Hi all!
Time to be this week’s guest host for Write On!
One of the challenges I’ve found is revision. I’ve gotten pretty good at rough drafts (having produced a dozen in the last few years, thanks to various NaNoWriMo and Camp NaNoWriMo events). I’m comfortable that, given an idea, I can bang out something in early draft form.
I’m not nearly so good at the next phase, polishing, revising, editing, and otherwise producing a readable, shareable draft. And I’ve had difficulty finding resources that “click”.
…until a friend suggested a book from one of her writing classes: Screenwriting Is Rewriting (Epps). It’s targeted at screenwriters, but there’s plenty of general information inside.
The specific piece that clicked for me was his approach to doing revision passes. Choose a specific problem (“the dog is inconsistent”), write a vision statement (“I’m going to fix the dog’s actions so they’re consistent”), revise all the places in the manuscript that it touches (“she’s a puppy here, and old and tired there”). If you run across other problems, ignore them (or jot down a note to address them later). That’s it. So simple.
(Actually, it’s more complex than that, because he does suggest having an overarching plan, too. The important thing is to identify a series of problems, but solve them one by one rather than trying to tackle them all at once. Also, certain types of restructuring are significantly easier in a screenplay than in a novel. There’s less to fix up after moving scenes around, for instance.)
The magic thought: It’s debugging!
As a programmer, thinking of it as debugging the text changed my view of the process. Change something, rerun the code (I mean reread the prose), and see if it worked. If not, analyze further, then take another stab at it.
Granted, it doesn’t help for major structural issues, but it really helps me focus my attention. Instead of having an hour to write and spending the first forty-five minutes picking between a dozen issues, I now keep a running list of specific things to tackle. I pick the first one, and poke at it until I’m out of time or it’s fixed.
Boom. Instant focus. Progress.
Now, if only I could figure out a trick that works for a major refactoring, I mean redrafting/rewriting, when it turns out the plot is a complete mess and all the pieces need to be woven together completely differently…
Tonight’s challenge:
Consider your work-in-progress (or a favorite piece of fiction that has noticeable flaws). Think about the identifiable problems with the current draft. What would be three things you would fix, and what order would you fix them in?
Stories that have more than one version, or where there are differences between adaptations (movie vs. book) can sometimes highlight issues.
Example:
The Hunt for Red October. The cook’s assistant (and KGB officer) is mentioned in passing but not reinforced before becoming the final obstacle. There are virtually no female characters. The plot with the Konavolov leaves potential loose ends.
I’d try to figure out if it would make sense (given the time frame) to include more surface ship or base action to add women to the story (it’s sub-centric, and I think the crews were still all male). Possibly the helicopter pilot for the recon. I’d probably tackle this last, because it requires the most thought and I’d have to research some things.
The movie emphasizes the cook’s assistant by giving him a witness role and a speaking line at the very start, before he shows up later for a gun fight. Naming him when he’s serving the officer’s mess, or having something happen that makes it look like maybe he didn’t leave the ship on the evac would keep the character visible. I’d probably tackle this first, because foreshadowing is easy to add.
The movie had a slightly different resolution of the Red October vs. the Konavolov, which made the story looser (but more satisfying with the Pelt/Ambassador conversation). I’d probably tackle this second, and write a few scenes suggesting people in the USSR waiting for their loved ones, or receiving their last notes (or being informed of the loss of the sub). Could even be setting up future questioning of the regime, or people who become hardliners vs. the US, for sequels.
Happy writing!