Does revision ever take you longer than writing?

For me, short stories either work or they don't. If they do, then I get some comments and make another pass or two to smooth out any rough spots. If they don't, I don't sweat over them trying to force them to work. Writing takes anywhere from a few hours to maybe two days. Edits take maybe an hour or two.

But I'm primarily a novelist, and write short stories to blow off steam. I don't aggressively pursue publication--I'm thrilled when I sell a story, but if a particular piece doesn't get accepted after 3 or 4 tries, I'll shrug and trunk it.

I draft messy. I'd say drafting is 20% and revision is 80% for me. I work and work and work my drafts. Others have a different process. This process works for me. I produce my best work this way.

My revisions varry, but they always feel intense to me. Sometimes they're just adding some more emotion to something, but that doesn't really change all that much. I do notice I'm able to focus on doing them longer the more stuff I revise, and can also pinpoint my normal problems a bit easier. I write short, so most of my problems stem from that in one way or another and I'm always prepared to need to fill things in and just add to depth.

Writing clean on the other hand is an issue, first drafts mean that things like how a name is spelled may be changing throughout the draft until I settle on a certain spelling. I'm still getting my footing and deciding little things like that at first. I do try to not make too much extra work for myself however and limit my errors as much as possible while writing. Doesn't always work, but I'm slowly getting there.

gettingby said:

I'm wondering how you know if your short stories work or not.

Click to expand...

I get feedback. Most of my short stories are written for a rolling contest on another site--once one contest ends, the winner sets the parameters for the next and so on for about ten years now. Some of my stories tank, some of them win, some don't win but get a good handful of votes. I can see by the end of the critique and voting periods just how well a particular story works for others. And I think I've learned quite a bit about my strengths and weaknesses.

I have some that I thought worked when I wrote them, but since none of them were ever published, I think a little differently now. And I usually try way more than three or four times. But it seems like you have had more success than I have had.

Click to expand...

I might aim lower, too. Most of my credits have been online magazines that didn't pay much or at all. I just looked on Duotrope (back when it was free--I'm looking at The Submission Grinder now) and found places I thought were good fits for particular pieces. I also tried venues where friends had been accepted if I thought we had similar styles.

Only always. The next book I have coming out took 3 weeks to write the first draft. 3 years to revise. And it's not that I'm a messy drafter. The first draft was clean. It just wasn't good enough.

The biggest change I've ever made in my short stories are switching the main POV. I've written stories that begin in places where I hadn't intended, I've changed dialogue a bit, I've moved background information so it doesn't take from the action, etc. The time it takes for revisions often depends upon how fast my betas get back to me. My last short, for an anthology contest, took roughly a month. Not something I'd like to make routine.

Revision takes me much, much, much, much longer than writing.

gettingby said:

I don't know my ratio. Maybe I am 40 percent to write the first draft and 60 percent revision. I think that is a generous ratio I am giving myself. I'm probably a little closer to where you are at. How do you keep from getting discouraged when your work requires this kind of revision? Part of me thinks it would just be easier to write new stories, but that doesn't change the fact that those stories will probably need the same type of revision.

Click to expand...

I don't know... I love revising. I burn out more on drafts than revision.

I do a ton of revising most of the time. So much so that it becomes a "new book" sometimes.

Of course there are rare occasions when the first draft is almost close to the final... but that is rare for me.

Unless I see where a short revision can make a story fit a particular magazine, I never revise a short story until and unless an editor asks me to do so, and then I have clear instructions on how to do it. I believe revising a story without having an editor ask me to do so is self-defeating. It makes me work on something old, and with no certainty at all that revising will make it better, rather than spending time on writing something new.

Heinlein's Rules again. They work.

I really don't believe anything takes very many actual writing hours. People say, "It took me three months to write that short story", or they say, "It took me seven years to write that novel", as if they sat at the computer for three solid months, or for seven years, writing all the while.

There's always some variation, but the truth is the person who spends three months writing a short story usually spends no more time actually writing it than the person who takes a week, or the person who take two days, and the person who takes seven years writing a novel seldom spends more time actually sitting down and writing than the person who writes his novel in two months.

If revising a short story takes more time than writing it, that's fine, and normal, as long as it doesn't drag on for a ridiculous amount of time.

Heinlein was right in saying never to change anything, unless an editor asks you to do so. This does not mean you should submit the first draft, but it does mean that if you see where a second draft or a complete revision, will help, really help, then get it done, and send the story out. Once you do send the story out, don't touch it again, don't even read it again, until an editor asks for changes.

He sad that a story is either close enough to professional level for an editor to either buy it or ask for changes, or it isn't. If it isn't, trying to revise or rewrite is not going to help. Only writing new story after new story will get a writer to the point where he starts writing professional level stories.

From my experience as an editor, he was not only write, writers would save themselves, and editors, countless amounts of time if they just believed this. In my thirty-six years of experience, I have yet to see a writer turn a bad story into a salable story. By definition, a bad story is one no editor thinks it's worth asking for a revision.

I can't tell you how often writers ask to resubmit a story because they've completely revised and rewritten it. Editors learn very quickly that such stories are almost never any better, and are often worse, than the original. This is why guidelines say not to resubmit a story unless asked to do so.

gettingby said:

... I'm curious as to how intense the revision process is for you guys ...

Click to expand...

I'm "in process" right now with a story. I wrote it (2000 words) a couple of weeks ago, let it sit for a few days, corrected obvious errors, liked it, felt like I got most of the story, felt like the story I got had good depth, but also felt unsure if I got enough of it. Does "most" = "enough"? I think thoose variables move for me, thus that answer also moves for me. I wish there was a way to mathematically pin it down.

I sent the story to a close writer friend/poet/MFA grad, who returned a positive review with a few observations on areas that confused or didn't ring well for him. I thought on his observations, felt they were well targeted, and a day later sat down to revise.

I'm now on my fourth revision attempt. I've woken in the middle of the night two nights in a row with insistent ideas about the story. This morning I decided I'd switch tense (past to present) mid-story, after the 1st person narrator wakes from a (presumed) short nap. I don't know that will stick when I'm done and maybe I'll end up throwing that idea out and starting clean on a fifth revision. But I'm hopeful this will be the final one. I feel like I'm closing in on getting the all of the story, but, of course, I won't know that until I'm finished.

Past experience instructs me to not be too hopeful. Often I revise my way out of the original story and then I end up just putting the whole multi-draft file mess aside. Read it every few months to see if I know how to fix it. But I don't. So I have stacks of stories that are close to being good stories but not close enough for me.

Maybe this time will be different. This time I'm not looking for the missing part of the story, only to write it better. Hopeful that what is missing will wash up on shore in the process. I won't look for it though. Not this time.

Best wishes on finding your process. If not the optimal process than at least an effective one.

My first drafts are super messy, so revision always takes longer. I basically write the first draft to get the hang of my characters and an idea of the plot and story structure, and then I sit down with the draft, keep the shiny parts, and completely start from scratch with the rest of it.