# Killing off more writing myths



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

Many of Smith's blog entries are worth reading, this one included. "Myths" addressed here include the idea that there is only one way to write properly, and you have to rewrite.

Chapter One: Killing the Sacred Cows of Publishing: Only One Way |

Here is one specifically directed to rewriting, which is perhaps the most common myth I see propagated on writing forums (I've tried to point it out when someone makes the "all first drafts are bad" comment you inevitably see crop up, but it seems to be a lost cause):  http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=4398

In fact, you may as well go through all of his "Killing the Sacred Cows" posts, since so many of these myths are offered as fact on writing forums:

http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?page_id=860


----------



## danr62 (Aug 16, 2012)

It depends on the writer. Some find that rewriting helps them improve their stories dramatically, while others feel it kills the fire and passion they had when they first wrote the story.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

danr62 said:


> It depends on the writer. Some find that rewriting helps them improve their stories dramatically, while others feel it kills the fire and passion they had when they first wrote the story.



Yes, this is it exactly. But you see all the time on writing forums people saying "all" first draft suck, and you always need to rewrite after the initial draft, etc. It can make people new to writing think that's just sort of the standard approach. I think each writer needs to determine for themselves whether rewriting is necessary, and it not only varies from writer to writer but from work to work. The first fiction piece I ever sold was a first draft, with only a quick read-through to fix typos. 

My most recent sale was written all in one sitting, as a single draft. I rewrote the ending after Benjamin Clayborne suggested it. So the original ending scene was scrapped and an entirely new one written, also in a single draft. I tend not to rewrite what I've already got down on paper.

I think Heinlein's rules (see the blog post I linked) are too far on one side. His advice to 'never' rewrite unless an editor makes you seems just as bad as the advice that a first draft is always going to be bad.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm one of the people who have said that the first draft always sucks, but I usually direct that to new writers who haven't gotten the experience yet to produce an excellent first draft. Sure, it's possible for a brand new writer, who's never even tried to write anything, to sit down and say "I'm going to be a writer" and create a great first draft, but it isn't terribly likely. By and large, you need to gain the experience to get to that point.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

danr62 said:


> Sure, it's possible for a brand new writer, who's never even tried to write anything, to sit down and say "I'm going to be a writer" and create a great first draft, but it isn't terribly likely. By and large, you need to gain the experience to get to that point.



Yeah...I think there's some truth to that, but I kind of waffle on it, myself. As Smith notes in the article, the creative process of letting yourself go and writing is quite different from the analytical process of editing. I've seen plenty of writers, both new and seasoned, ruin a story during the editing process. For example, in one case I am thinking of a writer posted a first draft of a chapter. It could have used some tightening, but it seethed with energy and emotion, because the writer just poured himself onto the page. It was pretty good, even though it had flaws. After getting comments, the writer spent days editing it and re-posted it. Sure enough, the technical issues were addressed, but frankly the rewrite was flat. The writer killed the chapter during the revision process. My recommendation was that of the two he should stick with the original draft and through the other one in the trash. Not sure what he did.

But as you say, this is all specific to the writer, and even to a given work by a writer.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 16, 2012)

Maybe I should rephrase that to: Give yourself permission to let the first draft suck.


----------



## Graylorne (Aug 16, 2012)

I like rewriting. I admit it. It's part of my creative process. My first draft is generally rather bare bones and only in rewriting I can flesh it out, shape it, breathe and polish it, till it's finished. I do it constantly (and yes, I do finish manuscripts that way).
The moment I start disliking it, is when my editor tells me to rewrite. Perhaps I'm a bit contrary...

The analytical proces of editing - perhaps that's it. I write with my instincts, I don't analyse anything. Wouldn't know how, actually.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 16, 2012)

How on earth do you have time to find and read all these posts? I can barely keep up with your posts about them, let alone actually read them.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> How on earth do you have time to find and read all these posts? I can barely keep up with your posts about them, let alone actually read them.



I usually wake up pretty earlier, and I like to take a leisurely stroll through blog and article land before I actually start doing much else (which is why you often see such posts from me in the morning). Some of these blogs are by people I know to look for (Scalzi and Smith, for example). Other stuff I see in news aggregators or sites I like to visit


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 16, 2012)

danr62 said:


> Maybe I should rephrase that to: Give yourself permission to let the first draft suck.



Exactly.  My writing process improved greatly when I decided this.  I was too focused on "does this sound right" or "does it suck."  Saying "it's a first draft; it's not supposed to be good" allows me to just get it down on paper and fix it later.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Exactly.  My writing process improved greatly when I decided this.  I was too focused on "does this sound right" or "does it suck."  Saying "it's a first draft; it's not supposed to be good" allows me to just get it down on paper and fix it later.



Yeah, I think it is important to just write straight through and not edit as you go. But it is also important to realize that you may end up with a good product as a result of this; one that doesn't need much besides fixing some typos or grammar.


----------



## Jabrosky (Aug 16, 2012)

I confess to being the sort of writer who edits as he goes. I want my first drafts to be as good as possible to minimize rewrites. Unfortunately I often end up rewriting anyway.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 16, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, I think it is important to just write straight through and not edit as you go. But it is also important to realize that you may end up with a good product as a result of this; one that doesn't need much besides fixing some typos or grammar.



Maybe I'm being too much of a perfectionist, but I haven't found a single paragraph (that might be a tiny bit hyperbolic) that hasn't benefited from multiple revisions.  I go over each scene at least four times between rough draft and second draft and at least a couple more times between second and third.  

My work, I feel, improves with each pass.  Again, though, that's me at the moment.  My ability is still increasing pretty fast.  I think I'll reach a point some day (hopefully!) where I'll create great material on the first time through.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 16, 2012)

Self editing as you go is a tough habit to break. Sometimes I feel like I simply can't go on if I don't go back and fix this one thing...


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Maybe I'm being too much of a perfectionist, but I haven't found a single paragraph (that might be a tiny bit hyperbolic) that hasn't benefited from multiple revisions.  I go over each scene at least four times between rough draft and second draft and at least a couple more times between second and third.
> 
> My work, I feel, improves with each pass.  Again, though, that's me at the moment.  My ability is still increasing pretty fast.  I think I'll reach a point some day (hopefully!) where I'll create great material on the first time through.



See, I'm the opposite. I am loathe to rewrite. There are times it is needed, and I'll do it. But more often than not I'll go with my first draft and maybe just tweak it a bit. In many cases, that first draft may be closer to perfection than the edited versions that come later. But as I said above, my first fiction sale was a complete first draft, so that influenced me. My first draft is usually a pretty close capture of the image, emotion, atmosphere, &c. that I am trying to capture. Anything I do to it after that starts to remove it from that original place.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 16, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> See, I'm the opposite. I am loathe to rewrite. There are times it is needed, and I'll do it. But more often than not I'll go with my first draft and maybe just tweak it a bit. In many cases, that first draft may be closer to perfection than the edited versions that come later. But as I said above, my first fiction sale was a complete first draft, so that influenced me. My first draft is usually a pretty close capture of the image, emotion, atmosphere, &c. that I am trying to capture. Anything I do to it after that starts to remove it from that original place.



Yep.  Completely opposite.

My first draft is almost a broad outline of what happens.  Some of what I put down ends up being pretty good, but I add tension, emotion, and subtext with each revision.  For my WIP, I didn't really have a handle on the characters until I completely finished the entire book in rough draft form.  On my second time through, I'm adding depth and making the beginning chapters match what I learned about them.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Yep.  Completely opposite.
> 
> My first draft is almost a broad outline of what happens.  Some of what I put down ends up being pretty good, but I add tension, emotion, and subtext with each revision.  For my WIP, I didn't really have a handle on the characters until I completely finished the entire book in rough draft form.  On my second time through, I'm adding depth and making the beginning chapters match what I learned about them.



I hear you. Like Dan said, the important thing is to do what works. No reason to expect it to be the same for any two people.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 16, 2012)

Steerpike said:
			
		

> See, I'm the opposite. I am loathe to rewrite. There are times it is needed, and I'll do it. But more often than not I'll go with my first draft and maybe just tweak it a bit. In many cases, that first draft may be closer to perfection than the edited versions that come later. But as I said above, my first fiction sale was a complete first draft, so that influenced me. My first draft is usually a pretty close capture of the image, emotion, atmosphere, &c. that I am trying to capture. Anything I do to it after that starts to remove it from that original place.



Your first sell was a short piece correct?

I think the idea of "revision makes a good story" applies more to novel length works. It's not always about phrasing or word-smithing either. Often, this involves cutting passages, paragraphs or even whole characters. Maybe it's expounding on those ideas just to make everything tie together.  In a novel length work, there's bound to be some inconsistencies to clean up or ideas that make the story better by developing them further.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith:

Yes. And so was my most recent piece to Pseudopod. You may well be right about that. Come to think of it, when I said above that I usually stick to first drafts, I notice that the works were I tend not to so much is the novels that I am working on. And I do exactly what you're talking about - move passages around, maybe insert something that appears to be needed, and so on.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 16, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Your first sell was a short piece correct?
> 
> I think the idea of "revision makes a good story" applies more to novel length works. It's not always about phrasing or word smithing either. Often, this involves cutting passages, paragraphs or even whole characters. Maybe it's expounding on those ideas just to make everything tie together.  In a novel length work, there's bound to be some inconsistencies to clean up or ideas that make the story better by developing them further.



I'm in the process of writing a short story, and I'm finding that I'm liking my first draft more than I usually would.  I had put it down for a few weeks to concentrate on editing my novel.  I read the 4000 words yesterday.  I have to say that I liked it.  I actually wanted to read more when I reached the end.  

I'm not sure if it's because it's the format or that my writing is improving, though.  In a short story, you don't have as many characters or subplots, and you can't devote the time to character development that you do in a novel.  My plan is 6 or 7 scenes total.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 16, 2012)

Short stories have their own unique challenges. Brevity alone can be an issue, but they don't suffer from the complexity of several interwoven plots & characters. 

There are writers capable of submitting a manuscript as soon as they type "The End". I'm not one of them. In revision I make small changes to the actual wording. Most of the editing process is devoted to enriching setting, characterization through dialogue differentiation, tidying up plot through cutting or further developing ideas as they progress, things of this nature.


----------



## gavintonks (Aug 16, 2012)

If you hear how many times Lord of the rings was edited by Tolkien's son I doubt there are many one write manuscripts that are supremely successful


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 16, 2012)

gavintonks said:


> If you hear how many times Lord of the rings was edited by Tolkien's son I doubt there are many one write manuscripts that are supremely successful



Heinlein had a bunch of them, unless he was lying about his process. There's no reason a first draft can't be successful if that's how a writer produces her work. As people have said, each writer has to go with what works.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 16, 2012)

Vonnegut wrote one draft for each work he put out (or so he said). I think he'd qualify as a success.

Certainly that's not the norm though.


----------



## gavintonks (Aug 17, 2012)

The writer also does not say whether the manuscript was edited which is more than likely so professing a first draft and giving it to editors would be more plausible.
What we forget is the word constraints in lithographic printing, which means odd and even pages for publication so here would see an edit to fit the printing requirements


----------



## Ghost (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm confused. Is he talking about rewriting and revision as the same thing? All of my stories need revision but few of them need rewrites.

I agree with the "every writer is different" sentiment. Look at all advice and see what applies to your particular situation. I'd recommend trying new things if what you're doing isn't working, but you don't *have to* do anything.

There is advice that helps many writers. That doesn't mean it works for all of us. People say things like:

Revise, revise, revise
First draft - 10% = second draft
Show, don't tell
No adverbs
No prologues
Don't use clichÃ©s
Outline
There are reasons these "rules" are given so freely. They point to problems new writers might not be aware of. I don't look at advice as laws, more like a heads up. After all, someone can write a wordy, telly novel full of adverbs and clichÃ©s and become a bestselling author. There are as many ways to write a book as there are writers, and the same writer might employ methods for different books.

Smith says every writer is different and follows it with "So how come rewriting makes stories worse instead of better?" I'm not sure that works. I agree that endlessly tinkering with a work is often harmful to its integrity, but revising something doesn't inherently make it worse. If someone is bad at revising/rewriting, well, that is a whole other issue.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 17, 2012)

I was going to post a lengthy diatribe here but decided to make it a *blog post* instead.  I love writing fiction but it's hard coming up with blog topics when I don't actually have a career to blog about yet.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 17, 2012)

Revising, editing, and rewriting are three different things. I just wish I knew the difference.

Actually, I think editing has to do with grammar, spelling and typos. Revising is about tightening up sentences and improving the prose. Rewriting is about fixing characterization, plot and other story level fixes.

I think that's about right, anyway.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 17, 2012)

danr62 said:


> Revising, editing, and rewriting are three different things. I just wish I knew the difference.
> 
> Actually, I think editing has to do with grammar, spelling and typos. Revising is about tightening up sentences and improving the prose. Rewriting is about fixing characterization, plot and other story level fixes.
> 
> I think that's about right, anyway.



There may be different or more precise lingo within the industry (that is, the traditonal publishing industry, or "TPI," which sounds like some kind of medical disorder), but I use those three terms the same way you do.


----------



## shangrila (Aug 18, 2012)

In that context, yeah, the really talented writers could probably get away without doing a complete rewrite. But I highly doubt it's what the majority do nor, in my opinion, is it something that people should just discard as more work or something.

Almost everything will get better the more you do it and that (again, in my opinion) involves your stories as well. You can easily miss a bit of information here or there while writing a novel, or find that the character you had in mind doesn't fit the story you want to tell.

I'm not saying you have to do rewrites either but, to me, putting out a first draft with basic editing and expecting it to be good would require a lot of pieces to fall in the right places.


----------



## JCFarnham (Aug 18, 2012)

The idea that for a piece of writing to be good, one needs to slave over it is a very good point. I'll be honest I must have wrote the first two or three chapters of my scifi novel in about the same number of days during NaNoWriMo. The content hasn't changed one bit, those first chapters are still more of less the same (excluding a good edit of grammer, etc.) So yeah, I agree with Dean Smith, especially since in the case of those chapters I've just "signed them over" as final draft material. 

If you're worrying about what Smith is saying thinking "yeah, but that's a bit..." then try delving deeper into his meaning. The language stumped me a few times but the deeper meaning is a good one.


----------



## Amanita (Aug 23, 2012)

His comments are definitely interesting and thought-worthy. I might not agree with everything 100% but if I remember correctly, this is one of his points, not everything does aply to every author.
Fretting over supposedly firm "rules" rather than writing in your own voice seems to be a bit of a problem I've been observing especially on websites. 
I really don't understand the general dislike for prologues for example, especially seeing this while almost all fantasy books I've read do use prologues and I can think of anyone which spoiled a good story for me. In a recent book I had a very well-done example hinting at things only clear at the end of the four book series and still an interesting little story of its own. 
The most popular works such as Harry Potter, Twilight, or presumably "Shades of Gray" which failed to attract my interest all break plenty of rules supposedly so important but the authors still succed in doing the most important thing: Making plenty of people care about their characters and stories. (And making plenty of money too if you see this as an important thing. )


----------



## JonSnow (Aug 23, 2012)

I reread every chapter after I write it, and "edit" it by removing excess words, re-wording certain parts, and correcting grammar. I don't consider this "revising", as it is a simple process of putting legible work on paper. After I have gone over the work a couple times and cleaned up the basic problems, I would consider that a "first draft". 

Anybody who says they just write and leave it alone is full of crap. Even if your writing is crisp and doesn't need much revision, you're crazy not to at least go back over and do a basic edit before moving on. Even if you write the whole story before you go back to edit, I would consider the "First Draft" the product after you edited the original text for errors at least once.


----------



## JonSnow (Aug 23, 2012)

I guess there are a few authors who could take a dump on a sheet of paper and readers would revere them for it, so my post wouldn't apply to them. Most of us don't have that luxury.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 23, 2012)

JonSnow said:


> Anybody who says they just write and leave it alone is full of crap.



Not everyone who doesn't use the same process you use is full of crap for saying they don't use it. That strikes me as a rather foolish thing to say, especially since your statement is all-inclusive and you can't possibly know the writing habits of every writer. I don't know why so many writers have this same sort of insecurity which doesn't allow for the fact that others may operate different, and expresses itself in this sort of comment.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 24, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Not everyone who doesn't use the same process you use is full of crap for saying they don't use it. That strikes me as a rather foolish thing to say, especially since your statement is all-inclusive and you can't possibly know the writing habits of every writer. I don't know why so many writers have this same sort of insecurity which doesn't allow for the fact that others may operate different, and expresses itself in this sort of comment.



I agree with this completely.  There are as many variations in technique as there are writers.

If you're like me, your first draft is word vomit designed just to get something down that you can work with in the editing process.  However, there's no reason you can't take the exact opposite approach.  If you take the time to really think about and outline your scene, why would you need to go back over it as long as you took care with each sentence you wrote?


----------



## Philip Overby (Aug 24, 2012)

I think there are more writers than we all think who just write whatever comes to mind and then get it published.  It's not completely unfeasible.  Unlikely, if you're a novice, but not unheard of.  I myself do very little editing on short stories.  Novels are a bit different.  I tend to lean towards "beefing up" instead of "cutting" so that's usually how I use editing.  I want to make scenes pop more some way or another.  I think some may equate editing with cutting, but I think it's just a tool for you to make the best possible story.  If your best possible story is written in one draft, then more power to you!


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 24, 2012)

There are probably some professional authors who work out the story in advance, and then only do one draft of the prose because they're extremely practiced at it—someone like Elmore Leonard or Carl Hiaasen strikes me as possibly working in this mold. (Once you've had twenty or thirty novels published, you might well be able to generate good prose on your first try.) I think even in this case it doesn't mean you never ever use the Backspace key; just that you might write a paragraph, revise it right then and there, and then move on, never to go back and touch it again.

But they're almost certainly a tiny minority of writers, and it doesn't make sense to try to emulate that if it doesn't work for you. So far my method isn't remotely close to this; I tend to vomit out a first draft and then go back over it and analyze it bit by bit, sometimes rewriting entire chunks. I actually am trying to work more toward a "story first" style, since the story's the important (and much more difficult) part. For me, at least, the prose is easy.


----------



## ALB2012 (Aug 24, 2012)

I tend to have to go back over things sometime after. I get what I want down on paper and often it changes as I write. I may realise something I had planned doesn't work or come out how I want and then I have to go and fix earlier references. I often don't spot my typos the first time (or even second) or decide I can rephrase something, or even remove it.

Often I will move on to something else and then look over it again but I think everyone is different. Some people can work through things in their head or spend a month per chapter some people write loads then go and clean it up after. Often I will write a scene to get it out of my head and either keep it or work it in later.  There is no right and wrong but what works for the writer.


----------



## ALB2012 (Aug 24, 2012)

Oh and I have seen published stuff where the author has obviously just written it and published it and not bothered to edit


----------



## gavintonks (Aug 24, 2012)

I agree if you have a concept and the understanding of a genre and a formula for writing then a professional could churn out mills and boon stuff[or the odd best seller].
To have a formula in your mind and carefully choose the words as you write and not just put down text could fulfill the outline of one off manuscripts, but I think part of the frustration of writing is asking yourself is this the best you can do and challenging yourself to see that the scene is from the best and most exciting perspective for your reader and for my part requires re-looking at the text a few times.


----------



## EMoon (Feb 5, 2019)

My first drafts of novels are usually huge and messy...I throw *everything* into them and sort it out later.  Since I don't outline (anything but essays) I don't know what the story's really going to be until a long way into it and even then I need to see the end before doing anything to the earlier parts.  Then I go back and prune the things that didn't work out, the dead ends, the long conversations that didn't lead anywhere, make sure things are in the right order (they're often not, in first draft, because of how my supposed mind "works") and make sure that the transitions are clear to the reader...and that I haven't forgotten that Calvin died in chapter 8 so he can't be creeping through a tunnel in chapter 9.  Because my books tend to be large and often come in groups there's checking of timelines, locations, names (Calvin can't be Kelvin in one chapter) and characterization (Calvin can't change behavior and speech patterns abruptly for no reason)...all that continuity stuff.   And when that's done...they're better.   Some of my editors have been more...um...understanding of my process if they never got to see a first draft, just a later one.  They may still think more needs to be trimmed but at least they can then see what I was aiming for.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 6, 2019)

danr62 said:


> It depends on the writer. Some find that rewriting helps them improve their stories dramatically, while others feel it kills the fire and passion they had when they first wrote the story.



You write with all that fire and passion and allow your first draft to suck. The next question is, can you see the _best variation_ from that position or do you just see a variation that allows the scene to work? Are you really going through line by line, scene by scene looking for the best way? My most frequent complaint when reading writing posted online is: I have the information you want to tell me, I know what the characters are doing, what they have to do and why they're doing it. Fine. But I'm not entertained. I'm not wowed. I'm not engrossed. When I read something I want to think it's clever. I want to see voice. I want to see the writer's eccentricties. I want every single scene to be setting up something else, every line to have subtext, telling us something about the character and the setting. Instead of "Just get to the finish and from there patch it up". I can tell from what I'm reading on writing forums that this is what's happening, and I don't like it.  Writing becomes art when it rises above the functional. There's no easy ride. To be good, we have to think and think hard. 

-


----------

