I don't know if novelists who underwrite their stories really are that scarce, but it feels like it. So, if you rare creatures exist here on WF, I'd love to hear about your adventures as underwriters. Is underwriting a more conscious choice or is it just the way your writing comes out? Or a combo of both? What are the best and worst aspects of being an underwriter? How do you bulk out your first draft? What do you skimp on in that first draft and why? Do you get feedback complaining about the lack of words in your chapters? Do you wish you weren't like this? Let's talk underwriting.
I tend to underwrite... and I vastly prefer it to overwriting. I find adding words much easier than taking them away. A bit of description, a little more clarity in a conversation, a little nuance here and there, and shazaam, I'm done. - this assumes I'm not underwriting a LOT, which is generally the case. Like, I recently had to add about 10K words to a story, and that was more than usual, and it was pretty easy to do (especially after helpful betas let me know where they'd like a little more depth). Cutting, though? I recently had to cut about the same amount and it was torture. Well, the first 5K wasn't bad, but the last 5K was HARD. Killing your darlings time, for sure. And honestly, I think I lost some depth - reviews for that story have mentioned that they thought one of the characters was overly aggressive at the start, and one of the scenes I had to cut showed why he was coming into the situation aggressively. I was editing to fit into a category at the publisher so I had to cut SOMETHING. but I wish I hadn't had to. So, if I have to err in one direction or the other, I'd much rather underwrite. Cutting words is annoying.
Yay, an underwriter! Yeah, I'm generally prefer to add words too, and I usually have to go from a first draft of 70k to about 90, but it's perfectly doable. And it keeps my interest up, because it's some new writing involved, not only re-working old stuff. But sometimes when it feels a bit hard, I tend to imagine that cutting would be easier. Just a matter of the grass is greener elsewhere, I think. Oh, I totally relate to the cutting thing, because when I started to edit my first novel I didn't know all that much, and the advice was pretty much unanimous: "cut, be brief, cut some more, and if there's a single word that doesn't have to be there, you're not done." So I hacked away, and I lost so much voice, and also like you said: depth. I had to go back and put that stuff in again, so yes, being an underwriter comes with some specific potholes to avoid. I'm sorry that you had to cut your novel up so much, and I hope there comes a time when you can release it the way you intended it to be.
I am an underwriter, at least with first drafts. This must be why it's taking me so long to edit my novel and still, it will probably be on the short side when finished. One chapter (5th draft) I have submitted in workshop was deemed to be overwritten though, and when I reread it, I had to agree. Cutting from it wasn't painful at all, as it didn't take anything away from my MC, but only superfluous descriptive words.
Haha, I also have the odd overwritten chapter, and it always surprise me, like "I must have been really inspired to add that much description, or had too much coffee." I have stuff I have to cut too, like scenes which doesn't really do anything for the story, but then I'm kinda glad I didn't spend too much descriptive juice on it, that makes cutting easier. And yes, I recognize the long time it takes to revise and edit. One downside to being an underwriter for me is that going into revision can be a bit daunting. So much to work through, and that's probably why I'm procrastinating a bit today.
I am somewhere in the middle. Though as my sequel is coming closer to a head, each chunk is getting longer as the complexity of the story arch increases. Chapters were just not the right thing for this type of story, and so it is written into chunks for each MC.
I probably underwrite at times, but it's preferential to me for the most part I guess. I don't like excess fluff as a person and respect my reader's time so to speak. Underwriting is a little subjective.
That sounds pretty good, being more toward the middle of a scale, and that the book grows out of complexity is awesome. Better than padding which I can sometimes fear I have to resort to, just to get the word count up. Oh, and Pratchett wrote without chapters. I just love his books. The best of luck on your sequel!
Just as we call ourselves plotters or pantsers even though we're probably a little bit of both, some writers call themselves underwriters and overwriters. But yeah, it's subjective. Leaving out too much information in scenes, and ending up with a higher word count rather than a lower after revision and editing, are probably amongst the things I would call underwriting.
Hmm, yeah I suppose. It's a natural thing. I have always been the type to get straight to the point. Even when people are telling me stories verbally, if I feel like they are fluffing the details, I'll interject with a 'who' or 'then and finally', so on. I am the same way with my writing. Of course this results in shorter novels, but I'm fine with that. A great story can be told in less than 60k words.
I hear that. If someone takes too long telling a story, I get really impatient, and I always suspected that underwriting can be connected to this. And yes to the short novels. I hear shorter novels are coming in strong in some categories, and I'd like to see more of a variety in book-lenght in all genres.
*raises hand* Moi aussi. I'm not sweating it, though. If I can somehow manage to smoothly connect Act 1 (written) with Act 3 (outlined) via Act 2 (lost at sea), be it underwritten or not, I will revel in the accomplishment.
Yay! There are a few of us, even though it seems a lot of editing advice is for the overwriter. And having that 3rd act outlined, that helps a lot when figuring out the middle. But I agree, the middle part, even if it's full of events, can be really tricky to balance right. Right now I'm trying to get the narrative drive right in the middle of my novel, and... yeah, way trickier than the beginning and end. The best of luck with your act 2, and I hope you find a lifebuoy out there in dark waters.
Oh, I'm glad I'm not the only underwriter. I thought it was a rare thing. XD I think some of it comes from occasionally omitting details for me, such as a proper description of certain settings, but some of it is kind of a conscious choice. I don't think, "Let's only write 70,000 words when I wanted 80,000 (random example) and then tear my hair out," but I do tend to get agitated with long novels when I feel like the characters are just faffing around/going around in circles/taking forever to get something done. There comes a time when the ending just needs to get its butt into the book because I'm not hooked anymore, I'm bored. So I guess I like to have my characters get on with things (even if "getting on with things" means "I'm getting on with throwing hurdles in their way") and I try to decide right from the planning stages whether every scene I want to include has a reason for being there, rather than thinking about that later on. I flesh out by adding more detail to my descriptions of locations where I've omitted them, adding something my beta readers wanted to see, and/or realising that I've made Task X too easy for my characters and so asking myself the question, "What can go wrong?"
More underwriters, wohoo! And I think your description of not consciously underwriting while still wanna get on with things, pretty much sums up me too. And the novels with strong narrative drive, yes to those! The "what can go wrong"-question is really useful, from the tiny things to the really big stuff. Keeping the tension up in scenes, that keeps us impatient people from getting too bored, heh. Lovely to hear from you, and it is nice to see underwriting is not so rare. We are a the underwriting tribe; hunting for flesh...ed out scenes. Our war-cry is most likely: "get on with it!"
Despite my "Eagle and the Dragon" coming in at 240K words, I still think it was underwritten, just a very long story with many twists and turns. I am very careful not to over-describe a scene, because a scene seen through the reader's imagination, based on a few cues given by me the writer, is more vivid than my attempting to capture every detail on the scene in my mind and project it into the reader's... and can be less boring. I love Diane Gabaldon's Outlander series, but there are times when her descriptions go on for pages, every leaf, every pebble... and I wind up flipping pages to get to the action
I completely agree with not over-describing, because yeah, I heard the reader's brain fill in the blanks with just a few written details, and often very much enjoy that process. Like you, I also tend to flip past too much description which doesn't have enough interesting things in it. It's the "threshold"-description I find the most boring, where the character just look at things while standing still on the threshold. Then I think: "O, just let the character put a muddy footprint on that expensive turkish rug or knock that vase off the table instead of describing it to me for no good reason." That would keep me from flipping past pages.
If my beta is to be believed, I'm an underwriter. But she's nice enough to say it's ok, that it seems to come more naturally for me, though there have been moments when I just haven't done a clear enough job at descriptions of milieus or emotions. I guess I'd prefer to be Perfectly-In-the-Middle writer, tbh.
Ha! I would prefer to be that too, with minimal stuff to cut or add. It would reduce some work in editing for sure. I get similar comments, and especially the "what's the character thinking?"-one, because I'm afraid of throwing off the pacing too much. I can definitely love books with lots of description, it's just a matter of execution, but mistrust my own skill in descriptions and internal monologue, so I keep it short. Stuff to work on I guess.
I think that I both underwrite and overwrite. I will often start a scene with minimal, bare-bones dialogue and gestures. Then I will sometimes (often? usually?) conclude that it's too skeletal and sweep through it a few times, adding more and adding more. And then I'm quite likely to conclude that I don't need the scene at all.
I'd file it under "practise writing", which is very valid stuff. But I recognize the skeletal scenes and how they can grow into an overdressed opera singer, they definitely happen in underwriter-country.
Yeah, I've been thinking more about it. It also seems a lot more nuanced than just under and over writing, because I think different writers focus more on some things than other leading to categories of writing strengths which I'd list as the following: Character development World building Action (desciption of fight scenes of even more mundane tasks like eating/sipping tea) Dialogue I definitely tend to underwrite my setting descriptions and action scenes while I have ample character development and mid-level world building outside of place descriptors (politics, religion, etc.).
I'd definitely put my name on that list too, and I think you're right that what we focus on as writers has significance, and that the definition should be broader. I've noticed that people who are underwriters have similar processes to me in their approach to outlining and how quickly they finish things, and I always found that interesting. The overwriters I've met so far spend a lot more time with the details in the outline and are much more planners than the underwriters who seems to have a less detailed outline to follow. That could be a matter of seeing what I want, or just a skewed view I've gotten, so I just find it interesting hearing from other writers labelling themselves as underwriters.
I think underwriting is easier to 'fix' than overwriting. Apart from my first manuscript, which had all the newbie issues you'd expect, I come in within a few thousand either side of my goal word count - great for me, since I hate rewriting. But I would find it easier to bulk out a short manuscript than to reduce a long one, and it's easier to sell a manuscript on the shorter side of perfect than on the longer side (within reason).
Yeah, I have to agree that it feels easier. Even though putting in description (or whatever else one might have skipped in the first draft) later in revision can be a headache or just a boring job for some of us (me anyway), it's feels easier to do because we often know by then that the scene in question is most likely there to stay. Oh, coming in a few thousand words under/over the goal is great. I really hate cutting out a lot of stuff, because writing is hard and time-consuming, and I'd tear my hair out if I had to cut more than I was saving. I have heard some stories about overwritten chapters that made me gasp.
