Editing/Revising

Good question. I had put aside a short story, let it sit for a month, went back to it, saw the need for minor revisions (extra word, spelling), was satisfied with it, and submitted it. A few days later, by email, the editor kindly pointed out that I left out a very important bit of background to the story. I mentally gave myself a slap upside the head. I should have picked it up. So it does happen. And yes, even when I have two other (objectively-thinking) people read it, they sometimes miss something important. It's usually the background of a character that is meaningful to the story. And I've been writing and submitting manuscripts for over five years!

Flaws

JenNipps said:

This is actually a cross-discipline question/comment and could be posted anywhere, but since I'm working on a short story, it goes here.

Why is it, do you think, that we can't (OK, I can't) see the problems in our own work? Even a year or two after the fact? Sure, I can spot big things, but it's the little things that add up to big inconsistencies that I often have trouble with.

But it's just with my own work.

Click to expand...

I think waiting a month, and then reading the story out loud is the best way to spot small flaws in your own writing.

But spotting such things is both a knack, and a matter of experience. If you can't find a way to be objective about your own work, spotting such things can be extremely difficult.

On the other hand, if they really are small problems, and if everything else is right, an editor will surely point them out. Editors do not demand perfection in the first round, they only demand stories that can be made "perfect" after they've done their job, which is large pointing out such flaws.

So the best way to find such problems, and to fix them, is often to submit them and let the editor do her job.

I have volunteered in a fourth grade classroom to help teach writing and I have found one of the big problems is that kids think that the reader knows everything that they know. so if they are writing about their family, they don't clarify family relationships, because these relationships are obvious to them. To some degree I think many writers have this problem. It's in your head, so it doesn't seem necessary to put it on the page.

I know what you mean, Jen. I had just written an article for an ezine and I checked it thoroughly for typos, grammar, etc. several times and used the spell checker. It was fine. What I forgot to check was the title! That's when I had to write the editor to change it to something that made more sense. Glad she couldn't see my red face.

Tish Davidson said:

To some degree I think many writers have this problem. It's in your head, so it doesn't seem necessary to put it on the page.

Click to expand...

Oh, definitely, I mean, it's always a bit surprising to realize the reader isn't telepathic, isn't it?

JenNipps said:

Why is it, do you think, that we can't (OK, I can't) see the problems in our own work? Even a year or two after the fact? Sure, I can spot big things, but it's the little things that add up to big inconsistencies that I often have trouble with.

Click to expand...

Have you ever observed yourself reading? I did that in high school, mostly out of desperation. Little errors (and may the muses bless me enough, not the big ones) are a very common part of my act. Drove me crazy when I’d lose marks for checking the wrong box on a multiple choice test. Anyway, when you read, you do not spot each letter and put them together like you're taught. You take in the first few letters, recognize the word, maybe skip a few letters to the end to make certain, and move along. Between the first letter, the shape of the word, and the context, recognition is a synch, and so we get into the habit. (In fact, I remember now, I've read that this is a scientifically tested trivia. As long as the first and the last one or two letters are correct, the guts of a word, if the letters are equal, doesn't matter at all.) Well, and this is with a stranger. Your own writing is even worse, because it is so familiar. Synapses are snapping into place everywhere, context is crystal clear and solid, and then there's the simply fact that you're hoping to find zilch and zero. The psychological aspect of this shouldn't be taken for granted either. What you read it’s you. The construction is typical of you, it rings to you. All this together makes it very easy to tune out with your eyes and read the story almost entirely from memory and intuition, even if you think you've forgotten it. As a result, mistakes are apt to slip through.

Reading aloud is a good trick, because it adds a new paradigm and keeps you on your toes. However, I've found that once you get used to it, you can do the same thing with your mouth open. Personally, I've made a point to waste the extra time on the first draft so that the edit is less required later. But when I get to it, I psyche myself to see the story negatively. That way I'm eager to find mistakes and they're eager, in turn, to wave hello. A warning: you have to be tough or it’s a traumatic experience.

I think we make those mistakes because the brain has a remarkable capacity for correcting errors on our behalf. This falls in line with studies that have been showing that as long as the first and last letters of a word are in the right place, the rest of the word can be jumbled and we'll still figure it out. I think more often than not, our mind's fill in the gaps in our own writing, which is easy, since we know what we meant to do. Just my theory, really.

Oh, and reading out loud, I've found, is very helpful because even when I'm proofreading my own work, I find I start to scan through it and don't pause and add the proper inflections to my work.

If and when there's dialogue in your mss., reading your work out loud helps to find if it doesn't flow right or sound like that particular character would speak.

JenNipps said:

But you certainly make a good point about editors. So perhaps I'm overthinking/over-analyzing/over-whatever-ing myself?



This is definitely where I'm at in regards to this specific short story. I really do appreciate the feedback I got because I did just that. I assumed that someone would know how a city would smell, etc. But since my main character is blind, it (and other details) would add an extra (much needed) dimension to her.

Click to expand...

A writer can definitely overanalyze a story.

As for details, are you remember to use the sense in each seen. Very few seens should be written without at least two of the five senses involved. The sense of sight gets worked into most scenes automatically, but you need to add another to most scenes. Tatse, hearing, smell, touch. How something looks is easy, but how it smells, feels, tastes, or sounds is what brings most scenes to life.