Last week, I officially submitted my first manuscript to my editor at Thomas Nelson.She has already seen the manuscript, of course, because the editorial staff read it in order to decide whether to buy it.
Nonetheless, every manuscript in my contract has a submission date, and so I had a few weeks to give my first novel another quick edit before I hit "send."
Now I'm waiting for my first editorial letter, which will contain my editor's initial feedback and suggestions.
While I wait, I'm working on a major rewrite of the second novel in the series, which I actually wrote BEFORE the first novel.
When I say "the first novel," it's a little confusing even for my critique partners to remember which novel we're discussing. Do we mean the first one I wrote, or the first one in the series, which is the second one I wrote?
For the sake of clarity, I guess I can call one the 1825 novel, and the other the 1855 novel.
I just submitted the 1825 novel.
I'm currently rewriting the 1855 novel. This is a serious rewrite.
A major edit like this one often feels like walking a tightrope.
Every writer must find the balance between an exciting, realistic plot, and a melodramatic mess.
I just escalated a problem in the fourth chapter of my 1855 novel. In general, increasing conflict is good. But critique partners help a writer to determine the exact point at which the conflict becomes too big or too tiring for a reader.
If the stakes are too low and the situation too ordinary, the novel may just slip down into that crack of doom between the bed and the wall, and the reader will never miss it. But if every chapter is hard on the nerves, the story may become annoying, and that means it's trash can time!
A novel must lure the reader into its fictional world, not bludgeon her over the head and haul her around by the hair.
In addition to changing the story, I'm eliminating a major, major character in this 1855 novel. I expect a gasp from my partner Lorena when I tell her this character is gone. :-) But writing the 1825 novel changed the 1855 novel, as if I traveled backwards in a time machine and rearranged history. It's a very odd experience to write novels out of chronological order. In the future, I'll try to stick to a straightforward timeline!
I can't wait to hear what my writer-pals say about the changes. They've never yet been wrong about issues of balance and realism.
How do you decide when enough is enough? Do you tend to overwrite plot and have to tone things down, or underwrite and have to pump things up?


16 comments:
I'm an underwriter, and I compared myself to a tightrope walker on my post today, too! I always underwrite and end up having to go back through and add, add, add. :-)
I'm with Shannon, I under write. I move things along at a break neck speed for the reader, missing the joy of letting them fall into each character moment.
I'm going back through adding more.
I love hearing about your journey!
I think the best quote on editing for me is, "I spent all morning taking out a comma and all afternoon putting it back in."
Sigh. Lynn Austin assured me that the only reason to stop editing and fixing is...there's a deadline.
GREAT POST!!!
Patti
I bet eliminating that character is a real task. Especially since it's a major character.
I tend to overwrite and then tone down.
~ Wendy
I've done a little of both but I think I tend to overwrite more than underwrite. I actually love the pruning process, though. All the best in getting it just right, Rosslyn. You've been working hard -- I'm excited for you!
I underwrite...pump things up...too much so...then end up cutting back on some of what I added. I call it the yo-yo technique. :)
Hi Rosslyn -
A historical! My heart is going pitter-patter. Love 'em!
My manuscript topped off at 55,000 words. The first editor I saw at a writers conference informed me I needed 80-100,000 words.
I guess that makes me an underwriter. The book went through a major re-write.
Blessings,
Susan :)
I like your vivid descriptions of the characters and plot, especially the one about being bludgeoned on the head and dragged around by the hair. Ha ha.
Ok. You've made me nervous. I got the chapters so I guess I will know soon who is going to the Cemetery of Deleted Characters...
See you soon.
I've been told I threw a lot at my MC in my first. I have yet to show the second novel to a single soul because I'm not sure how I feel about it yet.
I'm excited to read what you've done. :-)
Rosslyn,
The issue of conlict is so interesting and has application to homiletics. Think about why so many sermons are dull and "just slip down into that crack of doom between the bed and the wall." There is no conflict. It has been excised out of the text and the retelling, with the resultant bordeom in the pulpit and pew.
Finding the balance in a sermon is like in a novel, too, b/c too much of it can leave the listener unnerved instead of hopeful. Preachers can learn a lot from novelists. (Is that a word? Are novel writers called 'novelists'?)
Good post.
Interesting to hear all the variations in how people approach their initial drafts!
Kat - I wondered what was going on with that second novel! I know what you mean...a year or two ago, I wanted to show my husband my work as soon as I had written it, to get instant feedback. Now, I wait to be sure that I'm not going to change it again in three days.
Very good point, Warren! I had never thought about that conflict issue for sermons. And in sermons, it must be tricky because some of the conflict is the listener's internal conflict. We heard some gripping talks at Pepperdine the year they did Jeremiah: talks so challenging we were constantly wondering whether the speaker was about to "cross the line" and say something to turn the audience against him. It's a fine art.
First, HUGE congrats!!!! Second, I over write. Editing can cure all things, right?
I pray that everything goes wonderfully well for you. You have a beautiful spirit! Blessings!
I'm anxious to read your second (first) novel again. I hope I can recover from this move and get back into 'REAL' life again.
Post a Comment