Is it ever okay to begin querying before your manuscript is finished?

As I've said before, don't think a ten-day edit isn't conscientious. I've been told my first drafts are better than most people's manuscript copy.

But then, I don't write literary fiction. Merely genre...

Are you an outliner, Scarletpeaches? I definitely find if I don't have a good enough outline my editing ends up taking longer and I do way more wholesale rewriting as opposed to the tidying and tightening up the plot and making the prose more effective type of editing. It's my theory that outliners do less rewriting than discovery writers.

If you don't outline and you still produce a draft which needs minimal editing, then I'll just be over here in the corner hating you, okay?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My first book wasn't outlined. It ended up being 148k and I edited it down to 85k in a fortnight. Other books I've outlined, and others not. It seems to even out. I hate editing, so I do it quickly. Conscientiously, mind; I just want it done and out of the way because it's so boooooring...

Inkblot said:

. But that would be a poor approach for most writers. Especially for most writers of literary fiction. Especially for most writers of literary fiction who actually want to get published.

Click to expand...

Wow.
Just.
Wow.

Generalising, much?

I don't write literary, I write genre. I do take a while over edits but that's because that's the way I work. I haven't Scarlett's skills. I've seen her first drafts and I seethe with envy at how polished they are. But don't ever assume that genre writers don't spend a lot of time over the manuscripts because we ain't writing 'literary'.

Added to which, never assume that genre writers don't branch out into literary under a different name.

PS: Thanks for the compliment, firepants.

scarletpeaches said:

But then, I don't write literary fiction. Merely genre...

Click to expand...

Yeah. Merely genre. You pleb.

I write literary genre, so there!

I could never query before the book was finished, by the way, because then what if the publisher or agent says "send the whole thing!" and I say "oops..."? It's like I was expecting rejection all along. Which I am, but let's not be so honest about it.

I just want to add that I love literary novels. Ishiguro is my favouite writer, bar none.

But let's assume for a moment that I also wrote literary. I couldn't see myself taking months and months to edit one book. That's not the way I write, no matter what the subject. I know what needs to be written, I write it, I know what needs to be edited, I edit it. Job done. Agonising over a piece of work doesn't give you a better end result. It just means it takes you longer. I'd rather move on to the next book, getting the first one out there and earning money meanwhile.

So no, saying that literary is more complex, or takes more editing, or is deeper or harder or more taxing to write than genre is just bullshit. Sorry. It just is.

My style of editing isn't dependent on the subject matter. It's dependent on nothing more than this fact: that's how I bloody well work.

scarletpeaches said:

So no, saying that literary is more complex, or takes more editing, or is deeper or harder or more taxing to write than genre is just bullshit. Sorry. It just is.

My style of editing isn't dependent on the subject matter. It's dependent on nothing more than this fact: that's how I bloody well work.

Click to expand...

100%

. But that would be a poor approach for most writers. Especially for most writers of literary fiction. Especially for most writers of literary fiction who actually want to get published.

Click to expand...

I wish to call bollocks on this.

Are you an outliner, Scarletpeaches? I definitely find if I don't have a good enough outline my editing ends up taking longer and I do way more wholesale rewriting as opposed to the tidying and tightening up the plot and making the prose more effective type of editing. It's my theory that outliners do less rewriting than discovery writers.

If you don't outline and you still produce a draft which needs minimal editing, then I'll just be over here in the corner hating you, okay?

Click to expand...

You'll have to hate me then. I rarely rewrite (before subbing at least). I edit, I polish. I don't rewrite the story (one exception, when it became clear that I was crap at inventing believable future tech so I turned a future dystopia into a dark fantasy one. Still, the plot didn't change. Just teh details, so it was still tweaking, not really rewriting)

I don't get the perception that literary fiction is more "complex" than genre. Look the sheer amount of work George R. R. Martin, for example, must have put into building the history of his fantasy world. I struggle to think of a literary novel that comes close to that. Or when we say "complex" are we referring to the prose on a sentence by sentence basis, as opposed to the more, I guess you'd say mechanical?, complexity of genre?

Complexity of prose, complexity of plot, worldbuilding etc. It matters not a jot. I've been accused of being 'almost literary' and 'very complex' (not my words, reviewers/other writers)

What matters is the writer*. THAT is what determines the editing process.


*ETA: As someone just mentioned to me - it comes with practice, and that's very true. But every writer is different.

I get the impression that people who take months to self-edit or years to write are spending days and weeks away from the project, perhaps letting their unconscious mull it over while they're off doing something else that is not writing that book. Or maybe that's just how I need years to churn out a book...

^ What all of them lot said.

And I don't think it's anything to do with luck on SP's, Julia's or anybody else's part: it's working hard and learning how to do it. Same as everything else.

I hate you guys. HATE YOU.

larocca said:

I get the impression that people who take months to self-edit or years to write are spending days and weeks away from the project, perhaps letting their unconscious mull it over while they're off doing something else that is not writing that book. Or maybe that's just how I need years to churn out a book...

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with that approach either.

You use the approach that works for you. It doesn't mean it's 'better', that your story or prose is more complex or anything except that it's your way of doing things.

If you want to change that, well that's different, but if it works for you, and you're happy with then that is all that matters.

Editing is a function of the writer, not the book. Effective editing has nothing to do with the time it takes, but all to do with what you do with the time. And it does get easier with practice, same as anything else.

I hate you guys. HATE YOU.

Click to expand...

Ah, I love the smell of hatred in the afternoon

I wrote LAZARUS in a single very long day, so every rule has its exceptions.

(No, I didn't edit it that fast. )

IdiotsRUs said:

Complexity of prose, complexity of plot, worldbuilding etc. It matters not a jot. I've been accused of being 'almost literary' and 'very complex' (not my words, reviewers/other writers)

Click to expand...

It's quite sad that those things would come in the form of accusation. It can be done poorly, but a complex novel or one with literary merit are general positives in my mind.

No-one's saying they aren't. The accusation came when it was suggested an author wouldn't be able to edit fast if their novel was literary or 'complex', suggesting by extension that mine are not, given that I rarely spend more than a week editing.

Inkblot said:

scarletpeaches, you're lucky that that snappy approach to editing works for you. But that would be a poor approach for most writers. Especially for most writers of literary fiction. Especially for most writers of literary fiction who actually want to get published. Few editors these days have the time to do the editing they used to do. They're not likely to take on a project unless it's already pretty close to perfect. And, for most writers, a single draft and a ten day edit won't get them there.

Again, more power to you if that's how you work. I just wouldn't recommend your method to any novices out there.

P.S. I love editing. It's my favorite part of writing. To each his own.

Click to expand...

Editors still edit. Most who say they don't have never actually seen a copy-edited manuscript. Once you do see one, you wonder how an editor could possibly edit more than they still do. But no manuscript needs to be nearly perfect before it sells. If this were the case, bookstores would be nearly empty.

Seriously, I think you need to study the writing methods of more successful writers. Literary fiction is no harder to write than any other form, and certainly isn't any better written on average than genre novels.

Many of the best writers out there write very fast, and with minimal editing and only a clean up second draft. This has always been the case, with literary writers, and with genre writers.

I've always believed the test of time is the only test that really matters, and if you look at the writers who have lasted, who are still being read from centuries past, starting with Shakespeare and working right up until the last century,the one thing almost all of them have in common is speed. They wrote fast, they were usually pretty darned prolific, and they didn't need several drafts and intense editing to get there.

It may be counterintuitive, but I see no evidence at all, certainly not from looking at successful writers, that slow writing, with several drafts, and equally slow, intense editing, makes any difference at all in final quality.

Good writers write well. They can't do otherwise. Good storytellers tell a good story, and those good at making characters come alive on the page do just this. They can't do otherwise.

They tweak, they polish where needed, they may or may not need a second draft, but they generally need very little time, and very little tweaking and editing.

Inkblot said:

scarletpeaches, you're lucky that that snappy approach to editing works for you. But that would be a poor approach for most writers. Especially for most writers of literary fiction. Especially for most writers of literary fiction who actually want to get published. Few editors these days have the time to do the editing they used to do. They're not likely to take on a project unless it's already pretty close to perfect.

Click to expand...

This is rather insulting, actually. My style gets called literary (not by me, as I was intending to write sci-fi, but whatever works) and that has no bearing on how fast or slow I edit. With the exception of trying the MS out in another POV, the edits take me about week. I don't write short, either, my final draft is over 100,000 words.

Writing time for me can range anywhere from three weeks to a year for a novel, but the edits are quick. It has nothing to do with genre, style or anything else.

*stamps foot*
*makes pouty face*

John_W said:

It's quite sad that those things would come in the form of accusation. It can be done poorly, but a complex novel or one with literary merit are general positives in my mind.

Click to expand...

Lol. I was just amusing myself with the 'accusation'. They weren't said as accusations, far from it. I was trying not to blow my own trumpet, as it were

Jamesaritchie said:

Literary fiction is no harder to write than any other form, and certainly isn't any better written on average than genre novels.

Click to expand...

Much as I hate to agree with JAR, but I agree with JAR.

I love literary novels, bt I don;t think they are any harder to write (this may depend on your natural style though. If you're writing against your natural style, it might well feel harder. That's why I write to my natural style)

Cyia said:

This is rather insulting, actually. My style gets called literary (not by me, as I was intending to write sci-fi, but whatever works) and that has no bearing on how fast or slow I edit.

<snip>
It has nothing to do with genre, style or anything else.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

scarletpeaches said:

And the first draft of my first novel was 148k so I guess I win the word count pissing contest.

Click to expand...

IdiotsRUs said:

225k.....

Then I learned that fantasy doesn't auto equal doorstopper Took 8 weeks to cut to 110k.

Click to expand...

350K...

Handwritten.

People write at different paces and edit at different paces. Junot Diaz took 10 years to write The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, which he has described as "5 years of writing and 5 years of editing," and he won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle and bazillions of other awards. The next year's Pulitzer Prize winner, Olive Kitteredge by Elizabeth Strout, took her two years from start to publication. And so it goes. Who's better, multi-draft, years-in-the-making-of-each-work James Joyce or one-draft, stream-of-consciousness William S. Burroughs? You pays your penny and you takes your choice.

Slow editors aren't "too slow." Fast editors aren't "too fast." Everyone needs to find their own rhythm.

That said, querying before you have even finished a first draft is a recipe for disaster (or barely averted disaster due to a bunch of all-nighters, as in James's cautionary tale ). Don't do it. There is nothing to gain from it and much to lose.

firedrake said:

Wow.
Just.
Wow.

Generalising, much?

I don't write literary, I write genre. I do take a while over edits but that's because that's the way I work. I haven't Scarlett's skills. I've seen her first drafts and I seethe with envy at how polished they are. But don't ever assume that genre writers don't spend a lot of time over the manuscripts because we ain't writing 'literary'.

Click to expand...

I never assumed that genre writers don't spend a lot of time on their manuscripts -- that's why I was surprised to hear a genre writer say that all she needs is one draft and a quick edit. (And even more surprised to hear her say that she doesn't always outline, either.) Clearly, that works for her. And maybe it works for other genre writers, too -- I don't know.

But I don't see it working for most literary fiction -- especially in the absence of a detailed outline.

Jamesaritchie said:

Editors still edit. Most who say they don't have never actually seen a copy-edited manuscript. Once you do see one, you wonder how an editor could possibly edit more than they still do. But no manuscript needs to be nearly perfect before it sells. If this were the case, bookstores would be nearly empty. . . .


I've always believed the test of time is the only test that really matters, and if you look at the writers who have lasted, who are still being read from centuries past, starting with Shakespeare and working right up until the last century,the one thing almost all of them have in common is speed. . . .

They tweak, they polish where needed, they may or may not need a second draft, but they generally need very little time, and very little tweaking and editing.

Click to expand...

If good writers need very little tweaking and editing, then why do you state above that when you see a copy-edited manuscript, "you wonder how an editor could possibly edit more than they still do"?

Many authors do a lot of editing before the book gets to the copy editor -- especially these days.

Also, I'm wondering how anyone could know how many drafts Shakespeare wrote of his plays. Over the years that they were performed, I would assume that they went through many iterations.

Cyia said:

This is rather insulting, actually. My style gets called literary (not by me, as I was intending to write sci-fi, but whatever works) and that has no bearing on how fast or slow I edit. With the exception of trying the MS out in another POV, the edits take me about week. I don't write short, either, my final draft is over 100,000 words.

Writing time for me can range anywhere from three weeks to a year for a novel, but the edits are quick. It has nothing to do with genre, style or anything else.

*stamps foot*
*makes pouty face*

Click to expand...

Cyia, do you also only write one draft, and often without an outline?