Jumping through Hoops

[Paul Whybrow]

I'm three weeks into editing my third novel, and any of you who've done this will know how I'm feeling. If writing a story is like wandering a world I've created, with beautiful scenery and fascinating characters, then editing resembles staggering through an endless swamp in thick fog, wearing lead boots; the only sign of life is the croaking of frogs—and they're not saying nice things!

Apart from chasing down repetitions, clumsy sentences and punctuation errors, I use lists like Diana Urban's 43 Words You Should Cut From Your Writing Immediately, as well as a list I've made of words and expressions I tend to use too much.

I firmly believe that this odious task improves the readability of my manuscript, yet, despite this, I wonder who I'm doing the editing for....Tidying my writing may impress a literary agent or publisher's editor, though they'll still find things to correct. As for any reader who may be drawn to my stories, I'm not sure that they'd notice the improvements.

The reason that I say this, is because the most frightfully written rubbish becomes a best-selling book. Also, while editing, I've read crime novels by three of my favourite authors, and they most definitely didn't do any of the nit-picking I'm bogged down with at the moment. I admire Harlan Coben and Jeffery Deaver for the readability of their stories, but neither uses language beyond the vocabulary of a ten-year-old. John Connolly is more literary in style, but my jaw dropped when I read a short paragraph of five sentences, which contained the word 'had' nine times!

'Had' is one of the words I hunt down, so it made me question who edits his manuscripts, and how he gets away with such gawkiness. The answer is, of course, that he's a successful author with a long track record. You only have to look at the monumental length of J K Rowling's Harry Potter novels, which started off at the conventional word count of 80,000, but escalated to 257,000 once she'd achieved mega-sales. You don't tell the goose that's laying golden eggs what to do!

Edting my manuscript is starting to feel like an intiation rite, a compulsory test that I have to do, to please gatekeepers whose judgement has little to do with what a reader likes. I'm a grumpy lion, who's never been good at jumping through hoops, but do any of you feel the same way?

 

[KG Christopher]

I am in the process of plotting out my second book in the Pet Food series. I realise now I have to move onto Draft 4 of the first book to allow the second book to make sense. Sometimes I just say 'what's the point' but I also believe I shall have two well-rounded story lines and a nice snug fit between one and the other.

If I can give you a metaphor. My first book will hug my second book in a lovely spooning position.

It's like our @Carol Rose says, you can read and read about what is the best way to write, what to add, how long you should take, but really?

 

[Katie-Ellen]

I sometimes do feel a bit like Sisyphus, but I'm in good company. I like editing. For me it means the story is mapped, the stakes and the logic worked out, the heart is beating; the hardest bit is done. But whether anyone will want the STORY...

Everything seems to be getting so right-on; fiction with agendas. I'm reading something now, a new release, a mystery with an element of the supernatural. Two heroines, two timelines. Research for me, too, innit. It has excellent reviews, what do I know? But I am so far finding it a dreary read with 2D characters and it's starting to feel like an issue driven story, a feminist tract. Lovers All Untrue by Norah Lofts was a terrific and terrifying portrait of malevolent Victorian patriarchy and was based on a true crime tragedy. It was a grim foreshadowing of the absolute necessity of the great political fight to come. But it had not a whiff of pulpit about it; a powerful and totally immersive read.

My characters could be said to tick various topical boxes I suppose. A handsome male paramedic from E Europe likes my young policeman of partly Trinidadian descent, who has eyes only for the girl ambulance driver. But I don't have a social 'ishoo' up front and obvious. I'm not sorry for that, it's a human condition story and the problem at its heart is eternal in nature - you'll relate to it or you won't -but if this is the current mood in publishing, that worries me slightly.

 

[Chase Gamwell]

My biggest issue with editing prompts me to ask similar questions, @Paul Whybrow. Obviously, I want my manuscripts to be the best they can be be, but when I send a full (exhaustively edited) to an agent and get the reply "I read through your story this weekend and while I love the concept, I'm afraid I didn't connect to your writing style as much as I had hoped to.", it's more than a little disheartening. And that's actually a direct quote from an agent who read through the entire MS. While I'm sure the writing style wasn't perfect, it was polished (and beta read by a few folks here at the colony).

I understand that not everything is for every agent, but I do catch myself wondering why I go through the act of editing sometimes. But at the end of the day, I'm going to do it anyway. I love the stories I write and I love making them shine (even if they'll only shine in the dark recesses of my google drive). My hope is that, eventually, one of my stories will catch the right eye.

 

[Emurelda]

Editing can only be taken to our best ability depending on our genre. However, the learning that is involved at early stage writers like myself is quite steep and I find my standards change (for the better hopefully! ) during the editing process that it feels never-ending. However, if I've exhausted every submission avenue and still didn't succeed in getting MS represented I'd have to concede and move on with a new story taking on board all the learning to the next novel. When that realisation actually happens is another consideration to take on board.

 

[Carol Rose]

Having an agent say they didn't connect to your writing style doesn't necessarily mean they thought your self-editing wasn't up to par. It simply means they didn't connect to the story or to the characters. And that in and of itself means nothing personal against you. There are countless best-sellers out there I can't connect with, and countless books most people I know don't care for that I loved. This is a very subjective business. You all need to remember that. What trips one person's trigger won't even cause a blip in the radar for another.

The editing piece certainly has enough tips and resources out there to assist, but after a while, as you keep writing more and more, that stuff should become second nature to you. If it never reaches that stage, you have bigger issues than worrying about your individual writing style. You may need to hire an editor when you've got your MS as polished as you think you can make it. But we're talking about two separate issues here.

Copy editing or proofreading is one thing. Catching all the mistakes, cleaning up the clunky sentences, polishing the grammar, etc. Paying attention to things like not starting each sentence the same way - with a gerund, he said, she said, a character's name. Varying the length of the sentences so the book doesn't read either as choppy with a staccato feeling, or drawn out like the sentences in this post. Yes, that is one of the things my editor points out all the time about my writing. LOL!!

But seriously, "editing" involves many concepts beyond copy edits or proofreading. I edit in layers, if that helps anyone at all. First pass is to make sure I'm saying what I want to say. I clean up most of the petty mistakes in the first pass. Second pass is for character development, and making the scene richer with emotions. I can write dialogue all day long, but who would want to read a book where no one ever moves? I go back and fill in the blanks. Who is doing what to whom and why? Whose POV are we in? Can we add some internal angst in there to give the exchange more depth? Is the POV character saying one thing but thinking/assuming another? I do that A LOT in my romances. Readers seem to love it.

The editing piece isn't merely checking for grammar and punctuation mistakes. It involves copy edits, proofreading, as well as adding depth to your character arc, and to the story arc. If it's too difficult to pay attention to the copy edit piece of it at the same time you're trying to add the layers, then you'll need to separate those acts. I still do, to be perfectly honest, with every single book. I have to, because my brain just works that way.

And then I go back a third time to make sure I have it exactly the way I want it. And then when I get those edits back, Karyn has found something I missed anyway. None of us is perfect. Agents aren't looking for perfection, and if they are, that isn't someone you'd want to work with anyway. They're looking for something that grabs them, shakes them, and won't let them go until they read to the end of the story. They're looking for something they know they can SELL. That's where researching your market comes in, but I digress...

As for reading about how to write, I don't think it's a bad idea to do so, but yeah... at some point... you need to WRITE in order to learn how to improve your skills. This isn't something you can read about and then sit down and bang out the perfect manuscript. Think of a musician. They're born with the talent. No doubt about it. But they still have to learn music theory, music history, composition, how to read music, and they also have to take lessons. They take lessons all their lives, and they keep learning, and keep practicing, and keep playing. It's not a one and done deal, and neither is writing. We're never really done learning our craft. There is always something we can improve upon, but it takes a LOT of words to see any real growth. The actual WRITING piece is the most important component of all this, just as the actual playing of music is what improves a musician's skill level.

Hope this helps.

 

[Emurelda]

@Carol Rose That does help !

There are two issues for writers to discern:

1) The writing prose itself; grammar, style, flow etc.
2) The plot itself.

The first cannot be argued about - something is either well written or mediocre, or not. The second is subjective. And if it doesn't resonate with an agent it doesn't matter how well written our writing is, it will be rejected. That is something that many writers who complain have a hard time coming to terms with I think. This is where it gets personal. And to be able to see that is a step up. But yeah - that's the part that we need to work on in tandem to #1.

 

[Carol Rose]

I would say that even the first one is subjective in part. Even if you nail the mechanics, a writer's voice isn't something they can really change. It's as individual as each of us are. And, it may simply be one that particular agent does not take to, no matter how well written the book is in terms of mechanics, character development, or an engaging plot. The book still may not be what the agent is looking for. It still may not grab him or her. But it's very difficult not to take that personally.

 

[Emurelda]

I would say that even the first one is subjective in part. Even if you nail the mechanics, a writer's voice isn't something they can really change. It's as individual as each of us are. And, it may simply be one that particular agent does not take to, no matter how well written the book is in terms of mechanics, character development, or an engaging plot. The book still may not be what the agent is looking for. It still may not grab him or her. But it's very difficult not to take that personally.

I stand corrected. Both are subjective

 

[Carol Rose]

I stand corrected. Both are subjective

No, I never meant to imply you were wrong and I was right. That was just my take on it. Everyone on this post has valid points. This is a tough business. We want to dissect why our work wasn't picked up, because we want to be able to go back and fix what's wrong.

 

[KG Christopher]

You have to love your work. Even when you edit. Now on the D1 of my second book and D4 of the fist book, I still get excited. It's not a chore to edit and add depth to the story or the characters, they are literally babies of my imagination, spawned by me and come alive every time I write, read and re-edit. Voice is something that you polish over time I am sure.

I am a certified dyslexic, so the technical aspects of the English language I always struggle with but thank god for spell checkers, grammatical toolkits. I go back to what my English teacher told me when I was 7 years old, and I still remember it, 'you can't spell for toffee, but you have a brilliant imagination'. Write the best story you can.

 

[Emurelda]

No, I never meant to imply you were wrong and I was right. That was just my take on it. Everyone on this post has valid points. This is a tough business. We want to dissect why our work wasn't picked up, because we want to be able to go back and fix what's wrong.

Nope - I like your perspective. I didn't realise that both could be subjective.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

I've just about finished sniping for repeated and clumsy words and phrases, but I find myself in a bit of a quandary about using long words. One of the thrills of reading for me as a child was learning new and unusual words—rushing to the dictionary to find their meaning; as a grumpy old man, this curiosity still applies....

I wasn't so much criticising Harlan Coben and Jeffrey Deaver for their simple vocabulary, more wondering at their technique, for their stories are unintimidating and readily consumed. As I write my novels, I make the assumption that my reader will enjoy seeing clever descriptions and coming across words new to them—but am I being a smartypants? George Orwell's Six Rules of Effective Writing includes the advice to never use a long word when a short one will do. This is a good rule to remember to avoid sounding overdone but limits the joy derived from using powerful language.

One editing technique, that I find does add punch to the narrative is backloading, so I'll be moving onto that soon.

The more I write and edit, the more I agree with Gabriel Garcia Marquez:

 

[KG Christopher]

six rules of this, ten rules of that, it's just total todpodolywonk. Either you write, or you don't. Either you can sing like Adele, or you can't.

 

[Chase Gamwell]

six rules of this, ten rules of that, it's just total todpodolywonk. Either you write, or you don't. Either you can sing like Adele, or you can't.

And sometimes even if you can't sing like Adele, it works out...

 

[Marc Joan]

I've just about finished sniping for repeated and clumsy words and phrases, but I find myself in a bit of a quandary about using long words. One of the thrills of reading for me as a child was learning new and unusual words—rushing to the dictionary to find their meaning; as a grumpy old man, this curiosity still applies....

I wasn't so much criticising Harlan Coben and Jeffrey Deaver for their simple vocabulary, more wondering at their technique, for their stories are unintimidating and readily consumed. As I write my novels, I make the assumption that my reader will enjoy seeing clever descriptions and coming across words new to them—but am I being a smartypants? George Orwell's Six Rules of Effective Writing includes the advice to never use a long word when a short one will do. This is a good rule to remember to avoid sounding overdone but limits the joy derived from using powerful language.

One editing technique, that I find does add punch to the narrative is backloading, so I'll be moving onto that soon.

The more I write and edit, the more I agree with Gabriel Garcia Marquez:

Funnily enough, I received some feedback on a novella the other day, and one criticism was that I sometimes sound as though I've 'swallowed a thesaurus'. The critic pointed to a particular example in the text. While I could see where she was coming from, I found it a little amusing that the word in question had not come from ingesting a thesaurus, but had been gleaned from a published book which was shortlisted for the Man Booker and won the 'Richard and Judy Best Read of the Year' [whatever that is]. One rule for them and another for us?

 

[Carol Rose]

You can't win for losing.

Write a book in first person, present tense and try to be a bit clever about it, like E.L. James did, and she's blasted into smithereens for "bad writing." But if you're Suzanne Collins and you wrote The Hunger Games trilogy using the same first person, present tense, you're brilliant.

(I need to add here that IMHO - and this is only my opinion - both series were written well enough to hold my attention, although only one of them is something I'd read a second time. )

Use long words and you're too pretentious. Use shorter words and your vocabulary isn't what it should be. Use longer sentences and you're not grammatically correct, because you've used more than one comma in it and/or no semi-colon. Use shorter sentences and the work reads too choppily.

Toss in a few adverbs and you're Satan. Cut out all adverbs and your prose lacks action or emotion.

I could go on, but you all get the point by now.

It's very frustrating, isn't it?

 

[Katie-Ellen]

And sometimes even if you can't sing like Adele, it works out...

Wot a voice THAT man has got! Funny how the greatest vocalists might not be the best singers. Not as such, and it doesn't matter one bit.

 

[Robinne Weiss]

Indeed...to everything above. I think the key for everything is consistency. If you write with big words, just do it. If you write with simple words, just do it. If you sing like Adele, rock on. If you don't sing like Adele, proudly make that off-key voice your signature.

"You've got to sing like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt. You've got to dance like nobody's watching. It's got to come from the heart it if you want it to work." --Guy Clark

 

[Paul Whybrow]

Use longer sentences and you're not grammatically correct, because you've used more than one comma in it and/or no semi-colon.

Writers of punctuation guides love quoting unusual examples of famous authors' strange usage of colons, semi-colons and hyphens—always praising their bizarre ways. I like to use the full gamut of punctuation marks, though I sometimes question how much the average reader notices the variety and correctness; after all, punctuation marks are simply there to indicate a pause of some kind or they suggest a stress, as with exclamation and question marks.

Good punctuation makes the narrative flow, but clumsy usage can be very irritating!

I started a new bedtime book last night, a charity shop bargain, Canal Dreams by Iain Banks. I came across a section that bamboozled me with its punctuation, so much so that I re-read it several times wondering why on earth he'd written it this way. The scene describes the narrator taking a scuba dive in a murky man-made lake, trying to locate a lost village among the trees of a sunken forest:

This had been rainforest; the trees had grown in the wind and the sunlight, and trawled the air for clouds and mist. Now they were gone, long turned to planks and rafters and ribs and seats. Perhaps some of the great trees were pulped, and became paper; perhaps some were turned into sleepers for the railways that helped the canal be built; perhaps some formed the buildings in the Zone, and perhaps some became small ships; boats that had plied the lakes. Sunk, their waterlogged timbers would nestle in these shaded depths, rejoined.

He certainly liked hitting the semi-colon key! I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would have said, for he declared:

Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.

 

[Marc Joan]

Writers of punctuation guides love quoting unusual examples of famous authors' strange usage of colons, semi-colons and hyphens—always praising their bizarre ways. I like to use the full gamut of punctuation marks, though I sometimes question how much the average reader notices the variety and correctness; after all, punctuation marks are simply there to indicate a pause of some kind or they suggest a stress, as with exclamation and question marks.

Good punctuation makes the narrative flow, but clumsy usage can be very irritating!

I started a new bedtime book last night, a charity shop bargain, Canal Dreams by Iain Banks. I came across a section that bamboozled me with its punctuation, so much so that I re-read it several times wondering why on earth he'd written it this way. The scene describes the narrator taking a scuba dive in a murky man-made lake, trying to locate a lost village among the trees of a sunken forest:

This had been rainforest; the trees had grown in the wind and the sunlight, and trawled the air for clouds and mist. Now they were gone, long turned to planks and rafters and ribs and seats. Perhaps some of the great trees were pulped, and became paper; perhaps some were turned into sleepers for the railways that helped the canal be built; perhaps some formed the buildings in the Zone, and perhaps some became small ships; boats that had plied the lakes. Sunk, their waterlogged timbers would nestle in these shaded depths, rejoined.

He certainly liked hitting the semi-colon key! I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would have said, for he declared:

Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.

Hmm. I'm with Banks not Vonnegut here. Vonnegut wrote with admirable clarity, it's true; but I find the passage from Banks that you quote also crystal-clear, and in fact I think it's v. well written! Each: to; his! own...

 

[James Marinero]

James Patterson said 'Never let the grammar get in the way of a good story' (paraphrased from memory). I do my best. If it ain't good enough for some, so what? No-one gets out of here alive anyway.

 

[Carol Rose]

I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would have said, for he declared:

Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.

Well I agree with Kurt. LOL!!

 

[Carol Rose]

If the punctuation gets in the way of the story, you know you've overdone it.

Same situation if you find yourself caught up in trying to make each sentence fragment a work of art, rather than simply making sure there's clarity in them and that they progress your story.

My grandmother, who was Sicilian and could cook a rock and make it taste good, used to tell me if I could taste a spice, I would then know I'd used too much. Considering she didn't use recipes and cooked to taste, it was an art form to get it just right. Whenever I find myself obsessing over a sentence, or where to put a comma, that's what I think of. Too much emphasis on the right punctuation, or making each sentence a beautiful work of prose, takes the focus off the big picture - the entire story.

Readers read a book to be entertained or to learn new information, not to admire your beautifully placed semi-colons, or the way your words weave across the page and drip down the spine of the book in perfect precision. Sure, it's great once in a while to run across such a perfect sentence that it pulls you out for a second or two, but if the entire book is like that, the story is completely lost. Books written like that are done so for the author's ego, not because they were trying to simply tell me a story.

 

[Marc Joan]

Well I agree with Kurt. LOL!!

Huh.

 

[Marc Joan]

If the punctuation gets in the way of the story, you know you've overdone it.

Same situation if you find yourself caught up in trying to make each sentence fragment a work of art, rather than simply making sure there's clarity in them and that they progress your story.

My grandmother, who was Sicilian and could cook a rock and make it taste good, used to tell me if I could taste a spice, I would then know I'd used too much. Considering she didn't use recipes and cooked to taste, it was an art form to get it just right. Whenever I find myself obsessing over a sentence, or where to put a comma, that's what I think of. Too much emphasis on the right punctuation, or making each sentence a beautiful work of prose, takes the focus off the big picture - the entire story.

Readers read a book to be entertained or to learn new information, not to admire your beautifully placed semi-colons, or the way your words weave across the page and drip down the spine of the book in perfect precision. Sure, it's great once in a while to run across such a perfect sentence that it pulls you out for a second or two, but if the entire book is like that, the story is completely lost. Books written like that are done so for the author's ego, not because they were trying to simply tell me a story.