What artist doesn't want to appreciate his/her own art? Illustrators and all artists take the time to step back and view the artwork they created. A song writer will take the time to listen to the song he or she composed. And for authors, I would certainly think the same is true. An author would take the time to read whatever it was that he or she wrote.
I do all of the above. It's what makes creating worthwhile. ENYOYING what you created! And I am thoroughly enjoying the reading of my book John Dunn; Heart of a Zulu. And so far so good. Mostly. I've read through the first ten chapters, 180 pages, and I can gladly report that only one typo has shown itself. A very minor one. There was a quotation mark where it didn't belong. Other than that, there were no errors, either in grammar or in continuity. So that's wonderful news.
Of course, there's ten more chapters to go. If I can get the same result in the final ten chapters, then I'll be a happy camper. I've read some books lately by other authors, and published by publishers who are counted among the "Big Five" and sure enough, I've found multiple typos in there. So by comparison, I'm ahead of them. At least, so far. Fingers crossed.
One thing that makes me discouraged about being an author is the doggone typos or even bigger errors that seem to hide from sight during the multiple read-throughs prior to publication. I mean, this one typo for instance. How many times I've read through the manuscript before publication, I couldn't count. Yet it didn't reveal itself until after publication. It's one of the mysteries of book writing, I suppose. Still, only one typo in the first half of the book? And no grammatical errors or any other errors? I'll take it. You bet I will.
While rewriting The Vase, I'm keeping an eye out for these things. And when it's finally published, again, I will be just as happy if the result is the same. Meaning one typo in the first half of the book. That is, if there's only one more typo in the second half of the book. That will keep me ahead of other books published by the Big Five. At least, insofar as I have seen with my own eyes. But I suppose none of that really matters.
I think the biggest thing is authenticity. And believability. I've written several posts about that. I think authenticity is most important with stories like John Dunn, stories that are based on real life, real people, and real events. Or even if not based on true stories, still, if the story is based on say, real events or real entities, like, say, if someone writes a fictitious story about a GI in WWII. The lingo, the costumes, the overall scenarios must still be authentic. For example, you can't describe a Panzer tank to look like a Tiger tank. Sure, they were both German tanks, but they looked different.
And you can't say the Germans were flying P31 Mustangs, or P38 Lightnings, because they weren't. Stuff, like that. Authenticity is vital. And for other stories, like thrillers and such, believability is just as important. For instance, you can't have a 5' 2", 110 lbs woman beating up three Marines, or a dozen professional male fighters all at the same time. Oh, wait.... Yeah... I've talked about that.
Which is what I mean. When believability is off the table, viewership, or readership is going to slide. Even for fiction, accountability and believability counts for a lot. At least for me. And I'm sure it does for a lot of other people, as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment