When does editing become too much?

gwendy85 · Jan 25, 2010

I've finished my manuscript (Historical) for some time now and after several months of setting it aside, I've now began to edit and revise, taking out unnecessary words and subplots to bring it down from 150,000 to 120,000 words (at the most).

I was fairly happy with it until someone pointed out, after comparing my original prologue with the current one, that I've become too concise and technical in my writing (short sentences, no more flowery words) and that I've lost the original 'voice' I used in the original prologue (yeah, and we were discussing just the prologue).

FYI, there are three years between the original and the current prologue, and the original story started out as pure romance. Now, it's genre is historical with a touch of romance. Not sure if this is relevant, but it might be.

Looking back in to my writing, I fear I really am getting a bit to technical, though another part of me is saying it's okay and that overly flowery words are not necessary for historicals. But could it be that my desperation to bring down the word count has caused me to put on purely editor glasses and discarded my view for prose? When exactly does editing become too much?

Appreciate the input. I'm getting confused....

shaldna · Jan 25, 2010

i think when it starts to intervere with the novel itself, or the tone and feel of it.

Definately when the language starts to become the first thing you notice then there's too much editing.

LuckyH · Jan 25, 2010

If you’re editing just to bring down the word count drastically, then that would be wrong, and if you look at the average length of historical novels you will find that 150,000 words is quite acceptable.

It also depends on where you learnt your editing skills, the internet has spawned much information in this field which is abysmal. The ‘how to write’ brigade are publishing books which are padded with useless information – just to make their own word count.

And while some writers may need extensive editing from an initial, rough and ready first draft, others write differently and need much less editing.

I think people get confused by literary writing and flowery writing, and it can be confusing, and it’s a matter of personal taste; a couple of hours ago I watched a sunrise, a classical test of flowery writing. It wasn’t the sudden appearance of a red ball in the sky; it was a slow change of the early morning light to signal the optimistic day head, reluctantly pushing the clouds aside.

That last sentence could be edited many different ways, even by me – if it was thrown open to debate, or subjected to a desire to reduce the word count, it could be made to disappear altogether. As it was written with ‘forum’ haste, it probably wouldn’t survive long.

I wish I could be more specific. Buena Suerte.

Maxinquaye · Jan 25, 2010

You have two types of dilemmas when you write: art-dilemmas, and craft-dilemmas.

Art-dilemmas is where you should be in firm control, and if necessary step aside from one of the many "thou shalt nots" that flourish among writers. If you start to meddle with art-dilemmas in a way that isn't suitable, you start to removing the uniqueness from the work.

Craft-dilemmas are things where all new writers should be humble and realise that they need to continually learn, and relearn, and remodel. Here falls the "rules" about purple prose, passive voice, -ly-disease.

If the uniqueness of your work is being affected, step back and really question whether you should follow the "rule".

hitmahip · Jan 25, 2010

Hi Gwendy,

three years between the original and the current prologue

Another thing to think about is that you're writing abilities might have changed vastly over the intervening years. What you were happy with three years ago might strike you as inferior now.

I suppose you need to examine your own editing technique. Were you cutting words for the sake of making it shorter or were you editing with an eye for making it better? Unless someone (someone being agent or publisher) told you it was too long I'd hold off on editing to a word limit.

How does it read to you now? You said that it felt a little mechanical, but did you feel that before your friend's comment?

I do know your pain, I eviscerated nearly 60000 words from my manuscript. It's never a simple job. It was made easier by the fact that the first draft really wasn't that good and it was pretty easy to say what needed the chop.

Good luck.

kaitie · Jan 25, 2010

I'm not sure if this really helps, but I found that once I hit a certain point, I started putting words back in. It just stood out to me that they were necessary and sometimes I had cut more than I should have. I do tend to think (in a lot of cases) concise is better, and I definitely used to have a problem with just being too flowery with my language. Now I write much tighter in general and I prefer it. Like the last post (welcome!) said, you might have improved and it's possible that cutting some of the flowery aspects is a good thing. I know for me the time to stop was when I reached the point of, "If I do this one more time I'm going to go completely insane." That might just be me, though.

lucidzfl · Jan 25, 2010

There is some fantastic reading on Dean Wesley Smith's blog where he cautions against editing.

He has a post entitled "Book as an event" where he explains that people put too much emphasis on finishing a book. Writing, GOOD writing, comes from the subconscious. You have to trust yourself to write the first draft right. Over-editing polishes the work to a voiceless, shiny stone without personality. If the first draft isn't good enough, with a bit of trimming and shoring up, set it aside, and write something else.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 25, 2010

I agree with Linda when she says that editing for length is not the right way to go about it. You edit for perfection, you cut for length. You cut characters, subplots, events, etc.

But you shouldn't destroy sentences in editing. With sentences, shorter is not better, better is better.

Libbie · Jan 25, 2010

Write the book that you feel is correct and real. Don't cut back on your prose just because you think you should. I did that with the first two versions of my book (also a historical!) and I hated it. I couldn't even like the book, let alone love it, even though I loved the story itself.

When I finally let go of my inhibitions and wrote the way I wanted to write, it was instant lust for my book. I was very enthusiastic about it and finished a 110,000-word ms in three months. Don't let "the way it should be done" dictate how you do it.

Instead of cutting accessory words, cut out unnecessary subplots, characters, and scenes where nothing happens to advance the plot. You can do this easily by writing a synopsis that is around 1000 words (no more than 1500), and then cutting absolutely everything from the manuscript that you didn't include in the synopsis. Using this method (suggested by my genius agent), I cut 30,000 words out with ease and no pain.

jennontheisland · Jan 25, 2010

If you've gone from genre romance to epic historical with romantic elements (hey! those are what I write!), a switch in voice isn't unreasonable. Jack Whyte and Bernard Cornwall read very different than Bertrice Small.

J D Dallmeyer · Jan 25, 2010

I absolutely experience this problem. If I write a full novel then go back and try to edit the prose in a separate pass the whole becomes mechanical. It's just not as good. I can edit the big things -- take out scenes to tighten plot and such -- in a revision pass. But, I have to get the prose right first time through.

I don't have a solution, just sympathy.

lucidzfl · Jan 25, 2010

Editing kills your writers voice. Write it good the first time. If it isn't good enough the first time, write something else and learn from your mistakes.

Phaeal · Jan 25, 2010

Revision to reduce word count, done well, will simultaneously strengthen voice.

Take out the boring words and leave the hard-working ones. Just excising the do-littles like very, even, just, kind of, somewhat, will drop most peoples' word counts.

Substitute one strong noun or verb for every weaker adjective-noun or adverb-verb combo.

In action and description sequences, you can often combine sentences, dropping words, gaining impact. If you use three elements to describe one thing, choose one of those elements, the most essential, and lose the others.

"Size" modifiers are often extraneous. Does it really matter that the room is big or the table small? Many times, no.

Look very closely at dialogue. Characters like to get chatty -- you can often trim several exchanges from a passage. Lose attributions not absolutely necessary. Especially "thought" attributions. If you're using a close first or third person POV, we'll assume all things thought or sensed are thought or sensed by the POV character. For example, "Scott thought that the bottle was filthy" could be simply "The bottle was filthy."

Every time you find a flabby sentence or paragraph, work hard on making it shorter but more vivid. I think you'll surprise yourself.

LuckyH · Jan 25, 2010

I’ve thought some more about the dilemma of over-editing, spurred on by the more recent posts.

Although I write every day, my writing doesn’t flow every day, and I know when it doesn’t and stop the serious writing. Conversely, when it flows, I refuse to stop until I’m forced to by outside influences.

When it flows I don’t even have time to think, I even do without coffee, and sometimes it’s so intense I only just make it to the bathroom in time.

Of course such writing needs editing, and the difficulty is always the same: are my spontaneous words any better than the carefully thought out ones? I think they are.

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 25, 2010

lucidzfl said:
Editing kills your writers voice.

This is just nonsense for many writers. For some writers, it's absolutely true.

If you ever see an exhibit of manuscript drafts by famous writers, you'll see that some great works are the result of careful editing and revision, and some great works just spill right out.

There is no "one size fits all" approach to writing.

lucidzfl · Jan 25, 2010

IceCreamEmpress said:
This is just nonsense for many writers. For some writers, it's absolutely true.

If you ever see an exhibit of manuscript drafts by famous writers, you'll see that some great works are the result of careful editing and revision, and some great works just spill right out.

There is no "one size fits all" approach to writing.

I'm not saying not to edit. Its of paramount importance to at least re-read what you've wrote. Choosing the right word, rewriting sections, etc, to my mind, is overkill.

Editing is a fantastic example of diminishing returns. When I hear about people who've spent months editing and rewriting their stories, I can only sigh and think, you could have written a whole new MS with that time.

Your first book probably won't sell anyway. Neither will the second, or third. New writers should stop obsessing over "getting it perfect" and focus on the next story.

IMO.

Also, I am not published so much of what I say is hogwash.

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 25, 2010

lucidzfl said:
I'm not saying not to edit. Its of paramount importance to at least re-read what you've wrote. Choosing the right word, rewriting sections, etc, to my mind, is overkill.

As someone who a) went to grad school in English and spent a lot of time looking at famous authors' original manuscripts; b) is a published novelist herself; and c) is a freelance editor, I am going to say that though this may well be true for you, it is far from universally true.

Different writers have different approaches. I agree that many people use editing as a tool of perfectionist procrastination. But if you've ever seen, say, Fitzgerald's first three drafts of The Great Gatsby and how poorly they compare to the published version, it becomes clear that some great works emerge only through multiple edits.

lucidzfl · Jan 25, 2010

IceCreamEmpress said:
As someone who a) went to grad school in English and spent a lot of time looking at famous authors' original manuscripts; b) is a published novelist herself; and c) is a freelance editor, I am going to say that though this may well be true for you, it is far from universally true.

Different writers have different approaches. I agree that many people use editing as a tool of perfectionist procrastination. But if you've ever seen, say, Fitzgerald's first three drafts of The Great Gatsby and how poorly they compare to the published version, it becomes clear that some great works emerge only through multiple edits.

Its interesting you mention Fitzgerald. The man only wrote 5 novels over the course of his life. This is not enough, unless you're a mega-super-ultra-best-seller to live on.

If you want to write "The Great American" novel and only write one thing every five or so years, and you're willing to bet on the incredible, gigantic commercial success of each book, go ahead and wre-rite that MS a gazillion times.

I will be happy to churn out books at a rate that keeps food on (or near) the table.

ETA: Fitzgerald was also consistently financially broke.

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 25, 2010

lucidzfl said:
If you want to write "The Great American" novel and only write one thing every five or so years, and you're willing to bet on the incredible, gigantic commercial success of each book, go ahead and wre-rite that MS a gazillion times.

The first three drafts of The Great Gatsby were not only not classics, they were unpublishable.

ETA: Fitzgerald was also consistently financially broke.

That wasn't because he edited. It was because he was a compulsive spender and an alcoholic.

Look, you don't know what you're talking about. There are people for whom substantive editing is a good idea and people for whom substantive editing is a bad idea. Part of being a writer and building a career as a writer is to learn what works FOR YOU.

lucidzfl · Jan 25, 2010

IceCreamEmpress said:
The first three drafts of The Great Gatsby were not only not classics, they were unpublishable.

That wasn't because he edited. It was because he was a compulsive spender and an alcoholic.

Look, you don't know what you're talking about. There are people for whom substantive editing is a good idea and people for whom substantive editing is a bad idea.

The point I'm trying to get across, rather than debate semantics, is that the "Write a book every 4 or 5 years" isn't financially feasible for most people.

job · Jan 25, 2010

gwendy85 said:
I was fairly happy with it until someone pointed out, after comparing my original prologue with the current one, that I've become too concise and technical in my writing (short sentences, no more flowery words) and that I've lost the original 'voice' I used in the original prologue (yeah, and we were discussing just the prologue).

My advice is to work with the current draft. Don't look back. Don't make comparisons. Don't sit there and second guess yourself.

Do you like this voice that you've got on the page? Does it create the atmosphere you want? Does the texture suit the subject matter? Is the pacing -- controlled by the density of the writing -- going along at the clip you want?

If you've got 30,000 words to drop, you're probably going to have to make structural changes. It's bite-the-bullet time.

As to whether the style is just too spare . . . maybe put something down in SYW and ask whether the voice is effective.

C.M.C. · Jan 25, 2010

Editing becomes too much when there's no benefit left to it. I know it sounds like a cop-out, but it's the truth. Some books need to be ripped apart several times to fix problems, and others cry out to be left alone. The art is knowing which type your book is.

year90ninezero · Jan 25, 2010

I'm on my third and likely final pre-sub edit of a novel, and boy does it make a difference! That's just me though, and that's just this particular book. I can see the benefit to limited editing on certain projects. Kerouac wasn't into it. Not that that means anything.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 25, 2010

I'd read a bzillion first drafts by great writers, as well. The first drafts are usually very different than the finals, but I've seldom seen one that was bad, or unpublishable, other than lack of very simple editing, unless teh writer intended to do multiple revions and intentionall wrote a lousy first draft.

I do think there's a huge difefrence between editing and revisions, but either way, no one takes five years to write a novel unless they're slacking off for at least three years.

I don't think there's really a one size fits all, but I do think multiple revisions harm more novels than they help, and they're pretty much always caused by the belief that you should do multiple revisions, so the writer doesn't try to get it right the first time through.

lucidzfl · Jan 25, 2010

Jamesaritchie said:
I'd read a bzillion first drafts by great writers, as well. The first drafts are usually very different than the finals, but I've seldom seen one that was bad, or unpublishable, other than lack of very simple editing, unless teh writer intended to do multiple revions and intentionall wrote a lousy first draft.

I do think there's a huge difefrence between editing and revisions, but either way, no one takes five years to write a novel unless they're slacking off for at least three years.

I don't think there's really a one size fits all, but I do think multiple revisions harm more novels than they help, and they're pretty much always caused by the belief that you should do multiple revisions, so the writer doesn't try to get it right the first time through.

Damn dude, your post needs editing! Did you stumble over here from the alcohol thread?

When does editing become too much?

~*Proudly Mestiza*~

The cake is a lie. But still cake.

Oh, really?

That cheeky buggerer

With great power comes

Back from the dead

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

the world is at my command

Back from the dead

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

Oh, really?

Hapless Virago

Back from the dead

Hapless Virago

Back from the dead

Hapless Virago

Back from the dead

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Archetype

following a secret path

Back from the dead

~Proudly Mestiza~