Take me through the revision process

Hi, Chang!


Well, it sort of depends on which "editing" Victoria was referring to. There are two types -- self-imposed editing, and editor-imposed editing.

For self-imposed editing, it's usually in anticipation of a deadline, such as submission to an editor. Most writers do several edits after a draft is written. Very few author write a finished product the first time around. It's often easier to sit down and edit in one fell swoop instead of risking chopping the job into small pieces. You can gain as many errors as you eliminate that way.

For editor imposed edits, here's part of an article I wrote about how the process works:

************


An editor will take several weeks (in the case of an electronic book) or several months (in the case of larger print publishers) after receiving the manuscript to create an "edit letter." Whether it is sent by e-mail or appears in your mailbox on letterhead, the effect is the same. During the time that the editor has been reading the book, they have been making notes about small or large things in the plot, or the character's personalities, or the ending that bother them. Sometimes, it's as simple as realizing that the heroine hasn't eaten a single meal or slept for three days and, inexplicably, isn't tired or grumpy. That's not realistic! If a reader is to believe that the heroine is a live person, then some mention has to be made. It can be merely adding the words, "After lunch, Betty drove . . ." to the beginning of a paragraph to convey this, or having the heroine realize that she hasn't eaten and is shaky. The edit letter will suggest where in the plot Betty having lunch would fit.

Other times, the editor will mention a missing or wrong fact. This happens a lot in historical novels. Small details like the hero using a stick match to light a lantern in 1608, when matches didn't exist until 1820, can make or break the believability of the plot. Readers of historicals are known to be picky about their favorite time period, so RESEARCH MATTERS! An editor will want these small details fixed because the quality of the details doesn't just reflect on you as the author -- it also reflects poorly on the publisher for not catching the error.

Once you receive an edit letter, it is your obligation -- BY CONTRACT -- to correct those items which the publisher feels are problems within a certain time period. That time period depends on what is written in your contract, but is usually a month or two. While you can choose not to fix them, the publisher can likewise choose not to put their name on your book. Of course, that doesn't mean that you need to give up your integrity just to be published. If you disagree with a plot suggestion and have a good reason why the plot twist or element absolutely MUST be there, discuss it with the editor. The editor might not have noticed the reason, and might agree with you. This is the single most important thing about editing: TALK TO YOUR EDITOR! Don't make snide comments to your critique group about the "stupid" letter, or say that your editor "just doesn't understand." Words can quickly get to the wrong person and they can sting. Most of all, don't think of your manuscript as "your baby." It's a product, and the edits could well make it infinitely better than you could have ever imagined it to be. That's the beauty of a professional editor.

Now, once you have made all of the edits you plan to make, the editor will pass the book to the "copy editor" for grammar, spelling and fact checking. This happens a month or so later, and you'll need to have the copy edits back in 30-60 days. Hopefully, there will be little to do after the editor finishes, but at some publishing houses, the content editor doesn't handle the line edits, so there might be lots to do. There could be grammar, composition and spelling edits, and with historical or ethnic pieces, you might have to justify a turn of phrase or word usage as being "in period." Again, you will be expected to make the changes and return the completed manuscript to the publisher in a set time period. Occasionally, the copy editor will catch a plot error that neither you or the editor caught. They generally will only mention the concern, and leave it to the editor and author to decide what to do with it. We had such an occasion when a briefcase was emptied and put in a car trunk, only to reappear in the hero's hand a chapter later! Oops!


"After lunch, Betty drove to the police station to talk to Lieutenant Smith."

can become:

"After lunch, Betty drove to the police station to
Lieutenant Smith."

You see what happened? The words, "to talk" accidentally got dropped out, because the typesetter grabbed the words after the second instance of the word, "to." This is very distracting to a reader, because they have no idea what words are missing. Did the author mean "to talk" or "to kill" or "to make love to"? It will eventually become moot, because Betty talks to Lt. Smith in the next chapter, but the reader will always wonder. If it happens too often, the reader will become frustrated and might not finish the book. So, make SURE that when you review the galleys, you look for things like this!

********
Does that help?

Wow, I don't know about anyone else but after dealing with Publish America and their joke they call editing, I can't wait until someday I can have an editor take that much time and care on a manuscript of mine! That is so exciting.

changling said:

What is involved in the revision process?

E-mail with notes from the editor? Suggestions? Want it back tomorrow?

What you to change, in this direction? Expound on this section?

Click to expand...

My July marathon was editor-imposed editing. However, I always use this as a final round of me-imposed editing; also, I have a couple of trusted beta-readers to whom I give the ms. once it's finished, and I usually have comments from them to incorporate too. So I'm doing a number of different jobs at the same time, and if I'm given a tight deadline, as I was this time around, it's a very intense process--especially given my sleep problems. I'm a very exacting self-editor; it takes a lot of tweaking for me to be satisfied.

My experience with editorial suggestions is that it's a process of give and take. There'll be suggestions that will make you slap yourself on the forehead and say "Why didn't I think of that?" and which you will enthusiastically embrace. There will be suggestions that you feel neutral about--on your own, you probably wouldn't have done whatever it was, but it's no big deal to accomodate the editor's preference. There will be suggestions that you really don't have a choice but to undertake, whether you agree with them or not--such as a directive to cut the book's length, which is often made for economic reasons. And there will be things that you feel are wrong, but which can be negotiated. For instance, in one book my editor wanted me to get rid of a character she felt was extraneous; but I felt the character played an important, if subtle, role, and wanted to keep her. We discussed it and agreed that I'd shorten some of the character's scenes, and also add some material to anchor the character more firmly in the action. Talking about it made her see why I wanted the character in there, and made me see that I hadn't done a good enough job of realizing that character.

Sometimes, also, you may feel you have no choice but to refuse a suggestion. As long as you can make a reasonable case for not doing whatever it is the editor wants, you probably won't be forced--it's your book, after all. However, you need to be careful when you take a stand like this. First off, the editor is there (ideally, that is) to help you make your book better, and she may well be right. There've been a number of times when I've had a "not in a million years" reaction to an editorial suggestion, only to realize, on reflection, that it was a good idea after all. Secondly, you shouldn't cultivate an adversarial relationship. If you reject the editor's suggestions out of hand, you will not just possibly be hurting your book--you will be hurting your relationship with your editor, which is not a smart thing to do. So if you do decide to say no to a major editorial suggestion, you need to think it through and make a case for yourself--and you need to be sparing with your nos. It really is a process of negotiation.

I confess to being completely unable to think of my books as product. They are all my babies.

- Victoria

Revision

changling said:

Victoria stated in another thread.



What is involved in the revision process?

E-mail with notes from the editor? Suggestions? Want it back tomorrow?

What you to change, in this direction? Expound on this section?

Thanks, Chang

Click to expand...

I doubt it's the same for any two writers, or even for any two novels by the same writer. So much depends on how much or how little work the novel needs that it's iimpossible to say any two revisions will be the same. I tend to write pretty clean novels. Writing a perfect novel is impossible, but I work very hard to make sure the editor doesn't have to work at all, and so that I won't be asked to rewrite in any serious way. I also generally get the grammar and punctuation correct, so the editor needs to do very little in this area.

I do receive "edit" letters, and they're usually very short, and point out any problems the editor has. The last one I received had five points, three of them dealing with places where the editor wasn't certain what a sentence meant. And I should have caught all three myself, because at least one sentence was pure gobbledygook. It made no sense at all, and I couldn't even figure out exactly what I meant to say there. The other two points dealt with lapses in common sense where I had a character doing things that he couldn't possibly be doing because of something I'd written earlier in the novel. I LOVE it when an editor makes such a catch.

The edit letter for the previous novel, however, had seventy some points, though most of them were just asking me to verify this, or double check that.

I've never been asked to do a real revision on a novel, meaning I've never had to do any rewriting on story or plot, etc, so my novels usually go almost straight to the copyediting process.

This usually involves an editor going through and tightening things just a bit, maybe removing or shortening any unnecessary paragraphs, and condensing two sentences into one here and there. My grammar and punctuation are checked, and with the exception of an occasional typo, I get really ticked at myself when an editor finds a grammar or punctuation error.

We'll have an enchange at this point, by phone or e-mail, about whether or not to keep this line or that, and whether or not a piece of dialogue is needed. Sometimes the editor gets her way, sometimes I get mine. But if I feel strongly enough about a line to argue for it, editors have always let me keep it in. I can only think of one instance where I didn't get the final say, and that was because another editor goofed.

But getting the final say doesn't always mean overruling the editor. Sometimes it means going along with the editor, even tough I could overrule her if I wanted to. About three fourths of the time, an editor convinces me she's right and I'm wrong, and any editor who can do this deserves to get her way. But I always have the final say. If an editor can't convince me her way is better, I keep my way. This is how it should be, and I've found very few editors who would have it any other way.

Most of the rest is fact check material, which mostly means a few notes asking me whether or not something I say in the novel is historically acurate, and sometimes asking for source material.

The galleys are the most important for me. This is the last chance to make sure a manuscript is error free before the reading public sees it.

Anyway, the point is that I doubt there is any "usual" revision process. Just what happens between the time you finish a novel and the time the novel is published depends almost entirely on the novel itself. If it's the right length, if you get the story and the characters right, if you write tight, if the grammar and punctuation are good, and if you don't make any major mistakes that will entail serious rewriting, the process is very fast and very easy.

The more work the novel needs, the longer and more complicated the process becomes. But either way, most of the editors out are are great, and I've never found one who was difficult to work with, or who didn't work hard at what she does.

All my edits are done through email with my editors. The Word docs have "track-changes" turned on. I'll either accept or reject the changes, and we also use "comments" for notes. It works very well. The back and forth does get tiring after a while, and by the 15th round, I got really sick of my own ms. (I talked about some of this process in my blog).

Once the final changes are accepted, the ms. goes through the proof process. Then the galleys. And hopefully, we can find all the little typos, etc. that we we missed, before it goes to print production...

Self-editing is part of the writer's life.

Jamesaritchie said:

I tend to write pretty clean novels. Writing a perfect novel is impossible, but I work very hard to make sure the editor doesn't have to work at all, and so that I won't be asked to rewrite in any serious way. I also generally get the grammar and punctuation correct, so the editor needs to do very little in this area.

Click to expand...

I envy you James. I seem hopelessly unable to see my own flaws (and I know I have them) until someone points them out, or if I do see them I can't seem to fix them and often need suggestions or guidance. I hope to someday get to your point of being able to extract the flaws from my work.

Flaws

icerose said:

I envy you James. I seem hopelessly unable to see my own flaws (and I know I have them) until someone points them out, or if I do see them I can't seem to fix them and often need suggestions or guidance. I hope to someday get to your point of being able to extract the flaws from my work.

Click to expand...

Edit the work of other writers. I'm not at all big on receiving critiques. I greatly prefer critiqueing my own writing, and letting an agent or editor take over from there, but editing the work of other writers, critiqueing other writers, even published ones, seems to help me find the flaws in my own work. I honestly think critiqueing helps the critiquer more than the critiqued.

Being an editor also helps, I think. The first time I actually worked as an editor, about three hundred years ago, I took the job only because I wanted to experience that side of writing, and it amazed me how much reading through a slush pile helped my own writing.

The pay wasn't much, and I'd sometimes have to pay a writer or two out of my own salary, but the experience was invaluable.

icerose said:

I envy you James. I seem hopelessly unable to see my own flaws (and I know I have them) until someone points them out, or if I do see them I can't seem to fix them and often need suggestions or guidance. I hope to someday get to your point of being able to extract the flaws from my work.

Click to expand...

This is something that comes with practice--both the expertise to do it and your confidence in your expertise. I felt exactly the same in the beginning. Over the years I've gotten more and more self-reliant. With the technical stuff--structure, pacing, and prose style--I don't feel any need for assistance any longer. And while I still want input on the big-picture items--mostly, whether I'm accomplishing what I'm trying to accomplish with theme and character--and often go round and round with plot points ahead of writing them (my husband is my infallible plot sounding board), this is usually more in the way of honing and fine-tuning than guidance.

I don't mean to sound egotistical ("I'm such a fabulous writer, I don't need anyone's help!"). But self-editing is a skill, and like good prose style, improves over time if you are diligent about it. Plus, it's always felt important to me to be as self-reliant as possible in my writing. No writer can be fully objective about her own work, and a second eye is invaluable--I'm lucky enough to have two trusted beta readers, who give me tremendously useful advice and criticism. But the ideal for me has always been to produce a book unaided, and that's what I'm striving toward with each book I write--even though I know that it is probably an unachievable goal. No matter how accomplished you become, there is always more to learn.

- Victoria

I have helped others in critiquing and editing and such but I tend to find things I have already managed to fix in my own work and move above. If a writer is better than I am, I do not see their flaws either. I don't know if I just haven't learned about the flaws, but it seems once they are pointed out to me and I learn how to fix/avoid them, I do. But its the learning part that is the hardest.

I guess it is as you say, experience teaches all things. I'm glad to know other writers start out with the same problem and it does improve over time. I have a couple of beta readers but unfortunately they aren't any better at critiquing and editing than I am lol. They have nice things to say but can't really point out my flaws either. And I need the flaws pointed out. So I guess its back to banging my head on my desk, hoping I can see something new.

Sara

Revision

Adding my four cents to what Victoria said, learning to do it yourself is something that takes time and practice, but I think it should be the goal of every writer. We all make stupid mistakes in our writing at times, but when you can't see most of what you're doing wrong, odds are you won't get enough right for an editor to help. Editors can and do help a lot, but no editor can do it all for you. The editors job is really just to spot major goofs, and to help with a polish. An editor can't be the writer.

I wouldn;t say there are no writers who need an extra set of eyes. There have been some pretty good and famous writers who never showed their work to anyone, and who wouldn't let editors touch it. But I think such beats are incredibly rare.

What I can do myself is get the grammar and punctiation correct. I can also write good sentences without help. I can write to length, I've always been able to do this, and I can tell a story that doesn't have plot holes. I can write good dialogue without help, which I think is one real difference between writers who have problems selling and writers who don't. I can also create realistic characters without help. I can do pace, flow, mood, and tone without help. I can write good description without help. These are, I think, all part of being a good writer.

The biggest help I need from an editor is that final bit of tightening and polish that can make a huge difference. But if you want an editor to put a shine on something, it has to be something that willl shine if it's rubbed a bit. You can't shine rust.

What I can't do, my huge blind spot that I know of no cure for, is being able to judge whether or not something I write has overall quality. I can see the mistakes just fine, but I can't see teh quality of the story itself.

I find it impossible to tell whether or not something I've written is original enough to be any good, or if it is original enough, whether or not it's something an editor will want to buy, or that readers will enjoy as a group. This is where I have no objectiveity at all. I've never found a beta reader who could tell me this, and this is where I find the help of a good agent or good editor invaluable.

I might feel otherwise if I'd never had agents and editors to help, but for whatever reason, I've always written just well enough to make editors and agents work with me. Even with early rejections, editors would almost always critique my short stories, and when they did, I listened. Good editors, I've found, are right about ten times as often as I am. When a good editor critiques a story, the wise writer doesn't argue, especially early in his career.

I think the best advice I could give a new writer is that when an editor takes the time to comment on one of your stories, don't even think about argueing. Do not get mad. Do not for a moment think that editor is an idiot, no matter what he says about your writing. Just shut up and do like he says.

George Scithers critiqued an early story of mine, pointing out all sorts of things I could have done better, and should have done better. I kept every one of his points in mind, and made sure no story I wrote after that had the same problems.

I firmly believe that being able to edit your own work is part of being a good writer. So is being able to see the flaws in your own work. I doubt any of us are perfect at this, we all make mistakes, but you're only allowed so many in a story before an editor can't help you.

I really do believe that studying the work of other writers is a huge help in this area. Not just reading it, but tearing it apart and looking at every piece. I think Shelby Foote had it right when he said every book should be read at least twice. Read it the first time for pleasure, and then, if you liked it, read it a second time, right away, for technique.

Being objective about your own work isn't easy, but I do think it's more than possible. It's a matter of learning how to do it.

I get it now!

Jamesaritchie said:

I honestly think critiqueing helps the critiquer more than the critiqued.

Click to expand...

Is that why my writing teacher freshman year in college had us critique each other, and my AP English teacher had us tear apart the likes of Hamlet and Crime & Punsihment? Wow. It all makes sense now. Since endeavoring to write my own novel I find myself picking apart books I am reading. Good to know it is helping me as a writer. THis is why we should always read (which goes to another thread around here somewhere.)

I think Editors have a lot more power in the US, and expect to have a lot more input in the finished book, even to asking for a different ending or to have characters cut. There's an assumption in the UK that the author ultimately knows their own work best, and that the editor is there to make that vision clearer, not to give it their own touch.

My editor sends me a detailed email and then calls me for a chat so we can decide between us which bits need to be done. He usually points out areas that he feels I haven't explored enough, places where I could add something, characters he'd like to see more of, different ways I could use certain elements. I either agree or not (and usually I do, because he's a very talented and astute person) but if not then I tell him why not and that's it.

Then when I've done any structural work he does a line edit for me that picks the ms apart on a technical level (phrases that are too close to a cliche, awkward sentences, places where he'd like more or less detail). Again, I do the bits I agree with and make notes where I think I have a good reason for not doing so. There's never, ever been any suggestion that I have to do what he's suggested - and it's always a suggestion, not a matter of him telling me what's best. I don't think I could work with someone who acted like that.

The day I think of my work as a 'product' is the day I give up writing. Publishers may have to think that way, but I certainly don't.

Zolah said:

I think Editors have a lot more power in the US, and expect to have a lot more input in the finished book, even to asking for a different ending or to have characters cut. There's an assumption in the UK that the author ultimately knows their own work best, and that the editor is there to make that vision clearer, not to give it their own touch.

My editor sends me a detailed email and then calls me for a chat so we can decide between us which bits need to be done. He usually points out areas that he feels I haven't explored enough, places where I could add something, characters he'd like to see more of, different ways I could use certain elements. I either agree or not (and usually I do, because he's a very talented and astute person) but if not then I tell him why not and that's it.

Then when I've done any structural work he does a line edit for me that picks the ms apart on a technical level (phrases that are too close to a cliche, awkward sentences, places where he'd like more or less detail). Again, I do the bits I agree with and make notes where I think I have a good reason for not doing so. There's never, ever been any suggestion that I have to do what he's suggested - and it's always a suggestion, not a matter of him telling me what's best. I don't think I could work with someone who acted like that.

The day I think of my work as a 'product' is the day I give up writing. Publishers may have to think that way, but I certainly don't.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's really any different in the US, it's more, I think, that new wirters are unlikely to question a point. I've never had an editor say "This is the way it's going to be, and that's that!" There's always a discussion.

But sometimes the ending does need to be changed, and sometimes a character does need to be cut. That's just a fact. No matter how good the writer is, sometimes the ending does fail, and sometimes there are characters in a book that shouldn't be there.

The job of any good editor is to make sure the best possible book is pubished, and this should be the desire of the writer, as well.

And no matter how you think about it, a book is a product, at least if you intend to sell it. But product or not, there is good, there is bad, and there is a poorer and a better way of doing things, and the writer is often the last person who knows this about his own novels.

The real difference I see between UK editors and American editors is that UK editors are much more likely to reject books that US editors will fix. Which is probably another way of saying the same thing you're saying. If a UK editor really hates an ending, or thinks a book has too many characters, etc., that book is likely to get rejected. In the US, the editor is more likely to work with the writer to change these things, assuming everything else about the book works.

But ultimately, an editor in the UK has exactly the same power an editor in the US has, and that's the power to buy or reject. That is the ultimate power.

Self editing is a major goal of mine. The learning how is the hard part. Which is where I seek other people's help because I learn with every critique and I am able to better tune my books. I do agree it will take a lot of time and work and practice, but I can't wait until I get there, I think it will make the editing process not so miserable. There is nothing worse than knowing something is wrong with your story but not knowing what it is or how to fix it. (at least for me)

I will stick to it. I strive to make sure I don't have grammatical and spelling and puncuation errors, but lack of experience and education does not help me there. I hope to become more proficient in all areas of writing, and I look forward to the journey.

Sara

Jamesaritchie said:

The job of any good editor is to make sure the best possible book is pubished, and this should be the desire of the writer, as well.

Click to expand...

That is my number one desire, and it's why I have frequently worshipped at the feet of my editor when he has noticed something I missed or helped me to make a difficult decision. Your point about UK editors rejecting books that aren't right may be true, but I see this as a positive thing - I wouldn't want to be taken on as anyone's DIY project. You need someone who can get what you're trying to say and help you to polish away the rough bits so it shines through, rather than try to 'fix' a story, characters or ending. One man's dross is another man's jewel.

And (this being a rant on a separate subject altogether, unrelated to the editing thing, but to a piece of terminology which I do not like) I know that a book is a 'product' in the publishing world. That's why it's a business, a business I happen to enjoy very much. I'm professional and courteous to those I work with, I keep to my deadlines, I do my research and I strive to make my work the best it can be. But I'll never see the worlds and characters that I create and I love as a product, nor should I be expected to. Writing is the thing that keeps me alive, that makes me want to live and I'd have been dead in my teens if I didn't have the world of my imagination to retreat into. When the story leaves my desk it may become a product, a unit, a block of recycled paper, but in my heart it will always be real and alive and true. I'm a writer. That's just the way I am.

P.S. But on the plus side, I'm one of those freaky authors that loves re-writing and revising, so I have no problems during the editing process anyway.