still editing . . .

[dbskyler]

Well, I definitely have a fic coming, but I don't know yet when it'll be ready to post. It could be as soon as tomorrow, or it could be quite awhile off still. Which brings me to a hopefully interesting question -- how do you know when a story is ready to be posted?

Let me tell you how I do it. First off, I edit as I write. I type a sentence, then edit it immediately if I decide I don't like it. Sometimes this leads me to go back and edit the entire paragraph. Sometimes I will then end up getting rid of the entire paragraph (a little trend I like to call "writing in reverse" -- sometimes the more I write, the fewer words I have in the document!)

Once I get to the point where I have a finished draft, I start doing read-throughs. The trick here is that I have to let the story "rest" in between so I can come at it from a reasonably fresh standpoint. (Not entirely fresh, of course, but fresher.) I read it through and edit it, then I let it rest again. Then I read it through again. If I find myself editing it some more, it's not ready yet -- I have to rest it again, and do another pass. The story is ready to post when I do a read-through and don't find anything else to change.

I don't remember how many times I've read through this latest fic, but it's been at least four passes I think. I thought it might be ready to post tonight, but instead I made some pretty major changes to it again. It's possible that I'll read it tomorrow and love every word, or it's possible that I'll go "what was I thinking?" and hack at it some more.

Anyone else edit like this? If not, what do you do instead?

Comments

[thisbluespirit]

Well, everybody writes in different ways, and that's part of why it's fascinating to discuss. The one thing I've learned from taking authors round to schools is that none of them write in the same way. The only thing that is consistent about being a successful writer, it seems, is: that you want to write, you write words down, you finish things, and you're prepared to rewrite, edit and take criticism, and rewrite again. And there are probably one or two random geniuses in the world who don't need to rewrite, or something.

(I think, like Pitry, I can have quite a (seemingly!) complete idea in my head at times, although I do more of the working out in notes - and it's just a sort of rushing to try and capture that? Because it goes away really fast sometimes.)

Which is why I'm wary of all those 'How To Be A Writer' books. Or anybody who stands up saying that it has to be done in their way, really. Clearly, your inner Editor knows what she's done, even if she's irritating at times.

Yes, I have to print things out to edit them properly, too - or at least, I do if they're longer. I find I pick up errors far more easily once I've got it printed out. Except for very short things. When I think of how much I do edit - which is more than I realised - it's depressing how many stupid things & errors remain, especially in longer things!

[pitry.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear, how I hate the "how to be a writer" books. It's like, there are some basics you can teach, of course, some things that are universal, but for something like writing, what's the point in everyone writing the same? Not to mention that after a certain point when you are proficient enough in writing, you discover all those rules are there to be broken - it's always a question of knowing how to break them and why you break them, I think.

/tirade against "how to write" books.