Anyone ever rewrite a novel draft?

Oh. I did that. I'm still kinda doing that! For the same reason (major changes to the world and all that)

And I mean, revising and rewriting are somewhat hand in hand? Some things you might be able to keep, others you'll need to scrap.

I'll say this-- my first draft took me over a year to get out. The second one (since I already had the story mostly figured out) ~3 months!

I started trying to copy/ paste. And then realized it was worse than that. Wound up keeping a single scene from the original.

I'm doing this now. I'm taking the (new to me) approach of getting about 50k words onto the page as quickly as I can, with no editing, no rearranging, no nothing, knowing the whole time that I'm going to start over at page 1 and rewrite every word. Why? This is the sixth or seventh novel I've written, and all before have been written as a single draft I edited heavily as I went . . . to end up with a heavily edited first draft. One got published so it's not wrong to do it this way, but I wasn't happy with the results.

The benefits of the approach I'm trying now is that I'm not as married to saving scenes or individual lines as much as I was using the other approach. I know what parts are going to work in the later draft and which aren't, and I don't feel as much need to rescue a bad scene. Out it goes! It also shows me which ideas aren't as well thought out as I thought they were and need more research. I'm currently at 40k of my target 50k after two months of on/off writing (that's another benefit--I got a shipload of words on the page right quick) and will get to the rewrite soon. It's getting to the point that I will need to see the next iteration to fill the final gaps and have a complete work (shooting for 75 to 90k final manuscript). The advice I'll be following is to actually re-write, not copy and paste--the first draft is so rough cleaning up a copy/paste is going to take as much time as re-writing it clean, plus if I copy/paste I know myself well enough to know I'm going to try to save unsavable parts.

Let us know how it goes

This is my process. I write one version on paper, review it to see what could be better then set it aside and write a new version in the computer. For the 2nd version I focus a lot more on the language itself, since I now know what the story is.

I'm on my sixth rewrite on my first novel (although I did write a totally different book in the interim.)

I consider it a rewrite if more than 50% of the novel has to be redone from scratch.

I want the story to work, and I don't want to leave any story behind. So far, fingers crossed, I've salvaged or at least cannibalised every story so far.

shadow2 said:

Is there a better way to substantively revise a story than rewriting it?

Click to expand...

No.

IMO, the ground-up rewrite is something every book must go through.

Now, that said, the ground-up rewrite can occur at different "layers" of the story. For example, I've revised my process to the point that a lot of the ground-up rewriting happens in the rough pre-writing stage. I hack out notes, try to make connections, find inconsistencies and missed opportunities--all before I've committed a single word to anything resembling a manuscript. Having that stuff hacked out, i.e. having the bones in order, I'm ready to hang dependent organs on them (ready to write a manuscript).

It doesn't work perfectly. My current project, I did the above process, wrote a draft, and in that journey, discovered the true heart of the story, which I didn't have before. I changed course mid-stream and wrote the last 1/3 of the book *as if* it was the ending to that new story, not the ending to the story I had set out to write. Now I'm going back and writing a new beginning to splice into the ending I discovered.

So I'm ground-up rewriting the first 1/2-2/3 or so. But it's heavily informed by rough hacking, which means all the themes are there, MC's motivations shouldn't need more work, etc.

Anyone familiar with Agile Methodology? I think that's what I'm doing here.

gtanders said:

Anyone familiar with Agile Methodology? I think that's what I'm doing here.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea! I'm familiar with Agile project management, but I've not thought to apply it to the writing process. Just thinking out loud, I wonder if it would work well with the "pantsing" approach, in that the writer evaluates the next steps based on the progress so far and goes wherever the story leads. Pantsers don't always stop and evaluate, so it might not fit exactly, and Agile management doesn't mean there are no pre-determined goals; quite the opposite, actually. In the past, when I've outlined I've by default used a work breakdown structure (WBS) approach without knowing it: Define the goal for the book, determine the objectives and setting, then each chapter or scene is its own entity that fills in the schedule to accomplish the whole.

Anyway, sometimes I love the scholarly analysis of writing more than the writing itself. It's fun!

gtanders said:

Anyone familiar with Agile Methodology? I think that's what I'm doing here.

Click to expand...

Here's an interesting blog post of AGILE and whiskey: http://agiletips.blogspot.com/2011/08/little-law-cycle-time-and-throughput.html

Scrum, Agile, Lean, Kaizen philosophy.... I wouldn't worry about these. I think two issues are at play:

1) Quality vs. Quantity
2) You are a one-man team; i.e. you must complete almost all tasks of the production process (of your novel) alone.

I use project management for my work. I like structured work, deadlines I set, knowing the work I must do the next day before that day starts, and so on. Time and Task charts and similar things are useful, but only if you are working multiple deadlines (like writing a series and as you write the next book, you are doing things to the first like proofing what betas/agent/editor commented on). Taking in revisions/rewrites/other to the mix, if needed. Well, its a way of keeping on top of things; not for everyone.

I think, maybe, instead of Agile you are working Dan Wells' Structure in your "pre-writing" phase.

Part 1 (of 5) of his 10-min videos on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcmiqQ9NpPE&feature=youtu.be

Dan Wells' format, at least for me, is a dumbed down explanation of thread interweaving of plot and subplots and tell a complete story. I used it for my first book, the book I just started. It helped me a great deal, but only for a standalone project. For series, other tactics are needed, such as symmetry, how to manage character arcs, and so on.

I agree it's hard to know when to revise and when to rewrite. I spent a couple years revising (heavily) my first book. The goal was always to keep the basic structure intact, mainly because it was such a complex story that I didn't want to screw it up. After endless revision and several betas, I got to the point where I felt the story was as good as I could make it (given my writing capabilities at the time). I decided to just throw it out on Amazon, so I bought a cover and did all the editing stuff. Then I realized that if it wasn't good enough to attract an agent or to make beta readers demand more, it wasn't good enough. Period.

So I spent a year on a ground-up rewrite. The rewriting process was very "freeing" for me. I was able to start with characters that I really understood and, therefore, design arcs that really work (or so I hope). And since I had a good idea of where I wanted to go, I could make the whole thing more cohesive. Even though the rewrite was a ton of work, I'm very glad I decided to go for it. Now, of course, I have to start the revise-go-round. But that's ok, because the base is better this time. So my point (and I do have one) is that you shouldn't be afraid of the rewrite. If you could do it once, you can do it again.

I do, I am doing that right now.

Full rewrite?

I did it a few times with two different novels, and neither of them got any better.

I've since learned to plan and plot better before the first draft. I still have to rewrite sections, sometimes whole chapters, but never (so far) the whole novel.

If you find yourself having to rewrite the whole novel, try to really figure out what went wrong the first time.

I learn by failing

A plan is only as good as your capacity to make plans, and therein lie my limitations.

On the flipside, my intuition "jumps" do improve with time. I land on my feet more often, instead of in a tangle, and move in straighter lines as time goes on.

gtanders said:

Anyone familiar with Agile Methodology? I think that's what I'm doing here.

Click to expand...

One of my favourite experiences has been sitting in grad school, learning Agile project management, and thinking, "yup, this feels rather familiar."

I mean, there's more to it than that, but fundamentally, it's very similar. It's like coders discovered the writing process in the 1980s.

shadow2 said:

Oh, cool! I feel like I should do this, but then I was wondering, is this a normal thing to do to a novel, just finish it, think it over, and then start writing it again? But I can tell the process I took in writing it is haphazard - upon reflection I included some stuff that doesn't need to be there, and I didn't even have a clear idea of who some of the characters were or what the main conflict was when I started. Not nearly as much as I do now.

Click to expand...

As you can probably tell from the responses here, yes, this is a normal thing to do. And you've hit on the reason why.

It's something that tends to separate "new" writers from experienced ones, at least in my experience. There are myriad ways to revise--yes, some people "pants" it and figure stuff out as they go, but even that's largely a process of rewriting and revising, it's just the start point is different.

The key is that you go back and revisit the story. Anyone can sit down and tell a story--verbally, prosaically, in song, whatever--to a group of friends. What separates informal storytelling from published fiction is that, if you seek publication, you're seeking to be part of an industry from which people expect entertainment. Polish is part of that. By no means do you have to rewrite outright, though it can certainly be helpful. You do have to find a way to make the story efficient and effective. Writing for readers is work.

I find I rewrite fairly fully at least a couple of times per WIP. Current MS went through 2-3 heavy rewrites, with another 3-4 scattered rewrites where I went after specific chapters or sections--it's possible to look at the story taking shape, realize that, say, you need a whole new plot beat here, and then add it. Or remove 5-6 chapters and replace them with something quite different.

One thing I wish more people would at least try is closing the document and rewriting a chunk--maybe a chapter or so--from memory. You'll remember the important bits. But having written it once, you'll almost subconsciously cut out the extraneous stuff and, simultaneously, discover more. Doesn't always work, but it can break a block and I'll take any tool I can get when one of those hits.

pattmayne said:

Full rewrite?

I did it a few times with two different novels, and neither of them got any better.

I've since learned to plan and plot better before the first draft. I still have to rewrite sections, sometimes whole chapters, but never (so far) the whole novel.

If you find yourself having to rewrite the whole novel, try to really figure out what went wrong the first time.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point, and I think us writers, whatever method we use, need to have it clear in our own minds what we want the first draft to do. If the purpose of the first draft is to be as close to the final product as possible, then your approach is spot on and the need for re-writes indicates specific problems with this or that section. On the other hand, if the purpose of the first draft is to throw the spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks, it's entirely possible nothing will and the whole plate will need to be thrown again, and possibly against a different wall. Whatever doesn't work simply doesn't work and should be discarded before any further energy is expended on it. Neither is right or wrong, and I've written both ways.

I rewrite them all, while waiting to get antsy enough to begin a new one. And yeah; they get better each time.

I did it with all the four novels in my signature, several times, given that they had been written first in my high-school/ uni years. Also with the short stories collection, in a certain measure. (Most of these stories were written in the latest decade, but in English, and when translating them in my mother tongue, I didn't merely translate, but adapt and re-write).

I haven't been published yet, but I know I'm going to have to re-write my first manuscript, because my second is actually a prequel and invalidates some of the plot points of the first. However, I knew that from the start of the second manuscript, so it's not like a rude-awakening thing.

(I haven't had all of my morning coffee yet so I apologize if my thoughts aren't as coherent as they should be.)

I don't know if I'll re-write my new manuscript. I will if an editor recommends it, or beta readers point out a fundamental flaw in something I never noticed. Getting other eyes on what I have is an important next step for me. I think the best advice I can think of is: don't necessarily decide on a re-write internally, listen to what people are telling you (especially about your work) before you jump into that. But since you're already asking about that here, you've essentially done that already! Hooray!

Chris P said:

I'm doing this now. I'm taking the (new to me) approach of getting about 50k words onto the page as quickly as I can, with no editing, no rearranging, no nothing, knowing the whole time that I'm going to start over at page 1 and rewrite every word. Why? This is the sixth or seventh novel I've written, and all before have been written as a single draft I edited heavily as I went . . . to end up with a heavily edited first draft. One got published so it's not wrong to do it this way, but I wasn't happy with the results.

The benefits of the approach I'm trying now is that I'm not as married to saving scenes or individual lines as much as I was using the other approach. I know what parts are going to work in the later draft and which aren't, and I don't feel as much need to rescue a bad scene. Out it goes! It also shows me which ideas aren't as well thought out as I thought they were and need more research. I'm currently at 40k of my target 50k after two months of on/off writing (that's another benefit--I got a shipload of words on the page right quick) and will get to the rewrite soon. It's getting to the point that I will need to see the next iteration to fill the final gaps and have a complete work (shooting for 75 to 90k final manuscript). The advice I'll be following is to actually re-write, not copy and paste--the first draft is so rough cleaning up a copy/paste is going to take as much time as re-writing it clean, plus if I copy/paste I know myself well enough to know I'm going to try to save unsavable parts.

Let us know how it goes

Click to expand...

Bizarre this thread just came up again. I've spent the last hour starting the second, and much more polished, draft. It's harder than I expected it to be! I am still feeling tied to the words of the first draft, although not verbatim I want to capture the stuff I like from the first. I'm also not adding as many words as I thought I would be, so (with only a few pages done so far, look at me all paranoid) I hope I have enough story fleshed out to get a full length second draft. The first draft was only 40K words, and the ideas were starting to poop out.

I did this once, with the first novel I ever wrote. That thing sucked so bad, I had to start from scratch. That said, I did still copy a few parts from the original.

Not sure I'd do that again. For me, it comes down to time. I prefer to work the editing/revision process in the original MS (so easy with MS Word and other software). Not like in the old days where you had to retype the whole damn thing! Another perk to being alive in the 2000's.