Am I the only one who still writes and proofreads their own stories without employing anyone else or using AI ??
Am I the only one who still writes and proofreads their own stories without employing anyone else or using AI ??
I edit and proofread my own stories with no help from human editors or AI, with one exception. I use Grammarly for my last run-through before posting, and some may consider that AI.
I tried using volunteer editors early in my career(?), but I got tired of them wanting to change my story.
Nope, don't use them and will likely never use them. Have never used editors, and do not use LLMs (other than for setting up a tool chain for embedded systems).
Upon my first submissions to SOL, I approached several editors listed in the SOL forum, but they all ignored my pleas for help. This formed my opinion that many editors do it for ego, and for a sense of power and authority - similar to why some people seek law enforcement careers.
I believe that you can lose your 'voice' through the use of an external editor. The other problem is that some of my bullshit is technical, and I've yet to find an editor with a STEM background that was not a tyrant.
Stay independent. Keep it in your voice. Be in control of your creative works.
Do my own writing. Do my own editing. But I'm a control freak. And a compulsive perfectionist.
Do my own writing. Do my own editing. But I'm a control freak. And a compulsive perfectionist.
Me, too. And then later on I see the things I missed. Not saying don't do it yourself, but there are things you just won't see.
~ JBB
I used to be that way, but I realized that I needed the help.
Even years later, re-reading my posted stories, I always find things that I missed previously.
Now I use Apple's built-in AI proofreader in combination with a difference finder so I can spot unwanted changes. Generally, it finds all my screw-ups, except the big ones like continuity errors. But no more typos, homonym errors, missing words, etc.
I've been unable to use AI to write satisfactorily, so that's still out for now, but editing benefits a great deal from AI use.
I've very openly had the help of human volunteer editors since my first book. To the limited extent that any of them have 'changed the story,' I think it's been in a positive direction I likely would have gone in anyway.
I'm pretty resistant to anyone changing my voice, though ... maybe? The question here is when someone's properly called out a construct I'm using that's wordy, overused, etc. As an example I've cited before, I have a habit of writing e.g. 'more slow' when 'slower' is the right choice. There are definitely reasons why 'more slow' is the right choice, but 95% of the time, it's not. Getting the occasional nudge helps.
I use ProWritingAid, too, which is nominally 'AI' in a way. I only use it in some ways though. It has a 'read a chapter; suggest changes' mode. I don't use that. And I don't let it write anything beyond (using the same example) sometimes clicking on the button to change 'more slow' into 'slower.'
One thing that amuses me is the same thing John Demille said. My average chapter has been through at least two reads on my part, two reads from two different editors, and one from several more. Even with all of that, there are simple mechanical errors (missing words, typos, etc) out there, published, that have sat there for years with nary a reader pointing them out.
Editing is hard. My work is much better because of the help my wonderful editors (and readers) give me out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm impressed by people who can do all of their own editing.
All of that said, I wouldn't work with someone who really wanted to control story direction or the like. Part of it might be that I'm writing a serial, and I didn't start with editors until there was an entire book written. At any given time, my editors are working at least 20 chapters before the last thing I've written. The story is, pretty much, the story. I can always redirect or insert something until it's published (and sometimes after), but the cost is intentionally high. Once it gets to my editors, it should be largely frozen, and the work should be making it the best representation of the story it can be, not a different story.
But tweaks are tweaks. If I write something that's nonsense for a reason I don't understand (sometimes I write totally the wrong thing for a lawyer to say, for instance, since I'm not a lawyer), it needs fixing. But it shouldn't change where the story itself goes.
Even with all of that, there are simple mechanical errors (missing words, typos, etc) out there, published, that have sat there for years with nary a reader pointing them out.
On this site, it's often unclear whether an author would welcome a reader pointing out typos, especially if the story is done and dusted. By contrast, I assume authors would like to receive emails about typos and errors of fact in works in progress. Politely worded emails, of course.
(edited to correct annoying typo)
By contrast, I assume authors would like to receive emails about typos and errors of fact in works in progress. Poltely worded emails, of course.
I certainly want to hear about it and prefer a polite email to one that isn't, but I only do it on a story I've read When I Really Like the story and thought it was well done.
~ JBB
I assume authors would like to receive emails about typos and errors of fact in works in progress. Poltely worded emails, of course.
Yes, please. It's a bit odd to go back and reread one of my stories that has been viewed many times and find blatant errors.
I'm currently using Apple's proofreader and it's catching plenty of the sorts of things that I've screwed up in the past (repeated words, missing words, homophones, etc...) Still, I check every change it wants to make (e.g. it always tries to insert that Oxford comma, whether or not it's needed.)
I make note of my eagerness for corrections in the Foreword of each story. That is true regardless of 'done and dusted' status.
I'm currently working on updates to my first four books, which will include many, many fixes.
The uncaught errors have continued through two readers sending a flood of (very welcome) corrections, two of my editors reviewing, and a full reread by me. Even after that, I've spotted two unnoted errors while incorporating other changes from the last person to send corrections.
Still, it'll be much better, especially since I think the most of the existing errors weren't bothering anyone in particular.
For my recent book I've been doing my own proof reading. Initially my approach was to read it several times (~6 or more) looking for awkward wording and grammar issues.
Recently I've changed my approach. Once I think the chapter is ready I've it read to me using "Voice Dream Reader." When I first used it I was shocked by the number errors I found. So I've held up on the stories progress while I go back and correct the errors I missed. One oddity I've noticed is that the errors seem to occur in short segments then there will be none for a page or two.
BTW, I use a different pen name for my stories.
Bottom line, listening to what you've written really brings out the errors, but you have to pay attention. If your attention drifts, stop do something else for a while.
Hope this helps.
When I first used it I was shocked by the number errors I found.
Speaking as someone who types lots of numbers into a football spreadsheet, I think that is one example of where the 'of' should be retained, ie 'number of errors'.
AJ
The last 12 years of my working life was as a technical writer. Nine of those years our small department had no editor.
A fellow writer with 20 years more experience told me the trick to edit your own words.
Read them out loud. Not LOUD, but kinda sub vocally and pronounce every word.
If there's a spot where you would pause a beat, a comma, pause that beat.
Read the words as if you were reading them to an audience and if you need to emphasize certain phrases or individual words, do so.
I started doing this and I found I was a lousy technical writer, but improved as I got more comfortable reading to myself.
As always, YMMV.
I write in raw HTML in a terminal-mode text editor. I proofread in a graphical web browser. It's surprising how much just reformatting the text lets me see what is actually written rather than what I expect to be written.