I find the state of the ARC you received to be very curious, and I would have issues reading such an ARC. I don’t know if I’d really be able to get into the story, focusing instead on the comments.

As I always understood it, an ARC is created at the point when all the content and line edits have been done to the best of everyone’s ability, and yet one more word by word pass-through is necessary. Why? To catch all those pesky typos and other flubs that sometimes sneak in when going through the other edit processes.

The ARC is as close to the final copy as you can get, and necessary to allow time for reviews.

What you received? I don’t know what you’d call that. LOL

I think I'm one of the few who is completely appalled and freaked out by this.

If I were an author, I’d be totally appalled that my work could conceivably be sent to a reviewer in that shape.

As it is, when we review an ARC, we have to keep in mind that it’s still unfinished, that changes could occur, and that (hopefully) line errors will be caught and corrected. Some of those errors are already pretty distracting to me, as a reader, when they come in such a neatly presented ARC. But not usually enough to ruin my reading experience.

If the purpose of sending out ARCs is to facilitate reviews, then it seems to me that a copy like the one Jane received is already hobbling the reviewer by delivering a text that is *overtly* distracting to read, let alone unreliable as a simulation of the final book. I think copies like that do a disservice to the author and the publisher, because they shift the burden to the reviewer to be able to see and read past all those marks in order to give the book a fair read. And even reviewers like Jane, who make every effort to give a book a fair shake, may be negatively affected by a copy like that, even if they do not register it consciously. It’s a risk I’m surprised that publishers would feel comfortable taking.

It sounds like in this case you got the copyedited manuscript which is, in my mind, unacceptable.

Hi Jane. I’m with Jessica.

What you call ARCs I’ve always known as ‘bound proofs’. As Jessica’s already said, once all the editing work has been done on a manuscript, it’s sent to the printer, who sets it in proof. The page proofs are then returned to my publisher, and my publisher sends one copy on to me so I can check for errors.

Reading proof, by the way, is nothing like reading for pleasure, because you really do have to read each and every word and punctuation mark to make sure you haven’t missed anything. (In my last book, for example, the printer had accidentally inverted all the single quotes used for abbreviated words like ’tis, and all of those had to be individually caught and corrected.) It usually takes me a week to read proof pages.

Any ‘printer’s errors’ that I find are free to change. Any ‘author’s alterations’ that I make are free up to a certain percentage of the overall text, though at this stage it’s really not on to change more than a word or so, and most authors resist the urge.

When I’m done, I return the page proofs to my publisher, and their proof-reader incorporates my corrections into his or her own proof copy, which is then returned to the printer, who sets the final copy.

Bound proofs, or ARCs, are made from the page proofs because it’s assumed that there won’t be too many mistakes to distract a reader at that point, and no major changes left to come.

And not to make you feel guilty for tossing your ARCs, but they actually cost MORE to make than a finished book, which is why publishers generally only do them for those books they plan to push. I always count myself lucky if a publisher makes bound proofs of my books.

But what you got was NOT a bound proof. I’m not sure what it was. To be honest, I’ve never even seen one of my copyedited manuscripts look like that. (Copyeditors usually just go crazy on my commas, but I’ve never had one strike out whole lines of my text!)

So yes, you’re right to think it’s strange.

What do I know, I’m just a scientist and romance junkie. I do a lot of writing of grant proposals working collaboratively with other scientists. When we do so we always “track changes”, a nifty enough feature of MS Word. HOWEVER when an edited document comes to me, I always have to do something (most of the time that is to accept all changes) in order to make the editing go away. It’s too many lines and I lose track of the science by paying too much attention to the lines.

If I am not working or reading I also quilt, mostly using a rotary cutter and mat. However, the mat can sometimes prove more of a distraction than an asset if I am trying to do something a little more “arty” and less geometric. I remember vividly taking a class from a famous quilter and instructor who told me that in those circumstances she flips the mat over to its blank side, otherwise she had to deal with “Too many lines”.

I think the same principle applies here to the ARCs to which you refer here. Maybe not everyone will have a problem reading them with the editing marks still in place, but some people are bound to get distracted. If I want something to get a good review, I am going to make sure that it goes out in as perfect a condition as possible, no typos, nothing more to distract the reader/reviewer than it is in my power to resolve.

Although receiving and reading ARCs are indeed priveleges, it should also be the responsibility of the publisher to make sure that the ARC is ready to receive as good a review as possible.

But then again, what do I know, I’m just a scientist. Sorry for the ramble.

There are typically four stages in the editing process, from a publisher’s perspective. The first stage comes soon after the author turns in her finished manuscript. That stage is revisions. The author works with her editor on heavy changes to the book–this could mean not much of anything or massive rewrites depending on the editor. This stage will uncover and fix plot problems, character problems, etc.

The second stage is line edits. This is also done by the editor. The editor goes through the manuscript line by line and looks for things like inconsisencies, poor word choice, dialogue that might seem stiff, awkward or not fitting that character or time period, etc.

The third stage is copy edits. Copy edits are still done (still often by hand) on the author’s original manuscript pages. The copy editor looks for things like inconsistencies, typos, grammar errors, etc.

Once the author has reviewed, fixed or corrected the errors from the copy editor and line edits the book goes to the printer. The printer obviously takes the design given to them by the publisher and makes sample book pages. These are often call page proofs. They are printed on regular 8.5×11 paper, but designed to give you an idea of what the book will look like. It is the page proofs that are made into ARCs, bound galleys and essentially sent to reviewers.

Because the printer is often taking the material from the manuscript to make into the pages there are sometimes printer errors which is why the publisher notes that changes might be made. The author gets one last look at the book through the page proofs. This is the time to make sure all the copyedits and line edits were made, there are no typos and to fix any small errors. Big revision time is long over at this point.

It sounds like in this case you got the copyedited manuscript which is, in my mind, unacceptable. How can you review a book that might yet have major strike-outs or rewritten pieces. I think the publisher should definitely be alerted. This is not a book I think you can properly review since you don’t even know if what you received resembles the final product.

If anything, I would return the ARC you received explain why you couldn’t possibly review it in this format and ask that they send you a final book when they have one.

As others have stated, ARC’s are the bound page proofs (also called galleys). An author is given those identical pages, loose, a couple months before release for a final inspection of the manuscript. Often times, little changes are made on the page proofs that get updated for the final book version that hits the shelves. Usually not big changes, but things can differ a bit from the final product. Example: in the ARC for One Foot in the Grave, Cat dyes her hair blond. In the version of OFITG on the shelves, however, she’s a brunette. Also, there are about 50 less adverbs in the final printed copy versus the ARC (because that’s all they’d let me delete! :).

As an author, I would be aghast if my pre-page proof, marked-up manuscript was ever sent to a reviewer. My vote is yes, do tell the publicity department that you would only like to receive post-edited material. It’ll be better for you to read, and the author would probably thank you if he/she could.

By this stage, the major rewrites and the line edited versions are already done, and there should be very few typos. Publishers strongly discourage major changes in a galley because it’s very expensive. In fact, the author is told to limit them to 20 changes or it might come out of her pocket. Most mid-list authors have to send out their own ARCs and we usually use our galleys to make copies at Kinkos. I sometimes pay a little extra to get them spiral-bound. It doesn’t look like you received a galley, Jane.

I got the feeling they had been sent by mistake because I had received ARCs from those publishers before and they were never like that. The majority of the print ARCs I receive are obviously ARCs, but they are cleanly put together and bound. That particular ARC you got may have been a mistake, Jane, an “isolated” incident so to speak.

Oh and to clarify, me is not a professional nor is my newsletter a professional one. I don’t know how this would be for a true “professional” reviewer.

I should have posted all this in my original reply.

Reviewers — who are readers, after all — need clean copy, as devoid of distractions as possible, to determine whether or not a novel “works” for them. I’d be going out of my effing mind trying to read past the editor’s marks; why should you be any different?

It simply isn’t fair to either the author or the reviewer!

That “these are uncorrected proofs” disclaimer on ARCs is mostly so the publisher doesn’t look stupid in the event there are big errors that haven’t been caught yet. ARCs all get reviewed in-house, too, to make sure everything looks correct.

Jane, I think you’re absolutely fine in talking to the publicity department to let them know those kind of ARCs just don’t work for you. Believe me, they *want* you to read the book. I had a blogger contact me once to say he preferred to wait for the finished book rather than get galley pages because they weren’t as comfortable to read, and he didn’t need books more than a month in advance anyway. I was happy to accommodate him because it ended up being less work on our end. Everyone was happy. I’m sure this publisher would prefer to know that you’re not reading this book because otherwise they’ll just keep sending them to you, and that ends up being a waste for everyone.

I’ve read ARCs that were in the early stages (nothing like reading ‘gateau’ instead of ‘goatee’ to throw you out of a story; I kept seeing a pound cake attached to the poor guy’s face), but never one that was as bad as what you showed above.

I feel it doesn’t do the author and publisher any favors to put out a half- or less-finished product for review.

Purely from a curiosity standpoint I would find looking at such an ARC interesting as a way to understand the process involved, but not if I were expected to read and write a review for said ARC. Matter of fact, I’d find it kind of insulting if a publisher sent something like that to me and thought it reasonable for me to slog through it.

But as an author, I’m with everyone else who said they’re appalled at the idea of having a marked-up copy edit sent out for review. Very poor form, IMO.

I hope this was bound and mailed out to reviewers by accident, because I don’t want to know which publisher actually thinks ARCs should look like this. I can guarantee that when I was working in bookstores (indies, where the staff made a lot of recommendations to customers), if we had received an ARC like this, none of us on staff would have read it.

For my upcoming book, I caught a research error during the very last stage, i.e., I was sent page proofs that are identical to the pages in the ARC, and asked to make any final corrections. The research error would go unnoticed by 99.98% of readers. But it was an error–an error of omission at least–that would have blown my entire set-up.

I corrected it. I don’t know that were you to read the final version you’d even notice, but now it’s correct. :-)