Are first and multiple drafts really well necesssary?

Whether you've been published or not is not a good indicator of whether or not someone is a novice writer or not, or even whether they're a good writer or not. I've met a few people that write purely for their own self satisfaction and have no intention of submitting any of their work that could easily mop the floor with the cliched messes I've got in print. Some of them have decades more writing experience than me, too. I wouldn't call them novices regardless of their whether or not they've been published.

 

That sounds like an excellent routine. I especially like the 'read aloud' bit. I don't do that as much as I should, but it certainly picks up stuff that a silent read can miss.

 

I do the first/rough draft, edit a bit as I go.
Do a swear word search, and try to clean up
the language so as not to sound too much like
a sailor.
Get some beta readers and hopefully see what
else needs to be fixed or cut out.
And as of last year work with a local group in a
rotation of looking and helping out on a chapter
by chapter basis, in both editing/ beta reading to
better catch flaws and editing that would otherwise
be missed.
However, I do often do rereads and little story tweaks,
because I don't ever want to get caught with plot holes
or deus ex machina moments.
So I would say there is many 'drafts' as one or two have
put it, since it is a matter of changing the file on a writing
program.

Though I like to share my own stories that I write for pleasure,
cause of the saying about writing the stories you would want to
read. So I figure why not share a bit of my personal imagination
with others? While not perfect, it is kinda interesting to be
find others that will enjoy a good yarn that isn't the exact cutout
of what is flooding a particular genres at the time in the market.
However, knowing that I will never make it big in said market
due to not being one to just follow where the trends go, but to
do my own thing and find those that don't mind reading something
that isn't trying to be trendy or hip at a given point in time, but just
a decent yarn that hasn't been burned on both sides from being
cooked to death by every other Tom, Dick, and Harry also writing
in a given genre.

 

This is probably possible—but probably not for a first-time writer, or one who is just learning the craft. Once you have developed a formula that works for you, and then keep repeating it in subsequent books, I imagine it's fairly easy to write well each time you create a new one. And even if you write fiction that is radically different each time, you still will have learned how to manipulate your tools to good effect and avoid basic mistakes. But I suspect that finding a person who has only written one book, wrote it perfectly the first time, got published and became an established author is a rare discovery. If that's 'you,' (the generic you, not you specifically, Edward M Grant) then congratulations.

However, it's the other side of that coin that interests me. How many authors, whom we respect, love, and have made into comfortably well-off people by buying their books, started out by revising various drafts? And how many of them still advocate doing that now? A large number of these people write 'how to' books in addition to fiction—books that advocate drafting and editing. I think I'd be inclined to take their advice. They are proof that broken' storytelling can certainly be fixed.

 

My writing is bad without it. I take way too long writing, so I'll never notice repetition unless I do it.

 

I do think that the more stories you write, the better you'll get at this and the fewer versions you'll need to produce. But there is no shame in making mistakes, as long as you're willing to find and correct them.

I'm not a Harry Potter fan, because the saga, while charming to begin with, started to bore me and I quit shortly after I finished the second book. (I would probably have felt differently if I'd been reading it as a child rather than as an adult.) I do admire Rowling's ability to write for her readership and to finish such a complex written saga in good time, but many critics have pointed out that some of her subsequent books could have used 'a good edit.' The books seemed to get longer and longer as the series progressed. Of course nobody is going to argue with an author who makes millions, so whatever she wrote more or less got published ASAP. But perhaps the writing could have been tightened up, if she'd had a more impartial editor working with her, or hadn't been in such a hurry to move on.

 

I can't remember who it was, but I do remember an established author, when asked how they knew when a book was 'finished' said: "When my publisher comes and takes it away from me." If I were an established author, that would be me!

Here's a short article (Penguin Random House) that covers the topic in general, from the perspective of editors as well as authors: http://authornews.penguinrandomhouse.com/how-do-you-know-when-youre-done-writing/

I found this particular quote from the article interesting:

Just because your recent changes have made matters worse, not better, does NOT mean your story is as good as it's going to get. It might mean that you still haven't figured out how to fix the problems you've seen. When I reach that point (and I've reached it many times) where I'm deleting the changes I made yesterday and making more changes today, rinse and repeat, I know it's time to put it away for a good long rest. Either write something else, take a good break from writing, or work on another part of the story. When I pick the problematic bit up later on, after a refresher break, I can usually see quite quickly what needs to be done.

I think that once you can read through the story all the way through, and forget you wrote it and enjoy it for what it is—that's probably when it's 'done' and ready to be turned loose on the world. Either send it to betas (if you haven't done so), or agents, or grasp the self-publishing handle.

 

As an unpublished writer, I want all the advice I can get, even from people who are being a tiny bit judgmental about who doles it out and how. I'll sort out what works for me, and I'll share what I know while I'm at it. A lot of the famous writers you don't want us to talk about used these same no-no techniques not only after years of experience, but on their earliest successes as well, so it's usually worth noting, even as an exception to a rule. Don't discount the amateur opinion. Often the avid reader or aspiring artist understands as much about the elements of storytelling as the studied or accomplished author, sometimes more. (Sometimes far less, obviously, but you get the point.)

 

While I'm at it, here is another very helpful set of tips about how to start the editing process, from the Penguin Random House people. I especially like the second 'tip' about dialogue. http://authornews.penguinrandomhouse.com/from-the-editor-getting-ahead-with-revisions/

These are all issues we frequently see in the Workshop here on the forum. At least the first three, which are the ones dealing with fiction. These are issues that experienced editors have pinpointed as common problems. It's a good idea to take their suggestions on board. Good editors are the people who know what readers expect and appreciate.

 

Those are good tips. The third one especially. It reminds me of an oft-encountered issue with historical fiction especially, where the reader needs to be grounded in the era's norms. We end up with dialogue where, for example, a group of Vikings sit around in their long hall drinking mead and explaining Viking customs to each other - for the reader's obvious benefit - even though it's not a conversation they would realistically have because they know their own world.

This came to mind because I'm reworking the start of my book, thanks to the advice of you lovely lot, and I'm tinkering with a similar issue: Would it seem ham-fisted for the characters to discuss the stakes of their revolution at that time, when they already know the stakes? Fortunately I think it'll be fine in my case. Since the revolution is at risk, the POV character can certainly think about the stakes, even though his main focus is rescuing his wife.

 

I think that sounds fine, as long as you're not informing the reader in this kind of manner: "You know that Ragnor's son Olaf is on the throne just now, and Ragnor wants it back," said Snurri Grimson to his wife. "And we all know that Ragnor was a bad king."

If Snurri's wife already knows this bit of history, then that is a clumsy way to introduce it to the reader.

See if you can bring it in another way. In Viking speak: "I'll be double dagnabbed if I'll stand aside and let Ragnor depose Olaf," Snurri declared. "Okay—so Olaf is just a wee nipper and has screwed up a couple of times. But he's already a braver king than that asshole father of his ever was. Ragnor gets the throne back over my dead body."

 

You know that Ragnor's son Olaf is on the throne just now, and Ragnor wants it back," said Snurri Grimson to his wife. "And we all know that Ragnor was a bad king."

'Darling, fetch the lute, the harpsichord, we can learn them together, ' he said, and how she yearned for but the one season with her Sire here on the farmstead.

'Stamford Bridge!' said this Viking husband. He moved hearthside, contemplated in oils, naked aside from the leather puttees twisted past his ankles. 'I said to Tostig it simply is impossible given time frame of our longboat production. But then if Lord uncle William arrives in Hastings in good order we might avoid all battles? Baby, I am tired of fighting.'

Princess-wife Viking scrubbed his filthy back.

[EXACTLY! That needs about 25 drafts to become an extended love scene under flaming torches. One draft wonder, impossible]

 

Not for me. As I said earlier, by the time I reached about the fifth draft, I'd often have made such a mess that I'd be putting back scenes and chapters I removed from the earlier drafts.

Plus it took far longer than just writing a good first draft in the first place.

 

But it's not a very useful skill for a writer. Good writers don't need much editing, and the editing they do need is mostly copyediting for typos, etc.

More to the point, by telling novice writers to rewrite, rewrite, rewrite, you're implicitly saying you think they're better editors than writers, when very few of them have any more skill in editing than writing. So you want them to spend years learning a skill that's not going to be very useful to them when they could have spent that time learning to write.

The simple reality is that a novice writer could send their first novel to the best editor on the planet, and if it's a typical first novel the editor couldn't do anything to fix it other than tossing it out and writing it again from scratch (certainly that's true of my first novel). Yet you think the novice writer is going to do better than they would.

Last I looked, I had five or six pages of novels and short stories on my Amazon publishing dashboard under this name and the others I use. I've never sold more than 2000 copies of any one of those stories, and I don't think I ever quite broke into the top 1000 rankings on Amazon, but that's a lot better than most of the novice writers I started out with. Many of them spent a decade or more rewriting the same book, and never even tried to publish it before they gave up on writing altogether. Some are probably still rewriting that same book after twenty years, trying to get it 'right'.

Yet I sure as heck wish that someone had told me not to write a crappy first draft and try to rewrite it twenty years ago when I was a novice. I'd be well ahead of where I am today.

You learn to write by writing, not by rewriting. Those people who spent a decade or more rewriting one single story learned very little about writing by doing so.

Sure, you want to get feedback on the story you wrote, but that just means sending it out to a few people and asking what they think. For the first story or novel, most will say 'I gave up after the first few pages', so next time you concentrate on getting them to read beyond that point.

Or maybe they'll love it and you'd have wrecked your story by rewriting it thirty times.

Either way, rewriting is not a way to learn writing. It's a way to avoid writing.

In particular, it's an excuse many novice writers use to avoid publishing the story or submitting it to publishers. 'Did you submit that story yet?' 'Nah, it's still not quite there, I've got to do another rewrite.'

I've seen that many times over the years, often from people who were much better writers than I was. They're not rewriting to make the story better, they're rewriting because they're scared of submitting it and being rejected.

 

Quote by Ernest Hemingway: “The only kind of writing is rewriting.”

 

Editing is generally part of writing. No, you don't spend twenty years on one story, but nobody's recommending that.

 

Back when I was banging this stuff out on a typewriter the process went: write, second draft, let it sit and do something else, third draft, proof read, send to proof reader, send to typist, collect rejection letters. Since the glory and wonder of Spell-check it's much faster. I don't see the need for full "re-drafts." Go right to letting it sit and then punch it up. Wait for rejection emails.

 

I feel like there are two extremes being debated, and probably neither extreme is going to work well for most writers.

Like, most successful writers don't send off their absolute first draft without even reading it over and fixing a few details, and likewise, most successful writers probably don't spend ten years writing and rewriting and writing and rewriting the same piece. Neither extreme is likely a good idea.

I think it's also quite possible for different projects to have different demands. I'm at the stage where I can more-or-less write a standard contemporary romance novel straight through from beginning to end, spend a couple days polishing it up, and then send it off to a publisher. But I am NOT publishing at the level I'd like (I want Big 5) and I don't have the sales I want. So I can't really say that the technique I'm currently using is the best I ever could use.

And I absolutely find myself needing more editing time when I write something that isn't contemporary romance. I move scenes to pump up drama, add scenes to enhance characterization, etc.

So, as always, no one right answer that fits everyone, and I don't think we should ever be satisfied that we've found the right answer, even for ourselves, unless we're getting exactly the results we want from the process.

 

Actually, I wouldn't call someone a writer if it takes them 20 years. Unless they do have some other accomplished works while woring on it. A lot of people write short stories while writing novels.

 

When reading this thread I noticed that there are two train of thoughts being discussed: 1. Should you keep multiple copies of your draft while working on it? and 2. Can first drafts really be any good? Two separate questions that got blended in this one thread.

 

Oh. Yikes. I can't imagine it matters, re. #1. I mean - I don't keep multiple versions, but I don't see the harm in doing so if someone wants to?

 

I'm glad you found a process that works for you, but I know from reading advice from successful, celebrated writers, that the majority make multiple passes at every book they write. Even "On the Road," famous for being a stream-of-consciousness experiment in "spontaneous prose," as Kerouac called it, went through years of revisions both before and after the famous scroll. He wasn't satisfied with his early drafts, so he edited and rewrote them. Most writers do.

 

I ... well ... I always keep earlier drafts! It helps to remember where I've come from. Also, sometimes, there's old bits I decide I might want to dig up and use elsewhere.

 

I think that was what the OP was asking...do you keep the old pages after you do revisions?

It certainly is easier to do that with computers today. Just save it as multiple docs on your flash drive or in the cloud. Save each as xxx#1, xxx#2 etc. It would certainly be a personal choice thing. Some people could just go on saving the same draft as revisions are made.

I can tell you that it is a good idea to save multiple copies of your work on different devices or in the cloud though, as I was just in a fire and could have lost some work but it was thankfully in the cloud.

 

Definitely. In addition to the stuff on my PC, I also save it to the cloud, and every month I put the whole lot into a compressed folder and email it to myself, where it then gets put into a special folder in my inbox. I also put the folder onto a USB flash drive which lives in my desk drawer.

Can't be too careful!