# Kristine Kathryn Rusch on Perfection (Lisa's subtitle: Readers vs. Critiquers)



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I just discovered her post.

http://kriswrites.com/2012/06/27/the-business-rusch-perfection/

My favorite excerpts:



> As I'm teaching this concept to my workshop-experienced students, I always begin by asking them this, "What's wrong with Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream?"
> 
> I would have told him this:
> 
> ...





> Anything can be critiqued. Criticizing something is easy. It makes the critiquer feel smart, and just a little bit superior to the writer.
> 
> But that kind of critique serves no real purpose, because that kind of critique is wrong from the moment the critiquer picks up the story or the manuscript or the 400-year-old play.
> 
> Readers read for enjoyment. They vote for what they like with their hard cold cash. Traditional publishers who recently ventured into the world of free online e-book promotions were stunned to realize that people who receive a book for free are more apt to write a vicious, nasty review of that book than people who paid money for the same book.





> So I change my students' mindset to a reader/editor mindset. How do I do it? By giving them only three valid responses to something they've read:
> 
> 1. I liked what I read.
> 
> ...





> She wrote an e-mail to me later saying, "You really did have a horrible [copy] editor on this one. S/he/it (and yes, that really does say a lot about it) faithfully reproduced nearly every misspelled word, and introduced some errors&#8230;in the ms. Yeesh!"
> 
> In other words, the entire book was riddled with typos-and yes, we're fixing them. But am I taking the opportunity to revise the book? No, I'm not. The book stands as it did when I originally wrote it. Readers loved those books. I'm not going to try to invalidate their reading experience by "improving" on it. I might take out the thing that they love.


I can totally relate to this whole post. I've bookmarked it.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

It is a magnificent post, and it's so true.

Unless there are glaring issues, readers do not say the things critiquers, or even non-writing beta readers do.

Readers want the character's best friends to be decent and helpful, like Harrys and Hermiones. Critiquers want them to tear each other's faces off, like their own worst memories from real-life high school.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Ha, love this. I've gone into tendless discussions with folk who think that "a story can always be improved" and I tell them "just send it out the door, and if you want to increase you chances, write something new".

Kristine was one of our teachers at the WOTF workshop last year. She has a wonderful no-nonsense approach to the biz.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I bookmarked that article too under 'Best Editing Advice' - it's really worth remembering.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Actually, I'm not a big Shakespeare fan and don't assume that everything he ever wrote was golden. Don't get me started on _The Tempest_! I guess that makes me an evil critic.

As for the rest: If an author wants to write "the end" to a manuscript once it's published, that's her business. It's also the author's own business if he wants to rewrite it and issue a new edition now and again. I don't see where anybody gets off telling a writer to never revisit an old story. If you want to, do it. If you don't, don't.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I enjoyed that article, but be sure not to use it as an excuse to put out a poorly edited book. I've been dinged for formatting issues or not-quite-proofread text, especially in my early days as an indie writer. A few snarky reviews later and I hope I permanently learned my lesson.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> I enjoyed that article, but be sure not to use it as an excuse to put out a poorly edited book. I've been dinged for formatting issues or not-quite-proofread text, especially in my early days as an indie writer. A few snarky reviews later and I hope I permanently learned my lesson.


This x 100. I recently came across a book with a lot of problems. If the author doesn't read the reviews calling them out and revisit, they may just make the same mistakes again and again.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Monique said:


> This x 100. I recently came across a book with a lot of problems. If the author doesn't read the reviews calling them out and revisit, they may just make the same mistakes again and again.


I agree.

I think she means "send it out" to editors, not "type *the end* and upload that Word doc to Ammy!"

I've uploaded stuff before it was ready, of course. Not my first book, but eventually I got cocky. Then I fixed a dozen typos and shamefully re-uploaded the file a week later, feeling properly ashamed.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

The post struck me as a cut off the branch you’re standing on argument. She says critiquing is more or less meaningless because any story could be improved upon ad infinitum. If that’s true, what could anyone possibly get from a writing workshop? After all, taking a writing course assumes that you could improve your story, which, according to this post, is a waste of time.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

WHDean said:


> The post struck me as a cut off the branch you're standing on argument. She says critiquing is more or less meaningless because any story could be improved upon ad infinitum. If that's true, what could anyone possibly get from a writing workshop? After all, taking a writing course assumes that you could improve your story, which, according to this post, is a waste of time.


A writing workshop should be led by, in theory, someone with enough experience and skill to provide the best kind of feedback, the kind that helps you become the writer you're meant to be, just a little faster.

The problem with crit groups is it's the newbs leading the newbs and regurgitating "rules" they heard, sometimes. And by sometimes I mean usually. And by usually I mean every single freaking crit group I've been to.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

dalya said:


> A writing workshop should be led by, in theory, someone with enough experience and skill to provide the best kind of feedback, the kind that helps you become the writer you're meant to be, just a little faster.
> 
> The problem with crit groups is it's the newbs leading the newbs and regurgitating "rules" they heard, sometimes. And by sometimes I mean usually. And by usually I mean every single freaking crit group I've been to.


This. Novel writing workshops should be led by people who actually write them.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

There's truth to what KKR says. But I can't help but feel that articles like this does more harm than good. I don't claim to be authority on writing or her work. I've only read one book from her and it was faaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr from a masterpiece. So sometimes I have to question the point of these articles, other than to stir the pot to motivate authors to release substandard work into the marketplace because writers like KKR says perfection cannot be attained.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> Actually, I'm not a big Shakespeare fan and don't assume that everything he ever wrote was golden. Don't get me started on _The Tempest_! I guess that makes me an evil critic.
> 
> As for the rest: If an author wants to write "the end" to a manuscript once it's published, that's her business. It's also the author's own business if he wants to rewrite it and issue a new edition now and again. I don't see where anybody gets off telling a writer to never revisit an old story. If you want to, do it. If you don't, don't.


I'm very fond of _The Tempest_ but don't get me started on the horrors of _Coriolanus_. 

However, that doesn't alter the validity of her point. If you're busy writing and re-writing an old story, maybe you should give serious consideration to working on something new. Very good blog post from KKR. I really liked that one.

If you don't want her giving her opinion, easy solution. Don't read her advice because if you follow her blog, she will tell you what she thinks.



Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> There's truth to what KKR says. But I can't help but feel that articles like this does more harm than good. I don't claim to be authority on writing or her work. I've only read one book from her and it was faaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr from a masterpiece. So sometimes I have to question the point of these articles, other than to stir the pot to motivate authors to release substandard work into the marketplace because writers like KKR says perfection cannot be attained.


Does that mean she should give back those Hugos? 

That was hardly the point of the blog post but if that's what you want to read into it... *shrug*

Edit: Not everyone agrees with her. Fair enough, but with her CV I think it's hard to say that she doesn't know what she's talking about, and judging a writer by one novel is a bit shortsighted in my opinion. Now if she had only written one...


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Does that mean she should give back those Hugos?
> 
> That was hardly the point of the blog post but if that's what you want to read into it... **shrug**
> 
> Edit: Not everyone agrees with her. Fair enough, but with her CV I think it's hard to say that she doesn't know what she's talking about, and judging a writer by one novel is a bit shortsighted in my opinion. Now if she had only written one...


Considering the amount of shrugging you do after reading one of my posts, I imagine you must own the ballroom dance floor during disco night.  As for KKR, I can only go by my expeirence. If you tell me an apple is the best fruit and I bite into one with a worm-ridden core, I'd be crazy to think you knew what you were talking about too.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Considering the amount of shrugging you do after reading one of my posts, I imagine you must own the ballroom dance floor during disco night.  As for KKR, I can only go by my expeirence. If you tell me an apple is the best fruit and I bite into one with a worm-ridden core, I'd be crazy to think you knew what you were talking about too.


True, but this particular orchard has won awards for the quality of its fruit. You may have picked up a wormy apple, but there's contrary evidence that the harvest will be good.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

My only criticism of the KKR post is it could have been half the length. If the books are overexplain-y like that, I don't suppose I would love them either, but that's a style choice and I'm sure the true fans love it.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

MichaelWallace said:


> True, but this particular orchard has won awards for the quality of it's fruit. You may have picked up a wormy apple, but there's contrary evidence that the harvest will be good.


Hey, I'm the resident Devil's Advocate. You gotta cut my posts a little slack (Don't tell anyone, but I really do think KKR is a good writer. But that one book I read was a dozy.  ). Besides, I'm just messing with Jeanne. Her day is never complete without a little back and forth with the old 'serker. We have to go at it every now and then or things would get boring around here.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

every reader is different.  every critiquer is different.  every "non-writer" beta reader is different.

ultimately, it's the writer's story and up to him/her/it/them to decide when it's ready.

i disagree that Bill would have gone in and cut his most quoted scene.  he might have looked at the person and said, "you know, i really like the scene, i'm gonna let a few other people read it and see what they think."

this is not a one-size fits all business.  what works for KRR may not work for WS or FB or KH!


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> This. Novel writing workshops should be led by people who actually write them.





dalya said:


> A writing workshop should be led by, in theory, someone with enough experience and skill to provide the best kind of feedback, the kind that helps you become the writer you're meant to be, just a little faster.
> 
> The problem with crit groups is it's the newbs leading the newbs and regurgitating "rules" they heard, sometimes. And by sometimes I mean usually. And by usually I mean every single freaking crit group I've been to.


I agree that some people know things about writing, others don't. I agree too that critique groups can be the blind leading the blind. But KKR doesn't say listen to experts or don't join critique groups-or anything about rules. She says-among a zillion other loosely connected things-that you can't perfect a story, so don't try. Instead, you should write the "best" story you can. Okay. How do you know it's the best it can be if critiquing is out because, well, anything can be critiqued?

I think part of the problem with KKR's post might be explained by her own "best instead of perfect" scheme: she didn't work out the kinks and contradictions in her thinking before she pressed publish.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Hee @ Dean.

She said: When the book is finished, when the book is published for heaven’s sake, then it’s done. Irrevocably done. Mistakes and all.

How many of us live by that? I know I don't. I'm not suggesting people should make endless revisions, but never?


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

WHDean said:


> After all, taking a writing course assumes that you could improve your story, which, according to this post, is a waste of time.


I don't believe every word Kris or Dean say, but they've helped me a lot in certain ways. My feeling is their answer to this question would be that their workshops aren't intended to help you improve "your story," which assumes one, probably one already written. They believe in looking toward the next one you're going to write and keeping going, not belaboring past work. As someone who would be happy to pick and tweak already finished drafts forever, I find being beaten over the head with their attitude helpful.

IMO their advice is like everyone else's. You take what's helpful for you and leave the rest, but it's also good to at least consider advice that challenges one's own entrenched attitudes.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Monique said:


> She said: When the book is finished, when the book is published for heaven's sake, then it's done. Irrevocably done. Mistakes and all.
> 
> *How many of us live by that? I know I don't.* I'm not suggesting people should make endless revisions, but never?


Me neither. Most of what I learned as a writer was gained by performing endless revisions on manuscripts. Even making changes post-publication taught me a thing or two and made my books better. So I guess it's too late for me to sign up for KKR bootcamp. Oh well...


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Hey, I'm the resident Devil's Advocate. You gotta cut my posts a little slack (Don't tell anyone, but I really do think KKR is a good writer. But that one book I read was a dozy.  ). Besides, I'm just messing with Jeanne. Her day is never complete without a little back and forth with the old 'serker. We have to go at it every now and then or things would get boring around here.


I read one of her books that I definitely felt "meh" about, but I've also read a few great short stories. I would not say she's uniformly brilliant, but neither is Stephen King, who is one of my all time favorite writers.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> ...but it's also good to at least consider advice that challenges one's own entrenched attitudes.


Well, that's the problem. I don't even know if she's challenging my entrenched attitudes or not, because I'm not sure what she's talking about. She seems to be saying (at least) two different things about revising at the same time: [1] stories can't really be made better and [2] she teaches things that can make stories better.

It may be that she advocates moving on to the next project (as you suggest) because of point [1]. But where does [2] fit it? Do you see my problem here?


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

telracs said:


> what works for KRR may not work for WS or FB or *KH!*




__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Monique said:


> I'm not suggesting people should make endless revisions, but never?


That's what I don't get (assuming that's what she's saying). To believe that, you'd have to believe that no one ever or regularly made stories better by revising them. Really? That never happens or needn't happen?


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

WHDean said:


> That's what I don't get (assuming that's what she's saying). To believe that, you'd have to believe that no one ever or regularly made stories better by revising them. Really? That never happens or needn't happen?


Unfortunately, that's exactly what I think many of the young authors reading her blog will believe.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Considering the amount of shrugging you do after reading one of my posts, I imagine you must own the ballroom dance floor during disco night.  As for KKR, I can only go by my expeirence. If you tell me an apple is the best fruit and I bite into one with a worm-ridden core, I'd be crazy to think you knew what you were talking about too.


I don't disco. Don't be silly. Disco is the work of Satan. (Oh, wait. Maybe I should reconsider disco  )

Seriously, I don't like some of her work such as her Fey Universe novels. It isn't to my taste. That doesn't mean it's wrong. I just don't like it. Much of her work isn't masterpiece quality. It is journeyman writing which some of us do to make a living. On the other hand, I think her "Millennium Babies" is a masterpiece.

I don't aim for every novel I write to be a masterpiece. If I did, maybe I'd go back and re-write my novels a bunch of times after they were published. I hope that ONE of my novels may be a masterpiece, although I haven't written it yet. I hope to get there someday which is why I"m not looking over my shoulder at what I wrote last year or the year before. A few people have said that _Freedom's Sword _ is a masterpiece, but I assure you that I can see the faults. Am I going to go back and re-write it? No. I'm moving on. That is done and over with.

Of course, her advice doesn't suit everyone. No one's does, but for those of us whose aim is not to be James Joyce but a good journeyman writer, it's mostly pretty darn solid imo. But with all advice YMMV.


----------



## MT Berlyn (Mar 27, 2012)

dalya said:


> Unless there are glaring issues, readers do not say the things critiquers, or even non-writing beta readers do.


I agree that, borrowing incoherent prose and flagrant (repetitive) grammatical issues, it is ultimately the story that captivates the reader's imagination, not the subtlety of its technical errors. The writer anticipates the audience, but does not dictate _to_ the audience. If a story lacks cohesion, the reader will reject it. Editing, sometimes re-editing, is crucial. Perhaps what Ms. Rusch is pointing out, is that it is possible to critique a good story into oblivion.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Unfortunately, that's exactly what I think many of the young authors reading her blog will believe.


At some point everyone has suffered or will suffer from the kind of anxiety that manifests as endless self-criticism. No problem there. And different tastes can result in different critiques, which, at the end of the day, might be useless. No problem there. But she can't realistically marry these two observations into some kind of a principle that says, "Revising is a waste of time," especially when she also seem to believe that people can improve their writing through tutoring. To defend the consistency of this principle with the tutoring by saying, "But the first (=final) draft _can _ be improved!" only begs the question.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Unfortunately, that's exactly what I think many of the young authors reading her blog will believe.


Ever heard of Heinlein's rules? (Rhetorical question. Don't yell  ) That is exactly what he said. It isn't a new idea. 

Of course, Heinlein said he could safely give out his rules since no one would take his advice and the horror of some at not repeatedly re-writing is a good example of why he was right.

Edit: When I'm playing a sport, I don't expect to go back and play the same game. A coach or teacher might tell me, "You did this wrong so don't do it any more" and I'll try to incorporate the advice into my next game. Much the same can be said about writing. I have read _Self-Editing for Fiction Writers_ several times. I don't use it for editing. Instead I try to avoid the errors in the first place.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Ever heard of Heinlein's rules? (Rhetorical question. Don't yell  )


um, no, i never have....

and i always answer rhetorical questions, don't you?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

telracs said:


> um, no, i never have....
> 
> and i always answer rhetorical questions, don't you?


Only when I'm being a smartarse, but since that's my usual mode of operation...


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

There's a misconception running through the answers on this thread that she is against editing or revisiting a work for editing-not the case if you read her whole post. She is pro-re-editing (for grammar,pov, etc.)

She is against changing the _story_. You might take out favorite parts, or rewrite, favorite parts, or add things that detract.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> She is against changing the _story_. You *might* take out favorite parts, or rewrite, favorite parts, or add things that detract.


How good is her advice if changing the story makes it better? There was a little book written not so long ago called The Lord of the Rings. Its author went back and changed parts of the story in his first book, The Hobbit, to make it match the story line of the new book. Specifically, there was a scene in The Hobbit where during the famous Riddle Game, Gollum is outwitted by Bilbo Baggins. Tolkien went back and changed it (post-publication) to say Bilbo didn't outwit Gollum, but rather cheated in the contest in order to hint at the evil influence the ring was having on him from the very first encounter he had with it.

Had Tolkien not went back and changed the story, that scene would be what we refer to as a plot hole. I wonder what Tolkien would have thought of KKR's stance on not changing a story because it might not have worked out the way he intended? Or could it be that some writers trust their judgment enough to know when to tinker with a story and when not to? My guess is not every writer has George-Lucasitis and doesn't know when to call it quits when a book is done.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> There's a misconception running through the answers on this thread that she is against editing or revisiting a work for editing-not the case if you read her whole post. She is pro-re-editing (for grammar,pov, etc.)
> 
> She is against changing the _story_. You might take out favorite parts, or rewrite, favorite parts, or add things that detract.


I honestly didn't get that impression. She's fixing typos on a book because they're issuing a new edition. Otherwise, she feels (I think) that once it's published it is not to be touched.

Btw, I noticed you mentioned that your new book is being re-edited. I'm not sure KKR would approve, but I do.  But seriously, I saw that and had that cold shiver run down my spine. One of my recurring nightmares is uploading the unedited manuscript by mistake. Oy.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Or could it be that some writers trust their judgment enough to know when to tinker with a story and when not to?


...and how can the author who channels the Muse herself on the first draft become an incompetent meddler on the second pass? How do these two people--the incompetent boob and the poetic genius--inhabit the same person? Wonders never cease.


----------



## Mark Fassett (Aug 25, 2010)

WHDean said:


> ...and how can the author who channels the Muse herself on the first draft become an incompetent meddler on the second pass? How do these two people--the incompetent boob and the poetic genius--inhabit the same person? Wonders never cease.


Because said author who channels her muse on the first draft channels her critic on the revision, and said critic can't write (otherwise they'd be a writer and not a critic).


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Ever heard of Heinlein's rules? (Rhetorical question. Don't yell  ) That is exactly what he said. It isn't a new idea.
> 
> Of course, Heinlein said he could safely give out his rules since no one would take his advice and the horror of some at not repeatedly re-writing is a good example of why he was right.
> 
> Edit: When I'm playing a sport, I don't expect to go back and play the same game. A coach or teacher might tell me, "You did this wrong so don't do it any more" and I'll try to incorporate the advice into my next game. Much the same can be said about writing. I have read _Self-Editing for Fiction Writers_ several times. I don't use it for editing. Instead I try to avoid the errors in the first place.


Don't worry. I only yell when I'm ready to give my trusty axe a swing.  I think the biggest misconception for Heinlein's rules isn't that he is advocating not to edit your book, but rather that you should know how to write in the first place so you won't have to slog through those time-consuming and soul-draining revisions. For the record, I actually subscribe to his logic. It's why I'm glad I got my endless revisioning out of the way while slogging through my million words of practice.


----------



## Benjamin A. (Oct 1, 2011)

Errors are errors. I think we can all agree we don't want t pos, missspellings, and other such things in our work. I see that article as saying you should believe in your work, the story, the very core, and not be so willing to change it based on what people say.

I'm not a fan of making story changes personally, but I don't feel my personal views should be forced on others. Look into the whole debacle surrounding the Mass Effect series (a popular video game series for any who may not know). The games did well, a lot of people played them, but when the ending wasn't what people wanted they pitched a huge fit. Sometimes people believe something should have been this or that, but isn't that what a story is about? No one but the one who crafted the story should be able to decide what should or should not have happened. I personally would be disappointed if stories always went how I want.

Even if I didn't like a part of something, that doesn't mean that should detract from the whole if I did like it. I've poked a lot of holes in stories over the years as I've read/watched/played or whatever it may be. They are always there if you look hard enough, just like errors.

Better is subjective. This is one of the biggest reasons I didn't even try to go traditional. Every time you change something to make someone think it is better, someone else will find it worse. The numbers may move this way or that, but really you're only changing who is unhappy with it. A story is a story. Just because one of the few voices who makes their opinion known about a book say they would have rather seen something different, a legion of silent fans could be upset by the change.

It all comes down to the individual though, just like everything else in life. As long as the author feels the change is necessary and/or better, I'm good. I don't want to see people self-publishing but still having the story they want to tell be torn apart just to satisfy someone else. I think we can all agree that as long as the author is choosing to make the change, and wants to do it, then it is an acceptable decision that we may just have to agree to disagree about.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

WHDean said:


> ...and how can the author who channels the Muse herself on the first draft become an incompetent meddler on the second pass? How do these two people--the incompetent boob and the poetic genius--inhabit the same person? Wonders never cease.


LOL. I was thinking the EXACT same thing after your last post. Great point!


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

She's not saying you should publish your first draft. Where'd y'all get that? I will admit, I do tend to drift off in her long posts sometimes and often miss things, but...


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Monique said:


> She's not saying you should publish your first draft. Where'd y'all get that? I will admit, I do tend to drift off in her long posts sometimes and often miss things, but...


I wouldn't presume to argue on Dean's behalf, but in my case, I couldn't help but wonder how exactly does one go from being a capable writer at the beginning phases of writing a book to a total hack during the revision phase? And no I'm not saying KKR is a hack (she isn't). I'm pontificating intensely the theoretical process of starting off writing a book as the literary version of Popeye after being suped up on Spinach and ending up as Wimpy without the burgers during revisions. Is such a thing possible? Or is this whole revision argument a schtick?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

_"...how exactly does one go from being a capable writer at the beginning phases of writing a book to a total hack during the revision phase?"_

Who said that happens? I missed it. Sharesies.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Monique said:


> She's not saying you should publish your first draft. Where'd y'all get that? I will admit, I do tend to drift off in her long posts sometimes and often miss things, but...


Well, I had Nathan Lowell's beard by the time I reached the end of the post, but I did make it through. She seems to say that you should publish the first draft _of the story _ without any tinkering. She seems to allow for some copyediting of the text. But _any revision of the story is out _ because that's critique-induced meddling.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Well, I had Nathan Lowell's beard by the time I reached the end of the post, but I did make it through. She seems to say that you should publish the first draft _of the story _ without any tinkering. She seems to allow for some copyediting of the text. *But any revision of the story is out  because that's critique-induced meddling.*


If only I had critique-induced meddling tendencies when I was first learning how to write novels. I might actually have more books in my siggy.


----------



## MT Berlyn (Mar 27, 2012)

Benjamin A. said:


> Errors are errors. I think we can all agree we don't want t pos, missspellings, and other such things in our work. I see that article as saying you should believe in your work, the story, the very core, and not be so willing to change it based on what people say.
> 
> Better is subjective. This is one of the biggest reasons I didn't even try to go traditional. Every time you change something to make someone think it is better, someone else will find it worse. The numbers may move this way or that, but really you're only changing who is unhappy with it. A story is a story. Just because one of the few voices who makes their opinion known about a book say they would have rather seen something different, a legion of silent fans could be upset by the change.
> 
> It all comes down to the individual though, just like everything else in life. As long as the author feels the change is necessary and/or better, I'm good. I don't want to see people self-publishing but still having the story they want to tell be torn apart just to satisfy someone else. I think we can all agree that as long as the author is choosing to make the change, and wants to do it, then it is an acceptable decision that we may just have to agree to disagree about.


^^
I really do like this perspective.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> If only I had critique-induced meddling tendencies when I was first learning how to write novels. I might actually have more books in my siggy.


So say we all. There's another angle here too. A few of the big SF titles from the Goldern Age began as shorts published in magazines. They were later fleshed out into full-scale novels that went on to great success. (Which of the biggies escape me at the moment, but someone can google his way to it if he is so inclined.) On top of that, you had someone like J.W. Campbell feeding these guys with ideas and suggesting revisions to stories all the time. It was a bit of creative dialectic at work. How does that fit into the no revision policy?

I also have to wonder how many people wrote parts of stories then went back and revised them into pure gold? No one?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Monique said:


> She's not saying you should publish your first draft. Where'd y'all get that? I will admit, I do tend to drift off in her long posts sometimes and often miss things, but...


Both she and her hubby have long preached that you should look for outright errors and plot holes and then leave it be. That is a bit drastic for most of us but more than a few writers work that way. It is pretty much how I write now although early days I did my share of 20 revision stories.

The thing is how do you KNOW you are improving it? Or are you just tinkering for the sake of tinkering because by some theory the 10th edit must be better than the first version even though they are by the same person? Or have you edited out all the spontaneity? Maybe you just edited out the one thing in it that was really good. (I've known people to do it) I try hard to write it right in the first place. Ofttimes I don't, but I don't know that another try would improve it.



Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Don't worry. I only yell when I'm ready to give my trusty axe a swing.  I think the biggest misconception for Heinlein's rules isn't that he is advocating not to edit your book, but rather that you should know how to write in the first place so you won't have to slog through those time-consuming and soul-draining revisions. For the record, I actually subscribe to his logic. It's why I'm glad I got my endless revisioning out of the way while slogging through my million words of practice.


He was an advocate of knowing how to write in the first place but what he said was pretty clear: "You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order. "

Of course, with us indies that means we should spring for an editor. That isn't always a given.


----------



## TheSFReader (Jan 20, 2011)

I think KKR and Dean Welsey Smith (her husband) agree on that point. I hope you won't mind my putting up three quotes and links regarding Heinlein's rules



> I shall assume that you can type, that you know the accepted commercial format or can be trusted to look it up and follow it. Also, that you can spell and punctuate and can use grammar well enough to get by. These things are merely the word-carpenter's sharp tools. He must add to them these business habits:
> 
> 1. You must write.
> 2. You must finish what you start.
> ...


That one is the original quote, found at http://www.writewords.org.uk/forum/65_64942.asp

Second is an "analysis" of those 5 rules (extended by an additional 6th one) by Robert J. Sawyer : http://www.sfwriter.com/ow05.htm . I translated that one to French this week for my blog.

And last is Dean Wesley Smith's discussion about these 5 rules last autumn. Note that the comments discussion is mainly about that third one too: http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=5245

My take on it is that re-writing tends to "dull" the story, and maybe has the writer use his time on something else than writing.

I think what you should do is learn from your "failures" in one story, and not repeat them in the next one rather than polishing the first story beyond recognition.


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

TheSFReader said:


> I think KKR and Dean Welsey Smith (her husband) agree on that point. I hope you won't mind my putting up three quotes and links regarding Heinlein's rules


I've always thought DWS was more staunchly opposed to rewriting than Kris. But, even when reading DWS posts on the topic sometimes people don't notice the nuances in what he is saying. For example, DWS will rewrite to editorial order... he will fix errors found by a first reader... although he doesn't rewrite a story, he does redraft stories (i.e. the poker boy stories all have very similar ideas behind them because he has never been completely satisfied by any poker boy story and keeps on going back to the general premise and writing a new story from scratch trying to incorporate what he has learned from previous stories).

People also don't notice that he says that if what you are doing is working for you, you should just keep doing it.

My understanding is that he views rewriting as a different skill than writing. One that is actually more difficult than writing, but which becomes easier over time as you become more familiar with story. So, the final caveat is that this is advice for people in the early stages of their careers, and that the more you have written and read the more likely you are to be able to revise writing effectively.

In other words, he thinks that people at the early stages of writing are unlikely to write a professional level story except by fluke, and if they do write a professional level story any edits they make without the help of a professional (an editor) are likely to blow up the story and make it worse because they don't know what they are doing at a conscious level.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Both she and her hubby have long preached that you should look for outright errors and plot holes and then leave it be. That is a bit drastic for most of us but more than a few writers work that way. It is pretty much how I write now although early days I did my share of 20 revision stories.
> 
> The thing is how do you KNOW you are improving it? Or are you just tinkering for the sake of tinkering because by some theory the 10th edit must be better than the first version even though they are by the same person? Or have you edited out all the spontaneity? Maybe you just edited out the one thing in it that was really good. (I've known people to do it) I try hard to write it right in the first place. Ofttimes I don't, but I don't know that another try would improve it.
> He was an advocate of knowing how to write in the first place but what he said was pretty clear: "You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order. "
> ...


At the end of the day, this entire debate is merely academic. Heinlein's not coming back from the grave to write my books and KKR's not going to pen my stories either. So frankly, the suggestion that I shouldn't rewrite my stories because they don't rewrite theirs is actually nonsense, especially since I, and every other writer out there, would be an idiot to allow major mistakes to get through the pipelines, because they are trying to adhere to another author's mode of writing. Which then leads me to the assumption that the advocates of avoiding rewrites are either routinely spitting out masterpieces during their first drafts or what they're saying isn't good advice for inexperienced writers since if the claim is that they lack the skill to know what not to rewrite, shouldn't it be considered that they may also lack the skill to write a good story in the first place?


----------



## TheSFReader (Jan 20, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> At the end of the day, this entire debate is merely academic. Heinlein's not coming back from the grave to write my books and KKR's not going to pen my stories either. So frankly, the suggestion that I shouldn't rewrite my stories because they don't rewrite theirs is actually nonsense, especially since I, and every other writer out there, would be an idiot to allow major mistakes to get through the pipelines, because they are trying to adhere to another author's mode of writing. Which then leads me to the assumption that the advocates of avoiding rewrites are either routinely spitting out masterpieces during their first drafts or what they're saying isn't good advice for inexperienced writers since if the claim is that they lack the skill to know what not to rewrite, shouldn't it be considered that they may also lack the skill to write a good story in the first place?


Their process is to stop messing with the text ONCE it has passed the "drafts" status. So Draft once, twice, thrice, or more, but when you deem it ready for editing or beta-reading, except for corrections proposed by the editors, leave it be ! If you've deemed it ready for editing, it should be ready for publishing !
I think that in their view, major mistakes would be caught by the "Editor"... So no, what they advocate is correcting those major mistakes, any typo/grammatical/syntaxic errors, and go on...


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

A lot of what she says can be simplified down to: Don't change your story just because someone says to. Which I agree with. Doesn't mean you don't get feedback, just you get to decide what changes to make or not to make based on it. I'm sure Bill Shakespeare would have listened to whoever told him to change the ending and known enough to not do it. I think Brandon Sanderson said that he has a writing group of mainly professional writers and makes changes based on less than 1/3 of their advice. Doesn't mean that the advice he receives is any less invaluable.



> 1. I liked what I read.
> 
> 2. I quit on page [insert number here].
> 
> 3. I liked what I read and I would have bought this.


You could add a fourth to this: After reading I will buy other books by this author.

Now this is a great way of evaluating your work. And if you can write a book that gets to point 4 for many readers, you are doing great. And I'm sure Kristine is at this point. The problem is that a lot of aspiring writers who read her blog will not get enough readers getting to point 4 when their sample is read. And if they set their deadline at August or at 3 drafts, they may be doing themselves a disservice. Because perhaps if they put it through those extra few drafts or did an extra critical analysis of their book or decided to act on some feedback that resonated with them rather than ignoring it, then they move their work from point 2 to point 3 or 4.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

TheSFReader said:


> Their process is to stop messing with the text ONCE it has passed the "drafts" status.


Last time I checked writing past the first draft is a rewrite. It's why Hemingway famously said: "The first draft of anything is sh*t". So what kinds of stories would Hemingway have written if he listened to other writers who say you shouldn't rewrite? Or J.R.R. Tolkien? And no, I'm not missing anything. You either believe in rewriting a story if it requires it or you subscribe to the no-rewriting club. Hemingway and Tolkien belong to first group, KKR and Heinlein the second.

Since I believe that every writer is different, my motto is to do what's best for your story. If that's doing what the first group does, then go for it. If the second group's routine will give you more mileage, go that route. But one thing's for sure. The majority of young writers out there don't have the skills or experience to live up to the process of the second group. In that sense, I maintain that such advice (however earnest) does them a disservice and potentially immeasurable harm.


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> You either believe in rewriting a story if it requires it or you subscribe to the no-rewriting club. Hemingway and Tolkien belong to first group, KKR and Heinlein the second.


I disagree with this. If DWS and Heinlein is one side of the spectrum (not rewriting) and Hemingway and Tolkien is the other, there are far more writers somewhere in the middle than at either end.

In other words, I think there are far more people like Laura Resnick, or Piers Anthonys, or David Farland or... well, you get the idea... making money as professional authors who are capable of producing work on a regular basis but who do revise or rewrite if they feel they need to in a controlled process.

This is a bit like the pantsers vs plotters thing. Probably you need to find your own balance.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

shadowfox said:


> I disagree with this. If DWS and Heinlein is one side of the spectrum (not rewriting) and Hemingway and Tolkien is the other, *there are far more writers somewhere in the middle than at either end.*


You're not wrong. I suspect most writers are hybrids. My post was intended to illustrate the stark differences between the two writing strategies and highlighting the significance of the types of authors who write in each mode. It's why I said every author has to do what's best for his or her story and that they're the one (the individual writer) who has to decide what that is. But that's been mentioned more than once in this thread. So no need for me to hammer the point home.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

I think KKR is spot on with this post, and that everyone on this thread who disagrees with her is either 1) setting up a straw-man, or 2) missing the substance of what she's saying.

Kevis, Heinlein made a living off of his writing. KKR makes a living off of her writing.  DWS makes a living off of his writing.  Are you?


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Me neither. Most of what I learned as a writer was gained by performing endless revisions on manuscripts. Even making changes post-publication taught me a thing or two and made my books better. So I guess it's too late for me to sign up for KKR bootcamp. Oh well...


This


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

There are two basic viewpoints when it comes to improving one's writing, whether for a particular story or for a writer's general skill level. One, and probably the more common, is to rewrite ... and within those bounds there are all kinds of different levels from minor tinkering to major rewrites from scratch. The other approach is to sit down and write the story out, look over it for any mistakes, then ship it out or self publish.

The first approach hopefully can help to improve one's writing through feedback and studying of one's own text.

How does the second approach improve one's writing? By moving on to the next story and writing more, with the hope that one has learned from earlier writings how to tell a better story.

Either way, the goal is eventually for one's writing to improve. It really comes down to which approach feels more suited to you as an individual writer. I've used both approaches at one time or another, to varying degrees of success. Most writers probably fall somewhere in the middle, utilizing different paths with different projects.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I think KKR is spot on with this post, and that everyone on this thread who disagrees with her is either 1) setting up a straw-man, or 2) missing the substance of what she's saying.
> 
> Kevis, Heinlein made a living off of his writing. KKR makes a living off of her writing. DWS makes a living off of his writing. Are you?


So, because they make/made money with their writing, they MUST be write and everyone else is wrong? Sorry, I don't buy that. There is no one answer for how to write/edit/publish YOUR book. You wanna follow their advice, more power to you. But let other people have the right to do things their way and maybe fail or maybe succeed.

One last thing I want to add. Yes, KRR and RAH made money. But would they have survived as indies? I don't know, and honestly, I don't care. But let's not say that because they were successful under the old way of doing things that their way is the only one.


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

telracs said:


> One last thing I want to add. Yes, KRR and RAH made money. But would they have survived as indies? I don't know, and honestly, I don't care. But let's not say that because they were successful under the old way of doing things that their way is the only one.


Ultimately, there are no examples of people who are long term professional Indies who started their career that way.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

shadowfox said:


> Ultimately, there are no examples of people who are long term professional Indies who started their career that way.


Let's give it 20 years or so, shall we?

But let's not get sidetracked. My basic point is what works for one person may not work for another. I respect KRR's longevity and her willingness to share her point of view, but I'm not convinced that everyone should follow all her advice. And I definitely don't subscribe to the "anyone who doesn't listen is wrong" philosphy. Of course, I don't subscribe to the "anyone who does listen is wrong" philosphy either. I let all my subscriptions to one point of view lapse.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I think KKR is spot on with this post, and that everyone on this thread who disagrees with her is either 1) setting up a straw-man, or 2) missing the substance of what she's saying.
> 
> Kevis, Heinlein made a living off of his writing. KKR makes a living off of her writing. DWS makes a living off of his writing. Are you?


On the other hand, the British author John Fowles was an habitual rewriter and is considered one of the greats. From Wikipedia, an example:



> In late 1960, though he had already drafted _The Magus_, Fowles began working on _The Collector_. He finished his *first draft in a month, but spent more than a year making revisions* before showing it to his agent. Michael S. Howard, the publisher at Jonathan Cape was enthusiastic about the manuscript. The book was published in 1963 and when the paperback rights were sold in the spring of that year it was* "probably the highest price that had hitherto been paid for a first novel,"* according to Howard. British reviewers found the novel to be merely an innovative thriller, but several American critics detected a serious promotion of existentialist thought.


 (emphasis mine)

Sheer output? Not a lot. Stature and financial success? A lot.

So, whom does one emulate, and to what extent?

Is writing a "pass/fail" process, or is it possible to take a story that would get a "C" and bring it up to a "B+" or even an "A" by applying critical skills?

Changing your work with every passing comment would be nuts. (I have a friend who is a painter who tried that once and the result was the worst painting of his life, in his estimation.) But if someone has a critical comment *that you agree with*, why not make the change?


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Last time I checked writing past the first draft is a rewrite.


That's one of the issues with this debate-a misunderstanding of what DWS and KR mean by "rewrite." They're not referring to revision. They're referring to actually _redoing_ the story.

If your process is to throw down the skeleton in one draft and flesh it out later, that isn't _rewriting_ the story. That's revising it. Some writers write like that.

Some edit and flesh things out as they go, so their "first draft" is very close to the final draft.

In either case, "rewriting" would be re-envisioning the story and re-_writing_ it, not patching errors.

One WiP of mine, I have-a few times, now-tossed and restarted, trying to write it "properly". (Read: Conventionally.) I've come to realize that my first version-introduction, prologue, setup chapter, and all-is actually the best for that story. It'll be more Robin McKinley-ish than is popular, but oh, well. That's what the story needs, unless I want to change what it is: a framed narrative, with 3 frames. So it has to start at the biggest and narrow down; any other method just gets too confusing.

However, I also have a novelette I wrote years ago, nearly to the end. (I got distracted while writing it and ended up getting through the climax&#8230;and having the wrong character kidnapped. And the "parallel" plot ended up a knot. Ulgh.) I've been poking at it, revising it-fixing plot holes, making sure things connect, rounding out characters, etc. I'm not starting from scratch, trying to write the story I was trying to write before. Some major plot things will probably change (to fix those plot holes), but I'm not writing it over again.

But that's also how I work-the first draft is either about done or needs expansion. So not only is this me, as a writer, but it also has some variants from project to project.



Jan Strnad said:


> Changing your work with every passing comment would be nuts. (I have a friend who is a painter who tried that once and the result was the worst painting of his life, in his estimation.) But if someone has a critical comment *that you agree with*, why not make the change?


That's what first readers are for.  The problem is when something's already published-and folks already like something for what it is-and then you go changing it for the folks who don't like it&#8230;and turn it into something other than what the likers liked.


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

telracs said:


> Let's give it 20 years or so, shall we?


I don't have 20 years 

Honestly, I am interested in long term professional writers because I believe that we will find out in 20 years that what causes success in Indie publishing and traditional publishing is pretty much identical. Consistently writing good books. And long term professional writers are the best people to look at to find out how to consistently write good books.

Of course, you do get geniuses. If you are able to write an exceptional book all bets are off. There are people that have made millions out of one book, then retired. That does not seem to be a particularly good strategy for me, since I am not a genius.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Maybe we should have started by trying to define 'rewriting'.

As a co-author I've been working for months on converting 7 trad published novels to ebooks: they were first published between 1993 and 2002.

The first Warned Off - we shortened it by 17,000 words (original about 89,000 words)

The second Hunted, - we shortened it by 20,000 words (Reader's Digest Condensed Books edition had cut 30,000 words from original 88,000)

The third, Blood Ties (release next week) - shortened by about 1,500 words (original 82,000)

For Your Sins, by about 8,000 (originally about 100,000 words)

Currently working on Bet Your Life - original 114,000: will cut below 100,000.

Two others we are considering not converting at all because we no longer think they are good enough.

In all of this there were no storyline or character changes so we are classifying everything as editing - no rewriting at all but many hours spent _changing __things _to try and give readers a better product.

Joe


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> There are people that have made millions out of one book, then retired. That does not seem to be a particularly good strategy for me, since I am not a genius.


Welcome to the club.

Yes, if I wrote _To Kill a Mockingbird_, I would essentially say, "Here it is. Here's my book. _To Kill a Mockingbird_. I'm outa here now."

I figure I have to write as many books as I can, but I also know that I am not so much of a genius that they'll flow from my fingertips as perfect gems. I'll have to work on 'em and hammer them into shape.

My wife's reading my first draft of the WIP. She comes up with these questions--"Why didn't Character X just...?" or "Did the dog come from the pound, as you say in part one, or was it a present as you say in part two?"-- that make me dig my toe in the dirt and say, "Well, shucks, ma'am, I guess I'll have to work on that."

Once published, is it hands-off? Not for me. *Which is why you should always back up your books!* Because the author might decide to make the little girl a Nazi commandant and move the whole story from Idaho to Buchenwald.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Steeplechasing said:


> Maybe we should have started by trying to define 'rewriting'.


I was thinking the exact same thing. 

Rewrite: _to write in a different form or manner; revise: to rewrite the entire book._

and...

Revise: _to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript._



Carradee said:


> *That's one of the issues with this debate-a misunderstanding of what DWS and KR mean by "rewrite." They're not referring to revision.* They're referring to actually _redoing_ the story.
> 
> If your process is to throw down the skeleton in one draft and flesh it out later, that isn't _rewriting_ the story. That's revising it. Some writers write like that.
> 
> ...


For the sake of factuality, I'd argue that you, too, are guilty of misunderstanding the actual terminology being employed in this discussion. But I'll agree that the confusion is largely based on KKR's unique interpretation of the words she uses. For the record, she never actually uses the word _rewrite_ in her article. However, KKR repeatedly used the word "revise" and "revisions" which you just said she isn't "referring to". So which definition should we go by? Revise meaning rewriting? Or rewriting meaning revise?  Who knows? Maybe it doesn't matter what she means.

As I said before, starting with my very first post in this thread, I understand and agree with her overall point of not nitpicking your story to death or writing it to please every Tom, Dick, and Harry that reads your book. What I don't agree with is the advocation of not revising or rewriting a story because SHE said so. This forum is quite filled with authors who like to hang on the words of every famous author out there. Unfortunately much of the parroting is done without even the slightest inkling of exactly what is being proposed.

Just to be clear, I also agree with 99.9% of everything you explained in your post. I just think a disclaimer should be tacked on to these sweeping statements that sometimes operates under the false impression that all authors are the same or have the same years of experience writing and publishing as the vets.

My only point in this whole debate is to do what I always suggest. Take the parts of advice from famous authors that work for you and throw out the rest. I don't understand why THAT particular statement of my posts always seems to be overlooked or ignored. Maybe it has something to do with the avatar. Maybe I need a less gaudy one.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

telracs said:


> So, because they make/made money with their writing, they MUST be write and everyone else is wrong? Sorry, I don't buy that.


KKR and DWS aren't just making money at their writing, they have successful writing careers. And yes, I think that fact validates their position.

At no point has either of them said "I'm write [sic] and everyone else is wrong." In all their posts, they repeatedly point out that every writer is different and what works for one might not work for another. That's why there's no such thing as perfection in writing, as KKR points out in this very post. What works for one writer might not work for another, and what works for one reader might not work for another.

As for inde publishing, both KKR and DWS have taken that route. So far as I know, both of them are having success at it. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't also have success at it if they were starting out now, as so many of us are.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

Before we start putting words in their mouths, I think it's worth posting what DWS and KKR have actually stated about their definitions of the terms.

From Killing the Sacred Cows of Publishing: Rewriting:



> *REDRAFT*: That's when you take the typing you have done and toss it away, then write the story again from your memory of the idea. When you are redrafting, you are working from the creative side of your brain.
> 
> *REWRITE*: That's when you go into a manuscript after it is finished *in critical voice* and start changing things, usually major things like plot points, character actions, style of sentences, and so on. When you rewrite like this, you are working from the critical side of your mind.
> 
> ...


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Joe Vasicek said:


> KKR and DWS aren't just making money at their writing, they have successful writing careers. And yes, I think that fact validates their position.
> 
> At no point has either of them said "I'm write [sic] and everyone else is wrong." In all their posts, they repeatedly point out that every writer is different and what works for one might not work for another. That's why there's no such thing as perfection in writing, as KKR points out in this very post. What works for one writer might not work for another, and what works for one reader might not work for another.
> 
> As for inde publishing, both KKR and DWS have taken that route. So far as I know, both of them are having success at it. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't also have success at it if they were starting out now, as so many of us are.


I didn't say they said they were right (and gee, you've never made a typo?), however, you said.. (bolding mine)



Joe Vasicek said:


> *I think KKR is spot on with this post, and that everyone on this thread who disagrees with her is either 1) setting up a straw-man, or 2) missing the substance of what she's saying.*
> Kevis, Heinlein made a living off of his writing. KKR makes a living off of her writing. DWS makes a living off of his writing. Are you?


So, actually it's not KRR I'm disagreeing with, it's you. It's the contention that one size fits all. It works for her, great. It works for you, great. But it may not work for everyone. So we are not "missing the substance of what she's saying."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> At the end of the day, this entire debate is merely academic. Heinlein's not coming back from the grave to write my books and KKR's not going to pen my stories either. So frankly, the suggestion that I shouldn't rewrite my stories because they don't rewrite theirs is actually nonsense, especially since I, and every other writer out there, would be an idiot to allow major mistakes to get through the pipelines, because they are trying to adhere to another author's mode of writing. Which then leads me to the assumption that the advocates of avoiding rewrites are either routinely spitting out masterpieces during their first drafts or what they're saying isn't good advice for inexperienced writers since if the claim is that they lack the skill to know what not to rewrite, shouldn't it be considered that they may also lack the skill to write a good story in the first place?


Strawman much?

You know what? You're right about one thing. Most inexperienced writers DON'T have the skill to write a good story in the first place. But they may develop it if they keep writing new stories and working to develop their skill--instead of going back and tinkering with old stories that there is no way in hell they can fix.

But if her advice doesn't work for you, don't use it. KKR isn't going to hunt you down and twist your arm until you do.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

> Heinlein made a living off of his writing. KKR makes a living off of her writing. DWS makes a living off of his writing. Are you?


If this is your goal, and it may not be everyone's, this is what it comes down to. If your goal is living off your writing, in today's market something has to give and the most logical, efficient thing is a stream of rewrites.

Now that is not to say quality be damned, it is to say mountains of revision be damned. If you have not already reached a conclusion before you look at the whole of both Dean's and KKR's posts lately as they evolve and embrace self-publishing more and more, you know contorting their statements into advocating releasing unedited dross is not an intellectually honest argument. They are always clear and make a point to mention the necessity of editing.

Furthermore to compare what authors did in the 60s or even the 90s is not applicable in the new publishing world we live in. The market dynamics, delivery, pace, and boundaries are completely different. People have always just wanted to be told a story and with thousands of stories going up monthly, the pace of both supply and demand is presenting opportunities never conceived of a decade ago. The successful authors will adapt to this new market while the ones living in yesterday's market are destined to struggle.

KKR's and Dean's suggestions are more author goal and market specific than they are author specific. If you can put yourself in today's market and identity both your individual goals and your target market, you have a much better idea of what to apply and what to leave on the table when it comes to the advice/suggestions in the numerous blogs like this. And they are numerous, there is not a blog out there that is going to define the techniques of the author pool of today or tomorrow, to think someone's blog has that kind of influence in today's world is just silly.

Sitting back and arguing the details you will leave on the table with people who are looking at this one blog like it is the new edition of the latest author self-help book to hit the physical shelves of the 70s, 80s or 90s and worrying about how it will impact authors as a whole, is allowing yourself to be held back in the market of many yesterdays gone by. Don't do it and don't let those stuck in yesterday suck you into doing it. Today is a new day with a market yesterday's authors could only dream of. Wake up, smell the coffee, identity your goals, and open the gift in front of you.


----------



## Nathan Lowell (Dec 11, 2010)

I went to one of their workshops last March. Amazing experience.

This topic came up and it got a lot of the same kinds of incredulous responses that are on this thread.

The key elements are

1) stories are created by the creative mind. that mind can do some amazing things. stuff you can't plan, can't plot, can't arrange in advance. it just happens. Stuff you don't remember putting in chapter two gets used in chapter five and you don't remember even doing it. Plotters and chronic outliners are not immune. This isn't a "pantser" thing.

2) the critical brain can't write. doesn't know how. It can spot typos. it tries to tell your creative brain it was wrong. It's seldom correct.

The crux of it is that you need to trust your creative brain and keep the critical brain looking for typos and missing or extra words.

Some people are putter-inners and the critical brain can tell you what the creative brain forgot. Some people are taker-outers and the critical brain can spot duplications and unnecessary words/sentences/paragraphs.

But letting the creative brain revise a story is like letting your eight year old sharpen scissors. The outcome is seldom good and the wrong things get cut.

I know.

It sounds wrong. It flies in the face of everything we're ever taught about writing. For many people it _feels _wrong.

My experience is that it works.

YMMV.

Now go write something.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> KKR and DWS aren't just making money at their writing, they have successful writing careers. And yes, I think that fact validates their position.


There are many paths to success. Every successful person thinks he knows the secret, but he is still just a blind man examining an elephant. The annals of success are filled with stories of people who were extremely successful...until they weren't. Including a whole helluva lot of wealthy investment bankers, of late.

So please pardon me if I don't take any particular point of view as gospel. I'm inherently skeptical of any advice that is more authoritarian than, "This is what works for me."


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Honest, pre-coffee question:

What would KKR say to the author who published their 4th, 5th or 6th book and were told it serious issues. Not just typos or weak ____, but from top to bottom something is wrong. Would her advice be to leave it be? Write the next one? How is this author learning? If they keep repeating the same sort of mistakes, can't recognize them and are told not to listen to outside voices...how does this writer stand a chance?


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

I have never said that "one size fits all." I merely pointed out that everyone on this thread who has taken a contrary position to KKR's post is either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what she said.

Personally, I did a lot of rewrites when I was just starting out. I'm not sure if I am where I am today because of or in spite of that, but I do think that revision has improved my published work. That's because I've learned how to revise with my creative voice, not my critical voice. I am probably somewhere between what Dean would call a "rewriter" and a "three-drafter." That's changing, though, and I'm not sure where I'll end up.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Me neither. Most of what I learned as a writer was gained by performing endless revisions on manuscripts. Even making changes post-publication taught me a thing or two and made my books better. So I guess it's too late for me to sign up for KKR bootcamp. Oh well...


Has she invited you? 

So you looked at your stories and instinctively knew what was wrong with them even though you didn't know when you wrote them or you wouldn't have written them that way... Or so I assume. Perhaps you deliberately wrote them wrong to have something to correct?

Interesting.



Joe Vasicek said:


> I have never said that "one size fits all." I merely pointed out that everyone on this thread who has taken a contrary position to KKR's post is either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what she said.
> 
> Personally, I did a lot of rewrites when I was just starting out. I'm not sure if I am where I am today because of or in spite of that, but I do think that revision has improved my published work. That's because I've learned how to revise with my creative voice, not my critical voice. I am probably somewhere between what Dean would call a "rewriter" and a "three-drafter." That's changing, though, and I'm not sure where I'll end up.


Like DWS, I am a cycle writer -- not because he suggested it but because that works for me. I was long before I started reading his blog. I wish I could be a one-drafter but I'm no Harlan Ellison. 

I had a few stories I did a lot of edits on. Whether I killed them or not is an interesting question. I doubt they started out that good anyway. In the end they were practice pieces. I was lucky to have a LOT of help from some professional writers and editors early on though. This is something that isn't easy to come by and I can't tell someone how to replicate that. You can't get it with KKR and DWS because they pretty much only do professional level workshops.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Steeplechasing said:


> Maybe we should have started by trying to define 'rewriting'.
> 
> As a co-author I've been working for months on converting 7 trad published novels to ebooks: they were first published between 1993 and 2002.
> 
> ...


I thought it was interesting that in every case you're taking out rather than adding in. I think that one of the big advantages of going back to look at old work is that you're no longer in love with every sentence. You can look at the work as a whole and do some judicious pruning without thinking, "Ah, man, it took me a week to write that chapter!"


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

Nathan Lowell said:


> I went to one of their workshops last March. Amazing experience.
> 
> This topic came up and it got a lot of the same kinds of incredulous responses that are on this thread.
> 
> ...


This x9000.

And on that note, I'm off to write.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

You know Monique, I think it has to be like everything else in life.
If someone does something wrong the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc time and they can't see they are failing and identity the problem, I really don't think anyone just telling them the problem is going to help. Imagine someone cooking bacon and it burning the 4th, 5th and 6th time. Do you really think someone can just tell them to turn the heat down or reduce the cook time and count on having the bacon right the 7th time? I don't, instead they need someone to stand in front of them and cook the bacon. Even after that, how much confidence do you have in their next on their own attempt at cooking bacon? Myself, not much -  while the person may have wonderful gifts, cooking bacon isn't one of them. No breakfast line cook there.  

Same with an author with a major flaw still present in the 4th, 5th, 6th book. If they haven't figured out there is a major problem by then, they don't need to be just told, they need to be led around, basically needing someone to formulate their ideas for them while they transcribe away. IMO that is well beyond critiquing and turns into cooking the bacon for someone who is not meant to be a breakfast line cook.
YMMV


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Has she invited you?
> 
> *So you looked at your stories and instinctively knew what was wrong with them even though you didn't know when you wrote them or you wouldn't have written them that way... Or so I assume. Perhaps you deliberately wrote them wrong to have something to correct?*


I'm going to pretend you're being willfully ignorant considering the totality of what I repeatedly explained my position on this whole debate was. But if you're just trying to score cheap argumentative points by posing silly questions like the one above, then more power to you. I'm happy that you can find amusement in my post.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

TheSFReader said:


> I think KKR and Dean Welsey Smith (her husband) agree on that point. I hope you won't mind my putting up three quotes and links regarding Heinlein's rules


And just because a brilliant writer puts out some rules doesn't mean the rules themselves are brilliant. In fact, it's more likely that what works for Heinlein or Bradbury wouldn't work for me because I'm working with a duller set of tools.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Before we start putting words in their mouths, I think it's worth posting what DWS and KKR have actually stated about their definitions of the terms.
> 
> *REWRITE*: That's when you go into a manuscript after it is finished in critical voice and start changing things, usually major things like plot points, character actions, style of sentences, and so on. When you rewrite like this, you are working from the critical side of your mind.


You accuse us of making up straw men then you quote a definition that matches my characterization of her words verbatim. I wrote:



> "She seems to say that you should publish the first draft of the story without any tinkering. She seems to allow for some copyediting of the text. But any revision of the story is out because that's critique-induced meddling."


So take all this talk of "straw men" and "misunderstandings" off the table. The real issue here is the process KKR proposes. I say it's dubious because [1] good and great writers often revise their stories and [2] there's no such thing as a creative-critical brain division that's uncontrollable.

I think this process is like insulin-a wonderful thing if you're diabetic. Some writers generally or some writers at some point in their development may need this process. But like insulin to the non-diabetic, it'll kill those who don't need it or don't know they shouldn't follow it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> I'm going to pretend you're being willfully ignorant considering the totality of what I repeatedly explained my position on this whole debate was. But if you're just trying to score cheap argumentative points by posing silly questions like the one above, then more power to you. I'm happy that you can find amusement in my post.


Considering that your original comment was a cheap shot, I thought mine was pretty darn fair.

ETA: And no, you do not in the least explain how you somehow learn from looking at your own work and revising it time after time. I have seen far more people ruin their work than improve it with that method back in the days when I did critique groups. I think that DWS's comments on this were quite on point. In fact, that is the entire point of critique groups which have the problem that most people in critique groups don't know much so we end up with the blind leading the blind.

Anyway, whatever works for you, since you say that it does.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> And just because a brilliant writer puts out some rules doesn't mean the rules themselves are brilliant. In fact, it's more likely that what works for Heinlein or Bradbury wouldn't work for me because I'm working with a duller set of tools.


That because _being able to write _ and _knowing how to write _ are two different things. Being able to write doesn't automatically entail the ability to teach it. The reason great players rarely make great coaches is that tacit knowledge and self-conscious knowledge are two separate things.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Someone said:


> You know Monique, I think it has to be like everything else in life.
> If someone does something wrong the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc time and they can't see they are failing and identity the problem, I really don't think anyone just telling them the problem is going to help. Imagine someone cooking bacon and it burning the 4th, 5th and 6th time. Do you really think someone can just tell them to turn the heat down or reduce the cook time and count on having the bacon right the 7th time? I don't, instead they need someone to stand in front of them and cook the bacon. Even after that, how much confidence do you have in their next on their own attempt at cooking bacon? Myself, not much - while the person may have wonderful gifts, cooking bacon isn't one of them. No breakfast line cook there.
> 
> Same with an author with a major flaw still present in the 4th, 5th, 6th book. If they haven't figured out there is a major problem by then, they don't need to be just told, they need to be led around, basically needing someone to formulate their ideas for them while they transcribe away. IMO that is well beyond critiquing and turns into cooking the bacon for someone who is not meant to be a breakfast line cook.
> YMMV


I'm one of these writers. I'm a bit of a slow learner, for one, including the lesson, alas, of learning that I'm a slow learner, which would have saved me time. I started writing and submitting seriously in 1988, when I was still in high school. My first short story was accepted in 1990, my first pro story in 1995, and my first novel didn't come out until early 2011, when I published it myself. I've written over 100 short stories, only about fifteen of which are worth anything at all, and am close to finishing my nineteenth novel, five of which are crap and will never see the light of day.

I was a bacon burner. Worse, I didn't realize the bacon was burned until years later, when I finally cooked some unburned bacon.

Fortunately, bacon burning is not a permanent condition.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Do people only revise major flaws? No one has made a story *better * by using his critical brain? Really?


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Considering that your original comment was a cheap shot, I thought mine was pretty darn fair.


Against who? You? Or are you taking what is a rhetorical debate too personal? Every thread that pops up where someone says something you don't like isn't personal, Jeanne. If I choose to question another author's advice it doesn't mean I am attacking their character. If I say "Oh, look DWS has a story for 99 cents even though he says not to use that price point," doesn't me I hate him or that I think he's a fool. To the contrary. Maybe I can appreciate the things he and KKR says because I allow myself to investigate the merit of their statements rather than simply strutting around like a rabid dog with his tongue hanging out of its mouth trying to show how smart I am because I read something online that I agree with.

You taking a cheap shot at me is actually ridiculous since I never addressed you in this thread until you started quoting me. I don't have a problem having an intellectual discourse. But if you can't see that attacking me because you didn't like something I said to challenge a statement by one of your favorite writers says is silly, then there's not much I can do to enlighten you.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Against who? You? Or are you taking what is a rhetorical debate too personal? Every thread that pops up where someone says something you don't like isn't personal, Jeanne. If I choose to question another author's advice it doesn't mean I am attacking their character. If I say "Oh, look DWS has a story for 99 cents even though he says not to use that price point," doesn't me I hate him or that I think he's a fool. To the contrary. Maybe I can appreciate the things he and KKR says because I allow myself to investigate the merit of their statements rather than simply strutting around like a rabid dog with his tongue hanging out of its mouth trying to show how smart I am because I read something online that I agree with.
> 
> You taking a cheap shot at me is actually ridiculous since I never addressed you in this thread until you started quoting me. I don't have a problem having an intellectual discourse. But if you can't see that attacking me because you didn't like something I said to challenge something one of your favorite writers says is silly, then there's not much I can do to enlighten you.


No, I said it was a cheap shot. I didn't say it was_ against me personally_. Sheesh.

I responded to your cheap shot with a cheap shot. It happens. Making a cheap shot pretty much invites one back.

Edit: And speaking of taking things personally, I didn't attack you. YOU were the one that brought up taking her workshop. Nor is KKR "one of my favorite writers". Assuming that I agree with her only because she is my favorite writer is... shall we say unenlightened.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I think a lot of bacon burners burn their bacon in a bubble.


----------



## Jill James (May 8, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> And just because a brilliant writer puts out some rules doesn't mean the rules themselves are brilliant. In fact, it's more likely that what works for Heinlein or Bradbury wouldn't work for me because I'm working with a duller set of tools.


Who says you are working with a duller set of tools? You? The readers? I was looking at all your book covers and was so impressed, you are getting your work out there. You might be the next (insert brilliant writer you like), don't sell yourself short, there are plenty of people in the world ready to do it for you, don't do it yourself.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Considering that your original comment was a cheap shot, I thought mine was pretty darn fair.
> 
> *ETA: And no, you do not in the least explain how you somehow learn from looking at your own work and revising it time after time. I have seen far more people ruin their work than improve it with that method back in the days when I did critique groups. I think that DWS's comments on this were quite on point. In fact, that is the entire point of critique groups which have the problem that most people in critique groups don't know much so we end up with the blind leading the blind*.
> 
> Anyway, whatever works for you, since you say that it does.


Another thing the self-proclaimed acolytes of the DWS/KKR rule of thinking fail to realize is that only an IDIOT would adopt anyone else's practices without investigating whether or not it will work for them. As was said numerous times in this thread, there are many roads to success. Just because your road works for you doesn't mean it will for me. I NEVER made that argument. Only the sheeple in this thread did.

Oh yeah, if there's one thing I agree with KKR it's this:

*2) I can be wrong; and 3) ignore everything I say if you disagree with me.*

Not that I need any prompting. But I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Another thing the self-proclaimed acolytes of the DWS/KKR rule of thinking fail to realize is that only an IDIOT would adopt anyone else's practices without investigating whether or not it will work for them. As was said numerous times in this thread, there are many roads to success. Just because your road works for you doesn't mean it will for me. I NEVER made that argument. Only the sheeple in this thread did.


Thanks. I do appreciate being referred to as "sheeple" and your other pejoratives. I also love being told I made an argument (that the same thing works for everyone) that I absolutely never made. In fact, I am almost amused that you quote me saying "Anyway, whatever works for you, since you say that it does." and pretend I say that the same thing works for everyone.

Bye now. *finds ignore button*


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Jill James said:


> Who says you are working with a duller set of tools? You? The readers? I was looking at all your book covers and was so impressed, you are getting your work out there. You might be the next (insert brilliant writer you like), don't sell yourself short, there are plenty of people in the world ready to do it for you, don't do it yourself.


Thank you, that's very kind. And I do have readers who really appreciate what I'm doing. Realistically, I'm not a brilliant writer, however. Forget Heinlein and Bradbury, I'm not as good as some other KB writers yet. But maybe I'll get there some day. I continue to work hard and to improve little by little.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Thanks. I do appreciate being referred to as "sheeple" and your other pejoratives. I also love being told I made an argument (that the same thing works for everyone) that I absolutely never made.
> 
> *Bye now. *finds ignore button**


*Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Monique said:


> I think a lot of bacon burners burn their bacon in a bubble.


I think all Monique's one-liners should be collected into a thread called _Monique's Aphorisms _ and everyone who joins KB should be forced to read them all as part of the TOS.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

WHDean said:


> I think all Monique's one-liners should be collected into a thread called _Monique's Aphorisms _ and everyone who joins KB should be forced to read them all as part of the TOS.


My only complaint is that the bacon metaphors are making me hungry.


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Another thing the self-proclaimed acolytes of the DWS/KKR rule of thinking fail to realize is that only an IDIOT would adopt anyone else's practices without investigating whether or not it will work for them.


Honestly, I am wondering who these self-proclaimed acolytes of the DWS/KKR rule of thinking are.

I am also wondering how you go about "investigating whether or not it will work for them" without actually trying it?

What I haven't seen on this thread so far is anyone saying they gave the DWS/KKR method a try for a reasonable period of time and it didn't work for them.

I'd be very interested in someone who posted that.

I did try the DWS method last year (Nothing to lose, what I was doing prior to that was not working), and it was the first time I made a semi-professional sale. Before that I did the rewrite method, and sold nothing.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)




----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

WHDean said:


> I think all Monique's one-liners should be collected into a thread called _Monique's Aphorisms _ and everyone who joins KB should be forced to read them all as part of the TOS.


We will take that under advisement. 

Kevis and Jeanne, go to your rooms. You're grounded. 

It's too hot and I'm too old for this [crap]. <== imagine, if you will, a perfectly good _Lethal Weapon_ quote. 

Betsy


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

shadowfox said:


> ...the *rewrite method*, and sold nothing.


What's the re-write method? If you mean ruminating and agonizing over every word, no one is suggesting that as an alternative. Come to that, I don't think anyone at any time, anywhere has suggested that it's good thing to fall into anxiety driven rewriting. In such cases, "write and move on" might be the cure. But taking this course of treatment is not trading one method for another; it's using a technique to overcome a problem.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Jan Strnad said:


> I thought it was interesting that in every case you're taking out rather than adding in. I think that one of the big advantages of going back to look at old work is that you're no longer in love with every sentence. You can look at the work as a whole and do some judicious pruning without thinking, "Ah, man, it took me a week to write that chapter!"


My 'epiphany' was the Reader's Digest treatment of Hunted. RD started condensing books in 1950. By 1995 they'd got it to as fine an art as you could wish for and I think many authors could learn a hell of a lot from reading a full-fat novel then the RD condensed version. Their editors were among the best in the business (we got no consultation from them, they just cut out every gram of padding). I looked at their treatment and thought "A third of the content of that book was unnecessary." Fwiw, Hunted had original reviews calling it fast-paced which we thought it was.

Anyway, as you suggest, after the multiple serial murders of many of 'our darlings', in the ebook edit, we ended up with 10,000 words more than RD left in: that was a judgement call on 'texture & character development' with the series in mind.

I don't know about Heinlein but I like Elmore Leonard's 10 rules, especially the last one.

_ Never open a book with weather.
Avoid prologues.
Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said"&#8230;he admonished gravely.
Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. 
Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip._

Joe


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Do people only revise major flaws? No one has made a story *better * by using his critical brain? Really?


Not me. Not actually writing out of the critical brain, anyway.

I reread both of DWS's posts on rewriting after browsing this thread, and I still think you seriously misunderstand what he and KKR are saying. They advocate rewriting, if you can do it from the creative mind and recognize that no story is perfect (or even really approaches perfection, since that is an illusion).


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

WHDean said:


> What's the re-write method? If you mean ruminating and agonizing over every word, no one is suggesting that as an alternative.


It is the method which all new writers try, the one where you take a work, submit it to a workshop, then try to fix the problems that the other people in the workshop find or which you think exist in the work.

I don't think I was ever "agonizing over every word" as such, I was just using the common sense approach most writing textbooks recommend. Personally, DWS approach did not seem sensible but I tried it anyway.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

My advice to fellow writers, and myself is:

Do whatever the heck you feel like doing. People may say you're "doing it wrong." If you've attracted the attention of someone who wants to give you advice, *you're doing something right, because you've bothered them that much*.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Reading this thread also reminded me of this line from Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_, spoken by Jubal Harshaw:


> You have to give an editor something to change, or he gets frustrated. After he pees in it, he likes the flavor better, so he buys it.


 

That's stuck with me for years...and I think of it whenever I undergo a critique process with my quilts...

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

shadowfox said:


> What I haven't seen on this thread so far is anyone saying they gave the DWS/KKR method a try for a reasonable period of time and it didn't work for them.
> 
> I'd be very interested in someone who posted that.


I guess you can say I'm trying it for my next novel. I wrote it back in December-January, and I expected to make a big in-depth revision of it over the summer. Instead, I'm touching it up, adding a couple of things I forgot to put in, and shipping it out to my first readers in a week or two without making any major changes. If I get the green light, I'll publish it as soon as I have the money for editing / cover art.


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

You are a brave person, Joe. 

I wasn't brave enough to do it with novels, myself, I just did it with short stories (The DWS write 52 stories in a year and submit them plan). So I admire you, although I think you might be a little mad too


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

shadowfox said:


> Honestly, I am wondering who these self-proclaimed acolytes of the DWS/KKR rule of thinking are.
> 
> I am also wondering how you go about "investigating whether or not it will work for them" without actually trying it?
> 
> ...


I use his method or something very close to it, but didn't get it from him. He did clarify for me what I was already doing. I read his posts and had an "Aha!" moment that I was doing almost exactly what he says he does in his description of the "cycle writer".

What happened was I started with the usual "workshop everything to death" method and realized THAT wasn't working for me. Then I took Heinlein's advice to heart.

1. You must write.
2. You must finish what you write.
3._ You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order._
4. You must put the work on the market.
5. You must keep the work on the market until it is sold.

The last two have changed for me in a new market that didn't exist for Heinlein but the principle is what I consider essential--for me. Doesn't work for you? Ok, do it another way, but I'm not sure how someone can be sure of that if they haven't tried it. And I mean what they say not someone else SAYS that they say.


----------



## Mark Fassett (Aug 25, 2010)

I think it's really hard to understand where Dean and Kris are coming from on this topic by reading just one or two of their posts. 

They teach that the author is the worst judge of their own work (they provide examples, too). They suggest that if you don't know the quality of your work (because you really can't), you won't be capable of revising/rewriting it without doing it damage.

They force the writers that come to their workshop to use their method of "not" rewriting, mostly by giving you so many assignments that you barely have enough time to spellcheck your work. Time and again, and I've seen and experienced this, writers bring their story to the session, expecting everyone to hate it, and find that most everyone really likes it.

And they never say that their way is the only way. They just make you try it.

Arguing that they can't possibly be right without having tried their method is arguing from ignorance, bias and myth.

It's what makes these threads so much fun to watch.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I use his method or something very close to it, but didn't get it from him. He did clarify for me what I was already doing. I read his posts and had an "Aha!" moment that I was doing almost exactly what he says he does in his description of the "cycle writer".
> 
> What happened was I started with the usual "workshop everything to death" method and realized THAT wasn't working for me. Then I took Heinlein's advice to heart.
> 
> ...


I simply can't accept #3, although it may work fine for other people. I get to the end and I have a list of identified problems that need to be addressed in revisions. And then, when I get feedback from a few trusted readers, there are other things that ring true for me. I don't rewrite just to rewrite, but a book is a huge, complicated thing. Maybe my mind is not up to the task, but I simply can't make it into a coherent story without additional polishing, tweaking, rewriting, etc.

I also have issues with #4. Some of my stuff should not be put on the market. It's not good enough and will hurt me if it is associated with my name.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Mark Fassett said:


> *Arguing that they can't possibly be right without having tried their method is arguing from ignorance, bias and myth.*
> It's what makes these threads so much fun to watch.


What really makes these threads amusing is to see how many people ignorantly ASSUME that you (the dissenters) haven't tried the aforementioned methods, or better yet, that you're not currently using them or some close variation. But of course, bragging about how you're using some famous writer's approach to writing to sound smarter than everyone else is always more popular than being the sole dissenting voice that says: *do what works for you*, especially since they (KKR and DWS) say the exact same d*mn thing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

shadowfox said:


> You are a brave person, Joe.
> 
> I wasn't brave enough to do it with novels, myself, I just did it with short stories (The DWS write 52 stories in a year and submit them plan). So I admire you, although I think you might be a little mad too


Of course I'm mad--do you think a sane person would willingly choose to be a writer? 

And thanks!


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

No, what's really amusing is watching beginning writers get worked up to the point where they have to resort to expletives and/or get banned from the boards.  Now I see why KKR expected her post to launch a flame war.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Kevis,

Chill, dude.  

Agreeing with someone, famous or not, is not a sign of someone trying to sound smarter than everyone else.  You've said that or something similar at least twice now.  

People are allowed to agree with other people here, and say so.  They are also allowed to disagree.  In both cases, it should be done politely.

Thank you.

Your friendly neighborhood moderator. *wipes sweat from brow*

Betsy


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> I also have issues with #4. Some of my stuff should not be put on the market. It's not good enough and will hurt me if it is associated with my name.


Are you sure it's not good? Positive? Why not put it up under a secret pen name and see what happens?


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> ASSUME that you (the dissenters) haven't tried the aforementioned methods, or better yet, that you're not currently using them or some close variation.


Now I am really interested. Have you tried these methods? Did they work for you? Can you describe what you did when and if you tried them?

That would be really useful information.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> I simply can't accept #3, although it may work fine for other people. I get to the end and I have a list of identified problems that need to be addressed in revisions. And then, when I get feedback from a few trusted readers, there are other things that ring true for me. I don't rewrite just to rewrite, but a book is a huge, complicated thing. Maybe my mind is not up to the task, but I simply can't make it into a coherent story without additional polishing, tweaking, rewriting, etc.
> 
> I also have issues with #4. Some of my stuff should not be put on the market. It's not good enough and will hurt me if it is associated with my name.


Lots of people have problems with Heinlein's rules. It would be insane to say that any particular method works for everyone. Obviously your method works for you. I do know that the "don't edit it except to editorial order" method works for some of us and most people--even ones for whom the edit and edit method obviously isn't working--are afraid to try it.

Heinlein said it quite well when he said that he could safely give his "secrets" away because almost no one would do it.

Edit: It would be helpful in this discussion (not pointing this at you, Michael) would actually read what DWS and KKR said before arguing about it. Many of the comments make it very very plain that they either haven't or are being quite disingenuous in their arguments. That makes the entire discussion pretty pointless really, except to say that for some people it does work and for someone who wants to try what they say, it can be worthwhile.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Kevis,
> 
> Chill, dude.
> 
> ...


Not upset, Betsy. Just having a bit of "bloodless" fun. Upset would me being in a bar with some of the people in this thread trying to bait me into a fight, getting up from my table and tossing a few niceties their way. Since we're not in a bar, I'm just being my usual rambunctious self. 



Betsy the Quilter said:


> Kevis and Jeanne, go to your rooms. You're grounded.


And for the record, I'm cool with Jeanne. We do this everyday. She'll come around eventually and then we'll make up and do this again tomorrow. It's our daily ritual.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

shadowfox said:


> It is the method which all new writers try, the one where you take a work, submit it to a workshop, then try to fix the problems that the other people in the workshop find or which you think exist in the work.
> 
> I don't think I was ever "agonizing over every word" as such, I was just using the common sense approach most writing textbooks recommend. Personally, DWS approach did not seem sensible but I tried it anyway.


This changes the whole context of the discussion. You're drawing on a dichotomy where the choice is between workshops, on the one hand, and KKR's method on the other. But no one here supposes that the _only _ alternative to KKR's method is going to a workshop or a critique circle. In fact, I said exactly the opposite: that critique circles could be the blind leading the blind. Kevis also rejected the idea that critique circles were the alternative. Again, I'm disputing the critical-creative brain theory and that a story can't be improved by re-writing it.



Joe Vasicek said:


> Not me. Not actually writing out of the critical brain, anyway.
> 
> I reread both of DWS's posts on rewriting after browsing this thread, and I still think you seriously misunderstand what he and KKR are saying. They advocate rewriting, if you can do it from the creative mind and recognize that no story is perfect (or even really approaches perfection, since that is an illusion).


So now they're also advocates of re-writing-as long as you use your "creative" as opposed to your "critical" brain? Well, okay. But you should realize that you're qualifying what they said to the point where no one _could _ disagree with it. In other words, you're making them say everything and therefore nothing in particular.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Anybody but me amused by a bunch of writers arguing about how to write rather than _actually writing_


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Mark Fassett said:


> Arguing that they can't possibly be right without having tried their method is arguing from ignorance, bias and myth.
> 
> It's what makes these threads so much fun to watch.


Yeah, right. And if someone claimed to have tried it and it failed, you'd say, I guess it doesn't work for you. That's the perfect defence! It's also why testing it is irrelevant because you can't prove that it works. You can't go back in time and re-write the same story to "test" to see which one is better.

Besides, every proficient writer has tested it in some way at some time.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Anybody but me amused by a bunch of writers arguing about how to write rather than _actually writing_


God forbid we should talk about our craft.


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Again, I'm disputing the critical-creative brain theory and the story's can't be improved by re-writing them.


Well, I'm certainly not going to argue on that one. It is explicitly the case that for some writers they not only can improve their stories by re-writing them, but failing to do it would make them produce worse stories. Dean Wesley Smith mentioned he'd met one writer at a workshop where that was the case, and there are many other writers David Farland for example where revision is a core part of his process and his work would undoubtedly be worse without the re-writing.

The most I have ever argued is that rewriting is a skill that needs to be learned, and that for most people it is a more difficult skill to learn than actual writing. But 'most' is not 'all'.

And i also said that if a process is working for you, I wouldn't change it.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Michael Kingswood said:


> Are you sure it's not good? Positive? Why not put it up under a secret pen name and see what happens?


Positive. Some is weak and some is terrible. There's no shame in that. In fact, it's encouraging, as it means that I've been gradually improving. Still, I don't want it out there with my name on it, or any other name for that matter. It was my apprenticeship, the clay pots that came out of the kiln broken or misshapen and were tossed into the rubbish heap. I'm okay with that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

> So now they're also advocates of re-writing-as long as you use your "creative" as opposed to your "critical" brain? Well, okay. But you should realize that you're qualifying what they said to the point where no one _could _ disagree with it. In other words, you're making them say everything and therefore nothing in particular.


No, I'm just reading what they said and trying to summarize it for you. But if you would actually read what they've said before arguing with it, that wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Edit: It would be helpful in this discussion (not pointing this at you, Michael) would actually read what DWS and KKR said before arguing about it. Many of the comments make it very very plain that they either haven't are being quite disingenuous in their arguments. That makes the entire discussion pretty pointless really, except to say that for some people it does work and for someone who wants to try what they say, it can be worthwhile.


It's a good article, and Dean and Kris have given me a lot of good advice over the years. After attending their workshop years ago I followed the story a week thing for several months and Kris bought my first pro sale during her closing days at F&SF. I owe them both a great deal.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Monique said:


> God forbid we should talk about our craft.


Yeah, I don't really get how that's amusing. I didn't learn a thing from this thread except that everybody writes in their own way, but it was an interesting discussion.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

shadowfox said:


> Now I am really interested. Have you tried these methods? Did they work for you? Can you describe what you did when and if you tried them?
> 
> That would be really useful information.


Since you're attempting to be civilized about this like a true gentleman, I'll go ahead and throw a few nuggets your way. I'm not a novice and haven't been for many years. Like you, I am a student of the craft and constantly work to hone and improve my skills (working 12+ hour days, 7 days a week, 365 days a year). Am I perfect? No. I am not the self-proclaimed God of writing, I don't have as many years in the business end of the craft as our lovely friends DWS and KKR, and I'm not too proud to learn something from someone with a proven track record of success (even my enemies, real or imagined). Here are a few quick points:

-I don't perform rewrites. I do however perform revisions to tighten up my manuscript where needed.
-My first drafts are pretty close to the final draft.
-I write between 5,000-10,000 words daily.
-I use beta readers, content editors, copy editors, and proofreaders to help polish my books.
-I hire professionals to design my book covers.
-If my books need tinkering with post-publication to improve either the covers or interiors, I have no problem doing so if it will create a better product and lead to more sales.
-I am constantly writing new material and spend more time worrying about what I'm doing, than getting hung up on another writer's process.
-I don't bash other authors for how they choose to approach their career. But I try to learn from their mistakes as well as their successes.

Like everyone else in this business, I started off with a blank slate and am always learning, improving, and evolving. I have used several different editors to help me on my career path and have finally settled on "The One". The only thing I advocate is to keep an open mind and to experiment to see what works for you. If it doesn't, toss it aside. I do not, however, advocate blindly doing what someone else says because it works for them. There are several paths you can take to achieve your own goals. Measuring yourself by someone else's standards can sometimes lead to frustration.

Am I a best selling author. No? But I plan to work as hard as I can and keep learning until I achieve the specific goals I have for my career. And it isn't to unzip my pants so I can brag about how awesome I am. Other authors mileage may vary.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Positive. Some is weak and some is terrible. There's no shame in that. In fact, it's encouraging, as it means that I've been gradually improving. Still, I don't want it out there with my name on it, or any other name for that matter. It was my apprenticeship, the clay pots that came out of the kiln broken or misshapen and were tossed into the rubbish heap. I'm okay with that.


I only apply that to my current work. Most of the early stuff I put down as practice pieces. None of us started off at the professional level.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> And for the record, I'm cool with Jeanne. We do this everyday. She'll come around eventually and then we'll make up and do this again tomorrow. It's our daily ritual.


*looks around nervously for flying pottery...*

Betsy


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> No, I'm just reading what they said and trying to summarize it for you. But if you would actually read what they've said before arguing with it, that wouldn't be necessary.


Funny that KKR needs a battalion of hermeneuticists to explain and contextualize her blog posts for her. Maybe she should consider *revising * them so they'd be undertandable to us dummies with PhDs in logic and language.

Seriously, you're not summarizing, you're glossing to remove the inconsistencies. And the end result is that she's against revising with something called the critical brain, but for revising with something called the creative brain, except that she doesn't mention this in her blog post, you have to read the last 5 years worth of ramblings to pick it out. In fact, she only mentions critical revision in this post.


----------



## Nathan Lowell (Dec 11, 2010)

WHDean said:


> Again, I'm disputing the critical-creative brain theory and that a story can't be improved by re-writing them.


good. you're thinking about your own process and what works for you.

it's something we all need to do.

I confess that the whole idea made me go "huh?" when I first heard it last March, but I've seen it in play. I've watched myself take a great story, gut it, turn it to mush, and wind up after four drafts with nothing. I've seen other writers do it. (beta reading is sometimes a thankless job.)

but I also saw myself actually DO it, the creative brain thing. I wrote a story - 5500 words, first draft - that I could not have possibly done on purpose. A) i don't write short stories ... altho maybe I need to do more and B) I don't write romance ... but I did then.

Can it be improved by revision?

*I* can't improve it. I did do a typo check. Looked for missing/overused words. Fixed what I found.

I also wrote on that was "meh" but I know what's wrong with it. I trashed it and started over. Sold that one - before the workshop was over.

If you need to revise, rock on.

There are a number of us here that live with the reality of creative-critical brain... (Hi, Mark. Hi, Michael.)

While I certainly wouldn't dispute your right to disbelieve us, I'm not about to deny my direct experience of the phenomenon.

It sounds crazy. Yes. Even having been through it and having seen it first hand rolling off the ends of my own fingers. I understand your disbelief. Tuck it away as a crackpot idea and let it go. Best wishes for your next project.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

shadowfox said:


> The most I have ever argued is that rewriting is a skill that needs to be learned, and that for most people it is a more difficult skill to learn than actual writing.


No doubt this is true. And you seem to be describing a process of developing the skill. But I don't see where in KKR's post (or the other stuff I've read of hers) developing this ability comes in.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *looks around nervously for flying pottery...*
> 
> Betsy


I just added him to my very short list of people I absolutely do not respond to. That saves on the pottery bills.

I think in a way that is a shame because he has worthwhile things to say when he bothers to say them. Not something I'm doing any more so you'll have to look elsewhere for that pottery flying.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Nathan Lowell said:


> good. you're thinking about your own process and what works for you.
> 
> it's something we all need to do.
> 
> ...


I don't dispute the virtues of the method as a learning or developmental process. You must write to be able to write; it's an art that you can only completely learn by practice. But I'm skeptical of the idea beyond the formative stage. It implies that no one can become self-conscious of his writing--and worse, that you shouldn't bother trying--which I think is manifestly not true and a bad idea. Proficient writers know their weaknesses, they know where they have to revise.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *looks around nervously for flying pottery...*
> 
> Betsy


This a moot point, but for the record, I never said called Jeanne a single name. I didn't say "she" was an acolyte. Don't think so? Go back and read my post carefully and you'll see I wasn't referring to her when I used the word "sheeple". In fact, I never attached anyone's names to those words, cause I can assure you they weren't meant for her. So if that's what the fuss is all about and why she's put me on ignore, there's nothing I can do about it. There are, however, sheeple in this thread who belligerently hurled insults at multiple people in this thread. Unfortunately, people see what they want to see. But in the interest of listening to wiser and cooler heads than myself, I shall prevail myself of Mr. Lowell's worthy advice and go write something...


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *looks around nervously for flying pottery...*
> 
> Betsy


pottery's got wings?


----------



## shadowfox (Jun 22, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> If it doesn't toss it aside. I do not however advocate blindly doing what someone else says because it works for them. There are several paths you can take to achieve your own goals. Measuring yourself by someone else's standards can sometimes lead to frustration.


Thank you for your answer. Very interesting stuff.

About my only interest in this thread is to get information about other processes and ways that can help me improve as a writer. I admit, I was also getting a little frustrated earlier on as it appeared that a number of participants (not you, by the way) were dismissing the minimum rewriting approach without having tried it.

I like hearing about other peoples experiences... there is no guarantee they can help, of course, but sometimes they give you a clue on new things you can try. That was the reason I asked if anyone had tried the DWS/Heinlein method without success since it makes things more interesting.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Funny that KKR needs a battalion of hermeneuticists to explain and contextualize her blog posts for her. Maybe she should consider *revising * them so they'd be undertandable to us dummies with PhDs in logic and language.
> 
> Seriously, you're not summarizing, you're glossing to remove the inconsistencies. And the end result is that she's against revising with something called the critical brain, but for revising with something called the creative brain, except that she doesn't mention this in her blog post, you have to read the last 5 years worth of ramblings to pick it out. In fact, she only mentions critical revision in this post.


No, she honestly doesn't care whether you understand her or not. I'm only engaging in this discussion to explore the topic and learn something useful that I can take to my own writing. But since you only seem interested in rhetorical exercises and proving yourself right to the exclusion of all others, I see no point in arguing with you further.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Y


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)




----------



## Nathan Lowell (Dec 11, 2010)

It took me WAAY to long to pickup the "flying Potter-y" reference.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> No, she honestly doesn't care whether you understand her or not. I'm only engaging in this discussion to explore the topic and learn something useful that I can take to my own writing. But since you only seem interested in rhetorical exercises and proving yourself right to the exclusion of all others, I see no point in arguing with you further.


Well, you might have got something more if you'd made the case for not revising instead of trying to prove that I just didn't understand, which, when it comes down to it, is tangential to the issue of "to revise or not to revise."


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Steeplechasing said:


> My 'epiphany' was the Reader's Digest treatment of Hunted. RD started condensing books in 1950. By 1995 they'd got it to as fine an art as you could wish for and I think many authors could learn a hell of a lot from reading a full-fat novel then the RD condensed version. Their editors were among the best in the business (we got no consultation from them, they just cut out every gram of padding). I looked at their treatment and thought "A third of the content of that book was unnecessary." Fwiw, Hunted had original reviews calling it fast-paced which we thought it was.
> 
> Anyway, as you suggest, after the multiple serial murders of many of 'our darlings', in the ebook edit, we ended up with 10,000 words more than RD left in: that was a judgement call on 'texture & character development' with the series in mind.
> 
> ...


Ah, but those are rules of revision...


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

shadowfox said:


> Thank you for your answer. Very interesting stuff.
> 
> About my only interest in this thread is to get information about other processes and ways that can help me improve as a writer. I admit, I was also getting a little frustrated earlier on as it appeared that a number of participants (not you, by the way) were dismissing the minimum rewriting approach without having tried it.
> 
> I like hearing about other peoples experiences... there is no guarantee they can help, of course, but sometimes they give you a clue on new things you can try. That was the reason I asked if anyone had tried the DWS/Heinlein method without success since it makes things more interesting.


You're approaching your career intelligently. You are focusing on the one thing that you can certainly control and that's the quality of your work. Everything else in this crazy business is subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt. But even that statement, however much I believe it to be true, should be questioned, which I'm sure you will. 

Contrary to what some people would have you believe, writing isn't math or science. There isn't one right way to do anything regarding this business. There are many schools of competing thought, especially when it comes to the craft of writing. All of my screenwriting friends think it's foolish not to rewrite a story. That's because rewriting stories is a necessity for film and television scripts because of the lengthy and committee-like process they have to endure to go from story concept to completed film. Books aren't enslaved to the same model that they use. Hence the reason why some authors like KKR, DWS, and RAH can put out material quickly. The key to not having to end up mired in endless revisions (if Heinlein's method is the one you choose to adopt) lies in two concepts.

1) Knowing how to write

2) Knowing what to write

Some writers, as has been mentioned before in this thread, use their creative minds to facilitate the process of writing their books, and can write extemporaneously. Others need to use an outline (or their critical mind) in order to achieve the same results (others use both). Neither is wrong or have exclusive claim to being the right path. J.R.R. Tolkien is an author who made his fame by writing his books to death. Taking 14 years to complete one novel is actually an extraordinarily long time to produce a book. His publishers literally had to rip the manuscript out of his hands to get it to the printers.

Authors like Isaac Asimov had an entirely different approach than Tolkien, which was, in Asimov's case, to focus on speed. He believed that the faster you got the words on the page, the better your story would be in the end. He preferred a stripped down, bone-clean prose style to facilitate that. No one can argue his genius, or that or Tolkien's. Two diametrically opposed writing styles. But both authors are legends in the literary world. But it's clear that neither author would subscribe to the others' writing philosophy other than to produce a good product.

As long as you experiment and find the path that works for you, you should do fine. Just remember that your path is just that--your path and you should never feel ashamed or snobbish if it isn't what someone else chooses to accomplish their own writing journey. Now I'm officially getting off of my soapbox.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Contrary to what some people would have you believe, writing isn't math or science. There isn't one right way to do anything regarding this business.


There isn't actually one right way to do math or science either. i had a lot of trouble in a college chem course because my high school teacher had taught us one way to get from point A to B mathematically, but our college professor wanted us taking his road.

and does anyone remember the musical/film 1776? this thread is reminding me of the quote about the NYS legislature....


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Steeplechasing said:


> My 'epiphany' was the Reader's Digest treatment of Hunted. RD started condensing books in 1950. By 1995 they'd got it to as fine an art as you could wish for and I think many authors could learn a hell of a lot from reading a full-fat novel then the RD condensed version. Their editors were among the best in the business (we got no consultation from them, they just cut out every gram of padding). I looked at their treatment and thought "A third of the content of that book was unnecessary." Fwiw, Hunted had original reviews calling it fast-paced which we thought it was.
> 
> Anyway, as you suggest, after the multiple serial murders of many of 'our darlings', in the ebook edit, we ended up with 10,000 words more than RD left in: that was a judgement call on 'texture & character development' with the series in mind.
> 
> ...


Since you brought up Elmore Leonard's _10 Rules of Writing_, I thought I'd post a link to the original article. While I am not by a long shot an a Leonard fan, but he does make some excellent points. His expansion on the basic statement is worth reading. He has quite a lot to say on the subject beyond the barebones "rules". 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/arts/writers-writing-easy-adverbs-exclamation-points-especially-hooptedoodle.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

I am particularly fond of his discussion of hootedoodle.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Since you brought up Elmore Leonard's _10 Rules of Writing_, I thought I'd post a link to the original article. While I am not by a long shot an a Leonard fan, but he does make some excellent points. His expansion on the basic statement is worth reading. He has quite a lot to say on the subject beyond the barebones "rules".
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/arts/writers-writing-easy-adverbs-exclamation-points-especially-hooptedoodle.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
> 
> I am particularly fond of his discussion of hootedoodle.


Thank you. Hooptedoodle has just edged out my current favourite word, Chowderbuckets


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Positive. Some is weak and some is terrible. There's no shame in that. In fact, it's encouraging, as it means that I've been gradually improving. Still, I don't want it out there with my name on it, or any other name for that matter. It was my apprenticeship, the clay pots that came out of the kiln broken or misshapen and were tossed into the rubbish heap. I'm okay with that.


Fair enough, brother.  Just figured I'd float the notion.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Michael Kingswood said:


> Fair enough, brother.  Just figured I'd float the notion.


Believe me, I wish you were onto something.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> J.R.R. Tolkien is an author who made his fame by writing his books to death. Taking 14 years to complete one novel is actually an extraordinarily long time to produce a book. His publishers literally had to rip the manuscript out of his hands to get it to the printers.


Not to nitpick too hard, but since he's been mentioned a couple times in this thread, it bears mentioning that Tolkien was not a professional writer. He was a professor of linguistics. He said himself that he wrote LotR and the rest primarily as a way to develop and explore the Elven language, which he invented. Now, he wrote some kick-ass stories that shaped, hell created, the Fantasy genre. But he was not a working professional writer, nor was he trying to be. So I'm not sure his is the example for us to follow, unless we are also tenured professors.

I think something that's been lost in this discussion is that Dean and Kris don't really intend their advice for brand newbies (Dean's definition, which he adopted from a bookseller friend, of a new writer is someone who has sold less than ten novels). They have stated repeatedly that their focus is on professional writers. They don't allow someone to come to their workshops unless they think that person is already writing at a professional level (which makes me wonder why the hell they let _me_ attend, but that's a topic for another time  ). Given that, I think what they're saying is not that dissimilar to what you did when you said a writer needs to know how to write and what to write. If they're looking at professionals they are assuming the quality of writing is already at a certain minimal baseline.

Methinks were you to get them in a room and talk with them you would find you don't disagree all that much, if at all. And Dean would certainly shrug and say "All writers are different".


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Here’s concrete case of justified revision—a situation where the critical faculty plays a role. You’ve all heard of Chekov’s Gun. The structural principle that goes with it says if a gun appears on the wall in act one, someone better fire it in act three. The converse also applies: if someone fires a gun in act three, it better be foreshadowed in act one. Breaking with this structure will in all likelihood result is a poorly crafted story (Excerpt from reader review: “Where the hell did the gun come from?”). Suppose you write a story and the gun is fired in act three. Would you not revise act one to foreshadow the gun? Seriously? If not, your story will suck, ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

This principle could be generalized to the bulk of genre fiction because it depends on plot structure more than literary fiction. So where does that leave anti-revisers?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Michael Kingswood said:


> I think something that's been lost in this discussion is that Dean and Kris don't really intend their advice for brand newbies (Dean's definition, which he adopted from a bookseller friend, of a new writer is someone who has sold less than ten novels). They have stated repeatedly that their focus is on professional writers. They don't allow someone to come to their workshops unless they think that person is already writing at a professional level (which makes me wonder why the hell they let _me_ attend, but that's a topic for another time  ).


I've heard this said here time and again, but I've yet to see this stated in any of their blog posts. DWS's post about the now infamous "6 Year Plan" said nothing about pros only. In fact, the model starts from zero stories. What professional writer has zero stories to his name?


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> I've heard this said here time and again, but I've yet to see this stated in any of their blog posts. DWS's post about the now infamous "6 Year Plan" said nothing about pros only. In fact, the model starts from zero stories. What professional writer has zero stories to his name?


Not to go back into another endless discussion of that particular blog post, but I viewed that more as a thought experiment of what is possible, as a motivation tool, more than a concrete prediction of what _will_ happen if only X writer does Y.


----------



## Mark Fassett (Aug 25, 2010)

WHDean said:


> I've heard this said here time and again, but I've yet to see this stated in any of their blog posts. DWS's post about the now infamous "6 Year Plan" said nothing about pros only. In fact, the model starts from zero stories. What professional writer has zero stories to his name?


In that post, he did say "good short fiction writer", which can be interpreted to mean someone who has written enough to know how to write, the implication being that if you are not yet a good short story writer, his plan won't work for you. Whether he means pro by that or not, I have no idea, but it certainly doesn't mean complete neophyte writer.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Steeplechasing said:


> Thank you. Hooptedoodle has just edged out my current favourite word, Chowderbuckets


You're quite welcome. I do like that article and love both words. There is nothing like a new and useful word. 

ETA: By the way, I can't do it until next month because as usual I am WAY over budget for books, but I have every intention of buying your novels. I read the samples and they look entertaining.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Man, go away from the internet for a few days and miss all the fun...

For what it's worth, I used to pick and pick and pick at stories and it was only after I quit and started sticking with the first draft (after a copyedit to correct for my dyslexia) that I started selling to pro magazines.  And, frankly, writing enough to learn how to write better.  So it worked for me.

My take-away from Kris's post is that you should write the book the best you can at the moment and then move on.  I think that's fair. It works for me, at least.


----------

