The Kilted Writer

I participate in a number of online forums about writing. Most of the time, I find good discussion about the craft and the nuances that drive writing from "good" to "great." Too often, however, I find interjections into the conversations that make me ask the question, "Are you serious ?" Sometimes, I actually have to back away from the computer (or even leave the room) to keep from posting a response I would ultimately regret. Here are just a few examples I'd like to bring to light. PLEASE, do not be these people. (Note: slight paraphrasing has been done to help hide the identities of the guilty parties). 1. The "live editor." This person says, " When you're publishing an ebook, you can submit updated content after each rewrite...I return to the book often, updating the file after each rewrite; but let at least a few weeks or months pass between each edit. " Yes, that is (slightly paraphrased) an actual comment from an act

I've been active on a number of forums for writers lately. Inevitably, the extremely divisive topic of editing comes up. You have the one side that says, "I don't need an editor, I can edit my own work." On the other hand, you have those who point out that one of the biggest problems in indie publishing is the (not necessarily unfounded) reputation it has for poor quality. Part of the problem in the discussion comes down to definitions. Here's what I mean: Author : I don't need an editor. I have five degrees related to English grammar. I have absolutely zero errors in my manuscript. I can edit my own work. Reader : You're right. I didn't find any errors in grammar or usage, but your character arc is very weak and you have a few plot holes. You still need an editor. Author : But you said my manuscript was perfect! Besides, what's a "character ark?" You see, there are at least four different kinds of editing. Many writers I've e

I have been following several discussions on LinkedIn about the market for short-form fiction for a couple of weeks. It is amazing to me how short-sighted and ignorant of history some people are. Several people seemed to believe that short stories have never been a viable outlet for writers or that writers who are "serious" about their craft would never debase themselves so much by writing short fiction. (I've paraphrased and may have added some embellishment). One commenter in a discussion went so far as to say you could not be a good short story writer if you wrote long-form and that short story writers could never write a decent novel. (Um, ever hear of Stephen King, John Updike, F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, Isaac Asimov, William Faulkner, etc...) As a result of all this conversation, I decided to give you my take on what's happening in the short story market and why. I'm no business insider, but I believe a little history goes a long way to understan