I watched a movie from the novel "I Will Find You" by Harlan Coben. There is a scene where a woman who's a journalist is reviewing and marking up a guy's planned speech. He comments on how many changes she's making. Her response is:
"Writing is re-writing."
I thought that is so true.
AI would agree with you - to it, writing is rewriting someone else's words.
That's not what the character (author) meant.
Write your first draft quickly, and then roll up your sleeves and really write the novel during the re-write. During the re-write, choose the best word. The best sentence structure. Tune dialogue. Move stuff around. Add stuff. Delete stuff. Look at the pace. The consistency. Do all the stuff that makes a novel great.
I spend the majority of my time writing a story/novel during that phase. Some call it editing, but it's much more than correcting typos and grammar errors.
That's not what the character (author) meant.
I know, but it could easily be interpreted to apply that way when using AI.
Write your first draft quickly,
That's not my natural way of working. I try to plan each chapter carefully in my mind before I start to write, so what comes out is fairly close to the final version. When it's on 'paper', I reread it several times, correcting spellings and grammar, rewording sentences etc, but usually no major changes.
As you can see from my stories, sometimes that technique doesn't work too well :-(
AJ
That's not my natural way of working. I try to plan each chapter carefully in my mind before I start to write, so what comes out is fairly close to the final version. When it's on 'paper', I reread it several times, correcting spellings and grammar, rewording sentences etc, but usually no major changes.
As you can see from my stories, sometimes that technique doesn't work too well :-(
I saw a Jack Carr book club interview last week with Louis L'Amour son Beau L'Amour about the laters new book. Check it out. https://youtu.be/Rxx6OWUOH7U?si=OkRC7__vujf9JU8l
The The unconscious writing style—often called freewriting, stream-of-consciousness. I write this way mostly.
The unconscious writing style—often called freewriting, stream-of-consciousness, or psychic automatism—is a technique where you write continuously without editing, censoring, or letting your inner critic interfere. The goal is to bypass the slow, analytical conscious mind and tap directly into the fast, creative flow of the unconscious.
For a moment, I thought this might finally be a thread that didn't turn into an AI discussion, but... alas.
AI is creating a million new Walters.
(For those who don't get it, it's from The Big Lebowski, a man who connected everything to his service in Vietnam.)
Yes, I hijacked the thread too soon. My bad.
In my defence, if I don't write something down immediately, it tends to get forgotten.
AJ
"Writing is re-writing."
It's too bad lot of amateur writers don't like to rewrite though. Their idea of rewriting is editing their first draft for errors and hitting submit.
But a person will learn more about writing if they rewrite their first draft 5 times than they will writing five new stories one time.
But a person will learn more about writing if they rewrite their first draft 5 times than they will writing five new stories one time.
I don't buy that, unless the author gets independent feedback from someone with more expertise about what works well and what doesn't. Otherwise it's just building writing muscle memory without ironing out the faults.
AJ
There are tradeoffs with every approach.
Write, then rewrite, and you (especially if 'you' is a new author) risk analysis paralysis. Heinlein's Rules of Writing contain 'Refrain from rewriting (except to editorial demand). Avoid the temptation of endless tweaking and polishing. Move on to a new project once a story is written.' Note, however, that Heinlein assumes you will have a competent editor. If you don't, adjust as necessary.
Don't rewrite enough, and you risk sloppiness, especially if you're really publishing the first draft.
My first drafts often contain all sorts of sloppiness. Plotwise, they're 'good enough' about 95% of the time. I seldom need to make major shifts. But they're unpolished, and what wasn't written is glaring in its absence, when I go back and look at it.
So, my writing plan is to write it, shelve it, and look later, both for 'editing' and for missing story elements. Rewrite at that point. Then, send it off to my editors, who will beat it up in their various ways. Then, I get at least one more pass, sometimes two.
The 'cost' of a significant edit goes way up once my editors get it, because I feel like any major change requires notifying them and getting feedback.
Switching sorts of 'writing,' a computer science professor I knew swore by the advice 'Write it, write it again, then write it correctly.' That works for research, but it'll kill most commercial projects. I suspect there are resonances with writing in the book sense.
Switching sorts of 'writing,' a computer science professor I knew swore by the advice 'Write it, write it again, then write it correctly.' That works for research, but it'll kill most commercial projects. I suspect there are resonances with writing in the book sense.
Having a good editor, as Heinlein assumes, means someone is rewriting for you and then you're rewriting their rewrites. A polish on a polish.
But let's look at your phrase that it'll kill most commercial products, and the answer to that is "No it won't."
JK Rowling rewrote the first chapter of her book 15 times. She rewrote other chapters of her 7 novel series "more times than she can remember."
Advice from professional authors who live by the deadline is basically, "How to do it fast and live with it."
That's not a bad thing. But for a new writer, the only way to learn how to write is to re-rewrite what they've written, and not a word here or there, but a deep look at the words they put to paper so they can say, "Oh, that sounds like shit. I don't like that. What was I thinking? My dialogue is so on point and in your face, it sounds like I'm winking to the audience with a cross body fist pump."
Once you've done that enough that you can see the weaknesses in your writing, then your first draft becomes better and takes less re-writes and editing.
People who rewrite a lot are Vladimir Nobokov, Ernest Hemingway, Roald Dahl, Stephen King, but then those who don't are, Charles Bukowski, Ray Bradbury, and Isaac Asimov.
(Lee Child is on the research list who doesn't, with the statement that he never looks back but I also read an interview with him where he stated that going back to fix his errors is a pain. What he does is "churn" which is to write all day, and then the next day, re-read and edit his work aloud.)
From what I've seen, people like to write less than they like to have a finished product.
Now, readers will read anything that's entertaining enough, and much like TV shows, writing can be sloppy, hokey, or even silly, and still be fun to read.
For new writers, rewriting is the shortcut to getting better.
For professional writers, rewriting about perfectionism.
But let's look at your phrase that it'll kill most commercial products, and the answer to that is "No it won't."
Remember, I'd switched contexts to software. Imagine writing a compiler. The whole thing. Then tossing it and writing it again. Then tossing that and writing it correctly.
You'll get a great compiler, probably - if you're getting good feedback and optimizing what you should. But most commercial 'write a compiler' projects will not allow you the time to write it three times. Funding will run out, and there's intense pressure to ship something.
Writing a book is very different. You're not funding a multi-person team working for years (unless you're one of a handful of writers who, allegedly, do just that - but those are established big-name authors). J. K. Rowling could do that because no one but her cared if the book was ever finished. On the other hand, for those of us who publish series, and do so with serial posting, there is pressure to get chapters out the door. That means I'm usually editing at one point and writing new material dozens of chapters later, just to make sure there's a large window of time for editing, backfilling dropped plotlines, and so forth.
Also, as a King fan, and someone who enjoys his books about the writing process (which I need to reread!), he should not be in the 'rewrite a lot' category. Per King, his process is to write the whole thing in one pass, shelve it for weeks to months, read it and rewrite as he goes (again, one linear pass). After the second draft is done, he shares it with a few trusted readers, then polishes it. There's fairly little actual rewriting. He swears by 'two drafts and a polish.'
I read things I would be embarrassed to publish in terms of grammar, spelling, style, and so forth. Not all the time, but sometimes. If the story is good enough to grab me, I'll read it if it's not egregiously bad.
I am sympathetic to Lee Child - going back to fix errors is a pain - but I would much rather fix them than leave them, so I fix errors. It's an interesting point philosophically, though. Especially for those of us who publish on SoL, what do we 'owe' the reader? Some people take the opinion that you're getting it for free and you get what you get. Others fix everything they can.
going back to fix errors is a pain
I'm the opposite. Not fixing an error is painful for me. I guess it's because I'm a compulsive perfectionist.
And it's the perfectionist in me that does the rewriting. And enjoys it. To the point where I might change a verb multiple times until I'm sure I chose the "best" one.
So for me, the phrase "writing is rewriting" struck a cord. It's the rewriting (basically revising to make it "better") that is where I spend most of my time crafting a story.
Oh, it's both for me. I go fix them, compulsively, but that doesn't mean it's not work and sometimes annoying, just from the number of steps to fix a missing letter or punctuation mark once it's been published. A pop-up editor that let me just insert something would be nice :) On the other hand, I can imagine plenty of misuse scenarios.
Oh, I did, but 'resonances' allows for significant differences, and project success is one of them. The idea is valid - as you said, there are writers who do exactly that (keep writing it until they get it right), but it's a different thing than rewriting a large software package multiple times before trying to ship it to customers.
It's like I addressed, deadlines. When you have a deadline, you have to settle for doing less. But, commercial programmers have to dedicate time to fixing defects, addressing user feedback, maintenance, updates, so really, the editing process is a continuous thing. Where as in writing, you're pretty much done when it's published.
And I'd say King does fall into the rewrite process. They say he has a very strict process of a draft, a rewrite and a polish and in between it goes to editors and people who read it. With a strict process, he realizes the importance of the rewrite.
But, he has proven he's willing to break his own rules with the rewrites of The Gunslinger, having his Author's Copy of The Stand, and whatever else he doesn't tell, since all my search engine inquiries state he doesn't share those details.
That's somewhat 'normal and expected.' I don't love it, but I get it. What annoys me is when beta-quality code goes out for mission-critical systems. I've been on the developer side of that, and we absolutely hated it, but, sooner or later, when they give you two person-years of work and less than one person-year to develop it, something's going to slip, and if your delivery dates don't ship, it's not good.
I was wondering if this concept was the idea of the author of the book I mentioned in the OP or a general writing concept that the author borrowed. It seems to be the latter. I found a Writer's Digest article called "The Art of Writing is in the Rewriting" at:
https://www.writersdigest.com/write-better-fiction/the-art-of-writing-is-in-the-rewriting
In the article he says the following (which is how I write):
I like to craft as I go, to polish. I also listen to my gut to be sure my narrative is on course. So, when I get to the end of a complete manuscript I have actually rewritten the work a few times. Then with the whole manuscript in hand, I go back and rewrite again. And again.
The 'Writing Expert' market is overcrowded since that's a popular career path for failed writers. Like other overcrowded markets, you have to make yourself visible and the way to do that is, like the social influencer market, by giving more and more outrageous 'advice'.
If you do that and it works for you, fine. But it's terrible advice to give to most budding authors.
AJ
But it's terrible advice to give to most budding authors.
I disagree. It's great advice for serious budding authors.
By the way, I had never heard that advice. It's how I evolved as a writer.
Yeah, these how-to-write influencers seem to read off the same checklist of what they've read from other people rather than "This is what works for me and what I've discovered throughout the years."
Yeah, these how-to-write influencers seem to read off the same checklist of what they've read from other people rather than "This is what works for me and what I've discovered throughout the years."
Except it's famous authors saying it.
At the risk of 'splitting the baby,' it's both.
For some serious budding authors, it'll really help.
For other serious budding authors, it'll send them down the road of analysis paralysis and prevent them from ever publishing anything.
Who can say what the balance is? But there's a reason why Heinlein gave the opposite advice - analysis paralysis (not the term he would have used, I suspect) is a great way of stopping progress.
Or, to use a different cliche, the perfect is the enemy of the good. There's merit in perfectionism, but there's also merit in publishing something (or trying to, if '
'trying to' involves serious editors taking an interest in the work and providing suggestions for improvement).
For other serious budding authors, it'll send them down the road of analysis paralysis and prevent them from ever publishing anything.
I wonder if everyone here has the same definition of a rewrite.
I see rewriting as making your writing sharper, using the idea you have on paper and perfecting how you wrote the sentences that bring that idea to life.
I see "analysis paralysis" as someone completely rewriting what they've written by starting on a blank page with the idea that they are going to make it better because it wasn't good enough and now they have a new idea.
I see 'analysis paralysis' as 'this is good, but it could be better if I just spend a bit more time editing it.' Repeat that enough times and you never publish anything.
Which may be why you have guidelines like Heinlein's 'resist the temptation to edit' or King's 'write a draft, wait, update the draft, get it to advance readers.' Both processes put a pretty solid time limit on how much time is spent in the editing/rewriting process before someone other than the author reads it.
I'm certain it's individual. People will gravitate to different processes, and will naturally advocate for the process that works for them.
SB's 'writing expert' taught at Uni. On the first day of semester, he would tell his quote of students that, contrary to their expectations, they would only be writing one story for the semester. Many times.
He mentions 'diminishing returns' as a poison pill, to counter the obvious objections.
AJ
I'm in the process of 're-writing' older books, and the experience is fascinating. For some of them, this is the third time (or fourth, as I'm creating PG-13 versions of Good Medicine).
All I can say is I believe the books are much improved after review/rewrite, at least as I see it.
All I can say is I believe the books are much improved after review/rewrite, at least as I see it.
How do the readers see it? That's the acid test.
There are other writers on SOL stuck in a doom-loop of endlessly rewriting their own stories and I have seen nothing to convince me their efforts are worthwhile.
AJ
How do the readers see it? That's the acid test.
Well-received, so far.
There are other writers on SOL stuck in a doom-loop of endlessly rewriting their own stories and I have seen nothing to convince me their efforts are worthwhile.
I'm still releasing 3 chapters a week to my patrons, so I don't think I'm in a doom loop! ;-) I write about 20,000 words per week, in addition to revising, maintaining my sites, etc.
I'm 're-writing' (to some extent - I would tend to say more 're-editing') my older books. No reader feedback yet, of note, and it will be interesting to see that.
One of the constraints, for me, is 'the story is the story.' There are a few specific places I'll break that, if the change is relatively limited (in my opinion, obviously) and doesn't break the 'big picture' story.
Referencing a later comment - no doom-loop here, either. I'm working on this in parallel to extending my current writing and it's not getting in the way.
Part of the goal, for me, comes from recognizing that earlier books are 'good', but could be notably better with a relatively constrained amount of effort. Perhaps (hopefully) that will make it more attractive for new readers. That's not true if they don't like the story, because the story is the story. But, if it's style, grammar, the occasional uncaught typo, and so forth that put someone off, then updating is worth the effort.
SB's 'writing expert' taught at Uni.
That was simply an article I thought was interesting. Want other experts?
Ernest Hemingway: "The only kind of writing is rewriting."
E.B. White: "The best writing is rewriting."
Truman Capote: "Good writing is rewriting."
Michael Chrichton: "Books aren't written—they're rewritten."
Roald Dahl: "Good writing is essentially rewriting."
Robert Graves: "There is no such thing as good writing, only good rewriting."
Vladimir Nabokov: "I have rewritten — often several times — every word I have ever published. My pencils outlast their erasers."
and so on…
Pre-contemporary writers didn't have editing software. What those authors call rewriting, modern-day writers would probably consider a standard part of the editing process
Hemingway was possibly an exception because he actually rewrote whole stories so he could change the endings - allegedly one of his stories has 38 different endings.
AJ
What those authors call rewriting, modern-day writers would probably consider a standard part of the editing process
That's the point. It's not. I tried to make that differentiation in my OP.
In fact, it's probably the opposite with authors of the past and those nowadays because traditional publishers used to have editors that did a whole lot more than checking grammar and typos. There were other people to do that. The editors helped the authors rewrite.
Thomas Wolfe had a skilled editor named Max Perkins. The two fought all the time, but back then the editor had a lot of power so the rewriting was done. The results were bestsellers. But Wolfe's ego got in the way and he left that publisher and Perkins. None of his other novels were successful.
I didn't mention Stephen King in an earlier post when I quoted famous authors, but I remember him saying when he rewrote his stories he deleted about 25% of the manuscript. And of course "kill your darlings" came about in the rewrite phase.
Oh, I heard the Hemingway 38 different story endings was a myth.
As to SOL authors getting bogged down in a rewriting loop, if that's so, that's not the type of rewriting I'm talking about. How many SOL authors in the rewriting will struggle over a verb choice to make the action scene pop better? Other than me, I would venture none. That's the kind of rewriting I'm talking about.
Oh, I heard the Hemingway 38 different story endings was a myth.
The article I read claimed all 38 endings were accessible and stored in a Museum - Paris I think.
An anecdote at the extinct Writer's Group I belonged to was that Hemingway owed his publisher a story. So he zipped something off from whatever foreign location he was currently visiting ,and sent the handwritten first draft to his publisher. The publisher published it 'because you don't say no to Hemingway. I wish I could remember the title.
AJ
I didn't mention Stephen King in an earlier post when I quoted famous authors, but I remember him saying when he rewrote his stories he deleted about 25% of the manuscript
In the case of The Stand, he published an extended edition many years later that restored that 25% (more, actually — 1152 vs 823 pages).
Honestly, the restored version was much, much better.
Honestly, the restored version was much, much better.
I'm a little surprised JKR hasn't released a restored version of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Allegedly the editors butchered it pretty horribly, presumably thinking the publishing world wasn't ready for such a full-on book so it had to be mainstreamified. They were right in one respect, hence the seventeen rejections.
Sometimes the original version really is the best.
AJ
I would love to see it. Without seeing it, it's hard to tell if the editors were right or wrong.
One of the things that I noted about the Harry Potter books was that the earliest two had notable 'flaws' that also aren't flaws if you view them through the lens of them being aimed at the juvenile fiction market of Harry's age. There are plenty of bells and whistles, but it's relatively light, and there's the 'kids can solve problems that totally stymie grown-ups' trope.
Once you get to the third book, the plot gets darker and darker, with more complexity and nuance.
If the first book originally had more complexity and nuance, it might not have grabbed its audience as thoroughly as it did - an audience that grew up as the books grew up.
A 'deeper' version of the first book would be welcome now, because the target audience for such a book is much older.
But is that what was cut? I don't know.
There are two versions:'Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone' and 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'. Per quick googling, they differ in more than the title; the UK version ('Philosopher's Stone') is in British English, while the US version is in American English. I imagine they maintained the distinction in further books, but haven't checked.
There are two versions:'Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone' and 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'.
The title was changed for the American market because few Americans have heard of the mythical 'Philospher's Stone' and its ability to transfer lead into gold.
the UK version ('Philosopher's Stone') is in British English, while the US version is in American English. I imagine they maintained the distinction in further books,
The later ones I've read seem to be written in transatlantic English.
AJ
I agree with the restored version being much better.
I also understand why some people disagree. Quite a lot of what went back in is side stories and details. I love that. Some people just want 'the story,' though, and don't want those other things.
It's a good example of Chekov's Gun. The cuts make it closer to that standard; the extended edition repudiates it.
That was a pretty darn good show I watched it all in two nights while on a business trip and alone in a hotel.
But yes I spend a lot of time wordsmithing.
I watched a BBC interview wiht Ken Follett. He writes his novels twice. Wow. This link at 19 min mark he shows his work station and process. https://youtu.be/1Q1NEmOZdgw?si=HQsGwIfoYzV_z6F5
He says planning takes a year, the first draft takes a year, the 2nd draft takes a year.
I wish they'd show him writing and how often he comes back to rewrite a line or a paragraph or a page in that time, or if he doesn't do that at all.
He keeps the first draft up on his left while he writes the second draft. I wonder if he's constantly making comparisons to see if it's better than the original while taking in the notes of his beta readers seriously, that he keeps on his right side screen.
He says his publishers want to publish the first draft, and if that takes him a year, he's probably not thinking every sentence is perfect. And since his publishers "aren't up to his standards" and the second draft takes a year, once again, he's not writing sentences and just moving on.
Whatever his actual in-depth process is, he does take his rewrite seriously.
That surprised me also. I think he idea of a good writing day is aroud 1200 words. But I see him as a senior writing he is in his 80s at time of interview. Most authors are on a 1 book a year timeline. I have a author friend who averages 3 400-500 page books a year, he's been told he writes to much.
Love Ken's books and Im sure he has a team.
Most authors are on a 1 book a year timeline.
That surprises me. In the UK, it's standard for publishers to demand two books a year. Fewer than that and any marketing they do is largely wasted because by the time the next book comes around, the author's name has slipped from public consciousness and they have to do it all again.
AJ
the first draft takes a year, the 2nd draft takes a year.
First draft to second draft is editing, not rewriting IMO.
AJ
First draft to second draft is editing, not rewriting IMO.
That's because your definition of "rewriting" is different than what is meant by "writing is rewriting." Think of "rewriting" as robust editing.
Robust editing in novel writing means reviewing and rewriting a manuscript in clear, deep layers. This process moves from the big story structure down to single words. Writers fix big plot holes first, improve scene tension next, clean up sentences, and check for small grammar mistakes last.
That's because your definition of "rewriting" is different than what is meant by "writing is rewriting." Think of "rewriting" as robust editing.
The problem is people start getting too pedantic with these terms.
There is what we envision, and what there is. I've had to revise what I believe more than once, most people just don't want to.
First draft to second draft is editing, not rewriting IMO.
AJ
Editing is a blanket term that encompasses the entire process of perfecting someone's work/getting it ready for publication.
He only has 2 drafts, the original, which takes a year, and I doubt each sentence is only written once during that time.
And his second draft, which he starts from a blank screen with his first draft on a screen to his left and his notes on improving the first draft (his and from early readers) on his right.
I hate to say it, but I'd revise that opinion.