How to improve bad working habits

The only thing I can tell you for sure is that you should never consider a piece finished until it's the best it can be. Why sabotage the chances you have for publication if you know your work is not your best? It is hard enough to get published as it is. Patience is essential.

Solatium said:

Any suggestions on how I could adjust either my habits or my thinking to strike some balance here?

Click to expand...

Which of the two methods you described produces stories that people like better, especially editors?

I thought I was the only person who had a file in my file cabinet labeled "Really Cool Obits."

Is this an anxiety issue? You fear if you re-read the pieces before you send them you will see their flaws and spend hundreds of hours trying to rewrite them and make them better?

You need to reach as far as you can and accept that there will be a growth curve as a writer and you will not get there all in one leap. Natural writing ability must be fostered and nurtured.

Don't be too hard on yourself - if you are producing stories, that's a lot further than most people get. Then there's a vast plateau before getting them published. Maybe yours are ready for publication, but they would surely benefit from a re-read before you send them.

I actually have an "editor persona" that I adopt to critique my own work. This comes from having worked once for someone who was a gift - a boss with very high standards and not much time. A large row of filing cabinets separated our workspaces and the top served as a place to spread out the presentations we produced. I found that by simply walking around to the other side and pretending to be him, looking at my work, I could spot typos and mistakes much more easily. By mentally stepping back, I could sense major conceptual flaws I had been blind to close up. Key to this process was getting away from what I called "turnaround mentality," which was about trying to get it out the door as fast as possible. Sounds like you might be stuck in that head right now.

One way of checking the effectiveness of your storytelling is to read what you have written aloud. If you have access to a tape recorder or a video camera (you don't need to film yourself, that would probably be distracting, just audio) record it and listen. A sense of the absurd helps in doing this. But it is amazing how less good writing stands out from the rest when you try to read it aloud.

Read the whole thing through rather than reaching for the pen or keyboard as you go.

If it feels thin or weak, put it aside or analyze how you missed what you were going for and see if there is a way to find it in the material. If it feels strong but there are rough passages, think about why they are rough and then try and bring them up a notch. Maybe those are the interesting parts and that's why you had trouble writing them. A writer should have the nerve to kill the weaklings, the stories that don't sing, but better a rougher story with some tingle of interest than a perfectly crafted pile of poop.

Since you must have a pile of stories to read through by now, read through them and pick the strongest one to rewrite. Not in your interstitial time, but when you are at your best (first cup of coffee in the morning for me). Then set it aside, come back the next day, and see if it is better.

Anxiety is something creative people have to live with - it's often an result of having high expectations of yourself. You shouldn't see it as a negative, just a fuel that can become toxic if it builts up to high levels.

Have you tried?

What might help you would be to be part of a good crit group where other writers could give you useful feedback. It's very hard judging your own stories as you are always so close to them and can't see the flaws.

It can be hard, but you HAVE to force yourself to think about the story, even if you are REALLY unhappy with it,, if you think it could turn out well. You have to maybe let it sit a little, but then jump back in, read it objectively, write down ANYTHING that comes to mind while reading, then figure out what's wrong, fix it. Maybe do a whole rewrite. It can be really hard. But also remember that everything you turn out makes you a better writer. And once you get over this developmental hitch, it'll most likely be a lot easier.

Sorry--that's the best advice I can offer.

Am I the only one that does about 50 to 100 rewrites, so much so the final draft doesn't even resemble the first one? Maybe I'm pathetic or something. The novel I'm writing now, started with one theme, now, 62 drafts later and two hundred pages more, the one theme is now a secondary one with the main theme being entirely different.

Many Drafts?

Yes, many writers do find that the first draft is quite different from the last. And those of us who cannot write well if we have plotted and planned but have to write 'by the seat of our pants' often take twenty drafts to get a short story right.

I really agree with the advice about reading the story out loud. One of the critique groups I belong to does that. When someone else reads one of my stories out loud, I get a whole new take on it. (You also have the option of reading it yourself, but I don't get as much from that.) Finally, I bring the piece to the group early in revision, which shortens that process considerably.
m.a.

I always read everything I write out loud. It helps immensely. The biggest piece of advice I offer to people who want to improve apon their writing, especially when it comes to short story writing, is READ. Get your hands on as many anthologies as you can get and read. Read Fitzgerald's short stories, read Hemingway's short stories, read Chabon's short stories, King's short stories, Poe's short stories, Twain's short stories, Carver's short stories, Plath's short stories, Salinger's short stories, I can go on forever...you get the point. Just read every short you can get your hands on. Nothing hones the craft more than listening to other published authors through their prose. Good luck!

Habits

I don;t know. Sometimes I think the answer to all questions about fiction is to write like a demon for six months or a year. Then come up for air and see what's worked and what hasn't.

Writing unplanned stories quickly with a light second draft isn't an error, and neitehr is taking a month on a story. Either can work, and work very well. Th weonly error is in a bad final product, and eiother method can work to produce great final products. Even for the same writer, sometimes one works, and sometimes the other. And with the wrong story, neither works for anyone.

I'be sold short stories to national glossies that were written, edited, and submitted in four hours. I've also had other stories that were still crap after two months of intensive labor and multiple drafts.

First you have to find the right story for you to write, and fill it with the right characters for that story. Work habits don't matter if you're writing the wrong story, which means a story that isn't right for you.

Then I think you just have to experiment with time and with habits until you find the right balance of speed and revision for your own peronality and talent.

Solatium said:

The funny thing is that, as far as I can tell, the stories with the roughest, most cliched, most awkward prose are actually the ones I've revised to death. I cannot imagine why this would be; it seems counterintuitive. Perhaps it is just that I first drafted those stories earlier.

Click to expand...

To offer a dissenting opinion...

This is not all that surprising. With obsessive editing, it is possible to fall into a trap trying to please everyone -- I see it happening in many critique groups. Many writers edit the heart right out of their story.

Also, with too much revision it i spossible to get rid of the voice. First drafts are full of it, later ones -- not so much. So if you find that editing saps vitaity out of your work, send out lightly revised drafts; it's not a crime, and works for many successful writers.

Another thing to consider is diminishing returns. Spending tons of time to make a work marginally better might not be worth it, IMO.

I'm a bit in between. I usually edit as I write, then give it an overall editing pass right after I finish, and another one -- a week or two later. I have a few trusted readers, and I incorporate some of their fedback too. Afetr that, off it goes.

the point is, there are successful writers for any revising method. If it works for you, stick with it.