A few thoughts on editing

[BWFoster78]

(Disclaimer: To an extent, this post is worthless. For the sake of argument, let's say I could use logic to prove my method far superior to any other. The fact is that my method may not work as well for you as it does for me, and I can't advocate anything that lessens your productivity. Still, I've been thinking about this a lot lately and appreciate the opportunity to get it out of my system.)

As some of you may know, I frequent the "Showcase" forum on this site, perching ready to pounce with a detailed edit of any writing the catches my fancy. I go line by line pointing out grammatical errors, passive writing, and any number of common errors. Again and again, I get the response: "Thanks, but I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty details at the moment."

To me, the nitty gritty is writing. You can have the best concept in the world, but, if you can't translate it onto the page in a way that engages your reader, you're not going to have an audience. Part of that translation is mundane things like grammar and punctuation. I've actually had multiple people tell me that's why they have editors!

My experience with editing is that it can only take you so far. If my rough draft is a 2, an editor's comments may be able to take it to a 4. If instead I start with a 6, that editor can get me to an 8. It seems like a waste of effort, both on the part of the writer and the editor, to seek opinions on a piece that I haven't taken the time to make as good as possible (To a reasonable extent, obviously. A piece is never perfect, and, at some point, you have to call it good enough.)

The contrary viewpoint seems to be that going back and editing interrupts the flow of writing, that editing actually feels like procrastination from actual writing.

Editing is writing! Seeing your mistakes and correcting them makes you less likely to create the same problems again. If you're told that the writing is too passive in Chapter 1 but wait until Chapter 10 to do anything about it, you've got nine chapters of dull material that you have to correct. Instead, you could have been perfecting your craft and writing exciting scenes.

The method that works for me:

Create Rough Draft - The first draft is word vomit. The goal is to get words on the paper. It usually takes me about an hour to get 1000 words.

Edit to Second Draft - I spend two to three hours per 1000 words correcting grammar; working on flow; eliminating words like was, had, like, just, and could; examining the use of adverbs; making sure I'm showing instead of telling; and ensuring the actions of my characters make physical sense; and performing various other edits.

Submit 2nd Draft to Editor - Luckily, I have a couple of friends who are willing to read over my work. I also submit some scenes to websites like this one.

Edit to 3rd Draft - Incorporate editor comments and do another couple of passes for general editing.

I have chapters in multiple stages. My early chapters are already in the 3rd draft, the middle ones in 2nd, and I'm still writing the later ones. Of course, as my writing skills increase, I tend to find myself going back to redo my first chapters, especially after making some major changes to my story line.

My plan is, once I've finished with my 3rd draft of the entire book (I'm so looking forward to that day!), to let the thing sit unread for six to eight weeks. After that, I'll take the entire thing and do a final edit to the 4th draft. I'm hoping that edition is good enough to publish.

That's my concept. Thanks for letting me share it.

 

[JCFarnham]

I think I've said this before but your method does make sense.

However as usual I'm going to play devil's advocate in yet another discussion haha. An opposing argument could be this; you could have absolutely perfect technical writing, perfect english, perfect all of that, but what if the concept is no good? Could it be true in this sense then that a master writer could write out a shopping list and make sellable material out of it?

A lot of discussion follow a line where by one person says one thing is a good way of thinking about it and another says the opposite. In my experience those "opposites" aren't always exact opposites, they're part of the same thing. That could be true in this case as well. A perfect idea's [wo]man would be nothing with out good grammar, etc. Just as a perfect writing technician would be nothing with out a good idea.

Consider this. You said you write 1000 or so words then spend 2-3 hours editting that. Some one taking the other method would have written 4000 at the same speed. No matter how much wordage you have to edit through in any one sitting it'll all be roughly the same amount at the end (assuming we're talking exclusively about novels), and of course you can't edit a blank page.

I guess what it boils down to is how your brain functions on a base level. If you're an analyser then you might be more likely to stop and edit every 1000 words because you'd be wired to pick the writing apart sooner. but if you're more of a creative "non-logistics" type you might find it easier to blast through the lot and work through it later.

Both ways work to much the same end that much is clear. And after all, productivity isn't down to which method one uses, but the individual writer and how quickly they can work through the entire process. Things aren't always as mutually exclusive as they might seem on the face of it. Like in marketing some times it helps to think of certain processes as separate (a poster campaign here, a social media campaign there), but when analysed those processes are fundamentally interconnected and work together. Just as the end can't be separate from the journey.

Well, that's my view anyway. Again its just a matter of how an individuals brain breaks things down, and we are all different in that respect. There is no right answer.

 

[Ankari]

I appreciate your editing feedback you give in the showcase thread. I will readily admit I've learned fro your posts. Thanks for sharing your method with us.

 

[JCFarnham]

I appreciate your editing feedback you give in the showcase thread. I will readily admit I've learned fro your posts. Thanks for sharing your method with us.

Aye, and you see, that's why we appreciate you Brian. It helps with that one thing I don't think I could sit here in good conscious and say "no one benefits from working on their technicallity" because it would be a massive lie. We can all learn something new, or work on something else, whether amateur or professional, no matter what our skill level

 

[BWFoster78]

Could it be true in this sense then that a master writer could write out a shopping list and make sellable material out of it?

Writing a shopping list exactly? No. Writing a story centered on a shopping list? Yes. A story has to have a relatable character, some form of conflict, and, ideally, something that forces an emotional change on the protagonist. No matter the skill, a story still has to have certain elements. I don't claim otherwise.

Just as a perfect writing technician would be nothing with out a good idea.

I've read that anyone can be a writer. They just have to develop their techniques well enough. I'm not sure that I agree with this viewpoint.

A writer has to be able to come up with ideas and then develop the techniques necessary to be able to effectively communicate them. I find it hard to figure out how to teach someone how to come up with ideas. If you can't do so, I question your ability to become a writer.

No matter how much wordage you have to edit through in any one sitting it'll all be roughly the same amount at the end

Yes. But can you compare the quality? My contention is that the writer who spends the time editing first, developing his technique, will churn out much higher quality stuff at the end.

There is no right answer.

I agree to a certain extent. I'd just like to see more enthusiasm about developing technique.

 

[BWFoster78]

I appreciate your editing feedback you give in the showcase thread. I will readily admit I've learned fro your posts. Thanks for sharing your method with us.

Thanks again for the sentiment.

I really hope I don't come across as whiny or seeking more thanks. That was not my intention.

The topic of editing has come up a lot lately, both on this board and with my writing group last night. I felt the need to share my viewpoint on the subject.

 

[JCFarnham]

Writing a shopping list exactly? No. Writing a story centered on a shopping list? Yes. A story has to have a relatable character, some form of conflict, and, ideally, something that forces an emotional change on the protagonist. No matter the skill, a story still has to have certain elements. I don't claim otherwise.

I've read that anyone can be a writer. They just have to develop their techniques well enough. I'm not sure that I agree with this viewpoint.

A writer has to be able to come up with ideas and then develop the techniques necessary to be able to effectively communicate them. I find it hard to figure out how to teach someone how to come up with ideas. If you can't do so, I question your ability to become a writer.

The shopping list: And there is lays my precise point. In a practical sense it's impossible to separate the execution and the idea.

Good ideas aren't something that can be taught. It's something you have to work on just like anything else, and with pratice you'll almost certainly find you'll be putting out more interesting effective ideas.

Whether perfectly executed or not, a raw emotional idea, a conflict that touches you... I think that can shine through anything. Ever come across a piece of writing where your instant feeling is "Yeah that great, but I wish you did this with this sentence structure"? Well that to me is the idea shining through. You can tell it could be great but the technique is no good.

But can you compare the quality? My contention is that the writer who spends the time editing first, developing his technique, will churn out much higher quality stuff at the end.

Its a fair point, but I do think its a bit of a generalisation. After all writing and editting is done by both parties to a publishable standard, well, that it isn't it,. There's nothing else to do. One of these hypothetical novels was of a higher quality earlier, but it wasn't a complete manuscript until later. Just as the other could be of exactly the same quality but later (though finished at the same time). Both have had the same amount of time spent on them, both are just a good, but each was pushed to that level in a different way.

One's ability to develope her technique isn't, to me, something that depends on when it was done. If we assume that all learning and improving is done on the front line of writing, aka editting, then both of these hypothetical writers could put in the same amount of time and (brain/life willing) get the same out of it. There is also the revision theory bit that states thinking about doing something can help one improve just as much. Here's an annecdote. When I learned to drive I was told by my instructor that even if you're not in a car doing the practice you can prepare yourself to pass. And I did pass. That could certainly apply to bettering your writing.

The one point I'm definitely in disagreement over.. Learning isn't time sensitive. When ever you do it, it's still worth it.

 

[BWFoster78]

Good ideas aren't something that can be taught. It's something you have to work on just like anything else, and with pratice you'll almost certainly find you'll be putting out more interesting effective ideas.

The "ideas" part of writing is certainly more difficult than technique.

It's easy to quantify technique. There are rules: be active, don't distract the reader, eliminate unnecessary words, etc. Follow those rules, and your writing will be more readable.

It's much more difficult to determine: have I put enough emotion in the scene? Is his reaction realistic? Does him doing that make him too unlikeable?

I read certain authors who really make you feel for the characters and hope I can develop that kind of talent. I haven't found any guidelines to help me.

One of these hypothetical novels was of a higher quality earlier, but it wasn't a complete manuscript until later. Just as the other could be of exactly the same quality but later (though finished at the same time).

Ahhh. But you're making the assumption that both novels reach a point of being publishable. For unpublished writers, getting over that hurdle, in my understanding since I haven't attempted it yet, is difficult. You need to be good to stand out from the multitude of manuscripts that innundate publishers and agents. If you don't develop your techniques well enough, I don't know if editing is going to be able to get you over the hump.

Another point: Editing is expensive! One of my writing group told me last night that a full edit can easily run into the thousands of dollars. I'm a professional engineer and make decent money. I don't have that much to put into the possibility of maybe getting my novel published. I need to do as much a possible myself.

 

[JCFarnham]

It was a calculated assumption to prove a point. I'm saying IF the two novels were both pushed the same standard (which is very possible I'm sure you'll agree), it doesn't matter what kind of method the authors used to get there right? I'm sure thats true in most cases

The way I see it, if editting is expensive learn to do it decently yourself and/or use an in-house editor haha but that's the saver in me speaking, not a person who knows what's best for a manuscript.

Actually that's a good point. There is no excuse to send a bad manuscript to a publisher and expect the editting process to work well. Why bother? Get it good in the first place. We should all just edit ourselves. I mean sure we can't possibly know what an experienced professional know, but even that case there are any number of examples out there were an editor suggests one thing because "that's how its done" or because pet peeves rather than because of what's best for that individual story. (exampls on a number of blogs that is)

And yes, I'm saying editting however or when ever you do it. It's all the same to me when ever it happens.

 

[Penpilot]

This is roughly the same way I work. But I think focusing in on editing too much when you're a new writer can be detrimental. My thinking is why focus on the micro level stuff if the macro level story telling isn't working. To me it's better for a new writer to learn to finish something and practice the basics, like structure, conflict, etc. before getting too hardcore into stuff like grammar, flow, and word choice. I mean what good is a series of well written paragraphs that flow when as a greater whole they don't add up to sensible story.

Now on the flip-side, if a person isn't a new writer, edit you arse off, sweat every word, comma, etc. Some scenes I make 10 to 20 passes on, trimming adding, shifting, changing, etc. IMHO editing is where the real work is done in creating a story. It's where the blunt edge of a clunky draft is ground into sharp blade.

 

[JCFarnham]

This is roughly the same way I work. But I think focusing in on editing too much when you're a new writer can be detrimental. My thinking is why focus on the micro level stuff if the macro level story telling isn't working. To me it's better for a new writer to learn to finish something and practice the basics, like structure, conflict, etc. before getting too hardcore into stuff like grammar, flow, and word choice. I mean what good is a series of well written paragraphs that flow when as a greater whole they don't add up to sensible story.

Now on the flip-side, if a person isn't a new writer, edit you arse off, sweat every word, comma, etc. Some scenes I make 10 to 20 passes on, trimming adding, shifting, changing, etc. IMHO editing is where the real work is done in creating a story. It's where the blunt edge of a clunky draft is ground into sharp blade.

Bingo That's the way I find it.

 

[Devor]

As some of you may know, I frequent the "Showcase" forum on this site, perching ready to pounce with a detailed edit of any writing the catches my fancy. I go line by line pointing out grammatical errors, passive writing, and any number of common errors. Again and again, I get the response: "Thanks, but I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty details at the moment."

First, thanks for commenting in the Showcase. I don't follow the Showcase as much as I would like, so I don't mean to be talking about your actual critiques, just in general.

A good first edit should really focus on content and structure, rather than on narrative skill. I don't know how many stories in the Showcase are actually ready for a line edit, but of the stories that I have seen, the majority were not. I usually feel that they need to have their story structure overhauled, at the very least. Talking with someone about word choice seems like a waste when I should be talking about character development, plot setups, and missed opportunities to tie things together.

When it comes to an actual line edit, most pieces need changes which seep into every sentence. My own narrative skills can be pretty strong, but I wouldn't claim that it should be or has been any different for my own works. If you're signalling out a sentence, you should be talking about the skills surrounding that sentence because it's a waste of time to say, "This sentence should read: This." In most works the vast majority of sentences would benefit from such a change, and I think picking on a few will do more harm than good. Unless, of course, you can actually talk about the skills, which I don't feel is usually the case with the critiques I see (again, not talking about you, I haven't gone to look at your actual critiques, BWFoster78).

In my opinion, if you want to give a line edit, then do that. Copy a paragraph or two, fix all of the mistakes, and just say "I gave you a line edit, hope it helps." If the writer, and the editor, are any good, they can see the problems that were fixed and make their own decision. If one or both of you are not any good, you're wasting time harping on sentences, anyways.

((edit))

Yay for meta-critiquing!

 

[Caged Maiden]

Well said. Editing is indeed the real work. I think it's hard for some people to pull out the machete in the first place. But what about people like me who carry the dripping blade out always and even after a few passes (and some bloodthirsty ones at that) still have a manuscript that is sub-par? I'm just left wondering whether it's my style, my characters, the concepts, or the pacing that is weakening my ideas.

 

[BWFoster78]

My thinking is why focus on the micro level stuff if the macro level story telling isn't working. To me it's better for a new writer to learn to finish something and practice the basics, like structure, conflict, etc. before getting too hardcore into stuff like grammar, flow, and word choice.

The micro stuff is as much writing as the macro stuff. To be sure, I definitely think a critique should mention structure and conflict, but, honestly, sometimes the micro stuff is so distracting that it's hard to find a story at all.

If I read: The girl went to the market. She fell down on the way. She got up and carried on.

I guess the plot's okay. The girl did something. I have no problem with the content of the story. A good writer could spin a nice yarn about such events. In my opinion, however, the story needs to be shown instead of told. I can't really do much evaluating until the writer learns to show us the journey to the market, til we can see the girl fall.

 

[BWFoster78]

A good first edit should really focus on content and structure, rather than on narrative skill. I don't know how many stories in the Showcase are actually ready for a line edit, but of the stories that I have seen, the majority were not.

To me, the purpose of the critique isn't as much to create a better story as much as it is to create a better writer. In my opinion, the writer needs to be told how to write a good story as much as how to craft one.

If you're signalling out a sentence, you should be talking about the skills surrounding that sentence because it's a waste of time to say, "This sentence should read: This."

Agreed. I'll sometimes offer an opinion on a sentence or offer a suggestion, but, most of the time, I focus on: that punctuation was off, the sentence was passive, that's telling instead of showing, that sentence is too long, etc.

 

[Penpilot]

To me, the purpose of the critique isn't as much to create a better story as much as it is to create a better writer. In my opinion, the writer needs to be told how to write a good story as much as how to craft one.

To me this can be a double edge sword. Before I give a critique, I try to ballpark where a writer is in terms of their development, so I know how harsh I can be, and what I should target in terms of comments to nudge them hopefully in the right direction. I've seen people pushed too hard and they stop listening even if everything said is valid. To me, it's about knowing what to say and when to say it. I don't want to overload someone with info they may or may not be ready for.

I remember one time in a writing class a new writer brought in what was probably one of the first stories they ever wrote. It was flawed but everyone was encouraging and gave the new writer some carefully phrased nudges, except this one guy who went to town on it. In my head I was thinking WTF. By the time the guy was done, you could tell the new writer was on the verge of tears. Not cool.

So when I give critique to someone I generally try not to tell them how to do anything. I point them in different directions, show them different choices, and it's up to them to either ask for more direction or to figure it out themselves.

 

[Shockley]

I listen to a lot of podcasts on writing, interviews of authors and read a lot of books on writing by authors. Not one of them, ever, has ever suggested doing an extensive edit of a work before it's finished. They universally decry that method and say that it will prevent you from completing the work. I'm willing to be proven wrong by someone pointing to an example of that happening, but it hasn't happened yet.

My own experience also tells me that this is true.

I respect your method. I hope that you're the guy to disprove the rule. But I don't have my hopes up.

 

[Devor]

I listen to a lot of podcasts on writing, interviews of authors and read a lot of books on writing by authors. Not one of them, ever, has ever suggested doing an extensive edit of a work before it's finished. They universally decry that method and say that it will prevent you from completing the work.

I think you're mostly right, but it depends a little. If you've done enough planning, and know your own techniques, you could probably say "this portion of the work is finished and ready for an edit." Especially if you needed it ready for something.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think a lot of editing suggestions pertain to the exact work (and the state it's in) that you are reading. If it is near completion and there are little grammatical things, they ought to be pointed out. If it's in a rougher state, it is probably counter-productive to point out small things because the odds are, the parts that include the typos will undergo some amount of rewriting.

 

[ThinkerX]

Another point: Editing is expensive! One of my writing group told me last night that a full edit can easily run into the thousands of dollars. I'm a professional engineer and make decent money. I don't have that much to put into the possibility of maybe getting my novel published. I need to do as much a possible myself.

The version of MS Word I use pretty much won't let me make common grammar or spelling mistakes - if I try, I end up with the offending sections underlined in red or green, along with explanations or suggestions should I click on them. This was a bit intimidating when I dumped my earlier works into this version of Word - lots and lots of red and green lines. Much of what I've submitted here has been older writings that I reworked so as to be correct grammar wise (second pass draft).

(that still leaves my tendency to overdescribe things, at least according to the people here, along with an occasional tendency towards passive voice to work on. Correct from a grammar point of view, not so correct for story telling purposes.)