New Novel: finishing as a dilemma

[Nabeel]

Hallo Everyone,

Second question. Okay, I've written my 72,047 words. I've left them alone for a month. I've got opinions from four friends and acquaintances, and I've asked a fifth.

I wrote on a computer, and I'm re-reading on my e-reader: this feels 'different', and it does enable me to read the work with fresh eyes.

I'm finding things to work on: I'm not happy with the appearance of one character, and will give him a makeover. I've realised that I have a tendency to over-write, and so I'm snipping phrases here and there. I've noticed some inconsistent use of tenses, and I'm watching out for those. I think I can add some contextual details for the main character's development.

Overall, I'm fairly satisfied. I'm not the new Joyce, alas, but the 72,000 words have a pleasant, page-turning quality. My four readers say the same (but they would, wouldn't they?).

But:

How do I decide that I've done enough, and it's time to approach an agent? Is there some vital sign where you know that enough is enough? Otherwise, I could continue revising forever.

Again, all advice would be welcome.

N.

[Cinisajoy]

If you think it is good enough send to an agent. Good luck.
Please come back and let us know what the agent said.

[gmw]

To take the last thing first: My limited experience (in getting rejected) with agents and traditional publishers is that they are looking for as close to perfect as they can get, so if you want to give your novel the best chance possible, get a professional editor in to help you polish the text. This has the added advantage that you are ready for independent publishing if you have no luck on the traditional path.

As to the real crux of your post: knowing when it's ready.

It sounds like you've done all the right things. Leaving it aside for a while and getting some reader responses. Only you can have any idea how unbiased those reviews may have been.

You speak of giving one character a makeover. My obsessive nature would tend to have me put it aside for a while after completing that and then reading it over yet again to see if you're happy with the changes. ... But you are right, you have to be careful not to get into an endless circle of procrastination. At some point you have to decide you've done all you can.

I know of no "vital sign" to tell you when you've done enough. There is only where it feels right to you.

[gmw]

And because, sometimes, I can't seem to just shut up, some more on the subject of vital signs.

It is tempting to suggest that a work is ready when all you do with every new editing pass is twiddle a comma here and there. This is definitely a sign of something, but not always that it's ready ... or not for me anyway. I got to that point with my first published novel and sent it off to a paid manuscript assessment agency. The response was a rude shock that I've spoken of here in the past. In turns out that what I'd been doing for the last (far too many) editing passes was looking at the detail and not seeing the bigger things that were wrong with it. Large chunks that were just far too wordy and detailed (not trusting the reader enough). The words were okay, but some of the paragraphs and chapters were not. And my early beta-readers didn't correct me on this, some readers are far too forgiving to make good critics.

I am not suggesting that you suffer the same problem, but this is why I don't think there are specific vital signs you can rely on.

[BookCat]

There are some excellent critics on this site. If you post a short passage of your work this may give them more ideas regarding how far you still need to edit.

Unless you're brutal with your own work, it's easy to treat it too kindly. Another problem is that you know what you meant to say, but the words on the page may not convey that. I learned this many years ago when someone read a short story I'd written and put a totally different interpretation upon it than I'd intended. It was a real eye-opener.

Have you done a 'structural edit'? gmw describes this perfectly in this rather long thread: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=285903

I'll quote him - I hope you don't mind gmw, but your post was so good that I copied it into notepad - but the whole thread is worth reading:

Editing is a complex topic - and implementation varies with what is being edited. There are multiple levels of editing, and the simple fact is that most self-publishers do not have the resources to get professionals involved at every level. What I describe below is generalised, and I imagine some true professional editors may want to argue the detail, but I think it's close enough to be going on with.

At the top is developmental editing. This is about story structure. Does the whole thing hang together properly? Do the chapters and story sequence work? Do parts of the story drag? Are parts of the story confusing? Are there holes or inconsistencies in story or character development? The answers to these often require major rewrites of large parts of the text. In fiction this tends to be done by the author, sometimes as a result of their own dissatisfaction with their work, and sometimes in response to feedback from trusted readers offered an early draft.

Next up is copy editing. This is mostly about readability and whether the writing style is appropriate to the target audience. During this phase we are generally looking at flow of sentences and paragraphs (rather than chapters and whole story, which was done in developmental editing), but we're also looking at style and consistency: is the language applicable to genre and age group, is dialogue consistent for each character? Basically: does it read smoothly? A comprehensive copy edit pass should normally detect and fix many technical (spelling/grammar) errors as well, because such errors affect readability.

In traditional/paper publishing typesetting goes next. With electronic publication we typically call this formatting, and it is generally done after the proof-reading because layout is automatic. More completely, proof-reading should be done both before and after this stage; before to pick up technical issues, after to pick up layout issues.

And finally proof-reading. This is mostly about strictly technical correctness and finding typos. Generally we are looking at words and punctuation here, but also at sentences and paragraphs from the perspective of correct grammar and presentation (layout).


Independent publishers may not have the resources to get professionals involved at every level BUT we should always be aware of the separate levels and address them specifically when preparing our work for publication.


When most readers refer to a text being poorly edited, what they actually mean is that it was poorly proof-read* - because this is where poor preparation is most obvious. The mistakes stick out as mistakes (more to some readers than others), and they are most often glaring and undeniable (although the correct use of commas is not always so blatant).

* This is a bit of a simplification. Many of the errors seen in self-published works should have been picked up during the copy-edit pass - if it had been done properly. But failing that, proof-reading most certainly should have detected them.

There are tricks to help with proof-reading (some already mentioned), but these only help if the author has the knowledge to recognise the errors - and many don't. If they don't, the only answer is to get help from someone that does.


When readers complain of text that doesn't make sense, as Cinisajoy did, then what we are really talking about is problems at the copy-editing stage. The flow of the sentences and paragraphs is inconsistent and/or illogical and needs to be reworked.


When readers complain about a story that is boring, or drags, or that is confusing, we are talking about problems at the developmental-editing stage. This often suggests a work that was not properly reviewed after the first draft. First timers often seem to think that after the first draft they are done, and all they have to do next is the proof-reading. Most of their problems follow on from this bad first assumption.

A first draft should be looked at as "now I have the story down on paper, let's set about making sure it works".

In Stephen King's non-fiction book "On Writing", he got the advice: "second draft equals first draft less ten percent". Meaning that most often we include more in our first draft than the reader actually needs to know. So, at the very least, the second draft is a rewrite that looks to remove redundancy and irrelevance.

Another, very similar, piece of advice (I can't remember now whether it came from the same source or elsewhere) is: "There is nothing wrong with most first novels that cutting the first three chapters can't fix."

Both of the above highlight that, when we're just starting, we writers tend to underestimate our readers. They don't need to be spoon fed every step of the way, and doing so will only irritate or bore them.

Sure, when writing the first draft we can - and should - just write. We need to get it down. But we must realise what we've done and be ready to pull apart that first draft - do a proper developmental editing pass - and structure our story in a way that will pull the reader in (in the first few pages), and keep them there by always pushing the story forward.

(Sorry about that, I didn't realise I had blathered on quite so long.)

__________________