Here's Bay's quote from March 23rd... can't find his original but she flagged it at the time same as me.
The argument that you're a troll is extremely compelling and entertaining at this point. But just to be charitable, I want to take you at your word when you said: Here's some advice, in light of that, just in case it is (somehow) true that you ever work in this capacity, and this applies to anyone else who's looking for the One True Method™ to pass on to others. If you intend to teach students, you have to learn not to condescend to people by telling them there's only one right way to approach a creative process. Otherwise you'll have perceptive young people who know that their way works better for them, who'll resent you for your small-mindedness, and you'll have inexperienced young people who will be confused and frustrated by the attempt to apply a method that does not suit them. The first kind won't bother correcting you, because they'll see that you're closed-minded and irrelevant, and the second kind will wrongly believe that the problem is with them. They'll either quietly suffer and waste their time, give up, or realise that you're wrong and join the first group.
It allows me to see grammatical and spelling errors and I am able to rearrange sentence structure and layout. I deal with plot holes in rewrite. That second draft goes to a friend who then give it a go over. I was talking more about first drafts maybe I should have specified more. I guess I do a little of both.
Not looking for one true method. Looking for the logically best method to teach. People are always free to modify it to fit their circumstances or personality quirks. I admit that I pantsit when I write short items like an op-ed. But when I write a white paper I plan. And if I were writing something longer I would plan a lot more. If I teach a method to do a long document it would work for anything smaller. Maybe not as well but that is when people delete what is excessive and not helpful. OTOH it is not possible for them to move from a short form to doing long works by adding process that they know nothing about.
You asked for a reply in a forum that has decided I am not worthy of posting in. But you pointed to his post and my reply is that I don't really understand your question. Not sure about your PD reference. Unless I made a typo I never mentioned PD that I can recall. Ask a specific question and I will be glad to try to answer it.
Don't make me waste any time trying to find the post. You asserted in another thread (before you decided capitals and punctuation were a good idea) that you have worked in publishing for 45 years. Now, in this thread, it's 45 years as a systems architect. Which is it? And I ask because you say these things as if to give yourself some authority on the matter. Even if only one of those was a lie, you've lost all credibility for the one you didn't lie about. (My money is both are lies, but that's neither here nor there.) So, I'm calling you out BECAUSE you used these statements on two occasions to swing some "authority." If you don't want to be called out, don't blatantly lie and contradict yourself.
I'm not sure I've ever had one of my typos copied and pasted so many times! But... PD = PhD. And the 45 years in publishing is from another post further down that page: "i worked with a small publishing company for 45 years and have extensive experience with marketing "
He doesn't have time for that, man! He's on his way back to 1962 to prevent the Kennedy assassination.
He was busy finding a cure for cancer when the Apollo missions were being planned, or he'd have been first on the list. Edit: Dammit Spencer!
I have done many aamazing things, but I was turned down , luckily, for astronaut training, as I would have been flying in the time frame when that one exploded.
"That one"? Someone who supposedly applied for astronaut training doesn't even remember the name? Heck, somebody who was alive at the time doesn't even remember the name?
I barely remember where I put my car keys. So no I dont remember the name. Explorer Challenger Adventurer or something like that.
Good timing there. I was on Apollo 13 (they edited me out of the movie). Jim lovell turned to me - and I'll never forget this - and said, "Homer, I don't think we're making it back this time." I was scared too, but I just flashed him my easy grin and said, "Don't worry, bruh. I got this!"
When I'm in full writing mode (doing a first draft) I usually do a quick run-through (if time allows) when the session is done. I then re-read the next day before I start writing the next bit. I do make changes, mostly wordings and sentence structure. Then I quickly move on. I don't edit 'to perfection' because I won't know, till the story is finished, whether this particular part of the story will be kept as is, altered for story reasons, or removed entirely. I guess, once I get going, the forward momentum is what's important. My motive is to get it out there. I'll worry about perfection later on. One of the things I had to learn for myself, once I entered the revision/editing phase of novel creation, was to curb my tendency to re-read 'favourite' chapters and edit them out of chronological order. (I do often write out of chronological order, but editing is a different process.) If you skip all over the place doing your 'edit' you miss the way readers will see your story. If a scene or chapter seems 'dull' and you'd rather skip it 'for now,' that's the part you should probably be working on the most—not leaving it for later.
I feel like we're roaming into one of those "what are we really talking about" realms... Is everyone using "edit" the same way? Like, when I say "edit" I mean making any changes to something I've already written. If I go back and change a character's behaviour so it fits with what I've decided I want them to do, that's editing. If I decide what I've just written isn't necessary and cut it out (and save it in a separate document!) that's editing. Based on my definition. Other people seem to be talking about editing as a sort of copy editing, word-polishing thing. I do copy edit as a I go, because if I notice something I might as well fix it right away, but it's the deeper editing that I think is more important, for my process, to do as I go. If I realize that a certain scene is unneeded, then I want to get rid of that scene and make the changes necessary for the story to flow without that scene right then before I go on and write other scenes that depend on its presence or absence. So... different meanings for the word "editing" may lead to different approaches to this. Or not - I do all kinds of editing as I go. But some of the arguments others are using suggest they're only talking about a limited meaning of the word "edit".
Back on topic, my answer is similar to @BayView's. As soon as I know an edit is needed I go back and do it, because I don't see the point waiting until the draft is done--especially if it's a content edit rather than a word choice thing. Early content edits are likely to affect things that come after, so waiting only creates more editing for myself. That's why alpha readers are so useful. My last two books haven't needed much rewriting because I was getting feedback and dealing with issues as I went. Each of them only had one draft, which was then polished as the final version. I never again want to be in the situation I had with my first book, which went through about four distinct drafts and months and months of painstaking editing before I found out readers fundamentally didn't like one MC. Then when I have a complete draft with content I'm happy with, I do a copy edit. I probably draw this out longer than I need to because I really enjoy editing... I do the normal spellcheck stuff, run it through the Hemingway app to highlight any overlong sentences, then use text-to-speech to have it read aloud (it's like we're having a conversation) to catch repetitions, typos, and flow issues. If I didn't enjoy editing I'd probably just do one read through and correct whatever I see.