Greybeard
Minstrel
After many years wandering roads long forgotten, I'm starting my first fantasy novel. For those with experience, how long does it take to finish a work?
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
How long to complete a novel?
- Thread starter Greybeard
- Start date
Legerdemain
Troubadour
Forever and only a week or two. I find a draft is done as fast as you want it, but often it won't be "done" for a LONG time... I'm not "done" with any works, but I have written about three books...
kjjcarpenter
Minstrel
"Time is not of the essence, it is the essence."
Many authors, myself included, fear that they will not be able to tell their story in time before they die—the whole story that is. Stephen King suffered the same fear after his collision, which left him on the threshold between life and death, and Tolkien was never even able to finish everything he wanted to tell, his unfinished tales still being released as late as 2009.
When I started writing, I had no clue what I was doing. I was not a voracious reader and I had no skill, everything was helter-skelter like a train crash. I learnt by doing, kept going at it, writing tales ultimately leading no more than a few pages. Eventually I started writing a story and literally said to myself, "This isn't going to go past a few pages, I'll give up". What do you know? It became my first finished novel. The actual writing of the first draft, which stretched to about 40000 words or so, was only over a period of three months—keeping in mind most of it was done across the month I had off school in the 2008/2009 break. And then came the editing ... My second draft was around 60000 words, then the third was at 88000 words. In the final revision, the novel accumulated 103000 words, almost triple of the first completed draft.
If you compile everything together, from that instance I said "I want to write a novel", to creating the characters and the world, to penning the story, to editing the redrafting and editing some more, it took four years. I used Microsoft Word to add up all the time I had spent on each copy of the book, which excluded a few lost on my imploded laptop, so the real count was much higher than the answer I received. Still, my chin nearly hit the floor when I saw how long I had spent on it—a staggering 1860 hours.
To answer your question, it depends what kind of story you are writing. For a love story based in our world? It could be done in a few weeks, taking in to account how fast you write of course. A story with a heavy mythology and continuity that needs to be maintained? Years.
Many authors, myself included, fear that they will not be able to tell their story in time before they die—the whole story that is. Stephen King suffered the same fear after his collision, which left him on the threshold between life and death, and Tolkien was never even able to finish everything he wanted to tell, his unfinished tales still being released as late as 2009.
When I started writing, I had no clue what I was doing. I was not a voracious reader and I had no skill, everything was helter-skelter like a train crash. I learnt by doing, kept going at it, writing tales ultimately leading no more than a few pages. Eventually I started writing a story and literally said to myself, "This isn't going to go past a few pages, I'll give up". What do you know? It became my first finished novel. The actual writing of the first draft, which stretched to about 40000 words or so, was only over a period of three months—keeping in mind most of it was done across the month I had off school in the 2008/2009 break. And then came the editing ... My second draft was around 60000 words, then the third was at 88000 words. In the final revision, the novel accumulated 103000 words, almost triple of the first completed draft.
If you compile everything together, from that instance I said "I want to write a novel", to creating the characters and the world, to penning the story, to editing the redrafting and editing some more, it took four years. I used Microsoft Word to add up all the time I had spent on each copy of the book, which excluded a few lost on my imploded laptop, so the real count was much higher than the answer I received. Still, my chin nearly hit the floor when I saw how long I had spent on it—a staggering 1860 hours.
To answer your question, it depends what kind of story you are writing. For a love story based in our world? It could be done in a few weeks, taking in to account how fast you write of course. A story with a heavy mythology and continuity that needs to be maintained? Years.
Ravana
Istar
As long as it takes. As others have observed, few writers ever feel their works are "finished"; they just reach a point where it becomes time to submit—either because they can't think of any more immediate changes they want to make, or because they're up against a deadline. (Multi-book contracts, while they "guarantee" income, are not necessarily your friends!) You should, in any event, expect to spend far more time editing than you do writing your first draft… and you shouldn't necessarily expect your word count to go up with each draft, either, though it probably will for at least the first couple drafts.
Also: don't worry about writing it from beginning to end. Write the parts where you know what's supposed to happen, then link them up later. I've started stories at every imaginable point, from beginning to conclusion. I've yet to write anything longer than about 300 words in a single straight-through pass.
Also: don't worry about writing it from beginning to end. Write the parts where you know what's supposed to happen, then link them up later. I've started stories at every imaginable point, from beginning to conclusion. I've yet to write anything longer than about 300 words in a single straight-through pass.
kjjcarpenter
Minstrel
I disagree. Writing from where your story starts to where it finishes, in terms of "one book", should be dealt with in a linear fashion—by which I mean chapter one, two, three and so on, in that order. If you start writing snippets from all over the place, it becomes more of a chore than anything else to tie them together. You may find that you simply can't, or that something you wrote earlier will no longer weave into what you have since written. There is no natural progression.
Starting at chapter one not only provides you with the same experience the reader will have, but it lets the story grow organically rather than forcing it to an already written climax. You may find while writing that ideas you have had are changed or dropped altogether in favour or new and improved story points.
Ravana
Istar
My experience–from writing, but even more importantly, from teaching it–is exactly the opposite. Nothing I've encountered kills creativity, or imposes unnecessary burdens (writer's block in particular), than the belief that you must write a piece straight through. There are certainly people for whom this is not the case, and you may be one of them. But consider: how much did you say your book expanded from first to last draft again? You were constantly weaving new material in… and going back to make sure it fit correctly, altering things you already wrote that you no longer liked and then making sure those changes didn't interfere with continuity (or else changing everything that followed from them), et cetera. It's no more difficult to do this during drafting than it is during revision.
There's no reason to "force" something you're writing to fit something you already have, any more than you should force yourself to write chapter two immediately after chapter one. If you're unwilling to abandon something that's no longer working for you, you'll never finish any story… because no piece of writing is perfect on a first draft. If you can't figure out how to get from where you are to where you thought you were going, set one of the two parts aside, and work with the other: you'll probably end up with two stories that way. One thing that often startles novices is how frequently an experienced writers will say that they started writing a story with one idea in mind and were surprised where it ended up… as you put it, "ideas you have had are changed or dropped altogether in favour or new and improved story points." But that has nothing to do with linear writing, and everything to do with willingness to adjust as you go.
I also suspect that it would surprise a lot of new writers that it's even possible to begin a story without having some end in mind.…
Last edited by a moderator:
kjjcarpenter
Minstrel
Endings are not important, it's the journey that matters. A classic saying and a timeless rule. I couldn't agree more; I think it's better to begin writing without an ending in mind, it gives the story an open-ended feeling and leaves surprises for the writer. However, this can also become a problem, if you write yourself into a corner with no way out, then you run yourself the risk of using a deus ex machina, like so many of Stephen King's books—who plans little to anything and just writes until he believes the story is told. I like to think of a single chapter, or a section within a chapter, and write towards that, even if I don't end up there or in a morphed version of it. Giving myself some sort of goal helps me to write and convinces me to press on, if I just go ahead and write the chapter straight away, it ruins the build-up for me.
As for redrafting, I very rarely go back and change individual sections or chapters because I'm disappointed with them. If I run an edit, it's an entire edit of the book from beginning to end to ensure the content fits—however many times it takes. I'm a very linear person you could say, but it works for me, and I think it comes from being an editor. In college, I was learnt how to edit in a very specific manner, and this has since carried over to my writing. I remember when I originally started writing, it was all over the place, as you say is an option for some writers. I had a chapter here, a chapter there, none of them ever synchronising and I abandoned that after even I was confused with what story it was I was trying to tell.
I suppose it's much a subjective thing as writing itself. I for one am a firm believer that writing is not a skill that can be taught, but rather it is a trait that requires nurturing. How you nurture, of course, determines on what kind of writer you will become.
As for redrafting, I very rarely go back and change individual sections or chapters because I'm disappointed with them. If I run an edit, it's an entire edit of the book from beginning to end to ensure the content fits—however many times it takes. I'm a very linear person you could say, but it works for me, and I think it comes from being an editor. In college, I was learnt how to edit in a very specific manner, and this has since carried over to my writing. I remember when I originally started writing, it was all over the place, as you say is an option for some writers. I had a chapter here, a chapter there, none of them ever synchronising and I abandoned that after even I was confused with what story it was I was trying to tell.
I suppose it's much a subjective thing as writing itself. I for one am a firm believer that writing is not a skill that can be taught, but rather it is a trait that requires nurturing. How you nurture, of course, determines on what kind of writer you will become.
Vita Numinous
Scribe
I think that this can vary pretty wildly for different people and even one person's different projects. I don't want to say you can't write straight through, because it happens, but it's much more common to go back and have some minor (and... ahem... rather major in many of my cases) revisions. You have to give yourself permission to craft your story, even if unexpected things pop up. Hey, it's one of my favorite parts of writing, when something new but essential suddenly occurs to me and I'm weaving it in. But you still have to be willing to say enough is enough and call it done, because you can alter and shift things in one piece for eternity if you really, really want to. Give yourself permission to do whatever you want, and give yourself permission to say when it's done. Some authors put out one or more books a year, some give us one in their lifetime.
At Dusk I Reign
Sage
I suppose it all depends on how driven you are. I've been working on my novel for the past 15 years with no end in sight. At my current pace I'll probably be quite decrepit before I type the final sentence. I enjoy writing for the sake of writing, though, blocking out the everyday world and lolloping about in the green unpleasant land I've created, so I suppose it's entirely possible that on a subconscious level I haven't finished because I don't want to finish. It's not really something I worry about; I'm sure I'll get there in the end. And if I don't, well, nobody died.
Ravana
Istar
Well, not completely–as you observe about deus ex machinae. If there's one thing I hate, it's reading a compelling, wonderfully complex book, and wondering, about fifty pages from the end, how the author is going to wrap it all up… then, about twenty pages from the end, realizing that there isn't enough room for the author to do that and that the author didn't know how to wrap it all up either. I recently read a science fiction "epic" by Peter F. Hamilton, well over 3,000 pages long, that had a literal deus ex machina engine: he solved all his problems by having a character stumble over a machine of near-infinite power, and just wishing his solution to come true. Talk about disappointing.…
Of course, if only the ending mattered, then we'd all write short-shorts. The journey, which is 90%+ of the story, is indeed going to be more important–even more so to the reader, who you are providing a guided tour of the journey you took in writing the story. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have an ending in mind. If, in the process of the journey, you find yourself heading somewhere else, great: go there instead. Maybe your initially intended ending will prove useful for another story. My point was only that you don't need to start at the beginning: it's far more important to start, with whatever you have, and fill in the rest as you get there. Some people may always start at the beginning… but I never simply discard an idea because it isn't a beginning, or because I don't know what the appropriate beginning for what I do have is going to be. I have, quite literally, started writing a story with the very last sentence–and it remained the last sentence through all my revisions. Not because I was so devoted to it, and its being there, that I was unwilling to change it; rather, because that's where it belonged, and it stayed that way no matter what I did with the rest of it. Most people won't have this experience, I imagine; but I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from going that way if that's what they have to work with. In fact, sometimes it's fun, even if just for experimentation, to pick and ending and then figure out what it would take to get there.
Well, I'm a confirmed pragmatist in such matters: you should do whatever works best for you. You should try various approaches, as you will never know what works best for you until you do–and you may surprise yourself from time to time; in your case, it sounds like you've done this. Still, do experiment from time to time. Just because an approach didn't work in the past doesn't mean that it will never work. In my experience, the story will always tell itself, no matter what your initial expectations of it are; you may discover that a particular story requires, or at least cries out for, something other than what you're accustomed to.
And, no, I don't think it's because you're an editor, or at least not solely for this reason: I am, too. When you're editing someone else's work, you definitely want to read it from beginning to end, as part of your task is to make sure everything is in the right order and everything that needs to be said is said; even then, though, unless it's something short, you may find yourself going back and giving certain sections additional attention–will have to, if you discover later in the piece something that conflicts with or is omitted from an earlier portion.
As for editing your own work: I'm glad you're in the habit of doing beginning-to-end read-throughs…you'd be amazed how many people aren't. And for those who don't, it shows. Again, though, that doesn't mean every editing session has to start at the beginning, and/or run to the end: I'm sure you've had times when you had an idea that you wanted to insert somewhere, went ahead and did it, then worked from there–forwards, backwards, or both–to make whatever changes were needed to make that thing fit. And then read the whole thing through again. The last edit should always be a full-work read… if you can't do one without making changes (minor proofreading errors aside), it isn't done yet.
Heh. "Them's fightin' words," for me. I'm pretty much professionally obliged to take exception to that view, since I do teach writing: if it can't be taught, I'm engaged in something pointless. You would probably say that what I'm doing is "nurturing," and to some extent that's true… and there's no question that writing comes more easily or naturally to some people than to others. A lot of that, however, depends on the individual's background: how much writing, reading, and creative expression in general were encouraged and emphasized earlier in that person's life. But I can't recall anyone I've worked with who couldn't "learn to write," as long as that person was willing to put the effort into it that was required at that stage of the person's life. Could a forty-year-old, high-school dropout, community college student become (say) Stephen King? Well… yes, I think so. It would likely require at least as much time and effort as Stephen King had to put into becoming Stephen King, probably a lot more of it… but I see no reason it couldn't be done. The willingness to learn, to adapt, to persevere, is far more important than any "innate" talent–while, conversely, talent that is not nurtured will not permit someone to simply sit down and write a classic on a first attempt. So I must respectfully disagree with you on that one.
Last edited by a moderator:
At Dusk I Reign
Sage
Sorry to disagree with you Ravana, but I don't. King has had many imitators, but none have reached his renown. Why? Because his writing is lit by a spark of something indefinable. You can teach someone how to paint, but you'll never turn them into another Caravaggio: some things come from within and can't be imposed from outside. Not all are equal, and not all are capable (and, lest I be accused of elitism, I number myself firmly amongst the proles).
Last edited:
Ravana
Istar
Well, it's also possible that none have reached his renown simply because they were imitators… he'd already done it first, and unless they could do it better, and in ways that didn't seem too derivative, they'd never be able to match it. And they'd always be starting from a point behind what King had already reached: no matter if they could do it as well–maybe even better–he'd still be "in the lead." He revolutionized a genre; that's a tough act to follow.
But renown isn't necessarily the best measure of a writer: consider how much Danielle Steel sells (roughly twice as much as King, for the same number of books written). No one around here is going to accuse her of being a good writer, I suspect. And for that matter, King isn't anything particularly special as a "writer"–as has been mentioned elsewhere, at least in regard to his later, less "inspired" works. What King can do (or at least could) is take a sense of suspense and convey it better than anyone since Edgar Allan Poe. For that, I have profound respect for his ability; I know quite well that I can't match it… though with practice, I do believe I have gotten a lot closer, and maybe someday I will be able to match him. I doubt it, in part because that's not my primary direction of work… but I won't say I'll never be able to, and I have taught myself a lot about writing, in general as well as in terms of sustaining suspense, in the process of trying. Even if I could "match" him, though, I'd never become "the next Stephen King"; if I really wanted to become "the next great horror writer"–in terms of material success, critical acclaim, or both–I'd have to do it in a way he did not.
I would say, however, that it's the sense of suspense that "comes (came) from within"–not the ability to write. No, I can't teach someone how to create that within themselves (though I can certainly offer hints); I do believe that I can take whatever a person does have within themselves and teach them how to express it effectively. Could that make someone a "great"–or at least successful–writer? Sure… why not? If someone has a story to tell, and it's a story someone else wants to read, then all the rest is technical detail. If you don't have a story to tell, or if it's one that's so uninteresting or overdone that no one's going to want to slog through it, then, no, I can't help you with that. I might be able to teach someone how to write like King; I'd be harder pressed to inculcate an ability to come up with story ideas that would work as well. I have no clue how to teach someone how to write like Steel… but that's because I don't know why people read her books in the first place, so I can hardly give tips on how to make yours similar; it has nothing to do with whether or not she "can" write. Whether you think she does it well or not, clearly she can. And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts the "writing" part of what she does is not only teachable but fairly easily so. For all I know, even the "inspiration" part might be: from what I understand, such stories are abominably formulaic. (Yes, that means I've never read a single romance novel in my life. And I'd like to keep batting a thousand on that one, thank you very much.)
My protest comes down, really, to one simple point: writing has been too heavily mystified, at least in recent years and at least among "average" readers, with the result that people get scared off making an attempt in the first place. If you think teaching writing's hard, try teaching poetry appreciation: most students think all poetry is written in some "secret code" that they can never learn to understand, so they never bother trying to. Even most writers I've met do. Bull. Most of the time, all it takes is an honest effort; much of the time, it isn't even an "effort," so much as merely abandoning those preconceptions and just reading the stuff at all. So with writing. Yes, you can "learn to write"–and write well, if perhaps not brilliantly. No matter who you are, no matter what stage of life you're in. It's not magic; it does not depend on divine (or other) inspiration, and you don't even need to be insane. It might help to be, and you might make your way there in the process of trying: at a minimum, you're likely to suffer depression from rejection letters unless you're extremely thick-skinned to begin with. But as a requirement? Uh-uh. It might by definition count as insane to believe one has a realistic chance of making a living at writing, but that has nothing to do with the ability to write itself. No, not all are equals. But unless and until you try, you never know just who you might be equal to.
After all, one of the "followers" of Caravaggio was Rembrandt. I'm guessing he started out wishing he might someday aspire to being something close to Caravaggio's "equal"… and that either no one ever told him he couldn't learn to paint like that, or else he didn't listen to anyone who did. Which is the proper response. And then he took it his own direction, and "became" Rembrandt–who we remember far better, and not as "the next Caravaggio," either. Sure, there's a limit past which you can't be taught (at least by a given teacher): after that, you have to teach yourself, or else remain forever derivative, a del Sarto rather than a da Vinci. But all of those painters were taught to paint; the ones we remember were the ones that turned themselves into the artists we know them today as. But only after they were taught the foundations upon which they built.
Last edited by a moderator:
Legerdemain
Troubadour
Then how would you explain artists such as Paul Gauguin who was largely self-taught, was widely criticized for not being part of a "tradition", and still became famous and well loved? Sure, later in his career he associated with artists as friends, but he learned from hobby shops and self-taught lessons? "Found" artists I agree may not be as widely accepted as schooled ones, same with writers, but they can still reach incredible heights... and hello everyone, I'm Leg, and I'll be back next week in earnest... I'm on vacation
!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Ravana
Istar
I'm not saying it isn't possible to develop talent on your own–far from it: I'm saying that you can, that anybody can. What I'm saying is that there isn't any indefinable, intangible, and, most importantly, inaccessible "something" that is a prerequisite for creating quality art… and that most people are lacking. Or, if you insist on keeping things couched in quasi-mystical terms: you may "need" a Muse–but the Muses will speak to anyone who listens. And perseveres at his craft. It will be easier for some than for others, and will be easier in one medium or approach than another. It will very likely be easier if you have someone teaching you, or at least guiding you; if nothing else, it will probably cut down on the amount of time it would otherwise take you to develop the same techniques on your own. But I utterly reject the notion that only certain special people are capable of creating art at all–or that only this elect few are capable of achieving distinction, or even greatness.
Gauguin may have been largely self-taught–he could have been completely self-taught, for all the difference it makes to my thesis, and there are artists who have been–Grandma Moses has the best claim to that that I'm aware of. (As happens, Gauguin didn't work in a vacuum: he was part of a large circle of artists, which included Van Gogh and Cezanne, among others. What he learned from them–and they from him–may have gone unrecorded; you can depend on it that he learned some things from such contact.) The point, however, is that he didn't start out painting "like Gauguin": he had to work at it. He was no more born painting that Mozart, that paragon of prodigies, was born playing the piano. He may have picked it up faster than anyone else in history, but you can bet he spent plenty of time practicing his art. King didn't sit down at a typewriter (or with pencil and paper) for the first time in his life and knock out a chilling, gripping suspense thriller on his first draft.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who maintains that only certain people are capable of creating "true art"–whatever you take that to mean–is doing so as an excuse for his own laziness, a sop to his ego for not being able to match such achievements effortlessly. News flash: no artist does things "effortlessly." Even the apparent "ease" with which artists at the pinnacles of their careers create works is only due to the fact that they have years of practice behind them in getting to that point… and in most if not all cases, even that "ease" is only "apparent": they are still busting their backsides to maintain a level of quality they are satisfied with. And when they are not, that lack of effort shows through.
Gauguin may have been largely self-taught–he could have been completely self-taught, for all the difference it makes to my thesis, and there are artists who have been–Grandma Moses has the best claim to that that I'm aware of. (As happens, Gauguin didn't work in a vacuum: he was part of a large circle of artists, which included Van Gogh and Cezanne, among others. What he learned from them–and they from him–may have gone unrecorded; you can depend on it that he learned some things from such contact.) The point, however, is that he didn't start out painting "like Gauguin": he had to work at it. He was no more born painting that Mozart, that paragon of prodigies, was born playing the piano. He may have picked it up faster than anyone else in history, but you can bet he spent plenty of time practicing his art. King didn't sit down at a typewriter (or with pencil and paper) for the first time in his life and knock out a chilling, gripping suspense thriller on his first draft.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who maintains that only certain people are capable of creating "true art"–whatever you take that to mean–is doing so as an excuse for his own laziness, a sop to his ego for not being able to match such achievements effortlessly. News flash: no artist does things "effortlessly." Even the apparent "ease" with which artists at the pinnacles of their careers create works is only due to the fact that they have years of practice behind them in getting to that point… and in most if not all cases, even that "ease" is only "apparent": they are still busting their backsides to maintain a level of quality they are satisfied with. And when they are not, that lack of effort shows through.
Last edited by a moderator:
Meg the Healer
Sage
Getting back to the original question. I think it's already been stated. Novels take however long they take for you to write them. I've been writing mine for 11 years now and it's changed so many times that I've basically started all over again.
I just finished a converstation with an acquaintence about a book she's been waiting on to come out. Strange Fate by LJ Smith. She said she's been waiting 2 years for it to come out. I told her, really - because I've been waiting for 12 - because that book was supposed to be released in the Spring of 1998. She said she felt like I just slapped her in the face. She had no idea that series was out that long and that the last book was 12 years past due. But sometimes life just gets in the way or you just don't know how to wrap it up.....
So they take however long they take.
I just finished a converstation with an acquaintence about a book she's been waiting on to come out. Strange Fate by LJ Smith. She said she's been waiting 2 years for it to come out. I told her, really - because I've been waiting for 12 - because that book was supposed to be released in the Spring of 1998. She said she felt like I just slapped her in the face. She had no idea that series was out that long and that the last book was 12 years past due. But sometimes life just gets in the way or you just don't know how to wrap it up.....
So they take however long they take.
Mdnight Falling
Sage
I have one suggestion... Have your manuscript done BEFORE you try to get a publisher.. they're deadlines are insane to keep most of the time
Ophiucha
Auror
Depends on the work, and how many changes I make as I write. I would say, to plan, draft, and redraft about seven times, it takes me a little over a year. But there are some works - like my current one - which change so much and evolve so heavily that it has taken me three years to say "alright, we're in the last stages now." I've still got to write one or two drafts, edit and re-edit and probably rewrite half of them, so I anticipate another six months on this one, but I'm almost done.
At Dusk I Reign
Sage
I don't reject the notion at all. Of course everyone can create art, but 99% of it will be rubbish. That's just a fact of life. I can't paint to save my life. I'd like to be able to, but I have enough self-awareness to know that whatever I commit to canvas will be risible. We're not all capable. Some of us are naturally good at some things. Some of us are naturally good at nothing. That's life. Blame nature. Blame nurture.
King is indeed a 'basic' writer - he himself described his writing as a big mac with fries. That doesn't detract from the fact that the style he has, the method in which he puts one word in front of the other, appeals to people in a way that many other authors have failed to emulate. The question is, why have they failed? I would suggest that it's because they're just not up to the job, just as I'm not up to the job of painting a masterpiece. Yes, you can teach technique, you can teach theory, but I don't think you'll ever teach someone how to write a novel which catches the imagination of the reader. You can guide them, you can encourage them, you can provide numerous tips, but I tend to believe that the fire comes from within.
Having said all that, I think I'll leave things there as I suspect we're unlikely to ever reach anything approaching agreement.
JCFarnham
Auror
The simple [and altogether not too useful] answer is that a novel takes how ever long it takes to be completed. If you're a believer in the philosophy of NaNo, then getting started is what takes a long time, so get the first draft done in a month and you've cut things down, right? After that it all depends on how pernickity you are. for example, ask youself to what standard does something have to be at before you think its finish? Or for that matter, who's standard of completion is the most important? I know that I can ass around with something for years and years when it would probably have been finished like equally as long a time ago. Some times we as writers need to step back from a work and appriciate it for what it is rather than becoming a perpetual editor I personally think if most of your proof readers think its done, then it probably is. For that matter if a publisher says your done then what else matters? Artists can keep going for millenia before they're "totally happy", is this even possible in the long run? In hindsight we can all have done something different or "better" right?
I personally think if most of your proof readers think its done, then it probably is. For that matter if a publisher says your done then what else matters? Artists can keep going for millenia before they're "totally happy", is this even possible in the long run? In hindsight we can all have done something different or "better" right?
