Editing Philosophies - Writers Forum

Aevin · 02-09-2004, 11:44 AM

Here are some "quotes" on editing, things I heard from the teacher of a Fiction class, which he may or may not have quoted from other sources:

1. "A true writer is never satisfied with his story."

2. "What distinguishes a true writer from anyone else who writes is not writing skill, but revision skill."

The first quote implies that anyone who takes writing seriously will never be satisfied with his own story. That is, he will always see improvements that can be made, things that could be changed to enhance clarity and meaning. Even if the story is published, this author will see things that could be better, and think, "I should have changed that before publishing! It would make the story so much better!" Because he is always improving with each new project, he will wish to apply his knowledge to stories he wrote in the past, and never be totally satisfied with anything he has written, because it is impossible to perfectly portray anything he imagines with words alone. Therefore, no story he writes can ever be "finished."

The second quote suggests that anyone can write, and it doesn't matter much whether your writing is beautiful, or terrible. The true skill comes from revision. No writer can produce a perfect draft on his first try. The ability to REVISE is what sets skillful authors apart from novices. If the first draft is at the writing level of, say, a five-year-old, it can still become beautiful and meaningful through revision.

Any thoughts on these quotes? Are they true in your experience? Have any other random quotes on editing and revision?

Nifty1Pound50 · 02-09-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Aevin

1. "A true writer is never satisfied with his story."

2. "What distinguishes a true writer from anyone else who writes is not writing skill, but revision skill."

Quote:

No writer can produce a perfect draft on his first try.

The implications of the two quotes (which you broke down) are very true. You summarised/extended them very well, I must say.

But surely if a "true writer" is never satisfied with his story, then he doesn't feel it is perfect, and that a novel never can be. You've then gone on to say (or imply in what you said) that a novel can be perfected by revision.

I'm actually against great, in-depth re-working and revising of a story. I think the greatest inspiration I have ever had was my mind-state at the time I was writing. The words that come to you will be appropriate, and will give you a true distinctive angle on what you want to say, rather than being artificially thought of. That's simply how the mind works. "Truth can only be found in the genuine," as someone once said to me.

I, personally, believe that over-thought is a downfall. Stopping at any particular point to try and "capture" that right word, that perfect expression, is silly in my view. Of course, if something sounds completely wrong, then yes, change it to improve fluidity, but surely capturing emotion - or feeling - in a phrase can only be done spontaneously.

Perhaps this is more true of comedy, and comical writings, but I think the basic "strategy" and principles can be applied to many genres.

Writing isn't like Lego - you shouldn't build it one word at a time. It sounds too artificial if you do this. Sentences are more fluid if you simply just write. Flick on your computer screen, open your notepad and get your pen, and jot down some thoughts. Even if they are key words, rather than fully-fledged sentences, they will provide you with the emotion and essence that any "true writer" would wish to capture in his book.

For me, over-analysis is the worst enemy of emotional essence.

speculative · 02-09-2004, 12:56 PM

I think it comes down to a simple issue of economics, i.e. time vs productivity. If you only wrote one novel your whole life, you could edit it to the point that every single word was hand-picked, right down to the 214th "the" in the work. However, if it was released after 80 years had passed, it would probably cease to be a "timely" novel as the world would have moved on, and therefore not the "perfect" novel.

There is a balance between enough editing and too much. I think I would amend the first statement by saying, "A writer is never satisfied with their work, but has the good sense to know when to write 'the end' on the last page and send it in to their publisher."

-speculative

Fantasia · 02-09-2004, 02:30 PM

Anothing editing philosophy that might come in handy:

"You can't do it all by yourself!"

Ultimately, after you've perhaps picked, pruned and sacrificed your work to the Gods, you can then have someone you respect and someone you know has the competence to give good feedback, read it over for you.

gabriella · 02-09-2004, 03:04 PM

Nifty: You're right, in a sense. If you spend so much time thinking about how to write something rather than actually writing it, you'll never get the emotion out. But every writer has a rought draft. And if you'll look, that draft conveys nothing. No description, no emotion. Just a bunch of random shit that doesn't even make sense.

You need something to start with, and editing an idea in your head will never do you any good. You need to write what's in your head, and edit what's on paper. Nothing, and I mean nothing, comes out beautiful and heart wrenching the first random stab at creativity.

Revision is a major key to writing, but it's not the most important. Writing is. Getting those shitty thoughts down are the most important - and hardest - thing to do. Without revision and research, some of your plot is unrealistic, some words just don't work, some sentences are too long and dull, etc. You don't have to revise it looking for the most complicated word for each sentence - you need to revise it looking for the right word for each sentence. However, if it gets to a point where you're doubting your own judgement and you're relooking everything - even that which doesn't need looking at - than it's time to get some sleep and send in your book.

Some writers have edited their book well over sixty times, and I can understand that.

And although you can only write down your emotion when it comes, and not wait until later - nor can you try and write it perfectly the first time - stunning adjectives and breathtaking verbs is what imagery is all about. And novels are all about imagery. Without imagery, you have nothing. You - as the writer - may have the reader, but you're going to need incredible mastery at the english language (which means lots of editing) in order to really give the reader a sense of what that feeling feels like.

The reason I believe writing is better than revision, is because no matter what, before you do anything else - before you revise, edit, rewrite, reorganize - you need something written first. You can't revise a blank page, after all.

northerain · 02-09-2004, 03:11 PM

although i agree with most of the things beeing said here, i feel i have to disagree just a little(lol).

Im getting a little tired of listening about ''editing'' and how important it is.Come one people, lets be real here.If you dont write anything, you cant edit anything.Editing is Secondary.It is of course very important, but still secondary.August Derleth wrote(or co-wrote), and edited many of Lovecraft's stories, after his death.Who would you give the credit to?The editor?Of course not.Writing is important, and thats what you should be doing.After you ve done that, then you can worry about editing.

And a side note.I swear to god, if anyone takes offense from THIS post, im going to burn myself alive.

gabriella · 02-09-2004, 03:29 PM

Stalker! STALKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER!!!!!

Joking.

But, yeah. High-five, baby, we finally agree!

Fantasia · 02-09-2004, 03:43 PM

Oh, indeed, writing is the most important thing about--well, writing, but a lot of things are a part of the process, yes? Just because there are other aspects about writing that folks would like to talk about, it doesn't mean people are forgetting to write.

You dig?