can pick and choose now.

****

My suggestions:

1) The new pre-edit idea is a good one. However, there should be 2-3 editing passes: one for mechanics and one for content and one for clean up. Phaze, Dark Roast and Ellora's Cave all do it this way. Don't be afraid to ask for content changes or phrasing changes. I've seen evidence that this is occuring more, and I think it's a good thing.

2) The website has been a nightmare since 2004. You have to know what you're looking for to find it. The search engine is unreliable. At least change the prepackaged template to read "authors" not "Manufacturers."

When I needed a new website design, I looked around at other authors' sites. Torquere would do well to do the same, to check out sites where you can find books by title, author or genre.


Now, I'm off to work. Gonna be a long, late day. I'll deal with the fall out later.

Comments

[megleigh.livejournal.com]

I don't deny that there have been problems with editing at TQ for some time, and it has sometimes annoyed me that there are errors in stories, but I can see where some progress is being made in that regard. It has taken time, and it will take more time and care from all concerned in order to fix it, I think.

For mine? I make my copy as clean as I can get it, and kick myself when stupid mistakes still get through.

I think editing standards are slipping across the board though. I've found errors in big publishing house productions too. That is actually harder for me to forgive than it is for me to forgive small or e-presses.

I read somewhere in my travels today that editing is being left more and more to the author nowadays and that is troublesome, but I still think that the major onus is on the author to send in clean copy.

*shrugs* YMMV.

[kitzheng.livejournal.com]

Ok, I hope you don't stop thinking of me as a friend, because I like you and your writing and I think you have valid points, but I have to say something!

I don't think "all" the author list is saying "let's ignore this issue, everything is fine." I think a lot of us were just trying to say, "Look, this sucks that this is happening in Anah's review. Let's be a little positive for her and cheer her on her review so that she doesn't feel so bad."

The folks in charge even stepped up to say that they are aware of the issues and are trying to address them. Before this even happened, they recently made a step in the right direction--even acknowledging that they were doing this because they knew of all the complaints.

So, I don't think people are covering their ears and going "la la la" -- I mean sure, maybe one or two are, but one or two is not everyone. I think we were just trying to make sure the positive point that our fellow author got a great review did not get lost in the noise of complaints which the press and we as authors are aware of?

[emily83176.livejournal.com]

I read *a lot* of books from several different publishers and this isn't an issue that is isolated to just TQ. Do I notice the goofs? Yeah. Will they ever stop me from buying books there? Hell no. The stories are still awesome and the little quip here and there doesn't detract from the overall story, at least for me.

I know that as I am reading I want to get out the red pen and make the editing changes. But my Sony reader thanks me for not doing that! ;-) I think with the number of books being published by TQ each month, they need to get more editing help. I don't know if they use proofreaders right now but another set of eyes going over a story before it is published is always a good thing. Leaving to the authors isn't necessarily fair since after you have read over a story so many times, things just don't stick out.

When I finish a story from TQ, and most especially after I finished Uneven, it isn't the editing mistakes that I remember. It is the characters, the plot, my emotional reaction. I can't even remember if Uneven had issues or not. Honestly, at the end of the day I don't care, because I loved it and I will love it not because it was edited to perfection but because the story got me right in the gut.

Just my two cents from a reader perspective....

[emmyjag.livejournal.com]

Torquere's editing/proofing issues have gotten better, although it's still more likely than not to find the trademark grammatical and spelling errors in any given TQ release. Yes, big houses have the occasional typo, but it's quite rare. I generally see typesetting or other printing issues.

I wouldn't excuse Torquere's lack of professional editing and proofing by saying 'the big houses do it too'. Be a little better.

[megleigh.livejournal.com]

I was not trying to excuse it. Just saying that it is not confined to TQ. :)

I haven't weighed in on this issue this time on the mailing list, and hesitated to do so here, because someone will always come back and say that you're trying to excuse things that you're not.

I do acknowledge, and did in my first comment that editing issues have been and are a problem with TQ.

Saying that I've seen it from big houses too, is merely stating that I've seen it, not in any sense excusing it.

How is that not being "a little better?"

[erastes.livejournal.com]

How many edits do they do, then? I've always been used to three editing sweeps, at least - I think Linden do four in all.

It's all very well the powers that be saying (as another commenter has said) that they are going to be looking into the matter - as you say, this problem has been well known by everyone for such a long time - it should have been addressed a long time ago. People have said to me that it's unfair of me to mention the editing problems when I review, but I don't agree - and you'd think that when reviewers are consistently pointing this problem out, TQ would bend over backwards to address it.

I know that if PD Publishing (or any of the other publishers I've worked with) had this problem then (as you say) they would be taking it seriously and working out how to improve it, not all patting each other on the back on an author's group!

The onus IS on the author to produce as clean a MSS as he or she can, but authors AREN'T editors (in the main). I'm certainly not, and have the skills to see things that immediately sets an editor's mind into a frenzy. I have problems with punctuation and I try, but admit that use an editor like a safety net.

And the website is awful - the first page has nothing on it at all to state what you do next.I've complained to Shawn about the site before when he/she emailed me to ask me to link to TQ rather than to Fictionwise. I have been doing that since, but have checked some of the links I used and they've moved already! So I may go back to Fictionwise.

[megleigh.livejournal.com]

I think the number of passes varies with story length. I can only speak from my most recent experience which was with a novella length and my memory is sketchy on it.

As I recall, there were two passes by the editor, one pass by a proof reader and then a final galley.

I think the novel length I have out with BBA got the same. I am shocking at remembering such details.

However, since those two pieces and one other of mine got through with errors, I have now upped my own personal standards and use beta readers before submitting.

The more eyes, the merrier IMO.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Well, if they are doing four edits and there are still the level of mistakes getting through that I recently found in three books I reviewed for AdC, then perhaps they need a new set of editors!!!

[megleigh.livejournal.com]

That is only as I recall it. At 2:35am I am not at my sparkiest.

I think that the editor I had is pretty good, although, yes, the mistakes were still in there and that's why I decided that as a matter of my own pride, I need to have more eyes look my work over pre-sub.

Editors are human (this is not an excuse, just a statement) and make mistakes, overlook things, and get tired like the rest of us.

Authors, when it comes to their own writing, can be downright blind, because we read what we wrote, and not what we typed, most of the time and those can be two entirely different things.

I do think that TQ needs to look at this issue, and from where I stand, they're moving in the right direction.

*not blocking her ears, and not saying la la la* :)

[emmyjag.livejournal.com]

The only time I don't mention errors in editing are when I'm looking at ARCs. I'm assuming the book will be edited again prior to release.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I don't get ARCs, but I'd do the same if I did get them.

[nbrooks.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Far more politely stated than I could manage at this point. But since you've done the dignity work for me, I'll put the uncomfortable part in:

How often do you see a book review posted where the comments complaining about the publisher's product outnumber the comments about the book/review itself? I've never seen it before, myself. That probably could be taken that there's a BIG DAMN PROBLEM. And that problem should probably be talked about publically, to the readers themselves via a little PR work.

What I take away from the Dear Author fiasco is that the problems are so well known, they overshadow the books themselves at this point and these readers have already bailed elsewhere. No business bleeds customers and survives in the long run.

[anahcrow.livejournal.com]

First, I'm really not comfortable with people relaying -- and misrepresenting -- the content of the author's list conversations. I consider that to be a breach of trust. In-house conversations should stop there. No one has any opportunity to prove that your biased recall of the conversations there is incorrect without breaking trust further. It's unacceptable and you are making the problem worse.

I take responsibility for any flaws found in my books; they're my problem and my fault. I was one of the last people to read the book before it went out. If I didn't find the errors, that's on me. I chose to publish through Torquere, understanding the difficulties with doing so, and I didn't take enough care with my final product. I owe my readers an apology for that in that case. I'm taking steps to ensure that the concerns are addressed and resolved as soon as possible, in the case of my book.

[nbrooks.livejournal.com]

No misrepresentation here. I can look back in the archives and and prove the points I make message by message.

I don't know who on that list is company ownership, real authors, owner sockpuppet pseuds, editors who are owners, or anything else. I consider the lack of transparency in TQ dealings with pseudonyms a breach in trust myself. If you don't even know who you're addressing, what do you do? That's just a few from the outside from, as I said, a persona non grata.

When criticized, the inner-circle of TQ (however many real people that actually is) start a pep rally and make post after post about how wrong/unfair/repetitive valid criticism is. No public acknowledgment is made, ever, and the view of the company in the reader's eyes is not changed.

What's making the problem worse is company leadership not taking public accountability for issues that have been coming up for years, and already blew up on them earlier this year. Obviously no advancement has been made in the 6 odd months since then.

[emmyjag.livejournal.com]

Bad Nomi! No snack for you. Gonna get the boot from the author site now *g*

[nbrooks.livejournal.com]

*sadfaces*

[emmyjag.livejournal.com]

Anah,

From what I read over at DA, the issue was not necessarily with your book in particular, but with TQ in general. You likely just caught it because it was the first TQ book I can remember being reviewed there.

For my part, my comments there were general and not directed at you. I don't know if your book had errors because, although I did purchase it, I haven't had the patience I need to sit down and pick through the mess that is any TQ book. I like what books I've read, and if it were represented as fanfic or something from a free site, I'd be ecstatic. I'm just a little disappointed in the quality of something sold as professionally edited and published work.

I have complained about this to Shawn multiple times, and all I get is the same form email..."I'm sorry about your reading experience, but we have an editor and two proofers looking at every book that goes out." Basically telling me that I am *wrong* even when I cut and paste and show multiple examples from several books.

Well, if 4 people can't catch simple stuff...I'm talking spelling here, not stylistic differences...then there are some seriously blind people working there.

[anahcrow.livejournal.com]

I'm really sorry that's been your experience, Emmy. Having your concerns addressed in that manner is counter-productive, if that's the impression with which you've been left. Personally, I take all comments like yours seriously when I come across them and I do address them with people who have some say in how things are run. My support of Torquere isn't all 'cheerleading'; I just prefer not to do the rest in public. If you do read my book and find yourself disappointed again, please let me know.

I am convinced that things are on a good track internally and I have every intention of doing what I can to make sure that quality products are out there. My hope is that by trying to act with some decency and dignity, I can preserve enough personal credibility that people will be willing to give my books a chance in future. I really regret that people's experiences have been so negative, because I think there are some excellent storytellers working with Torquere these days. I'm also sorry because I felt Sarah gave a great review, regardless of whose book it was, and went to the effort of getting it a mainstream placement, and I don't want her efforts to that end to get lost in the fray.

[nbrooks.livejournal.com]

But... but... Look! A penguin!

I guess this one is dead, buried, and finished, eh? I know I am.

Never really like the idea of being a manufacturer, anyway.