# Anyone ever follow Dean Wesley Smith's advice to NOT rewrite?



## Piano Jenny (Nov 30, 2016)

Last night I was listening to a podcast with Dean Wesley Smith with his wife Kristine Kathryn Rush, and he was saying how the idea "You must rewrite" and the idea that rewriting make something better, *is one of the worst writing myths*. I was so struck by this, and by how adamantly he talked about it, that I read some of his blog posts on this topic.

From http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/killing-the-sacred-cows-of-publishing-rewriting/:

_I can't tell you how many times I have seen a great story ruined by a number of things associated with this myth.

For example, take a great story, run it through a workshop, then try to rewrite it to group think. Yow, does it become dull, just as anything done by committee is dull.

Or worse yet, take a first chapter or two of a novel to a workshop and watch them ruin a good work in progress. Rule here is never let anyone see a work in progress. Ever. Run from workshops like that, and read-aloud workshops. All worthless, even for audience reaction. (More in a future chapter about the myth of writing workshops.)

I helped start and run a beginners workshop when I was first starting out. None of us had a clue, but we were all learning fast. I would write a story a week (all I could manage with three jobs at the time) and mail it, then turn it into my workshop for audience reaction.

That's right, I mailed it before I gave it to my workshop.

And I sold a few stories that the workshop said failed completely, which taught me a lot, actually. If I had listened to them, I never would have made some of those early sales.

If you would like to see a first draft of one of my early stories, pick up Volume #1 of Writers of the Future. I was in the middle of moving from Portland to the Oregon Coast , actually packing the truck, when my then-wife, Denie, asked me if I had the story done for Writers of the Future that Algis Budrys had told me was starting up. I said no, the mailing deadline was the next day and I didn't have time.

Thankfully, Denie insisted I go finish it while she packed. I didn't tell her that I hadn't even started it yet and had no idea what to write. I put the typewriter on a partially dismantled desk, sat on the edge of the bed, and wrote the story from start to finish having no idea what I was writing or where the story was going. Three hours later I finished the story called "One Last Dance" and mailed it on a dinner break.

That's right, it was a first draft on a typewriter. No spell-checker, no first reader, nothing. Algis Budrys and Jack Williamson loved it and put it into the first volume, and because of that story, I ended up meeting Kris a couple of years later after Denie and I had broken up. I also got lots of wonderful trips and money and a great workshop from that three hour draft.

All because I had the courage to write and mail first draft. I trusted my creative skills, I trusted my voice, and I was lucky enough to have someone who gave me support at that point in the writing.

Another point: Every year, editor Denise Little and I prove the same point again to early career writers. We force them to write a short story overnight to an anthology idea and deadline, and those quickly written stories are always better than the ones the same writers wrote before the workshop.
_

Wow. This is _*SO*_ completely different from everything I've ever heard or believed that it makes my head spin.

Anyway, I'm wondering if I should dare to try it with the story I wrote for NaNoWriMo -- just fill in the scenes I didn't get to yet, make some very quick and obvious changes, and then send it to a copy editor.

Is that crazy?? Has anyone actually done this? Do you agree or disagree that rewriting is bad and only makes your stories worse?


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

There's no hard and fast rule. Some people need to rewrite, some don't. Personally I never rewrite, but that's just me.

ETA: actually, I should specify that I don't go back and rewrite because I do all my rewriting as I go along.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I write my books along with three alpha readers who read chapter by chapter and give me feedback. I don't edit much at the end--a few days for a 100k book. 

Others spit out that 100k in 6 days rather than my 6 weeks, and spend 6 weeks revising it. 

Others write it in 3 weeks and are done. 

My books sell very well and are the best I can make them. There are people doing the other things above who can say the same. IMHO there is no right advice on writing process. There are examples. The right one for you is the one that lets you write good books and sell lots of books. 

I would check rank and reviews on anybody who's giving advice on how to write and sell books.


----------



## going going gone (Jun 4, 2013)

Heinlein's, too, years ago. "Never rewrite except to editorial order." 

tl;dr version: I'm closer to Dean's philosophy than I once was.

I revise a lot less than I used to. I was taught "writing is rewriting" and that one should beat the poor novel half to death, revising and tweaking until you hate the book so much you cannot bear to glance at it. So I spent years changing "walked slowly" to "sauntered" to "strolled" and back again.

Then I realized: readers don't give a crap. "Walked slowly" would have been fine with them.


----------



## Tulonsae (Apr 12, 2015)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

I'm basically doing that now. However, if I remember correctly, DWS has also said that he typically goes  back and cleans up the previous day's words before starting today's, and he goes back and makes changes to earlier chapters if he realizes he needs to change something there later. So it's not just 'start at word one, write sequentially to the end, publish'.

The novel I just finished was basically complete by the time I wrote the final word, but it had changed a lot along the way. As I mentioned in another thread, the original chapter one ended up as chapter six, for example.

The one thing I would say is that the closest I ever got to selling a short story to a pro market before I stopped submitting there was a 7500 word story I wrote in two days and mailed off a few minutes before the submission deadline. The ones I spent months or years revising never got anywhere.


----------



## Beth_Hammond (Oct 30, 2015)

If I never revised, my work would be full of pronouns, adverbs, and tons of head nodding lol! I always add to my work in revision. I know writers this would work for though. I'm not one of them. I do think there are plenty of "rules" that are rubbish though.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

cadle-sparks said:


> Then I realized: readers don't give a crap. "Walked slowly" would have been fine with them.


Yeah, I'm currently reading a book by a best-selling author who's been around for decades, and any writing group I was a member of would have torn it apart. But actual readers love him.


----------



## Chrissy (Mar 31, 2014)

Tulonsae said:


> The piece he described is a short story, not a novel. I think it's easier to do that with a shorter piece.
> 
> I also think that people who have written millions of words may not need to revise.
> 
> But have you read his "Writing Into the Dark" blog series? *While he talks about not revising, what he describes is a form of editing as you write.*


Yes, he calls it cycling - where you go back over your work and add/change things. The key component I believe he makes is state of mind.

If you are making *changes while in the creative mind set that's NOT rewriting. *

However, if you go *back over your work from the critical mindset than that IS rewriting* and he believes doing so will hurt your writing.

I believe each writer should do what works for them. And usually learning your writing process takes trial and error PLUS time.

Good Luck.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I'm basically doing that now. However, if I remember correctly, DWS has also said that he typically goes back and cleans up the previous day's words before starting today's, and he goes back and makes changes to earlier chapters if he realizes he needs to change something there later. So it's not just 'start at word one, write sequentially to the end, publish'.


That's what I do. I even insert scenes or chapter earlier in the story if something important comes up that needs foreshadowing. Yay Scrivener.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

It really depends on your definition of rewrite.

I find that when I'm editing, I add to what is already there. I clarify what is already there. I don't take out whole scenes and rewrite it to something completely different. 

In other words, it's like adding frosting to a cake. I'm just cleaning it up and making it prettier. I'm not scrapping the cake and making cupcakes.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

It's actually not his advice, it's that of Robert Heinlein's (Heinlein's Rules). I do follow this advice because after years of rewriting shitty manuscripts, I finally had enough and decided that I didn't have anything else to lose. My stories are actually received better by my writing partners/readers. Vastly better. I have more confidence in my work now, which is huge for me. What I mean by not rewriting isn't: 

-fixing typos
-fixing continuity errors
-fixing grammar issues
-fixing double or over used words
-smoothing out the prose to make it clearer, more rhythmic and contain more impact

Far as the skeleton of the story, the actual narrative, I leave that alone. Doing this has allowed me to write more books, not spend forever on one, and stop being so afraid of writing in general. Gotta get over that fear big time as an Indie or I will sink. So I had to do something about my time and craft aspect. This was it and so far it's helped me an immense amount. What it comes down to, however, is how you are best able to function effectively as a writer. Rewriting didn't help me learn anything new except that I was wasting time. Studying the craft, talking with other writers, reading diversely and applying the techniques I learned on new work is what's helped me learn the best. So, this is definitely an individual thing but I generally agree with the advice of not rewriting.


----------



## Tulonsae (Apr 12, 2015)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Seems to me that it can be distilled down to: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Rewrite stuff that needs to be rewritten and don't rewrite stuff that doesn't need to be rewritten.  If the story works, leave it alone.  If something's not working--whether it's a paragraph, a chapter or even the whole novel--then tweak, revise or even rewrite so it does.

Sometimes I think authors get too wrapped up in advice from well-known authors.  So-and-so says "You must rewrite!" so writers think they must rewrite and they parrot the advice again and again.  Some other so-and-so says "You'll ruin it if you rewrite!" so writers think they mustn't rewrite and they parrot the advice again and again.  Ugh!

Just do whatever it takes to write the best story possible.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

I've found it to be sound advice, but it took me about 10 years of following Dean and writing and learning for it to sink in. Writing and fixing things as you go is much more time-efficient than writing a draft and then going back and rewriting chunks of it. When you get to a certain point in your writing life/career/vocation/whatever, assuming you've practiced a lot and written a lot, you'll find that you're writing cleaner drafts and have less need of revision. 

And in the indie world, the highly successful authors are pushing out new product on a regular basis, and the cleaner you can make your drafts, the faster you'll be able to get work up for sale and then get to the next work.

Dean also ties in confidence to this concept. The more confident a writer is in their work, and the more willing they are to not worry about perfection, the less rewriting you'll have to do.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> Seems to me that it can be distilled down to: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Also, that it's less likely to be broken than you think it is. In a number of cases, I got half-way through writing a novel, decided I needed to make a bunch of changes, then gave up on it for a few years before I went back to it. At which point I put back in most of the things I'd previously removed or changed.


----------



## Nick Marsden (Jan 28, 2015)

Vintage Mari said:


> It's actually not his advice, it's that of Robert Heinlein's (Heinlein's Rules). I do follow this advice because after years of rewriting [crappy] manuscripts, I finally had enough and decided that I didn't have anything else to lose. My stories are actually received better by my writing partners/readers. Vastly better. I have more confidence in my work now, which is huge for me. What I mean by not rewriting isn't:
> 
> -fixing typos
> -fixing continuity errors
> ...


This.
I think what Heinlein and Smith were referring to in the word "rewrite" was to allow the logical side of the brain, the one that must deal with edits, to interfere with the creative side, which is where "flow" comes from. When you write in a "flow" state, your ideas are pure and the story comes naturally. If you then go back and look at it and say something like: "I think this scene needs a dog." Then you are going to hurt your story. Leave the story where it is when you finish it. Your first creative impulse is almost ALWAYS going to be your best.

Fix the mistakes.

Fill in the gaps.

But don't second-guess your creative brain. If you do it while editing/rewriting, then you'll do it when you come up with the idea, or when you are outlining, or (worst of all) when you are writing the draft - which kills the creative flow.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

I don't write in drafts. My first draft is probably 90 percent of my final draft. If I'm in the middle of a book, though, and remember I need to go back and add something, I don't go back and add it right away. I move forward from the spot where I'm working, make a notation for when I go back and edit, and keep pushing forward. Then, when it's time to edit, I have the notation reminding me where I need to add something and that I picked up the added narration note in chapter twenty or whatever and can easily fix it. I've streamlined my process.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

I began with lots of rewriting, which was all learning. These days, I barely rewrite. When I do rewrite, it's for a very good reason. Experience has made my first drafts that much better, and I'm often struck by how well some of those first drafts read, even when I hit the mangled English that pretends to be a story. When I do rewrite/revise/clean up, I do so on a deadline, to keep up my speed and prevent me from going down any unnecessary rabbit holes. So I draft, revise, then editor and revise, then editor again for cleanup.


----------



## Nick Marsden (Jan 28, 2015)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I don't write in drafts. My first draft is probably 90 percent of my final draft. If I'm in the middle of a book, though, and remember I need to go back and add something, I don't go back and add it right away. I move forward from the spot where I'm working, make a notation for when I go back and edit, and keep pushing forward. Then, when it's time to edit, I have the notation reminding me where I need to add something and that I picked up the added narration note in chapter twenty or whatever and can easily fix it. I've streamlined my process.


I love this idea! Thanks, Amanda.


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

I work in drafts, each revision/edit having a different purpose. My approach (and the way my brain works) is I have to have the whole thing in front of me so I can start to shape it the way I want it, filling in missing parts, taking out what doesn't need to be there, working in the details. Like in layers, is a way to put it. Or like sculpting from a chunk of rock or clay. So the one-draft edit-as-you-go, cycling thing DWS talks about doesn't work for me. My brain does not work that way. What I have learned, that DWS says is important, is to do this from the creative side of my brain, not the critical side. Every change I make is to bring the story closer to what's in my creative vision, not to follow a bunch of so-called rules or because I'm worried about what other people (especially other authors) might say. Even beta reader feedback, even if it makes logical sense, has to pass that creative-mind gut check of "Is this true to the story I want to tell?" I've found that this creative-driven approach makes revision and editing a lot more fun and satisfying, and less dragged out over time, than critical-brain rewriting and editing, where you can never get it right and you just pound the poor story into mush.

Here's a blog post on how I learned all this the hard way: http://www.kyrahalland.com/blog/the-worst-writing-advice-ever-and-how-it-nearly-killed-my-book



Dan C. Rinnert said:


> Seems to me that it can be distilled down to: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Rewrite stuff that needs to be rewritten and don't rewrite stuff that doesn't need to be rewritten. If the story works, leave it alone. If something's not working--whether it's a paragraph, a chapter or even the whole novel--then tweak, revise or even rewrite so it does.
> 
> Sometimes I think authors get too wrapped up in advice from well-known authors. So-and-so says "You must rewrite!" so writers think they must rewrite and they parrot the advice again and again. Some other so-and-so says "You'll ruin it if you rewrite!" so writers think they mustn't rewrite and they parrot the advice again and again. Ugh!
> 
> Just do whatever it takes to write the best story possible.


This, totally.


----------



## Jacob Stanley (May 25, 2015)

I definitely agree with the spirit of this and have learned a lot from reading Dean's advice.

One of the main things he recommends is editing as you go to make sure your first draft is fairly clean. I didn't do this as much when I started, but I do it now, and it's made writing much more comfortable for me. Dean has some good videos on his Youtube channel, a free workshop he's giving away on originality in writing, where he talks a lot about this stuff and explains his ideas more fully. (check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLthXGQBdkrDr3udEIc-erFdJYpIZkLSvV)

I still do some very quick revision passes, but I always try to stay away from a "critique" mindset while I revise. I try to experience my book the way a reader would, not the way a critic would. I'm looking for places where the words aren't giving me the right feeling, or where something about the rhythm of the prose knocks me out of the flow. I don't have a checklist or anything that i use while editing. I'm just trying to feel my way through the book, and stay in a creative mindset. Most of my revision work actually makes my books longer because I tend to put in details and add layers. But I never make substantial changes to the story once it's fully assembled.

Overall I would say Dean's advice is good for people who are comfortable editing as they go. Those who want to freewrite their way through a first draft at breakneck speed without ever looking back (which is also a valid method) will probably need to spend more time in revision, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

- - -


Kyra Halland said:


> I work in drafts, each revision/edit having a different purpose. My approach (and the way my brain works) is I have to have the whole thing in front of me so I can start to shape it the way I want it, filling in missing parts, taking out what doesn't need to be there, working in the details. Like in layers, is a way to put it. Or like sculpting from a chunk of rock or clay. So the one-draft edit-as-you-go, cycling thing DWS talks about doesn't work for me. My brain does not work that way. *What I have learned, that DWS says is important, is to do this from the creative side of my brain, not the critical side. Every change I make is to bring the story closer to what's in my creative vision, not to follow a bunch of so-called rules or because I'm worried about what other people (especially other authors) might say. Even beta reader feedback, even if it makes logical sense, has to pass that creative-mind gut check of "Is this true to the story I want to tell?" I've found that this creative-driven approach makes revision and editing a lot more fun and satisfying, and less dragged out over time, than critical-brain rewriting and editing, where you can never get it right and you just pound the poor story into mush.*
> 
> Here's a blog post on how I learned all this the hard way: http://www.kyrahalland.com/blog/the-worst-writing-advice-ever-and-how-it-nearly-killed-my-book


Totally agree with all the bolded. This is exactly my feeling on Dean's advice. When you start looking at your book like a scientist trying to dissect something, that's when you get into trouble. It's all about gut feelings.


----------



## Soothesayer (Oct 19, 2012)

Clive Barker and Dean Koontz both have admitted in interviews that they are obsessive rewriters. If it's good enough for them, it is good enough for me. I rewrite for clarity and vision, not flowery prose (though there is nothing wrong with that either).

Judging from some of the other DWS/Rusch threads on here (where he gives horrible advice on pricing, marketing, no promotion, etc.), I would take his opinion with a grain of salt.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

Chrissy said:


> Yes, he calls it cycling - where you go back over your work and add/change things. The key component I believe he makes is state of mind.
> 
> If you are making *changes while in the creative mind set that's NOT rewriting. *
> 
> ...


Wow, that's a great insight! Thanks for saying it!

I tend to write near-final first drafts, but with every writing session I do a rolling edit of last day's work and then continue onward with new material, so the whole process is a create-edit hybrid. I also write pretty slowly (even more so lately due to medical issues).

However when the first draft is done, I set it aside for a few days, and then do a light edit mostly to add things, the takes me just a few days. So, the bulk of work happens in the first draft portion.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Soothesayer said:


> Clive Barker and Dean Koontz both have admitted in interviews that they are obsessive rewriters. If it's good enough for them, it is good enough for me. I rewrite for clarity and vision, not flowery prose (though there is nothing wrong with that either).
> 
> Judging from some of the other DWS/Rusch threads on here (where he gives horrible advice on pricing, marketing, no promotion, etc.), I would take his opinion with a grain of salt.


You should take *any *writing advice with a grain of salt, no matter who it comes from. Dean Koontz has indicated that he sometimes rewrites a single page 30-40+ times before moving on to the next page. That's advice that not all writers are going to want to or need to follow.


----------



## IreneP (Jun 19, 2012)

There is literally no right answer to this. As others have pointed out, there are writers at both ends of the spectrum and all between. I tend to "edit as I go." So basically my writing process starts with reading back over a chunk of the previous work to get back in the swing of things. I typically make little adjustments as I go. I do three rounds of edits before I publish.

I generally don't do huge story adjustments at any point, but there is a good bit of tweaking, both as I go and at the end. I hate deleting scenes. I'm more likely to re-focus a scene that doesn't work than get rid of it entirely or write something completely new in its place. The most intense edits/re-writes I've done were for _Vespers_. This was my first book written with a partner, my first alternate world, etc - so there was a lot to clean up.

In general, I dislike writing by focus group. I've been in a lot of critique groups, which I _love_, but generally I'm looking for works/doesn't work. Those groups can come up with a lot of great ideas, but in the end, I write the story. I'm asking where I lost them, not how to solve the problem.

So, I dunno. Do I _rewrite_? Or do I _tweak_?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

At least on the material I'm writing now, and at this stage in my development as a writer (still a beginner), I need to revise heavily. Hopefully that won't always be the case.

Most of my revision is "rolling," as Vera put it. I don't do separate drafts.

I take exception to the idea that revising based on feedback makes writing worse. Revising based on *bad* feedback makes writing worse, but not all feedback is bad. If you actually seek feedback, you of course up your chances of receiving bad feedback (from zero chance to some chance), and if you receive feedback from tons of people, as in a workshop environment, you increase the chances further. You also up your chances of receiving good feedback. Whatever you get, it's the writer's responsibility to recognize and ignore bad feedback. If a writer revises according bad feedback, well, that's sort of on them -- they're in charge of making those decisions.


----------



## Guy Riessen (Mar 27, 2016)

Edward M. Grant said:


> he typically goes back and cleans up the previous day's words before starting today's, and he goes back and makes changes to earlier chapters if he realizes he needs to change something there later.


I think this is a very good practice anyway since it not only allows you to catch some stupid mistakes, but it gets the story fresh and running in your head. As for total re-writes, nah I don't believe in that. Cuts, editing for continuity/calrity, and especially planting foreshadowing...those I absolutely won't give up doing


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

This didn't read like advice to not rewrite so much as advice to not bother to workshop.

I've never workshopped or used a beta reader, and the first person to read anything of mine other than me is the first person to open the copy of it they've bought and downloaded on the day the book is released.

My first drafts are usually second drafts because I go back and rewrite as I write. When I'm done with the first/second draft, the story is largely done. The changes made in future edits--and there are at least two or three more--are changes in tone, word choice, spelling/punctuation and so on.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Jim Johnson said:


> You should take *any *writing advice with a grain of salt, no matter who it comes from. Dean Koontz has indicated that he sometimes rewrites a single page 30-40+ times before moving on to the next page. That's advice that not all writers are going to want to or need to follow.


This right here.

Even though I don't agree with DWS's marketing and pricing strategies, I find plenty of what he says about craft to be reasonable and sound advice. The same goes for other authors who give professional writing advice. It's best to pick and choose and try new things to see what works best for you.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> I take exception to the idea that revising based on feedback makes writing worse. Revising based on *bad* feedback makes writing worse, but not all feedback is bad.


I'm pretty sure DWS says he gives the novel to someone else to read before he publishes it, and fixes the problems they find. So he's not against feedback, just making major changes to the book based on that feedback ('this should be a thriller, not a Western!').


----------



## edgeofspeech (Apr 9, 2016)

Can a chisel lop off the head of a statue during the carving process? Sure.
Even in the hands of a master, mistakes happen, but a master doesn't blame the tool for its misuse. Rewriting is a tool of our craft. Whether we choose to apply it during drafting or after or not at all, it is foolish to discount it out of hand. Better to know how to use it and when to apply it (or not). The subjective 'right' answer isn't likely to come from someone else. The only way to find the 'right answer for you' is to try it for yourself, one way or another.

We paused our release schedule for 4 weeks to rewrite book 2 the instant we realized we could improve things in a drastic fashion and we pushed ourselves hard to finish the work in that time frame. In this case we weren't lingering. We identified issues (plot holes, logic problems), solved them, and moved on. Did we sacrifice our speed to market? Yes. But (personally) we'd rather not write the next 6+ books in a series that doesn't sell past book 2. And if our goal had been minimum viable product with a lightning fast release strategy, it would have been the wrong choice.  

What is your strategy? What are your goals? Pick up the tools and use them as necessary to achieve your own version of success.


----------



## AsianInspiration (Oct 12, 2016)

also, I think it's not just about better or worse. It's about whether its worth it.

Let's say your first draft is 50%. You rewrite it, it's now 70%. Do it again, it's 80%. then 85%. Then 87%. 

But is it really worth it to spend so much time on a 2% improvement? a 5% improvement? Or is it better to write another book that's 50%?

These are things that you have to ask yourself, and the answers would be different for everyone, depending on their goals. I believe that probably, from a purely sales/profit perspective, not rewriting is probably smarter. But whether you will feel good about selling a book that you might not be completely satisfied with is another thing.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Yeah, well, anyone who has actually looked at Heinlein's papers would know that he *did* do rewrites as part of his process. Given the nature of his other rules - that you have to write and you have to publish - it seems more likely that his intent was to encourage the people who endlessly rewrite their stories and insist on polishing each individual comma for years to give it a rest and just get the manuscript out the door.

Each story and book that you write is different. Just like with every other job out there, some days are better than others and sometimes you do things in the course of your writing that are just wrong and need to be fixed by rewriting. Most of us don't deliver perfect first drafts, and we have to do some work to fix things. Sometimes we need to throw away 20k words because they're garbage or they just don't fit. Sometimes a section is weak and needs to be juiced up. Sometimes there's a plot hole you could drop Godzilla into that requires rewrites to fix.

At the end of the day *you're* the writer, and you're supposed to know what you're doing. If you need to rewrite, rewrite.


----------



## leoduhvinci (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't rewrite at all- for me, I plan out nearly everything before my pen hits the paper. So there never really is any reason to rewrite for me- everything is already set.


----------



## SC (Jan 6, 2017)

Lydniz said:


> There's no hard and fast rule. Some people need to rewrite, some don't. Personally I never rewrite, but that's just me.
> 
> ETA: actually, I should specify that I don't go back and rewrite because I do all my rewriting as I go along.


I also mostly do my rewriting as I go along. I'll usually make some changes on editing/proofreading passes when I'm done, but I generally plan things out before I start writing so that I don't have to do a lot of major changes after I finish the first draft. And while some people insist that it's better to keep writing and then go back and change things after the first draft's done, I've always found it's better and easier to make changes as I go. I also don't agree with the people who say that writing is rewriting, that once you have the first draft, you're only just beginning the writing process. Maybe that's true for people who totally pants their stories, but endless editing sounds to me like a good way to completely deplete your enthusiasm for a story. And I don't need to do 6 totally different drafts to get what I want because I got it mostly the way I wanted on the first draft and after that it's usually minor tweaking (because I planned before I started).


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm afraid I write in a very inefficient 'octopus' way.

The legs sprout first, then the legs join the body and head - and finally I have a story. I don't understand my story when I begin writing it. And so I'd personally go along with DWS when he says not to workshop it with anyone. That would be a killer for me. Because the puzzle is forming somewhere at the back of my brain and I'm the only one who is able to find those pieces and put them together. Because it's *my* story.

Unlike DWS's advice, I do a lot of rewriting. I have to make the legs fit the body and often what I've written just doesn't make for good octopus legs.

Yes, I hate the octopus with a passion. I wish I could outline and then just go for it. 
But I also really like what the octopus produces.


----------



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

Generally I do the rolling thing too and did that long before I discovered DWS. I have done pretty major rewrites a couple of times because of beta feedback and believe I ended up with stronger stories both times, but other than that, once I'm done with a story, what I do would be called line or copy editing, not rewriting. My mental resistance to doing rewriting on a finished story is high, so I'd can't imagine deciding to do it just because on my own. Any newer/better ideas had better occur to me before I get to the end.  

Since the only pre-publication input I get is from betas, surely that rewriting is kind of, sort of like rewriting because of editorial input, the difference being a lot more freedom to decide whether to do it or not. It takes several of those first readers hitting on the same thing to overcome my resistance to changing things.


----------



## mach 5 (Dec 5, 2015)

Lydniz said:


> ...
> 
> ETA: actually, I should specify that I don't go back and rewrite because I do all my rewriting as I go along.


Basically, so does Dean. He "cycles" through what he wrote the day before. When he's done, Kris reads it. He fixes all the objective mistakes she notes and might tweak a few things based on her feedback, but it all sounds pretty minimal once it leaves his hands as a first draft.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

johnkrause said:


> Oh, it's awful!
> 
> Have you ordered proposal writings earlier? Not everybody did it. Thus there is no need to find out structure of the paper for all of the students. Because the requirements is known by the author who started to work with the ordered assignment anyway. The next question is quality of the paper. Unfortunately, may of the website can not offer authors that must write using original English language, without grammatical, spelling, stylistic and other mistakes. But even if you have such kind of paper, this website will help you anyway. So if you want to get the quality result, just place an orders with them.


Is that a quote from the paper writing service capstonepaper.net and does the website really advertise that "we craft original paper" & then "we help with defense?" Dang, I wish I knew about that when I went for my MSN. Would have saved me a ton of work in grad school if I'd paid someone else to write all those silly papers.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2017)

I partially agree with him. Some of those workshops and critique groups can be deadly to your work depending on the personalities and background of the people involved. They are usually best for fledgling writers.

As far as rewriting is concerned, that has to be carefully done, too. You can destroy your story if you don't know when to stop. However, not everyone's first draft is good enough. Mine aren't. I find rewriting polishes my story and gets it as close to possible to what I first imagined.

To each their own.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

As someone who has written a bunch of standalones, and is now working on a series, I've found there needs to be way less rewriting in the series work than the standalone. Like, clearly I've done things like added scenes, redone scenes to alter things, etc. But for the first time I've been able to work from an outline.

With the standalones, I found that so much more difficult. When I start writing I'm not totally across the characters or the themes of the book. That comes out of rewriting for me. If that book becomes part of a series, then the subsequent books will be a lot easier to do because I know the lay of the land.

Part of the reason why I'm going to go back and turn my first book into a series when I'm done with my current one.


----------



## The Bass Bagwhan (Mar 9, 2014)

Out_there said:


> I partially agree with him. Some of those workshops and critique groups can be deadly to your work depending on the personalities and background of the people involved. They are usually best for fledgling writers.
> 
> As far as rewriting is concerned, that has to be carefully done, too. You can destroy your story if you don't know when to stop. However, not everyone's first draft is good enough. Mine aren't. I find rewriting polishes my story and gets it as close to possible to what I first imagined.
> 
> To each their own.


This touches on something that struck me - DWS is mostly talking about avoiding workshops and not being over-influenced by groups and (ah... ahem) forums into "writing by committee".
Rewriting to polish your prose and fix mistakes is an absolute must, and it doesn't matter what method you use to achieve this- on the fly or as revision afterwards.
But rewriting to rework ideas or plots that you suddenly decide are flawed can turn into a despairing exercise.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

When Jack Kerouac said that he never rewrites, Truman Capote said, "That's not writing; that's typing."

I agree with Capote. For me, that is. Others must choose their own methods.


----------



## BigPhilly (Jan 4, 2017)

DWS is sort of my new writing guru. I read his book, WRITING INTO THE DARK (see link below), and it changed my whole process. He taught me it's OK to be a pantser. I write for fun, first, and I also believe in Ray Bradbury's sort of spiritual ideas (also see that link below) about following the muse.

In other words, yes, like DWS I don't really re-write. I just touch things up a bit. As others have said, it's all about what works for you. I'm kind of the opposite of the plotter with beta-reader type. On that topic, I don't like the idea of beta-readers. If one or two allegedly representative readers don't like my story, then they can go write their own. It gets to a point where, in my VERY humble opinion, you can turn self-publishing into a job worse than the cubicle you may have escaped.

DWS: http://amzn.to/2jF0VHN

BRADBURY: http://amzn.to/2iHLI9m


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2017)

I love DWS. I've taken a couple of his classes. I love this do not rewrite rule, but of course some things have to be fixed. Since I have taken his classes I have written cleaner and with an outline - less need to rewrite at the end. I think it's good to let a project go out to beta readers or an editor rather than continue to mull over it myself - and not too many either -  and let them tell me where they got caught, or didn't understand something. Otherwise I could be rewriting for years like I did with my first book - 5 years. Wouldn't do it again  

TMG

Great question


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2017)

BTW in his thriller workshop he does go through outlining a novel. It was very helpful to me. 

 

TMG


----------



## Frankenrainbow (Jan 8, 2017)

BigPhilly said:


> DWS is sort of my new writing guru. I read his book, WRITING INTO THE DARK (see link below), and it changed my whole process. He taught me it's OK to be a pantser.
> 
> DWS: http://amzn.to/2jF0VHN


  Same here


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> If you are making changes while in the creative mind set that's NOT rewriting.
> 
> However, if you go back over your work from the critical mindset than that IS rewriting and he believes doing so will hurt your writing.


This is the basic idea. What he's trying to do is get people to believe in their creative mind and stop listening to people who say you can't write without constantly "polishing" -- until you've taken the natural voice of the author out. He's a firm believer that most people can write and sell if they'll just let their creative mind do the work.

DWS says that you can't let doubt or fear into your writing. You have to know the craft, and then get out of the way of yourself and do it. I agree. There's a point where you know plotting, dialog and all the rest, and if you just do it, you can write without all the editing and rewriting and even redrafting (which he says may be needed on occasion).

And for the record, he's never claimed to have originated any of this. He gives credit to Heinlein, and says he didn't start selling until he started following the "Rules" and stopped editing his work to death. He even wrote a book about it, and often talks about it in blog posts.

Everyone has to find their own way. I found mine by reading his posts on writing into the dark and admitting to myself that the way I was writing wasn't working for me. I'm not an outliner, and going back over a book -- even just once -- makes me hate the idea of writing. So I took his advice, went back to writing the way I taught myself when I was a kid, before I found books about writing. I'm a one and done writer. I edit as I go, I trust my voice, and I don't "polish" anything. That's not to say I haven't changed things here and there. I have, but not major parts of a book, much less an entire book. Not any more. If it's not working, I scrap it. Life's too short to worry over a book, or whether I should use one word over another, or if this comma or semi colon dilutes the sentence, or whatever else some writers spend their time on.

It's fine to do like other authors advise. There's lots of way this thing works. Edit that one novel until you're old and collecting retirement, if that's what you want/feel you must do. Don't edit it at all. Do something somewhere in between. Some of us have a different road, and we're doing it the way _we_ want/feel we must.

No one way is right or wrong. Just different. If the way you're working is doing it for you, then great. But if it's not, try something else. No one has to know but you. The readers won't care, so long as you're giving them the stories they want.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

I just read the sample of the DWS book. He's nailed it. At least with respect to my experience. I use outlines for non-fiction how-tos and can't use them for fiction. I don't need to buy his book because I'll be reading an account of how I work. If the summary is any indication.Hmm. Maybe I better read the whole thing.


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

I learned this lesson fairly early. About a year into shopping for agents for my first book, I had submitted it to several contests which provided feedback. One of the contests in particular (think I got an honorable mention) gave three detailed written analyses from three separate editors. One of them hated it, gave me 3-5 ratings out of 10 for everything except presentation and grammar. One of them loved it and the other one was closer to loving it than hating it. But the really instructive thing was that the editor who hated it hated some of the exact things that the other editors said they liked! I had an "aha" moment at that point. Up until then, I had been listening to all the voices which said you can't trust your own opinion of your work and that you need to get outside feedback. I had changed a few things along the way, but sometimes it was tough to figure out what to change. In this moment I realized what seems obvious now - just because someone says something about your work doesn't mean it's true. Even someone who is a top author or editor. Or maybe it is "true" for them but not actually a problem for most people.

That said, I am a firm believer in getting feedback on your work. But there are many ways to do that. When you have zero books or only one or two out, you are probably well served to find a tiny number (<5) people who you trust to give feedback. You don't have to change everything they say, but listen and decide if it makes sense. Once you have written a few things and have proof that you know how to produce a solid book, if you're self published then you may not need much more feedback before you publish. I personally like to have at least a couple folks read the book just for overall impressions, but it's not absolutely necessary. 

All this is not to say you don't need an editor - we all do. But even with an editor, you need to trust yourself to know what to accept and what to reject. That's the key takeaway from DWS, trust your process and your judgment. It doesn't mean ignore feedback, just learn how to use it best. If five people read your book and all (or even four out of five) of them like it, but each one mentions something different to change. . .you may be all set to go.

Final note: I don't think this advice precludes outlining or even revision. Part of trusting your own process is recognizing that different people work differently. I love having an outline, though I sometimes do write without one. An outline means I don't have to waste brainpower on nuts and bolts and can allow the actual creative part of my brain full reign. For others, having to keep the outline in mind completely retards the creative process.


----------



## Justin Jordan (Feb 15, 2011)

Never Rewrite and You Must Rewrite* are both bad rules.

The rule should be: Know When To Rewrite

I rewrite as I need to. Easily more than half my published work (which is more than a hundred issues of comics, which is what I do for a living) is esentially the first draft. But a decent chunk of my stuff has gone through five or six drafts. And no one has been able to tell a quality difference. 

You might be tempted to think that the last bit there means that the rewrites I did do weren't necessary, but I don't think that's true. Stuff is eventually going to be as right as you can get it. Sometimes that's the first time, and sometimes it's the sixth time. 

The internal rule I use is, basically, if something seems wrong and I can think of an answer, change it. If I can't, leave it and move on. 

Having said ALL that, I do know a lot of people spending forever working on the same one thing when their time would be better spent working on new stuff, which I think is always better for your long term development. 



*Some of this incidentally, is a function of legacy. When you were writing a book by hand or by typewriter, your process was different because of that.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Justin Jordan said:


> Having said ALL that, I do know a lot of people spending forever working on the same one thing when their time would be better spent working on new stuff, which I think is always better for your long term development.


I think this is part of the reason for the 'no rewrites' movement. I've met so many people who are still rewriting a book they started ten years ago and would have learned so much more if they'd written ten books instead...


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I think this is part of the reason for the 'no rewrites' movement. I've met so many people who are still rewriting a book they started ten years ago and would have learned so much more if they'd written ten books instead...


It's hard explaining to these people "why" writing fresh words helps them learn better than rewrites. "Oh, but rewrites are fresh words" No. Not in the context of a brand new story that needs building. In an already written story, there is already the narrative ground work, and I don't think we receive the same level of mental challenge when we rewrite as when we do fresh words if that makes sense.

On another note, it is a struggle to follow this line of no-rewrites thinking. I know that for me, the beginnings are often the places I like to hit most. It's gotten easier (over time) to trust what I've put down but that's tough when the "not good enough" voices come in for the kill!


----------



## MarkdownFanatic (Jan 14, 2014)

If I understand DWS' advice correctly, an opening that lacks zing doesn't need editing. The author who wrote it needs to realize it ain't the opening 

The good place to open is either a bit further into the story (so chop what comes before), or it's a bit _earlier_ than the current beginning-place of the story (so "write extra", as DWS calls it, starting a bit earlier in the story). Same thing with ending. Not saying it's _the_ way to do stuff, but it's a _fun_ way to do stuff, and I've found some better openers and endings to bot fic and non-fic that way.

As to outlining, DWS has the fun method of outlining _after_ writing a days' worth (if I understand him correctly). He outlines what he _has_ written and starts next writing session by glancing at that. During the writing, he suggests "cycling back", i.e., going back a few hundred words when you need to recharge. Also a good way to spot places where you need to put-in some more stuff or chop a branching-off that doesn't belong.

Not _the_ way, but fun way. I use it a lot for work-related pieces and mails I don't want to write. When I trust the process, those things write themselves. Same thing when I dare trust the process for fic writing.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

Not me. I am not one of those who does it perfectly the first time.


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

MarkdownFanatic said:


> As to outlining, DWS has the fun method of outlining _after_ writing a days' worth (if I understand him correctly). He outlines what he _has_ written and starts next writing session by glancing at that. During the writing, he suggests "cycling back", i.e., going back a few hundred words when you need to recharge. Also a good way to spot places where you need to put-in some more stuff or chop a branching-off that doesn't belong.


As I think about it, I don't ever have an outline when I write Chapter One (or the prologue since I write the kind of thrillers which usually have those). Usually somewhere around chapter three or four I stop and outline what I've already written and THEN write the outline for the next few chapters. It definitely fits the same spirit of what I hear DWS is saying. I haven't read that much of his details, but I'm assuming he doesn't actually tell people they shouldn't outline. If he does, he's really no more accurate than the people who tell authors they must revise. Something tells me he wouldn't have been a big fan of James Joyce's writing process


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Short stories are vastly different to crafting a full length work, so I wouldn't take any advice from Dean Wesley Smith. He's also an ex-trad published author and he has published hundreds of short works, so unless you are on a par with him in experience, I'd take his advice with a pinch of salt or we could end up with a ton of crap being published if everyone took that statement as gospel.

It wasn't too many years since he tried to convince everyone to sell their shorts at $2/3.99. the same as him, which might have been okay for a NWT best selling author, or an erotic short story writer, but I've yet to hear from anyone who took his advice and made a success of that price point. 

Anyone who doesn't go back through a full length work and spot sections where rewrites are required must be a genius. 

Everyone works differently and they will be at a different learning curve when it comes to authoring a book, so I'd take that advice with a pinch of salt.


----------



## K&#039;Sennia Visitor (Jan 14, 2014)

I don't have a locked-in-stone method I use. I always at least proofread, but major edits make me nervous and usually end up with me ruining things. The most editing I've ever done was on the few occasions when I had a beta reader or someone else to read a story pre-publication. But that doesn't happen very often, so usually I just proofread as many times as I can force myself to do it. My stories usually get longer on the second go-round, but sometimes they get shorter. (sad face)


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2017)

Another great book to read on this subject is The Pursuit of Perfection and how It Harms Writers written by Dean's award winning wife Kristine Kathryn Rusche. I read it whenever I feel doubt or discouraged. It is an incredible support to writers.

It's a small one, but super empowering.

https://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Perfection-Harms-Writers-Guide-ebook/dp/B00BI88VGI

TMG


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

I tried to read an ebook the other day that was soooo bad that I knew I would never leave a review. I tend not to leave negative reviews, especially for fellow KBoarders, so it only took a few pages for me to throw up my hands on the story.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

Regardless of process, I think the first takeaway here is not to edit/rewrite your voice out of the story; don't turn your prose into a lame, creative writing assignment that dots all of the I's and crosses all of the T's because that's how someone told you the professor grades. The second point is don't make a career out of a single book. Write it, rewrite it, edit it...once, twice and again, but at some point, proof it and call it a day, or open a fresh file and start something else. I think we learn the most with new words, and the more new words we write, the more we learn. In fact, I would argue that writing new words is essential to being a writer.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

The only thing I've ever rewritten was my very first novel, written some thirty odd years ago, when I found kdp. I had to rewrite because I had nothing except what was in my head. 

I've never heard of a 'must rewrite' idea, to be honest.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

I don't rewrite. I write the final draft, more or less. 

I start my writing sessions working over what I have written the day before, until I am satisfied with it, then I write the next chapter. That's "edit on the go". Once I am finished I give it to alpha readers for detection of plot holes, and then will edit it once again - mostly typos and small language adjustments - before it goes to the editor. After I get it back there may be a few minor adjustments, then it is formatted and published.

That is all the rewriting process there is, but I write probably slower than the average writer who rewrites.


----------



## Piano Jenny (Nov 30, 2016)

Doglover said:


> I've never heard of a 'must rewrite' idea, to be honest.


Wow, really? I hear it all the time. Isn't there a famous quote by Michael Crichton that "Books aren't written, only rewritten"?

When I finished the first draft of what became my first book, a friend in the industry (she had worked as an editor and book distributor and was working on her second book) told me, "Now the real work begins. It typically takes ten times as much time to rewrite and edit as it does to write the rough draft."

I about had a fit, but sure enough, even though I did _not_ plan or want it to take that long, I spent over three years re-writing it. The rewrites were definite improvements, but I do _not_ want to do that again.

That's why the idea of submitting a rough draft -- and it doing well -- is fascinating to me. I just ordered the book _Writing into the Dark_.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Piano Jenny said:


> That's why the idea of submitting a rough draft -- and it doing well -- is fascinating to me. I just ordered the book _Writing into the Dark_.


But that's the thing, though. Consider revising your thinking. It's not a rough draft. It's a final piece of work minus maybe a light copyedit or proofread. All the writing and revising and enhancing has been done in one shot, one draft.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Piano Jenny said:


> Wow, really? I hear it all the time. Isn't there a famous quote by Michael Crichton that "Books aren't written, only rewritten"?
> 
> When I finished the first draft of what became my first book, a friend in the industry (she had worked as an editor and book distributor and was working on her second book) told me, "Now the real work begins. It typically takes ten times as much time to rewrite and edit as it does to write the rough draft."
> 
> ...


I don't write drafts, either, rough or otherwise and I'm not sure that was what was meant. I write from my idea, put in some characters, see where they go. About half way through I'll read it through, perhaps expand a few things, then I'll do the same with the second half. One thing that has amazed me since I found indie publishing is the amount of people who think they should follow a set of silly rules to be a writer. I write; if I wanted to follow rules I'd have joined the navy.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

dianapersaud said:


> It really depends on your definition of rewrite.
> 
> I find that when I'm editing, I add to what is already there. I clarify what is already there. I don't take out whole scenes and rewrite it to something completely different.
> 
> In other words, it's like adding frosting to a cake. I'm just cleaning it up and making it prettier. I'm not scrapping the cake and making cupcakes.


^^^ Yep, that's me. I write the story, only going back over the previous chapter each morning before continuing. Rarely do I go back to insert something, and never to rewrite.


----------



## StephenBrennan (Dec 21, 2012)

I'm a perfectionist, possibly a narcissist, so I re-read every word I write as I'm writing it. Doesn't tend to need much editing I find, although I do change things here and there.

As far as his stance on groups, I don't necessarily agree. My groups give me a lot of encouragement and fuel my desire to keep writing.


----------



## Tommy Muncie (Dec 8, 2014)

I don't dismiss the value of writing workshops altogether, but I reached a stage where I stopped using them because I felt like re-writing based on the opinions of others was only changing the writing and not really improving it that much. I agree with a lot of the quote in the OP on that basis: change is NOT always improvement. I can't pretend I haven't had some invaluable advice from various people both online and off, but in the end my approach boils down to knowing when a draft feels done and ready and just saying 'That's it,' for better or worse. I refine a final draft based on the opinions of beta readers whose judgement I usually trust nowadays rather than use workshops where anyone can offer up a crit.

What I call 're-writing' now is mostly just editing. Rather than re-write an entire book from scratch, I usually create a final draft by editing my penultimate one. When I stop doing that is a bit like the Jackson Pollock 'How do you know when you're done making love?' approach. I just know.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Piano Jenny said:


> Wow, really? I hear it all the time. Isn't there a famous quote by Michael Crichton that "Books aren't written, only rewritten"?
> 
> When I finished the first draft of what became my first book, a friend in the industry (she had worked as an editor and book distributor and was working on her second book) told me, "Now the real work begins. It typically takes ten times as much time to rewrite and edit as it does to write the rough draft."
> 
> I about had a fit, but sure enough, even though I did _not_ plan or want it to take that long, I spent over three years re-writing it. The rewrites were definite improvements, but I do _not_ want to do that again.


Emphasizing the value of revision is standard advice in the world of writing instruction. I teach academic writing, but I know my creative writing colleagues emphasize it too.

I think a major consideration is how good your "first draft" (or draft that's been "cycled," or whatever) actually is. Some people produce first drafts that readers find satisfying, but not everyone does. Some of the folks in the latter group can probably make their books satisfying to readers by revising them. An author's probably more likely to be able to write satisfying first drafts if they're an experienced writer writing in a genre they know well, though I'm sure there are people who do it from the get-go. It might also have to do with how complex the plot is and how large the cast of characters. If you're doing something very intricate and trying to create a lot of different realistic persons, maybe it's harder to get it all working properly in one shot ... though I'm sure some people do.

I have to say, I've read a lot of indie novels that left me wishing the author had done a few more drafts. Some traditionally published ones as well. But some of those authors were laughing all the way to the bank at the time, so probably I was just outside their targeted group of readers.


----------



## Awasin (Aug 7, 2015)

Something that's being missed in this thread is that the injunction against rewriting doesn't mean that everything you write works, just that rewriting it isn't the best way of fixing it.

If a story isn't working, rather than rewriting it, start over. Chuck it and start again.

Don't confuse the _manuscript _with the _story_.


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

I like rewriting. My first thoughts/ideas/attempts are usually facile, surface-brain things that anyone could come up with and write. Once my story is done, I like to go back and see what's missing, where I can add some awe, what I can change to make it unique to ME and my voice. 

I don't rewrite until it's done, and I don't do it for every story. But it's a worthwhile tool to have on hand.


----------



## edwardgtalbot (Apr 28, 2010)

Reading this thread, it's clear that we have people who don't really rewrite at all. We have people who rewrite extensively with multiple drafts. We have people who rewrite before each writing session by looking back at what came before. We have people who give it to other readers for input and people who don't. We have people who outline to various degrees and people who don't at all.

Either all those who do rewriting beyond what DWS recommends have poor writing/are lucky, or it is not appropriate for everyone to take his advice on not rewriting. I would hope we all recognize that the latter is a more accurate conclusion. It doesn't change the truth of the general idea that trusting yourself as an author is likely to make your writing better.


----------



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

edwardgtalbot said:


> Either all those who do rewriting beyond what DWS recommends have poor writing/are lucky, or it is not appropriate for everyone to take his advice on not rewriting.


From what I've read, Dean tells what he thinks works best and why. He comes across strong in his belief in his own way, but he pretty regularly also acknowledges not every one is the same and we each need to do what works for us. I'm never going to write into the dark. That doesn't mean I can't use some of his other advice.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

To me, "rewrite" implies a major overhaul of the story's telling. Start from the beginning. But it sounds like that's not the accepted definition.

I enjoy polishing a rough draft, even with several coats of polish. I like watching the writing come alive as I refine and replace clunky writing and reorganize the story's flow to make better sense. If that's what he's telling me not to do, I respectfully reject his advice.


----------



## JessicaPAuthor (Dec 10, 2015)

I agree that everyone has their own way of writing a novel. Before I started writing professionally - really, before I knew anything! - I used to believe that I was a decent writer.  You know, that my drafts were pretty good and that maybe they'd need some light editing before they were publishable, but overall, they were ready to go.

HA! Five years in, and I recognize how naive I was back then. I'm a total panster, meaning I don't do much in the way of plotting before I begin a book, so I sort of write by the seat of my pants.  Maybe this is different for you plotters out there, but this usually means my first drafts are a hot mess.  HOWEVER - I didn't recognize they were a hot mess until I started working with professional agents and editors. Now editing/revising is an ESSENTIAL part of my writing process.  I agree with Sarah Maclean - she said something recently along the lines of all the good stuff in her books comes from revisions.  That's exactly how it works for me.  If I want to write a really great book, I have to work really hard on revisions.  By the time I'm done with a book, I'm way too close to the story to see if it actually works on a structural and emotional level.  I need my editor to help me with that, big time.

So I guess my advice to you would be - before you decide whether or not to do revisions, invest in a great edit by a professional and reputable editor in your genre. My editor changed my writing, and my life, and I have a feeling one will do the same for you, too.  Good luck!


----------

