Do you ever feel like you are killing a story when attempting to revise? The revision process is very tough for me. A lot of the time I feel like I am pulling the story in a different direction when I revise or maybe the story is pulling me. Either way what I think will be small changes end up being pretty big sometimes. Is this normal? With the one I just finished... let's just say it seems like a whole new story more than a revision. So, am I revising wrong? That may sound like a stupid question, but when revising takes longer than the first draft did I have to wonder if I am doing something wrong.
What am I doing?
- Thread starter gettingby
- Start date
- Status
Quite honestly, while I may have to polish a story, and while I have "revised" a story by adding a couple of sentence at the beginning, and two more at the end, I really do not revise short stories. I just don't.
I remember Isaac Asimov once saying that if his stories were basically good enough not to need revision the first time through, they never would be good enough. He didn't mean no second draft, he did always do a second draft, he just meant that second draft was just a polish, and a bit of tightening.
I came to believe the same thing. I work as hard as I can to make the story right the first time through. I did even before I started the practice I now have of editing/rewrite each page as I go until it's perfect.
If I do the job right, the story is going to need no revision at all. Sometimes a little polish, a bit of tightening, and maybe a rewrite a clunky line of dialogue, but no revision. It will either be good enough to interest and editor as is, or with a couple of editorial suggestions, or nothing I can do will make it right.
I just don't believe in revisions. Better to get it close enough not to need revisions the first time through.
I remember Isaac Asimov once saying that if his stories were basically good enough not to need revision the first time through, they never would be good enough. He didn't mean no second draft, he did always do a second draft, he just meant that second draft was just a polish, and a bit of tightening.
I came to believe the same thing. I work as hard as I can to make the story right the first time through. I did even before I started the practice I now have of editing/rewrite each page as I go until it's perfect.
If I do the job right, the story is going to need no revision at all. Sometimes a little polish, a bit of tightening, and maybe a rewrite a clunky line of dialogue, but no revision. It will either be good enough to interest and editor as is, or with a couple of editorial suggestions, or nothing I can do will make it right.
I just don't believe in revisions. Better to get it close enough not to need revisions the first time through.
I agree. It's completely different with novels, but with short stories I do not tinker with them much after the first draft is down.
I feel free to revise any of my writing, no matter the length. I'd never get anything done if I felt like I had to perfect each paragraph as I went along.
Sometimes you'll have one revision, and sometimes five, there is really no way or knowing. It has to feel right, but at the same time, a lot of people, myself included, could potentially revise for years. So you have to set some limits.
As is often said, "writing is really editing" and that's true in many cases. But don't be afraid of it. What you are talking about happens. It's normal. And though, based on what I have read of Asimov it's abundantly clear he didn't care much for editing, if it worked for him it worked. And if revising works for you, go for it. But feeling like things are changing during a revision can be a healthy sign that you have not become too attached too early.
Sometimes you'll have one revision, and sometimes five, there is really no way or knowing. It has to feel right, but at the same time, a lot of people, myself included, could potentially revise for years. So you have to set some limits.
As is often said, "writing is really editing" and that's true in many cases. But don't be afraid of it. What you are talking about happens. It's normal. And though, based on what I have read of Asimov it's abundantly clear he didn't care much for editing, if it worked for him it worked. And if revising works for you, go for it. But feeling like things are changing during a revision can be a healthy sign that you have not become too attached too early.
Editing is not revising. It simply isn't. Everything needs edited, and I edit as I go, but they simply are not the same thing. Nothing is ever perfect, but Asimov aside, I could list a hundred, or probably a thousand, writers who basically work the same way, and successfully. I honestly haven't encountered many successful writer who have to do true revisions with story after story.
A subsequent draft or two may need polishing, may need some rewriting here and there, may need tightening, but not a revision.
Asimov's fiction is edited about as well as editing can be done. It's no coincidence that his Foundation trilogy was voted best science fiction trilogy ever, or that Nightfall was voted best science fiction short story ever.
It's also seems clear that revising is not working for the OP, so he needs another approach.
Nothing is ever perfect, but there's nothing at all wrong with doing your best to get a story as right as possible on the first pass. My exoperience is that while there are very rare occasions when revision is teh right choice, crap almost always remains crap, no matter how many times you run it through the washer.
I sell just about everything I write, and have for thirty-five years. Editing, yes. Every good writer edits, tough it's as easy, or easier, to edit as you go than to wait until you have a finished draft, but editing and revision are not the same thing, and revision is something that's best avoided.
I know the Internet teaches that the first draft should be bad, but these are the words of a s=fool, and taking time to get it pretty darned close to right on the first pass is the best way to avoid needless, and most often useless, revisions.
Bolding is mine.
My question to you is, does the revising make for a stonger or more compelling story? Or, do you feel like you're just "fiddling" with it instead of making it better?
I await a list then of the hundreds of writers who never need to revise anything.
While you are at it, I'd like you to point out the exact place where I said that editing and revising are the same thing. Clearly you must think i did so because of your need to educate me as to the definition of those two words. Being literate, I am aware of what they both mean without your assistance, thank you.
And while anything can happen, it's quite irresponsible to declare revisions unnecessary simply because a few authors you happen to like allegedly did away with them. It's also arrogant and quite blind to the reality of writing to suggest that revisions are somehow harmful or worthless. If whatever it is you're trying to peddle is never revised, fine. Congratulations on your financial success. But there are writers who may choose to be more careful with their subsequent drafts, and may wish to follow the wise advise to not be afraid of said process.
Nobody less than Hemingway said that the first draft of anything is *&^%. Again, while there are exceptions, I kind of like to think he knew far more of what he was talking about than anyone of us on this forum does.
As far as Asimov, to say it's as edited as well as possible...well, that depends on what level of insomnia you have when you pick up his writing I suppose.
This is a really interesting question. I would love to see what you mean by pulling your story in another direction. Going back and looking at a couple of you older posts I saw that you are a journalist. I have the utmost respect for journalism, my father and stepmother are war correspondents. Do you have the same feeling when writing as a journalist? My dad and stepmother like to say, "sometimes you have to throw out the baby." Something you really love in a story may not fit with what you're writing, so it has to be tossed. Or maybe set aside for another story. They are the ones who edit me, rough crowd.
I'm not really sure how drastic of a pull you're meaning. i am going to bypass the editing and revising thing. I'll use a painting analogy. Lets say you have painted a picture of a car, and in the process of touching up the painting you notice the shape of the car reminds you of a cat lying down, so you change the painting to a cat. There's no reason not to change it, but if you keep seeing new and more interesting things, it could get out of hand and you'll never have a finished piece. And you could start to second guess your ideas.
Or, while touching up the painting you add some shadows which sort of change the feel of the painting. It becomes less upbeat. It may seem way off from where you started, but it's still a car.
Personally I edit everything, even my posts. i just deleted a whole paragraph, because I went off on a tangent. Those damn journalists are looking over my shoulder all the time.
In the long run, the painting of the cat may just be a better painting.
I'm not really sure how drastic of a pull you're meaning. i am going to bypass the editing and revising thing. I'll use a painting analogy. Lets say you have painted a picture of a car, and in the process of touching up the painting you notice the shape of the car reminds you of a cat lying down, so you change the painting to a cat. There's no reason not to change it, but if you keep seeing new and more interesting things, it could get out of hand and you'll never have a finished piece. And you could start to second guess your ideas.
Or, while touching up the painting you add some shadows which sort of change the feel of the painting. It becomes less upbeat. It may seem way off from where you started, but it's still a car.
Personally I edit everything, even my posts. i just deleted a whole paragraph, because I went off on a tangent. Those damn journalists are looking over my shoulder all the time.
In the long run, the painting of the cat may just be a better painting.
Last edited:
I'm the type of writer who agonizes over every word, whether it's in a short story or a novel or a post on AW. As I'm writing a novel, I tend to edit/revise the previous chapter or so before starting in on the new stuff. That way, I'm going over my last few days of work with a fine-toothed comb while the coffee kicks in.
That being said, the only work of mine that's landed in a paying market was conceived, written, edited, and sold in a six-day period. So go figure. But I still edit obsessively.
That being said, the only work of mine that's landed in a paying market was conceived, written, edited, and sold in a six-day period. So go figure. But I still edit obsessively.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Website
- kris-ashton.wix.com
Short stories never need revising? Absolute nonsense.
It all comes down to the individual writer. If you're someone who likes to jot down endless plot points and character notes so everything is in perfect order before you type a single word, then sure, probably no revision necessary. I'm one of the other kind: I like to have a vague storyline in mind and then just let the story grow organically. Once it's finished, I go back and rejig the plot or massage the theme. In other words, revision.
To directly address to the OP's question: If the 'organic' method isn't working for you, maybe you need to adopt a more 'planned' approach?
It all comes down to the individual writer. If you're someone who likes to jot down endless plot points and character notes so everything is in perfect order before you type a single word, then sure, probably no revision necessary. I'm one of the other kind: I like to have a vague storyline in mind and then just let the story grow organically. Once it's finished, I go back and rejig the plot or massage the theme. In other words, revision.
To directly address to the OP's question: If the 'organic' method isn't working for you, maybe you need to adopt a more 'planned' approach?
This is bunk. Mr Ritchie tosses around the name Asimov, so I will counter with a name of my own - Joseph Heller. He revised, over and over and over, one chapter of his debut novel for an entire year. It was the only chapter he worked on during that time, and it is about five pages long in book form. I'm sure you have heard of this novel - Catch-22. Conversely, you probably have only heard of James A. Ritchie from his occasionally aggressive, always condescending posts on this board. He apparently sells everything that he writes, although a quick search of the database for the only bookstore chain in Canada reveals that he has zero books available. So: he may sell, but he must not sell well. Joseph Heller, on the other hand, has sold over 10 million copies of that Catch-22 novel I mentioned.
PS: Does this mean that Heller is right and Ritchie/Asimov are wrong? No. It means that different methods breed success for different people. Don't allow Mr Ritchie's posts, which suggest he is absolutely right about everything, dissuade you from doing any measure of revising if you would like to do so.
Is it possible you are still a beginning writer who has not yet found your voice? For me, I haven't written very much - one novel and a few poems and short stories - and I know I haven't found my voice entirely. Like you, revising can cause my stories to morph into something new. I accept it as part of the process - not so much of revising, which I hope won't always be so drastic, but of figuring out this writing thing in general, and of figuring out what genres/age groups/POVs/tone/moods/etc. I prefer to write in.
For now, I welcome that because it means I'm doing the hard work of finding my voice / style /brand etc. I don't think I'll succeed much as a writer until I do that narrowing down, so the more I struggle now - even through messy revisions - the more I hope to write with ease later. Some of the comments you received from writers who don't have much trouble revising could have to do with the fact that they found their voice - perhaps so long ago they don't even remember any struggle to find it. But there are solid, best-selling authors who say some books were just more difficult to nail down, requiring more significant revisions, with no relevance to how long they'd been writing. I expect the same is true of short story writers. Some parts of writing eventually become second nature, but I believe there will occasionally be a rascally story that just won't be tamed easily.
Is it possible you are still a beginning writer who has not yet found your voice? For me, I haven't written very much - one novel and a few poems and short stories - and I know I haven't found my voice entirely. Like you, revising can cause my stories to morph into something new. I accept it as part of the process - not so much of revising, which I hope won't always be so drastic, but of figuring out this writing thing in general, and of figuring out what genres/age groups/POVs/tone/moods/etc. I prefer to write in.
For now, I welcome that because it means I'm doing the hard work of finding my voice / style /brand etc. I don't think I'll succeed much as a writer until I do that narrowing down, so the more I struggle now - even through messy revisions - the more I hope to write with ease later. Some of the comments you received from writers who don't have much trouble revising could have to do with the fact that they found their voice - perhaps so long ago they don't even remember any struggle to find it. But there are solid, best-selling authors who say some books were just more difficult to nail down, requiring more significant revisions, with no relevance to how long they'd been writing. I expect the same is true of short story writers. Some parts of writing eventually become second nature, but I believe there will occasionally be a rascally story that just won't be tamed easily.
This is a very interesting point about voice.
Certain writers have a distinct voice. Even when they write from different kinds of characters (Stephen King's Night Shift, the one that became Shawshank Redemption, the short story "Quitters Inc") where each is so different yet King's style is evident. When he describes somebody, the visual, to me, is immediate and the connection with the character is immediate. Once, he described a salesman (I think) and said his briefcase sat like a faithful dog that was asleep, that it didn't do much but you could count on it, it was always there. I'm not remembering well but when I read that, I thought of a tired salesman traveling door to door, and that the setting was one of "oh, another day".
Ray Bradbury is another distinctive voice. He has a very "unpacked" style of writing, very flowing.
I remember struggling at the littlest things when I first started writing. Does this sound right, is this proper? Sweating over stuff that really impeded developing voice.
Now, I set up my character (brave, stubborn etc.) and then write from those emotions, but it's still my voice. So someone else writing the same character will write differently, it's their voice.
Yes, I absolutely agree. People who can write as if so very easily very likely have found their voice.
I think this is why it's important to freewrite, or simply write and write. It's like getting to the inside voice that is hidden under our layers of what and how we should behave/act/speak which causes us to bury our "unique me/voice" but once you find it, it flows.
Here's to writing and more writing.
Very true, and an excellent reminder. I don't do enough free writing but when I have, it's usually led to exciting discoveries. Making a note to make that a bigger part of my writing routine.
I did an exercise with a group. Plan was to wake up, grab pen and paper, before getting into the routine of washing/getting coffee etc. and just write. The point was to be in that limbo state of not-year-full-consciousness and write.Write any word, every word, no stopping, no thinking, no canceling of words. I tried this.
Didn't really work for me because holding a pen for a certain length of time is tough for me. And of course, since I wake up with a dozen things already in full motion around me, I didn't very well in this exercise.
Now I do it this way. I type on my laptop, at any time when I can sneak some time. Just type, no backspace, no thinking, no delete. I don't even bother to look at it when I'm done.
I've discovered that it does help. Like a sort of purge, maybe release. I don't think I see eureka-I've-done-it kind of results, but when I compare what I used to write and how I write now, I'm writing better now, or, maybe I should say, I'm writing from a deeper level, no longer just relating a story.
I need to freewrite today!
Didn't really work for me because holding a pen for a certain length of time is tough for me. And of course, since I wake up with a dozen things already in full motion around me, I didn't very well in this exercise.
Now I do it this way. I type on my laptop, at any time when I can sneak some time. Just type, no backspace, no thinking, no delete. I don't even bother to look at it when I'm done.
I've discovered that it does help. Like a sort of purge, maybe release. I don't think I see eureka-I've-done-it kind of results, but when I compare what I used to write and how I write now, I'm writing better now, or, maybe I should say, I'm writing from a deeper level, no longer just relating a story.
I need to freewrite today!
Everyone writes differently. Me, I don't have much in the way of revision after my first draft. Polishing and editing, tons. Revision, not often and then only on the odd problem segment. That doesn't mean I take tons of time to revise each chapter as I go along or outline it to death either. This is the way it works for me. That doesn't mean that other people write this way.
OP, you don't seem to feel the finished product after your revision is necessarily improved by your revision. That makes me think that you are suffering from a different problem that to revise or not to revise. Your problem may simply be not knowing when the art is finished. The same thing can happen with painting. When is it done? Tinker too much and the picture is ruined.
What helped me both in painting and writing is learning to take the time to take a step back. We often get too close to the art while we're working. When painting, I'd step away from the picture for a day or two, and then look at it again. In writing, I need more time. 2-4 weeks away from it before doing a reread. A little distance might help you see when it's done.
OP, you don't seem to feel the finished product after your revision is necessarily improved by your revision. That makes me think that you are suffering from a different problem that to revise or not to revise. Your problem may simply be not knowing when the art is finished. The same thing can happen with painting. When is it done? Tinker too much and the picture is ruined.
What helped me both in painting and writing is learning to take the time to take a step back. We often get too close to the art while we're working. When painting, I'd step away from the picture for a day or two, and then look at it again. In writing, I need more time. 2-4 weeks away from it before doing a reread. A little distance might help you see when it's done.
There are no stupid questions, but the answer to this one will have to come from you and your characters. What do they have to say about the changes?
- Status