How Much Would You Compromise?

I rewrote the second half of my first novel. The editor who bought it (after the changes) didn't find a particular plot point plausible, and the rest of the story hinged upon it.

In my case, the suggested change was taking my characters down I road I'd already considered when I was plotting the book in the first place. So it wasn't that difficult to do the rewrite, and didn't feel like like I was being untrue to the characters in any way. Same people, different stuff happens. That felt okay.

On the other hand, during the year-plus that the novel--a gay historical romance--was being shopped without success, several people told me they thought I'd sell it instantly if I made the hero, Jamie, a woman. My response was to blink at them and say, "But then Stephen wouldn't be interested in Jamie. He's gay, you know."

Yes, I would do it. Rewrites r us.

A work of fiction is not my child - it is something I have written. If it needed major work to be publishable/saleable, I'd do it.

I think it is pretentious and unrealistic to assume a work cannot be made more commercially viable. And I don't believe for a moment that my deathless prose is genius which must be preserved in the original at all costs.

I joke around about what I call my "Total Sell-Out Philosophy". I really enjoy the *process* of writing. Getting published afterwards is bonus. So by the time I submit something, I've had my fun. If they want me to do a little more writing in order to get published, I'll gladly do it.

The only exception would be if the changes they asked me to make were so *awful* that I felt that putting my name on them would make it harder for me to get published ever again. I doubt that this will ever happen, as agents, publishers, and editors tend to know what will sell.

So, yeah, I'd tweak. What a sell-out!

Marlys said:

On the other hand, during the year-plus that the novel--a gay historical romance--was being shopped without success, several people told me they thought I'd sell it instantly if I made the hero, Jamie, a woman. My response was to blink at them and say, "But then Stephen wouldn't be interested in Jamie. He's gay, you know."

Click to expand...

Yes, I see your point!

I might reject the rewrite notion if it turned the work into a completely different story. But maybe I'd just write them both.

PS: Your work is so unusual and interesting that I'm glad you didn't change the MC to a woman!

1. Changing the ending.
Maybe. If the suggested ending is better, sure. If they don't have an alternate suggestion and are just telling me "change it" then no.
2. Changing or eliminating a character.
Eliminating them completely from the story as if they never existed, or eliminating like "kill off that character"? I could certainly do minor character tweaks, and I might be talked into killing a character for plot advancement, but to have them disappear completely from the manuscript all the way back to page 1 would almost be a "no" unless the character was already superfluous.
3. Changing a major plot point.
Depends on the suggested alternative.
4. Changing content to make it more mainstream.
Like what content? That's a pretty broad question. Without specifics I can't really say.

Kate Thornton said:

PS: Your work is so unusual and interesting that I'm glad you didn't change the MC to a woman!

Click to expand...

I did not pay her to say that. Honest.

(and thank you, Kate! )

Hmm, I would change part of the plot, the ending etc. but I don't know if I could get rid of a character or change their names. IMHO, my characters a flawlessly imperfect.

FredCharles said:

If the publication of your novel hinged on you changing parts of it, would you? I'm not talking about minor tweaks, I'm talking about things like:

1. Changing the ending.
2. Changing or eliminating a character.
3. Changing a major plot point.
4. Changing content to make it more mainstream.

Click to expand...

Publishing a novel or selling a screenplay Either way: yes, I'd do it, unless there was something truly fishy going on with the request. Such as an extremely biased oppositional stance against one of the politocal/philosophical ideas of my work. I'd just go to another publisher/film production company.

But if the SAME change was suggested by many voices of wisdom, or else if a truly BRILLIANT idea was dropped in my lap by a very savvy person of creativity, then I'd gladly go with it.

The film "Being John Malcovich" had its ending radicaly changed because the total nobody of a scriptwriter, Charlie Kaufman (now the highest-paid writer in the biz, getting a minimum of $10 million per script), was pressured to do so by the studio. The script was nomniated for Best Original Screenplay that year.

And to combine the whole publishing/film producing concept into one idea here: Peter Benchley wrote the book "Jaws" and then wrote the screenplay for the Stephen Spielberg film. In the film adaptation, Benchley was smart enough to get rid of the marital infidelity that happened between the Richard Dreyfus character and the wife of the Roy Scheider character.

Heck yeah. Unless I took some sort of personal offense at the suggested changes. If changing some things around gets it sold, consider them changed. They're not parts of my anatomy, they're novels. If someone suggests changes to take them from OK to Fantastic, I'm right there with them.

If the changes make me uncomfortable in some way, then I keep shopping it or give it longer consideration.

If the person offering up ideas for change is a bloomin' idiot, then No.

Wow, I'm surprised at all these responses. I was afraid to post because I thought I'd be called a sell-out. I guess I'm in good company.

I feel like I can take criticism well and that other people might have unique views on my work. Therefore I would gladly change even major things in my work if they were being published with a reputable house. That being said, every situation is different and if I felt they were eviscerating my vision, I might either (a) say no thanks or (b) take it even further and offer them a new work that matches their criteria so I can continue shopping the old around. Or make the changes and then rewrite the original version into something different enough to sell.

But this is all speculative. You never know what you'll do until you're on the other side of that desk with an unsigned contract.

FredCharles: If the publication of your novel hinged on you changing parts of it, would you? I'm not talking about minor tweaks, I'm talking about things like:

1. Changing the ending. Only if the changes were in accordance with the point I was making.
2. Changing or eliminating a character. Depends on the character.
3. Changing a major plot point. Only if the change made it cooler or more effective.
4. Changing content to make it more mainstream. Mainstream? Nope. What the heck is mainstream anyway?[/
I'd have to treat that like I treat any criticism I receive. I know I can rewrite something and, while making a significant change, still mold the work to my ulterior purposes. My diabolical plans can manifest themselves in a variety of carnations!
And so, overall, I'd give it a try and see what I could come up with. I would definitely maybe, or possibly perhaps make the changes.

No, I wouldn't make any changes at all! I would rather sit in a darkened room, clutching my manuscript pages to my chest, rocking back and forth and muttering "it's perfect as it is, it's perfect as it is" than go through a normal editing process. It would be much more rewarding to me to know that my perfect, perfect book never had to leave my clutches -- never even had to be sullied by the gaze of another human's eyes.

It depends. I was faced with this decision over a year ago. The publisher began with requests that I was perfectly willing to make. Sure, I'd change this, complicate up the plot further, elaborate on this, and alter that character. Significant work, but I was willing to do it. Once I'd agreed and written up a plan for what I was going to do, the publisher came back and requested that the main character be completely changed, that most of the characters surrounding the MC be significantly weakened, the villain was to become a caricature, and cliches should abound. I tried to consider these suggestions and asked a lot of questions to determine what the "problems" were. I'm more than willing to skewer my own work if I think it will be improved. What the publisher wanted (there was more) would have required me to literally scrap everything and start over. I declined.

I still feel that the manuscript has promise. It does need work, but I couldn't turn it into what this publisher wanted. That story just was not one I wanted to tell.

Yay! A bear!

FredCharles said:

If the publication of your novel hinged on you changing parts of it, would you?

Click to expand...

You betcha. I already did. Last summer, before it sold, the editor I'm now working with said he would buy it if I changed the relationship between two characters, and added a subplot that would up the danger to the MC. I scrambled to do that to his satisfaction, and he ultimately bought the book.

I agree with others that it all depends on what they're asking for. If the changes would ruin the story you were trying to tell, then of course you'd want to discuss it before committing either way.

It also depends on how you view your writing. There are a whole lot of folks out there who are crafting gentle reflections of their beautiful butterfly-souls. And then there are those of us writing books that we want to sell. Neither way is better than the other...it's all in the goal you're working toward.

ClaudiaGray said:

No, I wouldn't make any changes at all! I would rather sit in a darkened room, clutching my manuscript pages to my chest, rocking back and forth and muttering "it's perfect as it is, it's perfect as it is" than go through a normal editing process. It would be much more rewarding to me to know that my perfect, perfect book never had to leave my clutches -- never even had to be sullied by the gaze of another human's eyes.

Click to expand...

Not only that but go on a full time campaign to make the editors life a living hell. Yea but not stopping there I say all the employees of said company and their families. Nay that be not enough but all their children's children for 70 generations.

Call me a sell out, call me a bookwhore, whatever, but you betcher ass I would.

You HAVE to be open to changes if you want to work in this business. You have to.

Yes yes yes yes.

Whatever. I'll change it. No matter how painful it may be.

Except Jenner's name. I'm not changing that. No way in hell. It took me FOREVER to come up with a long and complicated-sounding Indian name that would corrupt to Jenner, and even longer to remember how to spell Sunil das Jhanyeshwar-jana.

Everything else, I'll change.

Yeah, I would, too, unless the changes would alter the fundamental idea behind the story. For example, if the publisher did not want Phaidra to be a killer, I'd pass. Or if they wanted me to lose the sarcasm. But I have changed the ending (the last 1/3 of the book) because of an agent's suggestions, and it made for a stronger book.

I can hack it, and I'm soooo ready for change if it improves it.

Tri

For one of my books, I was asked to cut a whole set of characters who played a recurring, rather than continuous, role. I was really resistant at first, but when I thought about it, I realized that this actually strengthened the book, because these characters had been playing a sort of deus-ex-machina role in the plot, and without them the plot took on a more organic quality. This was great editing, and I'm grateful for it.

For another book, I was asked to get rid of a character who played a small but pivotal role in the hero's personal journey. I thought about it a lot and decided this was a change I couldn't live with. I explained my reasoning to the editor, and she acknowledged that my reasoning made sense. The character stayed, though I did trim his scenes a bit.

In other cases, I've capitulated on some changes that, left to my own devices, I wouldn't have made but didn't feel were a major issue, and thus gained some leverage for refusing to make other changes I felt strongly weren't a good idea.

Editing always involves change, and is (ideally--not every situation is ideal) a collaborative process. Your editor is trying to make your book stronger, and may have a better perspective on some things than you do. On the other hand, if you feel strongly that a change isn't right, you can refuse to make it as long as you explain your reasoning fully.

- Victoria

The only real problems I have had with changes have been the result of my editor leaving and the new having a different vision. Then things can get messy.