(no subject)

[lagilman]

edeevee asked if I would share the revisions process. I can only speak for myself -- everyone has a different way of approaching it, just as everyone has a different way of writing the draft.

For me, the first thing I do is skim the revisions letter. This allows me time to storm off and rant a bit about my otherwise-beloved editor, without actually doing any damage to the process. That usually takes a few hours, and lets me sleep on it.

This also allows me to think "hey, the letter was only five and a half pages long. That's not too bad for a 100,000 word novel. I've given out much worse."

The next morning, pending any other obligations (I've put aside the New Project for now, as the two writing styles are miles apart) I make a pot of very strong coffee, eat a good breakfast, and settle down with a print out of the letter and several colored highlighters. Each color signifies a different part of the letter (in this case: A plot, B plot, Wren & Sergei's relationship, secondary characters, and Other Details).

Then I go over the letter several times, highlighting each section and jotting notes to myself in the margins as thoughts or fixes strike me. This is what I'm doing right now.

This is where the editor earns her gold stars. It's your story, your brain, your responsibility to fix it. However, a good editor can point to what doesn't quite work, both globally and in the small details. A great editor can point to what doesn't quite work and offer some thoughts on WHY, thereby triggering your own critical and creative juices again.

This often leads to a sudden moment of authorial 'gotcha!' which is occasionally followed by either "okay, that bit's got to go, I can't fix it" or "fuck I'm brilliant." The latter moment actually just happened, so I'm taking a break right now to let the fix expand and solidify in my brain. And with that realization, an entire chain of needed plot-fixes fall into place. They're not DONE, but I know what needs to be done.

The doing comes next. But for now, more bits to highlight and hammer at. And more coffee to drink.



ETA: I looooove my editor. Even when I'm cranky. She gives good brain-poke.


ETA2: No. More. Coffee.

Comments

[vincam.livejournal.com]

You're right, everyone has a different way of going about this.

I don't usually get requests for revisions, but recently have had some for the work-for-hire I did this year. I treated it like just another polish, the same way I would if the ideas had been my own. For that I have to understand why the change was requested. Usually I can figure it out on my own, but I feel free to ask, otherwise I run a risk of not achieving the editor's intention. Since I am able to carry the manuscript around in my head as an organic whole, I never need to make notes. In the case of the Catherine project I had to make a change in a character's age that involved an awful lot of small, not-searchable corrections throughout the manuscript, so what I did was tweak the spots I could remember, then I put a sticky note on my desk to remind me to watch for other, smaller changes that might present themselves when I would receive and peruse the CEM later on. I've done that many times with previous books, when I think of details that need to be tweaked at the last minute. In fact, I've got hard copies of both the delivered novels currently in the pipeline, marked up with changes resulting from my recent trip to Scotland that will be entered on the CEMs when they get here. I realize not everybody gets to do that, and I'm glad I can.

I think a lot depends on the editor and how she works, too. So far I've never been given any guff if I couldn't make a change and was able to explain why the change couldn't be made. I don't argue about anything that doesn't actually harm the story.

[lagilman]

I don't usually get requests for revisions,

Oh, I always do, on novels, and am pleased to get them, actually. No manuscript is ever so good it can't be made stronger by some external poking and proding, is my creed. Even with the best writers' group around (waves to members) there are always things that we all miss, or that someone with a longer-view or more emotionally separated approach can find.

I may not agree with the suggested changes, but the fact that 'it' --whatever 'it' is -- made them question the story is cause enough to look twice at it.

Lunch break over. Back to't.

[vincam.livejournal.com]

Oh, I always do, on novels, and am pleased to get them

My editor and I tend to be on the same page on most things, so it's no surprise that I've had it easy with her on global issues. Editors only ask for revisions when they feel they're necessary, and a short or nonexistent revision letter doesn't necessarily result in a flawed book.

Some people say lack of editing is a trend, but I liken it somewhat to the demise of the old studio system in Hollywood. Used to be that actors' careers were managed tightly by the studios. When an actor signed with a studio, they were given lessons in acting, singing, deportment, etc. They were put up in homes that gave them the appearance of wealth and style, etc. Publicity was managed by the studio, not the actor. The studios handled everything. About fifty years ago, though, that began to fall apart and actors demanded more control over their lives. When they got it, they also became more responsible for their careers. Nowadays it's standard for an actor to come to the job already polished and knowledgable of the craft. They are responsible for image and publicity. Studios no longer are expected to nurture anyone.

I believe that is happening in publishing. There is a transition from an expectation that the editor will tweak a flawed manuscript into shape, to a situation where an editor might not bother working with an author who needs extensive editing. Some folks lament that "editors don't edit any more," but nobody suggests that editors might also be looking for talent that doesn't need so much editing as what was once expected. That would mean not just skilled authors, but authors who think similarly to the editor.

::shrug:: I get told I'm a rarity. Maybe it's just me.

[kradical.livejournal.com]

My editor and I tend to be on the same page on most things, so it's no surprise that I've had it easy with her on global issues. Editors only ask for revisions when they feel they're necessary, and a short or nonexistent revision letter doesn't necessarily result in a flawed book.

There's absolutely no way to generalize on this, because every editor works differently and every author works differently. I've been hearing the "editors don't edit any more" for longer than I've actually been in the business, and it's the usual bullshit from people who insist things were better in the mythical "before-time."

Still, my feeling is that a revision letter is better than no revision letter, because no manuscript can't afford more work after a look-see from someone who isn't you. *grin*

[vincam.livejournal.com]

Still, my feeling is that a revision letter is better than no revision letter, because no manuscript can't afford more work after a look-see from someone who isn't you. *grin*

My point being that it's fairly insulting to suggest that those who don't get edited into dust end up with faulty books. There are times when beta readers or workshops are sufficient. I don't think there exists even a published novel that can't be criticized on one level or another. And the above is pretty much the generalization you said wasn't possible.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that every outside opinion of a manuscript is valid. I had a student at a workshop once, who rewrote her project according to every suggestion, and ended up with a mess. IMHO, if an author and editor are enough at odds, no suggestion from the editor is going to be helpful on any level, and if the author and editor think enough alike the likelihood of a long revision letter is reduced. In between those extremes is a wide area of variation. You are absolutely right that there is absolutely no way to generalize on this.

[kradical.livejournal.com]

Even with the best writers' group around (waves to members)

Awwwwwwwwwwwww, shucks............

[edeevee.livejournal.com]

Oh yippeee! Thank you so much.
Here's to more fuck I'm brilliant moments ;^)

-darcy

[housellama.livejournal.com]

Wow... What an interesting look into the process. I'm always intrigued by these things: what goes on and how the magic happens.

I have a total respect for the people who can sit down and write for a living. People who can, every day, get up in the morning, sit down at the computer and hammer out stuff. While I love to do it, I find myself unable to do it at will. I'd drop everything else if I could write professionally but alas, I just don't have the gift for it. I do however respect the hell out of people who do.

I'm looking forward to Bring It On. Any idea how soon we'll be seeing it yet?

-Tug

[lagilman]

I have a total respect for the people who can sit down and write for a living. People who can, every day, get up in the morning, sit down at the computer and hammer out stuff.

*shrug* You get up ech morning (or evening) and you do your job, just like anyone else dependent on a paycheck. The 'hammering out' of stuff is a variable -- the job of writing is only a certain percentage about the actual act of writing, sadly. Just like any other job, there are parts that make up the whole...

I'm looking forward to Bring It On. Any idea how soon we'll be seeing it yet?

July '06, I'm told.

[housellama.livejournal.com]

P.S.

In your list of "Fellow Luna Authors..." the link for C.E. Murphy is broke. It has a comma listed between the Com and the slash. Remove that and the link should work fine.

-Tug