Susan O'Reilly

This needs to be said, even at the risk of potentially offending those who disagree. Reviews are for readers, NOT revision. Here's my argument. Once a book is published—which is almost always aimed at selling, otherwise what’s the point of publishing—reviews should serve potential readers, not provide authors with feedback for reworking the book. We all crave both pre and post-publication critique, but post-publication critique comes too late for meaningful revision without significant risk to the indie author on multiple levels. Pre-Publication Is the Time for Feedback: Constructive criticism should happen before publication using beta readers or editors, not after, to avoid the need for costly and time-consuming republishing. Republishing Costs Are Prohibitive: The significant manhours and financial burden (e.g., editing at $2,000-$4,720, plus new marketing if we can even afford it after that second round of editing drains our wallets) of republishing a revised book for a new edition is impractical for indie authors, let alone the loss of the scant credibility we start with. Lack of Accessible Pre-Pub Support: A robust pre-publication support system doesn’t exist beyond small, informal groups or expensive beta networks, leaving indies without affordable help before launch. We indie authors choose this path because we don’t want to be herded, and we’re done asking permission. Does our natural tendency toward independence deserve derision? Should we just stop trying? Indies Must Endure Bad Reviews: Given the absence of pre-pub support and the infeasibility of republishing over and over just because a reviewer didn’t like it, indie authors have no choice but to “suck it up and take it” when faced with negative reviews—especially if they target the writer rather than the reader. A review should help readers decide whether to purchase and read a book, not push a writer to start over. Indie Independence as a Barrier: I said it before, and I’ll say it again: indie authors are “lone wolves that don’t want to be herded,” meaning many of us resist collaboration, making a community-driven pre-pub support network unlikely to succeed. Let’s face it—that’s a HUGE mountain to climb for a bunch of indies when up against trad publishing and reviews written for the writer, not the reader. This is the boat we indies are in. Of course I want reviews. Of course I want to grow as an author. Of course I want to hone my writing skills. Of course I’m not perfect. Of course I feel like an impostor at times. Do I want a fair review? Of course, be it whatever stars it happens to be. Do I want a biased review? Hell no. Do I want a glowing review? Who doesn’t? Do I want a review that offers a potential reader at least one good takeaway in a sea of awfulness? Can we ask for such things without coming off like we’re stuck in some weird cliché? Final Ending: So here we stand, lone wolves in a storm of our own making, proud but battered. I’ll keep writing, keep publishing, and keep taking the hits—because that’s the indie way. Maybe one day the world will see our scratches as badges of honor, not flaws. Until then, I’ll keep plugging away, hopefully sharing my stories where the world might see them and say, “Oh wow!”, one unherded step at a time. Extra Ending: Us Indies need to come together to make our indie space even better. Us rowing our little boats in circles around each other is tiring and often just puts us under. We need something that can help us all better our craft and be a guide for those indies that come after us. How about we start building that together?