Edit letters – a rare writing post

I hadn't planned on a post today as I'm deep into edits, but I know there are some aspiring writers out there who follow this blog, many of whom follow Kim Harrison's as well. As I mentioned yesterday, we happen to be in the same place right now regarding our respective works-in-progress. We're both doing editorial rewrites, and though we have vastly different approaches in getting to this point (another post entirely) I thought it worth pointing out some similarities as well.

See, we share an editor, which is neat for a couple of reasons. One, she's a fantastic editor. I can't tell you how happy I was to sign with her again for my new series. Second, Kim and I are able to huddle close and occasionally compare notes.

"How many pages was your edit letter?" (eyes bugging)

"How long did it take you to rewrite that?"

"How the heck do you even approach that?"

So when I saw Kim's post today about her edit letter, I found it interesting in only the way an obsessively geeked out writer could. How does that compare with my own experiences? How would I approach the page given those notes? How am I doing it now? And how might I do it better? IOW, it's another change to learn and grow as a writer.

So for those of you who are also obsessively geeky writers, here's her post in full, but this is what caught my attention:

Taking that 3-7 pages of editor suggestions and distilling it to an attack plan is often the hardest part.  You have to learn how to translate editor speak into author action.  "End the conflict with more tension and drama" sounds great, but how do you do that?  My favorite is "expand on this" or "isn't translating well as written" or "needs more work" or "develop this idea throughout the book more."

See, contrary to what some believe, the editor doesn't say 'Change this word/line/phrase/paragraph. Replace with X.' Aside from line edits, augmented by a copywriter's pass, the details are left alone and the big picture is what's given focus. IMHO, the above is what comprises a good editorial letter. After all, if the editor were to go through and dictate exactly what changes to make, it wouldn't be the author's own work, would it? And nobody knows the world better than the author, so while the editor's instincts for the overall story arc and plotline development is constructive and necessary and oh-so-appreciated (apply forest-for-trees analogy here), one line from Diana can send my mind spinning in five different directions, and only I know what is going to best strengthen the story.

Also, each of those suggestions and small phrases forces a consideration of the entire draft. Frex, one of the comments from my edit letter: We need more of this character – give her more agency, let us see more of her own voice, show us the steel beneath the polish.

First thought: Gee, thanks. I'll get right on that.

(This is why you don't talk to your editor for about two days after receiving 3-7 pps of this. Talk to your spouse, call your best friend, rail at the world's overall unfairness with your agent, but don't call your editor. Because two days later, I kid you not, you'll see she's right. It's so annoying.)

Second thought: How do I approach this?

Personally, I have to approach it in layers. I print out my outline, which I've been revising throughout the writing of the book and I make sure it corresponds to the draft I sent my editor. Then I use highlighters to flag all and only scenes featuring that character/issue, and continue flagging places I think can be punched up and reworked. IOW, I have to see it sprawled out before me like a map.

Then I type those prospective changes directly into the outline – noting via a different font that they have yet to be made – and then move on to the next big issue, doing the same with a different highlighter, adding dialogue as it comes to me, moving things around in the outline well before I touch the actual ms. (I tend to get lost in all the words once I see that, and this is how I chunk it down.)

After all these layers have been added, I take the new outline and start re-working the ms chapter by chapter from beginning to end. That's what I hope to start this afternoon, but first – two more passes with the outline – one to make sure this final thread is tucked away and answered satisfactorily, and another to read the whole outline like a book, making sure all the new stuff makes sense.

Make sense?

So what was the hardest note for me on this rewrite?

Integrate the supernatural aspects of the story more clearly with the noir/mystery storyline.

This one had me stymied for a couple of weeks, but I've done it now and guess what? Diana was right again – the story is now stronger overall, and now that it's in the outline, ie. conceived, the heavy lifting is done, and all that's left is the work. Big deal. I know how to work.

Was that a ramble, or at all constructive?

Off to it.