What do you generally expect of published books?

Submitted by JingleHelen11 t3_119gk8k in books

In the past four months, I've read 3 books which I have not felt comfortable reviewing because they seemed to me not publication ready. Ig I'm trying to determine if my standards are too high?

At a bare minimum I expect published works to have a) coherent & cohesive plot/narrative, b) coherent & cohesive world building if applicable, c) writing at a level of quality that the reader will not constantly be pulled out of the story by it, and d) character motivations that make sense internally as well as externally.

The three aforementioned books that I regarded as not publication ready all lacked in at least one of the above factors. And they were all works of high-concept queer fantasy which is really disappointing bc I would have really liked to have liked all of them. One was self-published, so I suppose we can exclude that one from the rest of this conversation.

On the one hand, I suppose I could interpret "high concept queer fantasy" as a nascent subgenre and it might make sense for there to be some growing pains as the subgenre develops but I'm struggling to think of another genre or subgenre I've observed having similar issues? For instance, the "millennial ennui" genre comes to mind as similarly nascent, but all of the books I've read from that subcategory, even if I disliked them, at least met my expectations for published works.

Idk, are my expectations too high? Late last year I came out of a years-long reading slump, so maybe publishing standards have changed since 2017? Or maybe my standards changed unreasonably?

(I will also point out that in the same time frame of the last four months I've read high-concept queer fantasy that did read as publication ready to me so it's not an issue inherent to the subgenre)

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RachelOfRefuge t1_j9m40vh wrote

Proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation is super important to me.

Secondly, writing that doesn't appear to have been done by a fourth grader.

26

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9m5olh wrote

> writing that doesn't appear to have been done by a fourth grader

Yeah that's kind of what I mean. Like, the books that I'm referencing weren't quite so bad that they felt like first drafts, but they were quite far from final drafts if that makes sense.

4

Griffen_07 t1_j9mc1m7 wrote

I hate to say this but a lot of crap gets published. Look into mysteries, thrillers, and the pulp end of SFF. There is a lot of WTF in a lot of bestselling work.

12

Beiez t1_j9o0emu wrote

Yeah those are the big ones. Everything else is mostly a matter of taste, but when the grammar or vocab are lacking… that‘s just inexcusable.

2

Catsandscotch t1_j9m5qih wrote

I would absolutely review those books and offer your opinion based on your stated criteria. When I write a review, I figure someone is trying to figure out if they want to read it. I would find the information you have given here to be relevant for my decision. I'm not sure I would use the criteria of whether or not they were "publication ready", because that's going to be a pretty subjective opinion. Nor would I worry about the state of the genre. I would just state what you thought of it and maybe add why you think that. When I read reviews, I just want to know, is this a book I will probably enjoy.

14

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9m6frf wrote

I mean I did review the two traditionally published ones at least, I just didn't feel very comfortable doing it. And those reviews basically it boiled down to: "this book needed at least one more developmental and/or copy edit pass but it didn't have it, the book didn't feel publication ready, and it was super disappointing"

I only noticed the trend when I found myself writing that for the third time and that point I had question it especially since the only common denominator besides the sub-genre is me

2

lucia-pacciola t1_j9m1ky9 wrote

Mainly, I expect a published-by-a-publisher book to have been edited. I don't ever expect a published book to make me stop and think, "how did that get from the original manuscript into the printer's copy?"

Like, no shade to Patrick Rothfuss's editor, but Wise Man's Fear really needed a come to Jesus moment between her and the author. I assume that at some point in the revision process she decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and that it was probably for the best to just get something out there making money, rather than pressure him into giving up entirely.

I bet she still wonders to this day if, had she played it differently, Doors of Stone would be on shelves right now, and DAW would still be in business.

11

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9m3b7c wrote

Oh, I'm not familiar with Rothfuss's work (one of those things I'm always meaning to get to), but that definitely sounds like there's some tea here. Is it a story problem?

1

Griffen_07 t1_j9mbvkd wrote

Just the turn to college age guy going on sexcapede with multiple immortal women including a goddess not to mention general mary sue issues. It's either Rothfuss is amazing and the next book will be someone in the corner calling the storyteller on his BS or it's just the utter male fantasy it appears to be. There has been a lot of talk about which way it will end up being on r/fantasy if you care to search for it.

2

Amphy64 t1_j9n5g8q wrote

One immortal woman, the others are entirely normal women, and not an unreasonable number, just typical college student lifestyle. I absolutely think the depiction of the mercenary culture was a mistake, but it's not really these aspects in and of themselves that make it border on either wish-fulfillment or a possibly misguided attempt to play with the conventions of the genre.

1

Amphy64 t1_j9n4jv1 wrote

No. I don't like the aspects complained of, either, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean they needed editing out or even that there isn't a reason for them - it's absolutely crystal clear from the start that what you're getting is the main character telling the real (though still possibly exaggerated) version of how they became a figure people are telling these conventional epic fantasy stories about. So it's one case where complaining about genre conventions, even those bordering on wish fulfillment, doesn't automatically fit because that's the point, and we were all warned going in. (also the 'sex goddess', more a Circe figure, and the main character is really just acting like a normal enough college student: I think it stands out genre fans jump to complain about this aspect, over points where the main character is far more clearly exaggerating his abilities) Does remain to be seen whether Rothfuss ever can or will do anything with that playing with and commentary on genre, not holding my breath he'll even ever write another book.

But maybe give the first one a go, rather than reading up and having aspects spoiled? What I really like of Rothfuss' is the novella, The Slow Regard of Silent Things, think it stands out as better written than most fantasy (though that would be a low bar) and more magical realism-esque, but it does concern a character from his main series so not fully stand-alone exactly.

1

WhyAreSurgeonsAllMDs t1_j9mmbqe wrote

I don’t understand the bit about not reviewing a book.

If a book that has been published is such poor quality that you think it should not have been published, surely you are entitled to give the book a bad review.

I really appreciate when people take the time to write a negative review - I only get to read ~20 books per year, so wasting a slot on a bad book is tragic.

10

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9mo48x wrote

Ig what I meant to say is I don't feel like I can tell whether or not I enjoyed those stories, bc they weren't finished so I can't know. I did in fact review the two traditionally published ones, and I transcribed parts of those reviews in this comment https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/119gk8k/what_do_you_generally_expect_of_published_books/j9mbjuu?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

I just wish that they'd actually been fully edited and finished projects, so I could judge whether or not I actually enjoyed them

1

assignaname t1_j9n3yxg wrote

Sounds like they were finished, albeit poorly. They got published which is typically the end of the line for creating books. Maybe you can reform your thinking to reflect that. Their finished product didn't live up to your standards and that's what the review should be.

5

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9ohrc1 wrote

> sounds like they were finished, albeit poorly. They got published which is typically the end of the line for creating books.

If I were at a restaurant and was served undercooked food—everything I ordered is on the plate and I was served, therefore the food must have been done cooking before it reached me, by that logic. But it wasn't and I can tell that. That's what I'm saying. These books were served before they were ready. Just because they were served doesn't mean they were done. I said so in both of my reviews.

ETA I was going to add a link from my comment down thread to the comment where I transcribed parts of my reviews, but it is already linked above.

1

teachertraveler1 t1_j9m8u18 wrote

And you're definitely reading published works, not ARCs? I know I've read several ARCs that still needed major editing(one even went through revision) and that's part of the thing with ARCs. You end up being a bit of a test case. I mean if it's not good in your opinion, then you just may not like it. And that's okay. But also okay to not review especially if you felt like the book didn't meet the expectations you created for it. I know there have been books I just skipped a review for because it wasn't for me and leaving a poor review would not bring about any meaningful change.

4

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9mcd7j wrote

Yup, very sure they were final published editions, both of them were checked out from my local library. It's just very disappointing bc I WANT to like these books so much, but they just don't feel finished. I actually went back and rewatched my review of the first of the books and hearing myself talk about how much I wanted to like it and how disappointing it was to have gotten a final product that just didn't feel finished... It really sucks.

2

Amphy64 t1_j9n2862 wrote

I expect them to have been properly proofread (typesetting, spelling), I'm genuinely unsure why you'd expect any guarantee of them being any good? Especially genre fiction, especially fantasy, which (sure, with exceptions) hardly has a reputation for literary quality. Publishers want it to sell, which might overlap with a certain standard but isn't the aim, they'll continue to publish books that are actively bad if readers prefer it, and readers of fantasy often do, such as in wanting wish-fulfilment. If queer fantasy emphasises romance that sounds like literary quality isn't even the point.

4

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9n4jsk wrote

> I'm genuinely unsure why you'd expect any guarantee of them being any good?

My understanding of the traditional publishing process is that books are assigned a number of editors, including developmental editors who would work on plot, pacing, characterization, etc, as well as copy and line editors. I've definitely read books I've disliked in the past; I don't expect every traditionally published book to be good, I do expect every traditionally book to read like it is a final draft by the time it is published. Previously, I've only encountered rough drafts & other drafts between rough and final (let's call them middle drafts) in writing groups and fanfiction. And that is while considering both fantasy and romance, though admittedly I'm not well- or widely-read in the romance genre so perhaps most of that genre does read as though it's in the middle drafts stage

2

Amphy64 t1_j9n7w6k wrote

I'd honestly have more confidence looking for beta-read fanfiction than expecting niche genre fiction to have been edited with a significant commitment to improving it. Maybe I'd see the perspective looking at your examples more deeply, but usually, the concept is flawed (the genre itself essentially is) and it can't be fixed, the writer may be inexperienced, the audience may just prefer the trashier narrative choice, the editor isn't there to rewrite the entire thing. (I actually dropped The Fifth Season very quickly and would put it firmly in the unfixable category, equating racial discrimination with lethal superpowers just never makes for nuance and sane motivations, I was done after the first unjustified massacre) I'm not sure I'd distinguish between the idea of it being bad, and being like an earlier draft, unless there were relatively simple ways to adjust it - otherwise the amount of work to do is rewriting, not editing, the writer didn't write something that just needs polishing if it's that much of a mess and they lack the ability to fix it, they're just a bad writer.

I was surprised by repetition that may have been accidental and unconventional grammar (though, that can be valid, from a Sri Lankan writer in English) in The Seven Moons of Maali Almeida, but that was presented as a literary novel that won the Booker Prize (imo it is not literary, it is a supernatural thriller).

1

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9ndzpn wrote

I have read better fanfiction than the books I am referencing which I find pretty confusing considering the differences in medium between fanfiction and novels. I don't, I kinda expect an editor who is being paid to do something to do it at least as well as a volunteer beta reader lol

> The concept is flawed (the genre itself essentially is)

If you abd I will have to agree to disagree here? I don't think fantasy is a fundamentally flawed genre and in general, I enjoy most of the fantasy I read? I really enjoyed the Fifth Season so I gather we maybe have different preferences.

> Otherwise the amount of work to do is rewriting, not editing

&

> The editor isn't there to rewrite the entire thing

I've been using the words edit & revise interchangeably which is a fault on my part as they are different processes. Still, my expectation is that a book should be both revised and edited multiple times before publication. And of course the editor doesn't rewrite the book, but developmental editors (as well as critique partners, writing groups or beta readers etc which from what I know many authors use) should identify story problems and give authors options to fix. For instance, one of the books I'm talking about in the post House of Hunger features two characters early on in the book who serve as the main characters "ties" to her old life, except the main character doesn't care about her relationship with either of them (basically they do the same thing in the same way to the same effect, which is none). As a critique partner, if someone in my writing group has brought this book, I would've suggested either making the main character really value her friendship with the one character so their disapproval/leaving them behind actually caused conflict OR that that character be dropped completely so more time could be given towards developing the main characters relationship with her brother.

Like idk I'm not sure how many books are written, given a grammatical edit pass nothing else before being sent to the presses? Authors don't make a lot of money so aside from some cash cows I don't expect many of them are only interested in the bottom line and nothing else? I expect the vast majority of authors to care about their craft, and traditional publishers selection bias and process to ensure the majority of books are at a certain stage in the process?

There's a reason I'm excluding the self-published book from this discussion, and it is bc there are A LOT more barriers to entry for traditional publishing. If literary agents only accept a small percentage of submissions and only a small percentage of those are sold to publishing houses, then what are they selecting for if not quality? (I know the answer is marketability) but quality is part of marketability

1

Motorcyclegrrl t1_j9m19pn wrote

I like good proof reading. I bought a really nice boxed set once only to discover that it was full of errors. It's painful to read with spelling errors every few sentences. The earlier editions didn't have those errors. I wish now I had returned it.

3

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9m3vvv wrote

Yep, this is why I stay away from those fancy barnes and nobles classics editions, I hear there are so many textual errors in them

2

johanwilliamszx t1_j9mamfw wrote

Clear and Coherent Writing: Readers expect a book to be well-written, with clear and coherent prose that conveys the ideas of the author effectively.

Engaging Content: Books should be engaging and interesting, holding the reader's attention throughout. Whether it is fiction or non-fiction, readers expect a book to be enjoyable to read.

Accuracy and Authenticity: For non-fiction books, readers expect the content to be accurate and based on sound research. For fiction books, readers expect the author to create an authentic and believable world and characters.

Good Editing and Proofreading: Readers expect books to be free of errors such as typos, grammatical mistakes, and inconsistencies. Good editing and proofreading are essential for a book to be taken seriously.

Unique Perspective or Ideas: Readers expect a book to offer something new, whether it's a unique perspective on a familiar topic or original ideas that challenge conventional thinking.

Value for Money: Readers expect a book to provide value for money, with a reasonable price in relation to its length and quality.

Overall, readers expect a published book to be a polished and professional product that is worth their time and money.

3

AtraMikaDelia t1_j9m5s1u wrote

Which books are you talking about? I guess I probably haven't heard of them anyway but there's different publishers that I'd have vastly different expectations from.

Like, a book published by a major publisher is not going to be in the same category as a relatively unpopular book being translated on the cheap. For the former I'd expect it to be written in a way that may not exactly be easy to read, but is at least intentional.

For the latter I'll be happy if there's no obvious translation errors, and if it happens to flow a little strangely that's just a natural consequence of a rushed translation. If a number is 99 but should obviously be 9, or 10,000 but should be 100,000, then I'm more happy that I could catch the error than I am annoyed that it exists.

2

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9mbjuu wrote

I've gone back and forth about giving the titles. I know there are people who enjoy them, so I will name the two traditionally published ones at least: In Deeper Waters by FT Lukens and House of Hunger by Alexis Henderson.

From my review of In Deeper Waters: "I didn't dislike it ... I would have liked it if it had just gone through one or two more rounds of editing ... I read a lot of fanfiction so I'm used to this level of writing, but since this was published by an imprint of Simon & Schuster I would have expected it to be publication ready and frankly it's just not"

From my review of House of Hunger: "[quotes a scene that I thought was really well-written] am I crazy for thinking that scene deserved a better book, that had set it up so I believed the characters felt that way? ... It feels like this was written to the end but the book itself didn't lead to the end ... It was disappointing honestly."

2

MPPreads t1_j9mhaz6 wrote

I have read both of those books and agree with your take. I also read a lot of queer fiction in general.

I have noticed a trend that newer books with cover blurbs that invoke catchphrases like "gender-swapped" or "queer retelling" or "sapphic __ meets __" may lean strongly on their LGBTQIA+ representation to "carry" the story. Then, we end up with a mediocre or poor-quality story that's neither well plotted nor well written, but it satisfies the criteria of the cover blurb. Bummer.

4

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9milpy wrote

Oh you know what that makes a lot of sense, like we are so starved for stories that publishing houses are rushing things out bc they know it'll sell. And I feel like I've read some older stuff that's better (Song of Achilles, They Both Die at the End, The Fifth Season) but a lot of the more recent stuff is falling flat.

2

AtraMikaDelia t1_j9n9gfg wrote

I mean, the books I am talking about are also published by relatively large publishers who do hire real translators. I've read other things that were translated unofficially by hobbyists, and with those you run into a much wider variety of shit. There's some stuff that's just as good as any translation I've read, and a lot of stuff that's marginally better than using Google Translate, and everything in between.

But even with the big publishers, there's still some books they don't spend as much money on, or expect to sell very well, and these are the books that will have errors and somewhat awkward language.

Still, just from reading a description of those two books and looking at them on goodreads I wouldn't see any giveaways that they are clearly a lower quality book, so I'd think you'd be fair to treat those with the same expectations as any other book.

1

dirtoffmyshoulder t1_j9maslx wrote

I think A and C from your list are very important in books, and D supports A imo. I can do without super sophisticated world building (even a little inconsistency) as long as it doesn't detract from the story. No, I don't think those standards are too high, although I guess it might always be clear cut what is coherent/cohesive enough to pass muster.

Personally I would also add that the book should be well paced. I've read some novels recently that felt rushed at the beginning (not enough exposition) or at the end (not enough resolution), which made the whole thing feel half baked.

Do you think maybe the high concept queer fantasy novels you've been reviewing are written by relatively inexperienced authors? Since it is an emerging genre I'd expect the authorship to be on the young side, which means the writing may not be polished.

2

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9mea3d wrote

> Do you think the high concept queer fantasy novels you've been reviewing are by relatively inexperienced authors?

That's very possible. I mentioned the titles of the two traditionally published ones in another comment, In Deeper Waters by FT Lukens and House of Hunger by Alexis Henderson. I'm not sure about Lukens but Henderson has an earlier novel that I've generally heard good things about. House of Hunger I'll also say was the most passable of the books I'm talking about. By the writing quality alone it feels like a final draft but I really struggled to understand a number of plot/pacing decisions and the main characters actions were entirely unmotivated and nonsensical to me

1

RoseIsBadWolf t1_j9n1yaa wrote

This may be a case of a high demand genre that not many people are writing in so the threshold for publication has been lowered in order for the publishers to offer something, anything.

2

Rusalka-rusalka t1_j9offaa wrote

Were they self published? I would assume so since that's a niche genre. That could be part of why it lacked polish.

2

Ineffable7980x t1_j9qg843 wrote

As long as the spelling and grammar is in order, I am not super picky about the choices the author makes. I might put something down because I don't like it, but I don't think I am the person to judge that something is not publication ready.

2

[deleted] t1_j9m8auu wrote

[deleted]

1

JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9m9m9f wrote

Most of the books I read are published within the last ten years and most don't have these kinds of issues though. Like even taking my favorite and least favorite books of last year (The Fifth Season and My Year of Rest and Relaxation) were published within the past ten years and felt like final and complete drafts

1

BagongPahina t1_j9nsrt7 wrote

No I don't believe your standards are high. I think it's necessary as well.

1

entropynchaos t1_j9ondq7 wrote

I have literally talked to whole slews of readers who do. not. care. A book can have poor grammar, bad editing, multiple errors, no plot; they still love it. It’s about character of some aspect of the story that pulls them in and they just literally do not care about the rest. It’s mind-boggling.

1

FergusAnthonyWriter t1_j9pfeee wrote

I don't think your expectations are two high. The only thing I would say is don't excuse the selfpublished simply because it is selfpublished.

When I first went down the selfpublishing hole, I found a lot of writers who claimed to be absolutely against traditional publishing, and wrote screen upon screen trumpeting the death of traditional publishing. They still made sure their books were as close as possible to every other book in their genre. Some of these writers did later sign to traditional publishers.

The reverse is also true, with traditionally published authors 'going indie' because they saw more money in it.

In both cases the quality of the writing varied. I suspect that's a result of giving readers more of what they liked in previous books. I don't know if that's the case in the books you're talking about, but it's the sort of thing that happens when books are seen as content, and the writi g pf a book begins with the marketing.

1

cr0wj4ne t1_j9qhv67 wrote

I don't expect much of anything from self-published works. That doesn't mean they're all, or even mostly, bad; I just assume that if a work is self-published, it was unlikely to have been professionally edited and may have never been read by anyone but the author.

In terms of traditionally published works, I expect correct grammar and spelling and for the writing to be coherent/easily understood/clearly edited. That's honestly about it. There are enough sucky books that were published traditionally that I'm not surprised if a character's motivations don't make sense or whatever. That doesn't mean I like every book I read, just that I don't consider a book unfinished or unpublishable or whatever because of bad characterization or a lack of worldbuuilding, etc.

1

wamj t1_j9uismh wrote

I was actually chatting with someone who was formerly an editor at one of the big 5, and they said that most up and coming authors won’t actually get an editor anymore unless they pay for their own freelance editor. They also mentioned that even if an author does get an editor, the editor will at best give the manuscript one read through.

1