The "Perfectionism" thread caused me to think. Is thise even the right word. It implies that we can all come up with a perfect work. And that's clearly not the case.
A perfect work is beyond the level of a classic. Tolkien's work wasn't perfect, but were classics. Even die hard fans will debate whether Tom Bombadil adds or detracts from Lord fo the Rings. Though this is written brilliantly, a minority would call his work perfect.- wanting less description of flowers and wanting more inner dialogue.
The question is simple- what are you striving for? The answer will dictate how much you will break down your novel and do re-writes. Again, look at how much Tolkien poured into LOTR- which was one story broken into three books. It took well over ten years to complete. There were also countless revisions and major changes.
If what you pour into your novel will dictate the level of your story- and it's going to be the difference between 1-2 years to publishing and 10-15 years, what will satisfy you?
1) Getting published. That is the bottom-line threshold. For a natural writer with a good idea, this could be completed in less than a year- as long as the idea is marketable.
2) Making a living- which means writing fast, leaving little time for incessant tweeking. In a sense, you become the fastfood of writing- volume volume volume. You've given up thoughts of a bestseller or classic, because you need to keep generating guaranteed income.
3) Making the bestseller's list. (Takes much more thought, many more revisions. May take several years)
4) Writing a beloved classic that will be timeless. (You may have to revise countless times, throwing away plotlines and characters. This could take many years- more than a decade ala Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
PLEASE SEE ADDENDUM: Re- In my haste to phrase the above question, I now realize that some of my awkwardly worded phrasing was offensive. I'm going to add an addendum to better explain what I meant to say- instead of rewriting this
A perfect work is beyond the level of a classic. Tolkien's work wasn't perfect, but were classics. Even die hard fans will debate whether Tom Bombadil adds or detracts from Lord fo the Rings. Though this is written brilliantly, a minority would call his work perfect.- wanting less description of flowers and wanting more inner dialogue.
The question is simple- what are you striving for? The answer will dictate how much you will break down your novel and do re-writes. Again, look at how much Tolkien poured into LOTR- which was one story broken into three books. It took well over ten years to complete. There were also countless revisions and major changes.
If what you pour into your novel will dictate the level of your story- and it's going to be the difference between 1-2 years to publishing and 10-15 years, what will satisfy you?
1) Getting published. That is the bottom-line threshold. For a natural writer with a good idea, this could be completed in less than a year- as long as the idea is marketable.
2) Making a living- which means writing fast, leaving little time for incessant tweeking. In a sense, you become the fastfood of writing- volume volume volume. You've given up thoughts of a bestseller or classic, because you need to keep generating guaranteed income.
3) Making the bestseller's list. (Takes much more thought, many more revisions. May take several years)
4) Writing a beloved classic that will be timeless. (You may have to revise countless times, throwing away plotlines and characters. This could take many years- more than a decade ala Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
PLEASE SEE ADDENDUM: Re- In my haste to phrase the above question, I now realize that some of my awkwardly worded phrasing was offensive. I'm going to add an addendum to better explain what I meant to say- instead of rewriting this
Last edited: