Jay brings up another good point that adds another step to the process. You edit your manuscript from your first draft until it looks perfect. But to your editor it is still only a first draft and you probably will get sent right back to square one
No, it's not "square one". Because if you get as far as having an editor look at it it, you've already advanced the ball pretty far down the field.
Really enjoying this thread I started. Thanks JayG and EdFromNY and everyone else, I really appreciate your insights. I have to say I agree very much with JayG. I try not to discourage anyone but when my friends or someone online posts work for critiquing I often cringe. It's not easy telling someone they have no idea how to tell a story. To be clear (My Original Post) I have a (growing) list of things that need fixing when my first draft is finished. Figuring out what's wrong with it is not my problem. I'm still figuring out my process, that's the problem. I just need to keep going and work out all the bugs, keep refining my process. As it stands, rewriting is a daunting challenge at this point. I'm just hoping I can sustain my energy through the process. P.S. So far I have identified the following problems with my manuscript: 1) Inconsistent character voice 2) Inconsistent POV 3) Incomplete character arcs 4) Erratic pacing 5) Entire scenes that are not 'scenes' (see "scene-sequel" method) 6) Entire chapters of straight dialogue. 7) Not enough environmental description 8) Poor pacing of action beats 9) Obtuse sentence structure. 10) Use of too many similar-sized sentences or phrases in sequence. 11) Plot holes 12) Inconsistencies in "world" logic. 13) Poor dialogue attribution (ugh) 14) Clumsy tense changes 15) Weak scene transitions ^ AND YET, despite all that EVERYONE I've showed the work to loves the story. Five years ago, some people would love the story and the rest would point out issues or politely say "it's not my kind of thing". That doesn't happen anymore. So I know my work is getting better, both internally and externally. I hope I can ride the enthusiasm I'm getting from the fact that 100% of people are saying "I want to know what happens next".
Certainly not. However, one can improve one's writing by laying the quality work of established writers side-by-side with their own and analyzing why one works and one does not.
Oh, trust me, my dear, the feeling is mutual. I go back to read and realize that I'm heavily dialogue-reliant for story telling (good god, someone save me!), my descriptions are lacking, at bast, and incredibly erratic (I have a tendency to skip descriptions altogether, and allow important details of the surroundings to be described when they become important), and my pacing is constantly fast-paced, even in parts where things should be slowed down (I just wrote a scene with a verbal altercation, followed by a physical altercation; it was all over in a very short time, based on writing, but the fight itself was supposed to take place between two women who were evenly matched, and which was only settled due to the distraction of one). What I have to keep reminding myself is that the entire thing can be fixed, whether through re-writing, changing, adding, or (god forbid) completely removing certain segments. Your book will change. You may not even recognize it once you're done. I had a book that started out with a 16-year-old MC of Japanese heritage, who was small in stature and big in personality. She made a decision that changed her life, temporarily, for the worst, and has to struggle to fix things for herself. By the time I was done with the FIRST rewrite, I had a 19-year-old MC of, probably, Dutch heritage (long blond hair, blue eyes, fair skin...), very tall, relatively lean, but also soft-spoken and easy to get along with. She gets pushed into a situation that changes her life and ruins it, and basically lets it overcome her for the majority of the storyline. This all happened as a chain reaction, as a result of one decision I made, about the end of the story - that the character should be...sort of damaged. But, based on the journey that the original MC made, and her demeanor as she went through it, that wasn't possible, by my reckoning. So I made a little tweek here, and a little tweek there, and, eventually, she was so unlike the character I'd originally concocted for the story that I ended up entirely altering her age, appearance and personality (and gave her a new name). Now, that's just the alteration that I made to the character - there was loads more made to the story itself, partially because it was crap and I wanted to fix it, and partially because, having changed the character, certain parts of the story were altered. It wasn't my original picture of the novel, but it was much closer to what I felt was right for the novel. So, be prepared for big changes, when you start going through edits.
What I meant by "square one" is you have revised it three or four times on your own, you think it's perfect and you are done, but your editor thinks otherwise so you still have multiple revisions lying ahead.
I always think it's best to be as clear as possible where I stand with my work. I know that making my ms "perfect" means that there will still be work to do later on to make it "publishable perfect", and there's no shame in that. As a published writer friend of mine said to me, "Make sure it's as perfect as you can make it, so that an editor will feel it's worth the effort to get it published."
Knowing why something doesn't work for you doesn't give even a hint of what would have worked in its place, both for you and the majority of readers. And you cannot compare a page from two writers and say, "These are two version of the same sort thing and this one works as it should, with any accuracy, because unless you have the craft and knowledge to know what you're looking for, or even that they are different approaches to the same thing, you cannot make that judgment. And in any case, it would be no more than a guess to say that the thing you believe made the difference would do so for the majority of readers. If a given writer still thinks POV refers to which personal pronoun is used how will they recognize a POV problem when they see it? My point, though, is why sit there comparing manuscripts, scratching your head over what the difference is when you can, in a tiny fraction of the time learn, for example, that scene goals are necessary, and why. What gain is there in guessing and fumbling in an attempt to reinvent the wheel? Knowledge is knowledge, be it attained by sorting through the work of published writers looking for breadcrumb trails or by asking the author, directly. If we took that approach to learning other professions, how long would it take to learn to design a bridge by studying bridges? Seems to me that it would be a lot faster to check with the pros to see what works, first. No one says that you must follow a given teacher's advice. But personally, I've found that knowledge is a wonderful working substitute for genius.
In essence, this is good advice. Except that, when you look at one source, the author invented a wheel. In another, they invented a pulley. And the author in question doesn't necessarily want a wheel or a pulley. Writing is not a one-size-fits-all deal. You can read hundreds of books on "how to write." At the end of the day, the books should all be titled, "How I Write." There are so many different techniques, so many different best-selling authors, for a reason. Having a firm understanding of the "Right way to write a novel as designated by [insert author who's apparently sold a lot of books, but I've never actually heard of, anyway]," doesn't mean you have a firm understanding of how to write a good book. It means you have a firm understanding of how that guy wrote a book that got published and now considers him-/herself an expert on the matter.
Yes. But be prepared for @JayG to come back and lecture you that what we commonly call "how to" books are not really "how to" books. I know, I know, that's missing the point. But I also have another reason for recommending the method that I do. It's the difference between asking someone the meaning of a word and looking it up yourself. If you look it up, you will be more likely to retain it than if you ask someone else. If you analyze what successful writers have done (that is, the ones whose success you most admire), you will be more likely to absorb what it is about their writing that can most help you. If you rely on someone else's explanation, you may miss something. In that regard, I'm a little bit like James Hart - I don't really get it unless I do the work myself. YMMV.
I'm with you @EdFromNY . I need to do the work myself or it doesn't take for some reason. Though I also agree with @JayG that learning the skills and techniques of writing formally rather than merely by osmosis is also important. I did creative writing at College and I've got many books, including Swain's (scene/sequel) right here and I'm a firm believer that there's no such thing as too much information. I agreed 100% with Picasso when he said, "'Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.'" Too many 'aspiring writers' fail to learn the rules before they write, or worse fail to learn the rules before they shit all over them and then wonder why they aren't getting published.
I have absolutely no problem with your approach, whatsoever. They are, in my view, extremely different. In JayG's suggestion, someone is telling you how they think you should write, from beginning to end. In your method, you're more able to decide for yourself which aspects of the writing you like, and would work best for you, and try to adopt just those methods. Writing should be more like on-the-job training, as far as I'm concerned - you learn as you work at it. Not like college, where you buy a textbook and study it until all creativity has leaked from your system and you're stuck in a pattern in which, "OH! That paragraph sounded wonderful and works well with the chapter and doesn't interrupt the flow. But, god damnit, it doesn't fit with what Deb Dixon says I'm supposed to do in Goal, Motivation & Conflict. I guess I have to scrap it..."
@Thornesque Nonsense. You act as if the books on technique are all conflicting, and each university teaches different compositional skills to those in their commercial fiction courses. The simple fact is that all stories have the same underlying structure, characteristics they all share, and compositional skills, dictated by the medium and the task, which is entertaining the reader through the manipulation of their emotions. That's every bit as universal as grammar, or the structure of the essays and reports we were taught to write in our basic education.s Surely you don't think that writing fiction is unique among professions in not requiring specialized skills greater then what we learn in high school? Were they enough all the newer writers would be eighteen years old. Were it a matter of the kiddie writing skills and natural talent we're all screwed because we had that at eighteen and should have made it long before this. Let's for argument's sake, say that you're absolutely right. The people writing those books are successful writers. Jack Bickham, for example, wrote and sold seventy-five novels. He personally trained hundreds of successful novelists. Surely you're not arguing that your views are on a par with his? That what he has to say won't be of help to you or anyone else? What you said, although it wasn't what you hoped to say, is that if you take the advice from those "hundred" people who are saying, "This is how I do it," you'll be following the advice of successful writers. How in the hell can you use that as an argument in favor of just "winging it," armed with nothing more than the skills of a high school senior, plus some verbal storytelling skills? The measure of any advice is if it works for the one receiving it. Has not following the advice of the pros worked for you? It sure didn't work for me, which is why I decided to give it a try. And damned if it didn't work. And hell, if someone with as little talent as I have can sell a novel using what the universities teach anyone can.
But has it worked for you? If not, how many years do you believe the process will take, total? At the moment you're suggesting, in a venue for writers, that hopeful writers use a process that has not yet worked for you, as against, not in addition to but against, spending a month or less learning what the people who make their living selling their own fiction feel is useful, and even necessary information. Quite frankly, it seems that you're betting years of time that something not one university or publisher supports as a path toward publication, is a sound way to achieve publication is a superior way. That doesn't bother me. You are, of course, free to do as you please. Every writer is. But you're advising new writers against acquiring a professional education, something they can do free in their local library. Every year for a fair number of years I've gotten a letter or two from someone who has just achieved publication after taking steps to learn the basics, as I suggested. I would hope you have the same.
This is two screenwriters talking about beginners, but I think it's appropriate for novelists as well:
I can honestly say that I do not understand this incessant need that you have, JayG, to force every other writer to read the books that worked for you. I don't care how Stephen King, Ray Bradbury or your favorite, Jack Bickham, wrote their novels. You want to know why? Because there novels are already published. They already said, "Here it is, my novel!" I don't want a King, Bradbury or Bickham novel. I want a Gemma Murdock novel, that I put my blood sweat and tears into. I don't want someone telling me that I can't use that paragraph, because it breaks away from the scene-and-sequel format that is apparently so freaking crucial to writing a successful novels. The only evidence I need that I don't need to be a carbon copy of one of the many successful authors that wrote the How-To books, is that there are many authors that haven't read those how-to books. I've already said it - I have a pretty decent idea of what's wrong with my novels, at least in general. And I'll nitpick even more-so when I go back and read them and edit them. But I'm going to do it my way, not because King and Bradbury and Bickham are necessarily wrong (obviously, it did manage to get them published) but because I don't want a carbon copy of someone else's novel. I don't read a lot of King. Bradbury, at points, bores me. And I'd never heard of Bickham until you started preaching his name and word as though he were the second coming of Christ. I don't want to write like them. I don't want to write a different version of their book. I want my book to be the way I want it. And hell. Maybe I won't get published. But I'd rather write an un-published novel that I love, and that I can decide whether or not to marginally (or, hell, maybe drastically) alter, than to publish a book that I don't necessarily like as much as I could have (because all form of creativity has been leaked from it's very core) that King or Bradbury or Bickham can look at and go, "Oh, wow! It's just like mine, but with different characters, and a slightly altered base story!" You've voiced your opinion a million times. We have all had the opportunity (even in threads in which your pushing of How-To books isn't actually relevant) to see what you have to say on the issue of how to learn to be a writer. It would really be interesting to hear some other opinion you might have (possibly one that you formed yourself, rather than suctioned out of one of the aforementioned how-to books) on the writing or publishing processes, beyond, "Here's a book that someone else wrote that I think is the holy bible!"
I would probably be more inclined to read the books of a college professor over King or Bradbury. I have a few books you could call howtos: one on grammar, two on sentence construction, one on prose style itself, a couple on higher level storycraft. It's interesting to see some of the formula, but also analysis of powerful and impressive writing. Read, read and read some more. Read fiction, read non-fiction. Read.
Hi. Original Poster here (wave) I'm not having any trouble determining what's wrong with my manuscript. I'm having trouble facing the implied workload. It's a subtle difference, I know. But it is a difference.
So, you're talking about the rewrite. Writing is rewriting. Some say don't go back in the middle of writing to rewrite. You may never get the whole of it done, otherwise. Break it down into manageable chunks. Chapters and sections. I figure with my screenwriting, the smallest unit is the scene, but I think I would still have the whole sequence and perhaps the act available to make sure I wasn't breaking continuity or if I did, to start thinking how to fix it in subsequent scenes.
I don't have a problem with anyone that says that they learned a lot of technique from reading How-To books; carry on with it, if it's working for you. What I have a problem with, is pushing them onto "new writers," like crack cocaine and saying that it's the only practical route to becoming a good writer. That's just not the case. AT ANY RATE! I honestly don't think you'll find as much of a problem with the work that's ahead as you think you will. The truth is - you should love your story (and, if you're almost done with it, I'm assuming that you really and truly do). And if you love it, then it seems less like a chore to go over it again and fix it. Especially when you have people cheering you on. I don't like showing first drafts to people (except for my co-author in one of my projects), but I do like letting people know how far I've gotten. It's encouraging when they say, "That's great! Get it done, so I can read it!"
The hope of being done one day, of being able to hold something up (physically or metaphorically) and say "This is my vision, my love, my passion." I adore my characters and their story and the world they live in. I dare say that I want more than anything in the world to craft all of that and make it real. My love for what I create is maddening at times. The first "book" I wrote, I began when I was 13 and finished at 18. I didn't believe in drafts, or anything else that didn't end up on the published page in the end, and only did a spit-polish before self-publishing. (there's still a typo in paragraph one... ugh) I regret so much of my mindset back then, and I'm now nothing like the author I was. I'll always have a printed and bound reminder of revision's goodness, though. (as well as how far I've come) Well, I hope my contribution was relevant. I'm tired and illness is setting in...
I'm not going to post an entire WIP on this site, pointing out everything that I think is wrong with it. Sorry if that's a disappointment to anyone that was looking forward to seeing me tear my own writing to pieces and admitting to how shit my first draft is. (I promise, I know it's shit.)
I heard a saying once: "The difference between a pro and an amateur is that one gets paid and one doesn't." Stephanie Meyer, the author of Twilight, is a "pro," but I would never take writing advice from her.
