Revision is a multi-Colored Thing
I finished WANTED on Tuesday. That is to say, I finished the first draft. On Wednesday I made the same mistake I always make when I finish a manuscript. I tried to continue writing a different project with the same level of output. I was churning out 2000 to 4000 words a day at the end of WANTED and had hoped to roll that progress right into HOUSE ON SANDWICH NOTCH LANE. Just like when I finished BLACK MAGIC, I did not make it very far. Stories are much greater than the sum of their words. One cannot just roll from one project to the next that seamlessly. There are gears that have to shift before the new story can come out. So, I worked a little bit on SANDWICH and wrote 800 words for the short story "My Name is Jay McKay" (which I already want to revise because I started completely wrong).
I did the same thing between BLACK MAGIC and WANTED. I wrote a little on SANDWICH and then a little more on JEHOVAH'S HITLIST before settling on WANTED. I hope I can remain a little more focused this time around because after SANDWICH, I delve into the Third World. Most likely I'll restart CAUSE AND CONVICTION but inspiration may lead me to THE LOST LEGION. Most likely the former, though. (If you're wondering where all these titles are coming from, you can see a list of projects I have in queue on my website.
Before any of that can begin in earnest, I need to revise WANTED. I was discussing this with Elizabeth Poole and how, out of all the various literary blogs on the internet, revision seems to be the least frequently discussed topic? Why is that?
Well, I have an idea, and it's a simple one. Revision is different for everyone. Actually I have two ideas. It's different for everyone and no one wants to admit how much or how little they did. Let's tackle that latter one first. It's a matter of ego and not really pertinent to the former.
No one wants to admit how much they did because that number is never adequate. Agents always talk about the frequency of revision published books received and an aspiring author doesn't want to admit that he or she did not revise that many times (and thus create the presumption that their manuscript isn't ready yet). OR, they've revised many many times and now they look incapable. If it takes that many times to get to the point where it's good enough to query, how bad was it when you started and what does that say about you as a writer? The Catch-22 here is that there is no solid number of necessary revision. A story has been revised enough when it's been revised enough. So no matter how many or few times it's been revised, it's not the right number. Writers are a fragile breed. Our egos need constant affirmation and to be shunned by our peers could be crippling. Thus, we revise and that word is enough to allow other writers to nod their heads knowingly without necessitating a continuance in the conversation.
Now, more importantly than our fragile egos, revision is different for everyone. For starters, revision itself is not firmly defined. If you revise x number of chapters, is that a revision? It's certainly different than the previous draft. But how many chapters does it take to qualify as a revision? Or is it a percentage? I can guarantee you that 9/10, the first chapter of a manuscript has been rewritten more than any other chapter in the book. It's so rare to get it right on your first try (or to write something that is completely in line with how the book evolves as you go along). If we counted changes to chapter 1 as a revision, the number of times a manuscript is revised before completion would be absurd.
For me, I only count a full manuscript review as a revision. I edited a few chapters before (which I try not to do during my first draft writing, but it happens), but that was not a revision. My manuscript is unrevised. Those chapters are revised, but not the manuscript. And that is the essence of my process. I finish the first draft and then I revise the entire thing (usually after a week or two off to let the lingering mistakes get flushed from my brain--in this case, I just received an ARC of Tad Williams' SHADOWRISE and have jumped into that). The draft evolves as I write, so characters and even setting at the end of the story don't match the beginning. When WANTED began, the entire thing was set in the Duchy d'Hillsborough. That changed. Things spread out. People came from more diverse backgrounds and that all needs to be brought into alignment. If I were to let someone read the story right now, they would scratch their head if they read from start to finish (I also broke my rule of letting someone read the first draft, but the guy just got laid off and I hope it provides some level of distraction for him).
That revision doesn't end until I think the manuscript is suitable for others to read. If chapter 42 gets revised four times before that happens, so be it. It's all still one revision. I will then send the manuscript to a a group of interested first-readers (who are, by definition, the people that read them first and offer criticism). I sent out BLACK MAGIC to a group of people and got a small response, but of those people who did comment, their feedback was invaluable. I expect to do the same this time around too (not necessarily with the same group, but at least to the people that gave good feedback). When I receive their feedback, I begin another revision (so front to back, not just on the elements they give me).
When I'm finished with that draft, I begin querying. Now some people might think, two revisions, that's not enough before querying, but I'll refer you to point 1 above.
While I'm usually intolerant of the "that definition is debatable because other people say it's this even though those people are wrong," I'm not a stickler on what is and what isn't revision. It's part of the process, and like the rest of writing, that process is different for everyone. A writer find what works and what doesn't and hopefully does what works.
...then they don't tell anyone how much they revised to avoid any kind of judgment or ridicule.
I did the same thing between BLACK MAGIC and WANTED. I wrote a little on SANDWICH and then a little more on JEHOVAH'S HITLIST before settling on WANTED. I hope I can remain a little more focused this time around because after SANDWICH, I delve into the Third World. Most likely I'll restart CAUSE AND CONVICTION but inspiration may lead me to THE LOST LEGION. Most likely the former, though. (If you're wondering where all these titles are coming from, you can see a list of projects I have in queue on my website.
Before any of that can begin in earnest, I need to revise WANTED. I was discussing this with Elizabeth Poole and how, out of all the various literary blogs on the internet, revision seems to be the least frequently discussed topic? Why is that?
Well, I have an idea, and it's a simple one. Revision is different for everyone. Actually I have two ideas. It's different for everyone and no one wants to admit how much or how little they did. Let's tackle that latter one first. It's a matter of ego and not really pertinent to the former.
No one wants to admit how much they did because that number is never adequate. Agents always talk about the frequency of revision published books received and an aspiring author doesn't want to admit that he or she did not revise that many times (and thus create the presumption that their manuscript isn't ready yet). OR, they've revised many many times and now they look incapable. If it takes that many times to get to the point where it's good enough to query, how bad was it when you started and what does that say about you as a writer? The Catch-22 here is that there is no solid number of necessary revision. A story has been revised enough when it's been revised enough. So no matter how many or few times it's been revised, it's not the right number. Writers are a fragile breed. Our egos need constant affirmation and to be shunned by our peers could be crippling. Thus, we revise and that word is enough to allow other writers to nod their heads knowingly without necessitating a continuance in the conversation.
Now, more importantly than our fragile egos, revision is different for everyone. For starters, revision itself is not firmly defined. If you revise x number of chapters, is that a revision? It's certainly different than the previous draft. But how many chapters does it take to qualify as a revision? Or is it a percentage? I can guarantee you that 9/10, the first chapter of a manuscript has been rewritten more than any other chapter in the book. It's so rare to get it right on your first try (or to write something that is completely in line with how the book evolves as you go along). If we counted changes to chapter 1 as a revision, the number of times a manuscript is revised before completion would be absurd.
For me, I only count a full manuscript review as a revision. I edited a few chapters before (which I try not to do during my first draft writing, but it happens), but that was not a revision. My manuscript is unrevised. Those chapters are revised, but not the manuscript. And that is the essence of my process. I finish the first draft and then I revise the entire thing (usually after a week or two off to let the lingering mistakes get flushed from my brain--in this case, I just received an ARC of Tad Williams' SHADOWRISE and have jumped into that). The draft evolves as I write, so characters and even setting at the end of the story don't match the beginning. When WANTED began, the entire thing was set in the Duchy d'Hillsborough. That changed. Things spread out. People came from more diverse backgrounds and that all needs to be brought into alignment. If I were to let someone read the story right now, they would scratch their head if they read from start to finish (I also broke my rule of letting someone read the first draft, but the guy just got laid off and I hope it provides some level of distraction for him).
That revision doesn't end until I think the manuscript is suitable for others to read. If chapter 42 gets revised four times before that happens, so be it. It's all still one revision. I will then send the manuscript to a a group of interested first-readers (who are, by definition, the people that read them first and offer criticism). I sent out BLACK MAGIC to a group of people and got a small response, but of those people who did comment, their feedback was invaluable. I expect to do the same this time around too (not necessarily with the same group, but at least to the people that gave good feedback). When I receive their feedback, I begin another revision (so front to back, not just on the elements they give me).
When I'm finished with that draft, I begin querying. Now some people might think, two revisions, that's not enough before querying, but I'll refer you to point 1 above.
While I'm usually intolerant of the "that definition is debatable because other people say it's this even though those people are wrong," I'm not a stickler on what is and what isn't revision. It's part of the process, and like the rest of writing, that process is different for everyone. A writer find what works and what doesn't and hopefully does what works.
...then they don't tell anyone how much they revised to avoid any kind of judgment or ridicule.