...or as I like to say, "don't Lucas it." What do I mean by that? I mean don't keep messing with things to the point that you destroy something that was originally great.
Let me back up and explain.
As a writer I have made the conscious decision that I'm going to be publishing my work electronically, and that no print copies will be made (though I'm sure family and friend will want--and get--actual books). We're right on the cusp of 2014, and current publishing options are very exciting. Without leaving my house I can write my entire manuscript, have it reviewed and edited, get a cover designed, and publish my work to the largest market in the world: the entire internet. This gives a lot of access and flexibility, and I feel that overall it's a greater positive than it is a negative. Yes, readers have to dig a little more to find really good authors, and yes, authors need to work harder to stand out, but these authors and readers never would have had the chance to connect before this form of publishing began to mature. Now, the ebook world is large, thriving, and growing to the point where print media is looking very much the dinosaur.
Even more interesting to me is the fact that revisions can be made on the fly, to the point where a book can be entirely rejuvenated and republished, all with the click of a button. Realize you left a plot hole in your book? Click-click, new version published. Need to add a prologue to clear up some confusion? Click-click, all fixed. It becomes terribly easy to even go back and retcon your work if you do sequels and/or prequels, making everything nice and neat. Mentioning prequels, however, has to make most people think of the Star Wars prequels that were spit out so many years back (longer than you might think, actually). Prequels and special editions, the two elements that I feel ruined the universe of Star Wars.
As we see in film, we can imagine happening in literature. Fans were made to be upset and stories were altered because it became very easy to use digital manipulation to make up whole new segments of story that didn't originally fit in with the rest of the universe. Huge chunks of plot and character development were roughly grafted onto the side of an otherwise excellent set of films (and if anyone doesn't agree Empire is the best I will cut them). Art happens through adversity, something I fervently believe. Having too much control and too much access can allow a writer to wander down the dark path and begin messing with his work, altering it and distorting it to the point where it becomes a shadow of its former self, and readers become turned off by what they once cherished.
Electronic publishing is a powerful thing. Certainly writers in the past put out new editions of their work as well, but it was different then, going through editors and a publisher. It might not always have been best, but having that filter slowed down the process and allowed for only really necessary changes to be included. Should you leverage the ability to make changes to your book after it's published? Absolutely. Clarify things. Fix grammatical errors. Clean up spelling. Update your cover. Do all these things. But don't fundamentally change you work. Let it stand on its own merits. Give it time to be digested by the public, so that they can come to know it and appreciate it. If you keep messing with it, it will never have the opportunity to gestate, and that's a very important thing for a novel.
They already lie on the news and change it. The world of accurate facts is fading fast. Shouldn't your own work strive to bring back some of that sincerity? I would even say some of the bravery it takes to stand by something and defend it, rather than changing it or sweeping it under a rug. There are schools of thought out there that believe once a work is published, it no longer belongs to the author. I don't know if I fully agree, but I do know there are aspects of that outlook I find truthful, especially when I consider digital publishing. I hope you consider it as well.
A.C. Harrison
Support indie authors! Like me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter.
Let me back up and explain.
As a writer I have made the conscious decision that I'm going to be publishing my work electronically, and that no print copies will be made (though I'm sure family and friend will want--and get--actual books). We're right on the cusp of 2014, and current publishing options are very exciting. Without leaving my house I can write my entire manuscript, have it reviewed and edited, get a cover designed, and publish my work to the largest market in the world: the entire internet. This gives a lot of access and flexibility, and I feel that overall it's a greater positive than it is a negative. Yes, readers have to dig a little more to find really good authors, and yes, authors need to work harder to stand out, but these authors and readers never would have had the chance to connect before this form of publishing began to mature. Now, the ebook world is large, thriving, and growing to the point where print media is looking very much the dinosaur.
Even more interesting to me is the fact that revisions can be made on the fly, to the point where a book can be entirely rejuvenated and republished, all with the click of a button. Realize you left a plot hole in your book? Click-click, new version published. Need to add a prologue to clear up some confusion? Click-click, all fixed. It becomes terribly easy to even go back and retcon your work if you do sequels and/or prequels, making everything nice and neat. Mentioning prequels, however, has to make most people think of the Star Wars prequels that were spit out so many years back (longer than you might think, actually). Prequels and special editions, the two elements that I feel ruined the universe of Star Wars.
As we see in film, we can imagine happening in literature. Fans were made to be upset and stories were altered because it became very easy to use digital manipulation to make up whole new segments of story that didn't originally fit in with the rest of the universe. Huge chunks of plot and character development were roughly grafted onto the side of an otherwise excellent set of films (and if anyone doesn't agree Empire is the best I will cut them). Art happens through adversity, something I fervently believe. Having too much control and too much access can allow a writer to wander down the dark path and begin messing with his work, altering it and distorting it to the point where it becomes a shadow of its former self, and readers become turned off by what they once cherished.
Electronic publishing is a powerful thing. Certainly writers in the past put out new editions of their work as well, but it was different then, going through editors and a publisher. It might not always have been best, but having that filter slowed down the process and allowed for only really necessary changes to be included. Should you leverage the ability to make changes to your book after it's published? Absolutely. Clarify things. Fix grammatical errors. Clean up spelling. Update your cover. Do all these things. But don't fundamentally change you work. Let it stand on its own merits. Give it time to be digested by the public, so that they can come to know it and appreciate it. If you keep messing with it, it will never have the opportunity to gestate, and that's a very important thing for a novel.
They already lie on the news and change it. The world of accurate facts is fading fast. Shouldn't your own work strive to bring back some of that sincerity? I would even say some of the bravery it takes to stand by something and defend it, rather than changing it or sweeping it under a rug. There are schools of thought out there that believe once a work is published, it no longer belongs to the author. I don't know if I fully agree, but I do know there are aspects of that outlook I find truthful, especially when I consider digital publishing. I hope you consider it as well.
A.C. Harrison
Support indie authors! Like me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter.
RSS Feed