World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Indie authors often lack comprehensive understanding of the quality of their work before they go live with their book. But guess what after a while, reading critical reviews, hearing colleagues and maybe having a fresher own evaluation, the author may re-assess readworthiness of his/her book and see some things that need be corrected..

One school says - the book as a piece of art shall not be changed apart from maybe correcting typos and technical stuff, for it would be unfair to previous readers.
Another school says - why not to improve and let the art be dynamic.

What's your view on book renovation?

Nik wrote: "Indie authors often lack comprehensive understanding of the quality of their work before they go live with their book. But guess what after a while, reading critical reviews, hearing colleagues and..."

I'm published by small press, and my publisher/editor worked really hard with me to make my first book the best it could be - at the time. And of course, I did have an editor and professional proofreader helping me along.

Now, I'd write it a bit differently - particularly at the beginning, but my philosophy is 'It is what it is.' There's really no going back. As an author, I have to move forward and keep on improving my writing.

In terms of quality, clearly having those professional services is really helpful, and some indie authors may not have had them when they published their books. But then there's a huge additional discussion around indie authors employing editors and proofreaders to assist them to produce a quality product.

If you see errors after publication, then yes, I would correct them. As for a full make-over later, that could be a 2d edition. Other than that, chalk it up to a learning experience and move on; endless tinkering is non-productive.

My view is, make it as good as you can initially. I have been known to correct typos when pointed out, but my opinion is, that is what it was then, and there it stays. Interestingly, in later life, Beethoven toyed with the idea of renovating his early piano sonatas, and if you look at his work, there is a real improvement over the period, but he then decided to leave them as they were, because that is what they were then.

The one exception to that will be my scientific book "Planetary Formation an Biogenesis". This starts with a review of the key scientific papers and an analysis of what they mean. However, that, perforce, stopped in 2011, and one day I may update it.

The conundrum, outside of the technical issues, is that if you change what you perceive to be the weakness in a book, you could inadvertently change an element readers actually loved. If you're looking at changing a book, consider that it's best not to change what works. If a book sells, then leave it alone. On the other hand, if you throw it up and you have no sales, then that would be a different scenario.

Is renovating a book an option or not?