Creating
Conflict
Backstory
Finding a
Critique Group
Writing a
Synopsis
Word
Count
Plotting
In Layers
What Your Query
Says About Your Book
Describing
Your Characters
Point of View
& Characters
The First
250 Words
Passive
Voice

Is Your Writing
Getting Better?
Finding
an Agent
Tips On
Writing Action
Nice Writer
Syndrome?
Red Flag: Words
That Are Trouble
Plotting
The First
Draft
Edit -vs- Revise:
Deathmatch!
Guest Author
Claudia Gray
On Outlining
Guest Author
Kody Keplinger
On Dialog
Guest Author
Cynthia L. Smith
On Process
Guest Author
K.A. Stewart
On Character
Guest Author
Jana DeLeon
On Pantsing
Guest Author
Holly Cupala
On Writing Secrets
Guest Author
Nancy Holzner
On Dialog
Guest Author
Gini Koch
On Process
Guest Author
Vincent H O'Neil
On Research
Online
Resources
Books by
Janice Hardy
The Shifter
by Janice Hardy
Blue Fire
by Janice Hardy
8 Against Reality
inc. Janice Hardy
Diagnostics:
Submit Your Work

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Edit, No...Rewrite, Nah...Revisions. Yeah, That's It. Handling Revisions.

Everyone has the own process for handling critique feedback and diving into revisions, but when faced with pages of information and comments, sometimes it's hard to know where to start.

First thing I do is read them. Sounds crazy, right? But I read them with no expectations. I'm not trying to see if anyone liked the book, I just want to know what they thought. I make no judgments here. If anything pops up that seems totally whacked (and there's always something unexpected), I just let it slide on by.

Once I've read them all, I ask my critiquers any questions I might have. Sometimes I'll need clarification on a point, or someone will say something that really hits me and I'll want them to elaborate. After that, I let the critique sit for a few days.

The sitting is an important aspect. We all have great hopes and dreams for our work, so any negative comment can give us a knee-jerk reaction and the need to justify why we did something. It's not uncommon to think, "They're just missing the point" at this stage. (For the record, they usually aren't)

After a few days, I go back and read the crits again, this time with an eye for what the problems are. I open a new file and take notes on things I agree with and plan to fix. I note any suggestions made I think would work.

Then I look at the comments that seemed to miss the point. I try to understand why the comment was made. Was the problem really what the critiquer said it was, or did this moment not work because I failed somewhere else, and this is when that error becomes clear? This is the hardest type of comment to deal with, because sometimes it's a legitimate comment, and sometimes it really is the critiquer missing the point.

How can you tell the difference?
  • If more than one person says the same thing, chances are it's a problem.
  • If you can see what the person is talking about, but disagree, chances are it's a problem, but not the problem they think it is. Perhaps it wasn't set it up correctly and they expected something else by the time they got to this moment.
  • If you can't figure out what they're talking about, and asking yields no further understanding, it could just them.
  • If you understand what they're talking about, but it's something that is addressed in the story, go back and tweak it a little to make sure it's clear. It might be just them, but it's possible others could benefit from a little more clarification there.
Next comes figuring out what needs to be fixed, using the notes I took on the larger issues. I copy those notes in the story file itself (in a different color of course), elaborating where needed. Often, I add a summary paragraph or two at the start of the chapter of the changes that need to occur. I adjust my outline and chapter summaries. I cut out the old stuff I know is getting deleted (such as a chapter or scene). I basically prep for the heavy duty rewriting.

Once all the big changes are marked down and I know the macro level issues, I move on to the line edits. I go critique by critique and fix anything that's easy (a typo, an odd word choice, an extra clause). All the other comments I cut and paste into my main document in the same places the critiquer made them.

Finally, I start reading on page one, making the changes as I come to them. If I encounter anything that requires more thought or planning, I highlight it in yellow and move on. My goal here is to make as many edits as I can without getting bogged down. After the easy stuff is done, I can focus on the harder rewrites and make sure they fit any new story lines.

After all that is finished, I let the manuscript sit for at least a week or two (a month is great if you can do it). Then I go back and read it yet again. I fix anything that pops out at me. I keep doing this until the manuscript is clean. I consider it clean when I tweak a word here and there as I read, but nothing more.

If the changes were major, I'll ask for more critiques and go through the whole process again. It takes work, but I've found it to be an effective way to revise.

How do you incorporate critique feedback? What's your revisions plan?

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Those are great points, thank you!
One question, though. How do you do when you really don't agree with what is asked to revise?

Anna

Elizabeth O. Dulemba said...

Sounds similar to how I do it too! :) e

Terry Odell said...

All good advice, and I do this with each chapter as it comes from my CPs, so by the time I get to the end of the book and deal with the entire manuscript, much of this is already done.

Right now, I'm dealing with edits from my "real" editor, and I like to think that she gets a very clean manuscript because I've fixed it along the way.

Terry
Terry's Place
Romance with a Twist--of Mystery

Angela Brown said...

I use similar steps.

I want to emphasize the importance of resisting the knee-jerk-reaction. As a writer, reacting too quickly can prevent you from really understanding the constructive criticism offered. As a critter, you become less-interested in critting for that person because you don't feel you can provide honest feedback.

Debbie H said...

Yep, that sounds pretty familiar. Those parts where the critiquer doesn't seem to have "got" what's there can be very tricky - and illustrate the need for multiple readers. But, you are right, it's worth considering just one misunderstanding: when the story is out there in the world 1% of a million readers (dreams are free) getting confused is significant.
To help prevent my defensive walls going up, I try to go into critique requests knwoing exactly what I am asking for: help to make the story the best it can be, not glowing praise (unless it's already been critiqued to that point).
Often, the comments I receive just clarify doubts I already had. But, getting those outsider comments can be what I need to get the juices flowing to help me figure out the HOW to fix ...

Julie Musil said...

I absolutely love hearing how other writers revise! Thanks for the detailed notes. I might just steal some :D

Glacier said...

I definitely don't revise this way, but perhaps I should! Thank you for sharing. We all know that revision is key, but I didn't know exactly how different writers approach it. Great post. Has anyone used Scrivener? I've been wondering if it would save time.

Cathy C. Hall said...

Yeah, I absolutely don't do anything after that first read-through because I know I'm in justify mode. :-) But after I think about the notes, I'm always surprised at how much I end up revising. And I'm always surprised that when I think I'm done--I'm not done. ;-)

Jamie Raintree said...

This sounds like exactly how I handle my critiques except that for what I'm doing, I go through them on a chapter-by-chapter basis, so the work isn't so intensive. I've definitely gotten past the point of getting emotional about the notes. I just want to write (and edit!) a great story. :)

Traci Kenworth said...

I take the critiques side-by-side with
the manuscript and work on corrections
in the new draft. It seems to work for
me.

Janice Hardy said...

Anna, if you don't agree with it, don't do it. It's easy to feel we HAVE to address everything we see in a crit, but if it we honestly don't feel it'll make the story better, we shouldn't make it.

Elizabeth, great minds think alike ;)

Terry, I've got some WIP crit partners for that as well. It's really helpful. Good luck on your edits!

Angela, truer words never spoken :)

Debbie, your last para fits me perfectly. Anything I was doubting is always pointed out in the crits. Attitude does make a difference. Sounds like you have a good one :)

Julie, steal away :)

Glacier, I hear great things about Scrivener (and I really need to get a guest author on here who uses it). And just because I revise this way doesn't mean it's the "right" way. If what you do works for you, stick with it. But if you're not happy with your current process, this is one possible option.

Cathy, don't know abut you but sometimes I feel I'm never done :) I still want to edit Shifter, lol.

Jamie, sounds like a good plan! I edit myself chapter by chapter. The smaller chunks do make it easier.

Traci, sounds good :)

Khaalidah said...

Editing and rewriting seems like such a simple thing, but most of us know that when you get down to it, it isn't. I like this piece, because I always find myself getting bogged down in the greater details, even when writing, rather than just moving on and coming back to it later. This post is sort of a kick in the butt that say to me, "It's okay. Keep on keeping on."

Janice Hardy said...

Khaalidah, it's definitely okay to keep going, but that can be hard for some folks (I have several writer friends who like to get things perfect before they move on). I don't know if you've done NaNaWriMo yet, but one "perfectionist" writer friend of mine used that to force herself to just write and not stop to edit. It helped her, so it might be something to try.