Balancing Incompatible Strategies When Revising

Tim Oberle  
There are many ways to revise a story. Find the one that works for you.

Do you get stuck when revising a story, especially when incorporating suggestions from critiques? I always believed my roadblocks sprang from the struggle to balance conflicting crits, especially critical ones. Lately, I’ve realized the problem stems from the incompatible modes of thinking required to make revisions. This struggle takes more time than expected, because it’s so difficult to use all four techniques at the same time.

I categorize my revision styles as follows.

1)     Artistic Thinking. I like smooth prose suggesting the work of a published professional. This calls for well-chosen words and sentences, not wordy or blunt which flow gracefully from one to the next. Vivid scene descriptions allow the reader to create a mental picture. Actions and gestures during a dialog exchange avoid the “talking heads” impression. My revision process requires reading aloud and making touch-up changes which seem satisfying. On the downside, this technique could be repeated endlessly without addressing real structural problems and flaws with the characters.

2)     Analytical/Strategic Thinking. My historical fiction genre requires research and analysis to structure the story, independent of how I portray characters and craft the prose. Known historical details and fictional inventions must fit into a coherent narrative, altering or omitting inconvenient bits. Contradictions must be avoided and each fact or event should build fluidly on the ones before. But too much historical detail can be boring and detract from character development. In this mode of thinking, tools such as outlining keep track of each element.

3)     Character/Behavioral Thinking. Characters should think and act differently than the author, so you can’t rely on intuitive judgment for natural dialog and decisions in every situation. Ideally, they will be interesting, yet flawed people who engage the reader’s emotions. Characters should overcome their issues and show growth over the span of my story. My wife’s impressions of my female character are extremely helpful in understanding what is natural and realistic. I also need to fight my natural desire to “fix” a large block of text, instead of deleting it and starting fresh.

4)     Commercial Thinking. Are you writing for your own edification or hope to peddle the work? This mode creates hooks that grab the reader’s interest, so they don’t put the book back on the shelf and move on. The first chapter ought to attract the eyes of agents and submission editors to avoid the slush pile. The early drafts of my engineering book were judged by beta readers to be informative, factually accurate but boring. They liked the quotes at the start of each chapter and the dozen interesting stories I included to illustrate my points. Eventually, the book was accepted by a commercial publisher on the strength of three hundred stories and examples.

These categories may not fit how you think, write and revise. Your genre may need modes of thinking I have not considered. But keep these techniques in mind the next time you get stuck on a revision.

13 Comments

Miked

Points 1,2 and 3 are spot-on, easily relatable to my own process. Smooth prose that flows, accurate history, sound logic, and character differentiation (one of my personal bugaboos. I often get comments “Wait a minute, I know this voice- it sounds like the narrator!”)

#4, not so much. I’m writing what I would like to read. Of course I aim to publish so other people can read it too. So I am writing with an eye to my audience- i.e., like-minded individuals who like to read what I like. There’s a substantial audience for it out there, and a number of publishers who seek it out.

But I don’t write for an agent. That’s pretty far down on the list at present, in tiny 2-point font. I think if you write honestly, and well, with expertise and finesse, all the rest will fall into place. For instance the purpose of the Hook is to hook: reader, agent, critic, whomever. You just do it, for no other reason than to serve the story. The Hook isn’t designed to impress agents, it’s designed to help make a quality story. If done well, it will also hook an agent. You don’t have to expend any effort other than on writing of excellent quality.

Mar-04 at 00:38

Zznewell

Nice insightful blog article. It seems to me that within the science fiction and fantasy genres, number 4, commercial appeal gets too much weight, while number 2 isn’t given enough importance. Yes science fiction and fantasy also often have contradictions both internal and with known facts. From what I’ve seen conditions are brushed aside with the excuse that only commercial appeal matters. For readers and reviewers being dismissed in such a way can be maddeningly frustrating.

  1. Commercial Thinking. Are you writing for your own edification or hope to peddle the work? This mode creates hooks that grab the reader’s interest, so they don’t put the book back on the shelf and move on. The first chapter ought to attract the eyes of agents and submission editors to avoid the slush pile.
    
  1. Analytical/Strategic Thinking. My historical fiction genre requires research and analysis to structure the story, independent of how I portray characters and craft the prose. Known historical details and fictional inventions must fit into a coherent narrative, altering or omitting inconvenient bits. Contradictions must be avoided and each fact or event should build fluidly on the ones before. But too much historical detail can be boring and detract from character development. In this mode of thinking, tools such as outlining keep track of each element.
    

Mar-04 at 00:57

Alexmcg

There is nothing wrong with writing for an audience. The problem is your audience isn’t an agent or publisher. What you need for an agent or publisher is proof that your work will sell. Quality needs to be a given, but also it needs to fit the constraints of the genre you are writing, balancing creativity with what your readers will be looking for.

Thus if you plan to go the agent/publisher route, do your research of what sells in your genre and why, then be able to point to books to say ‘readers who like those authors will like my book’. Of course you’ll need to be able to back that up in the actual writing of your story.

The first three points are key, and intertwined. I don’t think they are incompatible, but they do tug on your story differently.

Mar-04 at 03:23

Zznewell

In my experience, problems result in placing marketability above all else. Some books will never have a large audience. You can try to change them into something with greater popular appeal, but that’s not a good thing to do to either the book or the audience.
So research you genre, but you may find that there are no comparable books. If so, you shouldn’t mutilate the story or sacrifice the other three aspects to make it fit the non-existent market. That’s not a good balance.
Although, if you’d like to help me find comps, go ahead, I’d very much love to find some. But radically changing books in order to fit what others think might be comps is putting the cart before the horse

Mar-04 at 04:04

Jcgreen

If you are struggling to find comps, loosen the criteria by which you are searching. Don’t try to find a book that is exactly like yours in all aspects. Instead go for something like: “My book has a setting similar to X, with comedy similar to Y.”

Mar-04 at 08:37

Zznewell

That still doesn’t lead to comps. It’s like Dune but in a maritime setting. Mentioning Dune has proved to be a mistake. It’s shooting to high. I need something in my league. It’s also like Bujold’s writting–again shooting too high. Going for my league, I end up with a lousy fit and that leads to lowering the quality of the other three aspects of the writing in order to fit. It’s a bit like Katherine Asaro’s writing but honestly I think mine is better, and I’m moving away from what she does. I’ve had readers compare it to Le Guin. Again shooting too high, and an author who has passed away.
It’s science fiction epic–big ideas, speculation about society, scientifically plausible–but more personal than most epics (in that it’s like Bujold) and it’s a maritime setting.
The philosophical part is highly important, an epic in the true sense, but I try to be careful about saying so and my stories are all with a close personal view.
I’ve been struggling with this for years, decades even. It’s the downside of the Helsinki Bus.

Mar-04 at 17:20

Alexmcg

I am aware that marketability can be the bane of good writing. But publishers and agents want to know where on the bookshelf your work fits. It can be a tough sell if there is no clear answer. This is why I have my own imprint. My writing tends to bend and break a lot of rules. This means the likelihood of my books appearing on shelves across the country are slim to none. I’m okay with that. For me, the story is more important than the money.

I’m not sure that finding comps is going to be helpful if you need to explain them. It might be easier to suggest what your target audience is and what they might read.

Mar-04 at 20:32

Zznewell

I am also going it alone. My interactions with agents and editors have been painful. The same for attempts at marketing and getting advice about marketing. Everything that I’ve been given as advice is predicated on writing a book that is like others on the market. Such advice boils down to abandon what you are writing, all your hope and dreams, all that is good an unusual about your writing and write something else. Ugh. It’s completely back assward. This is the compromise that I see being made too often. It’s not even a compromise. It’s winner take all.

Mar-04 at 22:27

Fcsc

Hi Tim,
I think you have hit the nails on their heads. The real problem I find is trying to reconcile two contradictory, but eminently believable, critiques.
Choices, choices.
I read the old classical (Nobel prize-winning) authors and there is a tangible difference between their writing and mine. Oh well just keep going.
Richard.

Mar-06 at 07:32

Deelo316

@Dabbler Thanks for a thought-filled post. Point #4 reminds me of John Steinbeck’s advice to write for an audience of one. When I get conflicting crits, that’s not an automatic negative. One of my considerations is whether I can reconcile the recommendations to fit into the framework or perspective of my “audience of one.” Keeping that persona in mind helps me decide what to add, tweak, or toss out.

Mar-06 at 19:13

Vidyut

1,2,3 I do easily. 4 is where my books go to die.

Good ideas. thanks.

Mar-08 at 13:31

Cjalbert

Enjoyed the post. #3 is the one I struggle the most with. Trying to master that is the one goal that’s kept me in this game for so many years. I feel like #1 & #2 are collateral to that aim. :slight_smile:

My way of dealing with #4 is kind of like my way of dealing with the question of contradictory critiques: the Steinbeck quote that Dee mentioned. But this may be terrible advice to any writer whose audience of one don’t have much overlap with the reading public.

At least, that’s the excuse I’m using, myself…

Mar-08 at 22:43

Writestuff

Some people suggest separate rewrite each time with a different focus for each.

Ie one DIALOGUE ONLY rewrite.

One STRUCTURE only rewrite.

One DESCRIPTION only rewrite etc.

I’m not sure it’s a method that works for my brain but it might be useful for others to essentially break down and compartmentalise the competing agendas that come with different revisions.

Mar-21 at 12:54
Click here to reply
Member submitted content is © individual members.
Other material ©2003-2024 critiquecircle.com