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.