So, I'm editing my manuscript right now and figuring out how to use track changes all over again. It has been a slow process because I'm re-reading, blushing at my obvious errors, and making more changes as I go. As the process got more and more tedious, I was tempted to just throw my hands up, accept all the changes, and send it back to my editor. The truth is though, the perfectionist in me wouldn't let me do something like that. But today, I read a blog by one of the Wild Rose Press editors at http://behindthegardengate.blogspot.com/ and it became clear that there are authors who do exactly what I was tempted to do and send back the manuscript the next day. Unfortunately, this sends the wrong message to the editor who worked so hard to go through the manuscript, trying to make it publishable. The authors who did this though argued that they needed to get their books out as quickly as possible, and it takes months to actually publish, even online. Yet, if your goal is to build an audience, wouldn't the best possible product, one that the author really cared enough to make as perfect as possible, be a manuscript that had been gone over several times. As the editor from Wild Rose Press expressed--it's not a fast food kind of process.
What do you think though? Is a quick publication worth a rush on the editing? Is there a hard and fast rule when it comes to quality? I'd be interested in what you think.