New Methodology

[BWFoster78]

With my latest draft, I discovered a new methodology that seems to be working better than my old way. Note: I'm not advocating you use it, just sharing in case you find it useful.

For my rough draft, I just write until it's done. No editing at all. For subsequent drafts:

Old way of doing drafts -

1. For chapter in question, make first pass where I make the most major changes
2. Make another pass tightening, checking logic, tension, etc.
3. If I didn't make many changes in step 2 and feel pretty happy about it, go to next step. Otherwise, go back to 2.
4. Move chapter Word doc to "Finished" folder for that draft.

What I discovered is that a) after going through the chapter once, I was less sharp on the second pass and b) when I looked back at "finished" chapters, they weren't where I wanted them to be in terms of quality.

New way -

1. At start of writing day, open earliest chapter in my "not yet complete" folder
2. Make a pass of entire chapter
3. Move onto next chapter.
4. If I'm satisfied with the first chapter, put it aside for one week and look at it again. If not, make another pass the next day.
5. If I'm satisfied with the chapter after the end of a week pass, move it to "Finished" folder. Otherwise, revisit daily until satisfied.

Advantages:

I'm getting more done in a day because I'm not taking long breaks between because it's easier to start fresh with a new chapter.

Quality, I think, is much better.

Disadvantage:

It's requiring more passes.

 

[Svrtnsse]

This seems like a sensible approach and I might try and incorporate the main point of it (wait a bit before going over things a second time) in my own writing.
The main drawback with it requiring more passes is that it will require more work. However, it will also almost certainly result in better work.
Another benefit is that it won't be as tough to cut out pieces of text you get "attached" to. Given a little time and distance you're likely to be more objective about the qualities of your texts, stopping you from angsting over having to cut out that bit which you liked so much. This in turn may save a little time on the passes as well.

 

[Nobby]

On the other hand, you could end up self-editing out the passion you imbued the piece with in the first place when it was new and exciting and oh so COOOOOOL.

(See what I did there )

I think it depends on your own writing style, but I know that a pure {if} {then} argument to writing doesn't work for me.

Mainly because I add in a {why not} clause.

 

[BWFoster78]

On the other hand, you could end up self-editing out the passion you imbued the piece with in the first place when it was new and exciting and oh so COOOOOOL.

(See what I did there )

I think it depends on your own writing style, but I know that a pure {if} {then} argument to writing doesn't work for me.

Mainly because I add in a {why not} clause.

I've heard a lot of people talk about over-editing, but I've never thought my work has gotten anything but better as a result of the process.

I think part of that is because I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve when it comes to writing. When I go back to an old draft, I tend to think, "What kind of crap is this!?"

 

[Nobby]

I think I was making more a point that self editing can be crippling in itself if you think it is the be-all-end all of the process. Sometimes you have to stick to your original guns.

Then again, sometimes it helps to record yourself reading your draft, then leave it a couple of days before listening to the playback.

(if you can do this without laughing, you are a better man than I am...)

 

[C Hollis]

I've heard a lot of people talk about over-editing, but I've never thought my work has gotten anything but better as a result of the process.

Early on this warning of over-editing inhibited me until I found that it was just a load of crap when it came to my process. For some folks this may be true, but as with most things in our field, it is absolutely not true for everyone.

Unfortunately, this is one of those aspects that is often represented as an axiom. Which I find myself sticking my tongue out in their general direction.

Just an example: I am on my fourth run-through and at the top of Chapter 31 is a note about how dis-jointed the entire chapter feels and I need to bring it in and make it more personal. If I had written and edited with that "over-editing" attitude, I would have likely missed this very important mishap and the chapter would have been a waste of the reader's time.

I tend to think a lot of people pigeon-hole new writers (or artists in general) and force-feed advice based upon a preconceived notion that all noobs are mindless hacks that discovered the written word last week.

When I complete my editing process, I get to work on the next project. When the time is right, I pick the manuscript back up and read it. Is my story engaging? Are the characters real? Are they true to themselves and unique? Does the intended emotion come off the page? Is it worth reading?

For myself, over-editing will never be a concern. In my world, it is pure myth.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Brian, this is actually very similar to how I write and edit. I bash out a chapter and pass it to my writing partner to look over and make first corrections to. Then I let it cool over night. Since I now have a super-awesome writing buddy here in the community the next day I make another pass at the chapter and make first edits, then send it off to him for his critique. I get it back from him usually the next day and make those edits. Now I'm ready to write the next chapter - at which point I go back, read the previous chapters and make small tweaks as I go, little butterfly edits to further smooth and polish as I am sinking even further into my story arch to continue writing.

I find this creates an interesting "fan" effect, where my earlier chapters are super clean and it just gets slightly rougher as things progress. But, it - combined with my absolutely insanely detailed outline process - also means I'm not going back and revising whole drafts over and over.

 

[Zero Angel]

I've heard a lot of people talk about over-editing, but I've never thought my work has gotten anything but better as a result of the process.

I think part of that is because I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve when it comes to writing. When I go back to an old draft, I tend to think, "What kind of crap is this!?"

Sounds like your new process is better. The more passes the better in general, even if it takes more time. I've never thought of breaking things up into a chapter at a time before, I'd just caution you to watch the transitions between chapters if you were still doing it the old way, but it seems like that wouldn't be a problem in the new way (other than the transition between the last chapter in already done and the first chapter in not-yet done). Do you do any complete passes over the entire story when you're done?

Over-editing is a myth in my opinion. I mean, obviously it's possible in theory, but it's functionally a myth, and it's definitely preferred to under-editing regardless. I think the issue comes up because writers will always be able to find something to change and you have to resist losing yourself entirely to editing and never releasing. But that's a mature writer problem, not something we should banty about for everyone.

 

[Guru Coyote]

To me, the key element in your new process is that you have this break between passes. When you do an edit-pass, you come to the chapter with 'fresh' eyes.
I think maybe that's what 'over-edit' might really mean: when you keep editing one and the same bit of text and your eye for issues looses focus. That's where 'putting it aside for a week' really helps: you can aooriach the text with 'fresh eyes.'

 

[Bruce McKnight]

It's all about finding what works for you.

Personally, I cannot edit as I go. I don't know if it's a matter of discipline or process, but it just doesn't work for me. I usually dream and jot down notes about a project for months, mentally putting it together before I actually write anything. Then, I go through a "puke on paper" phase where I just type as fast as I can until I have the entire first draft. Since I have very little time to write, this phase takes about forever.

During this phase I occasionally get stuck on plot pieces fitting together and refer back to my notes (which are largely ignored as the plot takes on its own life), but it's a pretty straightforward process and I always write chronologically. Then, when it's all done, I go back and start the first round of structural editing right away so that I am working on the beginning while I still have the ending fresh in my mind.

I repeat the editing process over and over again to ensure that I never actually finish anything, I just get to a state of "done" but "not really done" which lasts through eternity while I start the next project.

It may not work for everyone, but, like I said: you have to find what works for you!