Writing Tipps and Book Talk discussion

Manuscript critiques are, undoubtedly, less expensive than a structural edit, and the need for one can be looked at two ways.

Firstly, it could be considered as a suitable alternative, at a much lower price.

Secondly, it could be considered as the first stage in a process that could and should culminate in a structural edit at the end.

I’m in the camp that believes a manuscript critique is essential to ensure that you are not deluding yourself, or being misled by family and friends into believing that your story is better than it is. It is an early chance to have your work read and evaluated by an independent, professional pair of eyes, and the feedback will indicate whether or not it is structurally unsound. It will also indicate whether it is of such quality that a line by line proof read should or should not be undertaken.

So, to answer my own question, a manuscript critique could well be a cheap, and indeed, satisfactory option if it indicates neither a proof read nor structural edit is entirely necessary. However, it has added an additional invoice to the overall cost if it suggests one or both of them are.

I have always believed in the ‘one step at a time’ approach. For a first time, or inexperienced author, a manuscript critique upon completion or part completion of a first draft, provides an excellent barometer to potential success and an early warning system that things may need changing.

http://theindietribe.wordpress.com/ma...

One thing is for sure. You should never submit or self-publish a piece of work until it has been subjected to at least one of these processes.

That and the website was very helpful... thankyou for posting it.