Just a question I came up with, and was wondering what other people's opinions are. Is it possible to complete a manuscript (without any editors going through it yet) and it just be so terrible that nothing can save it from ending up in the trash can without it being completely redone to something unrecognizable? Can any novel be fixed to where it's publishable without having to scrap most of it (like bringing in an editor or something)?
I think most people have to write and polish a novel to learn how to write one. Brandon Sanderson suggested that without positive feedback from the traditionally published world, you should wait to self publish until you’re on your third novel. That way, your skills and taste will have time to get to a level that won’t haunt you later. I’m querying a novel right now but don’t expect it to get picked up. Starting to edit a new one.
I think you can write a bad, convoluted, empty story, yes. I've done it! I do think that such a story can be fixed, and it might take a lot of work and turn it into something quite different (because my opinion is that there are bad core concepts), but you can also turn it into something that's different but recognizable. When I was 12 I wrote this sci-fi novel that was ... obviously written by a 12 y/o. It was not particularly good. But I kept loving the characters and some parts of the story and I 'rebooted' it when I was a bit older (17? I forget), and it's been an ongoing process since then -- this story is my child and I just keep messing with it and worldbuilding and such. It's fairly different, but the basic storyline and 'message' is still the same. Now if that project'd had what I considered a poor core concept, I would've chucked whatever made that that, but potentially still been able to work with what was left to make something still recognizable because it had the same characters, or something. But at that point, IMO, it would no longer be the same story -- it'd be the same characters in a different story. Very much agreed. Toiling away on something that you end up being ultimately unhappy with may feel like a waste of time (sometimes a lot of wasted time!) in retrospect, but that time made you better at the thing. It's worth it.
Many writers make a mistake of thinking too much about their work and the publishing process. We've all been through this, in some way or another. I'd say you stop bothering yourself about your novel's 'destiny'. Just go ahead and write and you'll do the editing later. There's nothing more distracting than constantly assessing and re-assessing the worth of your work. It only serves to divert your creative energy and undermine your confidence. You don't want that. Write and worry about secondary things later.
I have a similar experience. The first time I started writing a novel I was 12. I kept rewriting it as I was growing up and finally abandoned it only in my late teens when I realized there were too many plot holes that simply couldn't be mended. When I read my early novel attempts, I have a good overview of how I advanced as a writer, and some of the characters and plot elements even made it into my present project.
It can be destined to be trash only if the author persistently keeps rushing through it without rhyme or reason. Any novel can be fixed if you learn how to do things properly and put some effort into doing it up. You can call it "scrapping" or you can call it "editing". You can consider the trash stage as an early draft and just keep working on it. But you'll need to hone your skills, too. Otherwise you'll be just producing more of the same. Sometimes it takes too much effort to fix something that was really bad and it could be much easier to leave it altogether and start on something new. Unless, of course you are totally in love with your project and insist on polishing it to perfection. Then, I'd suggest you take some time away from that book and spend some time mastering the craft instead. So that when you return to the book, you'll be ready.
Rather a broad term 'trash novel' is, when you break it down. I think it is more matter of opinion of the reader, seeing as there are plenty of books that have been published that the author thought was a master-crafted story, but the readers thought it was trash. So odds are likely that it will be both at the same time. All you can do is learn and grow as a writer, and never go stagnate. Every time you write something you improve a little more each time, and that is a good thing.
In a word yes - my first two never made it out of the starting blocks because I could see that they were going to be crap (one was abandoned at 25k and the other at 45k) but if i'd finished them they'd still have been awful. A professional editor can(at a cost) help you improve your work - but if the premise is rubbish, or the characters are shallow stereotypes , the dialogue stilted and unbelievable .... if in essence it isn't well written, no amount of editing will save it from a full rewrite. Of course whether something is publishable doesn't necessarily track with well written - the writing in 50 shades left a fair amount to be desired for example - but in general is a book is awful its not a great idea to release it into the wild as it gives you the reputation of someone who writes crap.
Found this from the author of my favorite novel, "Song of Achilles." https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/profiles/article/76022-it-s-all-greek-to-madeline-miller.html
