| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: how do you self-edit? |
Topic: how do you self-edit?
| Author | Message |
| Thabit | Posted – 12/16/2006 10:13:13 AM | show profile Recently a couple of my stories for a pub I care about have been reworked -- and drastically improved. Main problems seem to be a) backing into the story and b) making assumptions that aren't that obvious to the reader so things have to be spelled out more. Had two writer friends look over the copy before I handed it in, but that didn't help much. Though they haven't complained, I'm concerned about becoming too much work for the editors -- any self-editing tips? thanks in advance |
| A~ | Posted – 12/16/2006 10:31:52 AM | show profile A common editing technique that seems almost universal is that writer not going over the story before turning it in. I've noticed when this happens, stuff at the bottom of the story ends up needing to be put at the top of the story. This makes sense because first (and even second) drafts are often written in a kind of mental chronology stream of consciousness where the point of the whole story is often made at the end of a lot of premises, set ups, and quotes. In other words, early drafts are often 1+1=2 when published stories should be 2=1+1. To solve this, you simply need to budget time to "live with" your story for a while. You need time between completing a first draft and reviewing it. You can't really rush that and do it well. Most of the time, it seems writers push deadline in such a way as to not afford time to review their copy. When I write, one of the last things I often do is plug in quotes. I usually mark where I want quotes to go, but focus on the stuff between the quotes first. |
| Janetblueyes | Posted – 12/16/2006 11:06:31 AM | show profile Excellent advice by A~. I often write an article, close it and not look at if for a day. The next time I read it I try to view it as a potential reader would. It is then that any glaring omissions, confusing wording or convoluted paragraphs come to light. If you have the luxury of giving an article at least 24 hours to percolate before turning it in, this is your best bet for self editing. |
| dewdoxx | Posted – 12/16/2006 6:04:48 PM | show profile I've just completed the fourth draft of my memoir, which will probably go to the sixth draft; the fifth draft will consist of my husband reading it through (he pulls no punches when he thinks something needs work); and the sixth draft will consist of beta reader's input and a professional critique since this will be my first novel-length manuscript (80,000 words). The first two drafts I edited on a micro-level: sentence structure, misplaced modifiers, passive language, extra words, etc. Then I edited for paragraph flow: what I should say first, second, and to make sure my transitions from one scene to another made sense. By the third draft, I read for flow and tone of the entire piece, catching repetitive words and sentences that I essentially repeated, just expressed in a different way. Cut! The last step for me is to always read the piece out loud, which usually makes me feel bad because I always catch something. Editing is a tedious task, but I always learn something from the process. Interestingly, when I edit my friends' work, the errors jump out at me. |
| Metro Writer | Posted – 12/17/2006 12:01:52 AM | show profile Sol Stein (in Stein on Writing) suggests that you have your work read aloud in the most monotonous voice possible so you can concentrate on the words themselves. From a Poynter Institute workshop, I learned to find the skeleton in my story. Take a red pencil and go over the main points and see how it flows. Does the story make sense? Make sure that everything pertinent is in it and that everything in it is pertinent. From another Poynter workshop, I learned to drop "jewels" in my stories. Use descriptions that make something seem more real to the reader. For example, don't just write that someone lives in squalor. Write that when you enter that person's house, your shoes stick to the floor. Rick Bragg once wrote about a poor woman who gave a lot of money to a college. He didn't write that she was poor or lived modestly; he wrote that she sewed the pages back in her Bible. That tells you a lot about her in just a few choice words. He once described the difficulty of finding plane crash survivors in the waters of the Everglades as searching in a large pool of chocolate pudding. |
| A~ | Posted – 12/17/2006 8:35:17 AM | show profile Yeah, it's too bad since Rick Bragg was caught sending stringers to these places he was describing at least a couple of times (causing the NYT to fire him), the reader can now have the benefit of doubting if one, some, or all of these descriptions came from his fertile imagination. (In his defense, he said back problems caused his to get lazy, but that's the problem with credibility. It's like when you're in a relationship and you travel for business a lot and your wife catches you cheating on one trip, leaving her to wonder how many instances of infidelity occurred that she doesn't know about.) It's easier to make it up, or to get somebody's account and then "add jewels" to the descriptions. The challenge for reporters is to be as accurate about their observations as possible while adding jewels that come from actual personal observations. It's off topic, but I thought we should remember that Bragg was fired from the NYT for breaching standards just like that other guy. I do like his homespun down-to-earth style, but perhaps he should stick to being an essayist or fiction writer where his style doesn't have to be impeded by journalistic ethics. I do agree completely with adding jewels, but real jewelry is worth more than costume jewelry. |
| 6monthstogo | Posted – 12/17/2006 10:59:53 AM | show profile I LOVE that you are asking this question. I wish more of my writers would. I am not sure if your editors encourage you to solicit feedback from them as you write the story, but I do. I don't get taken up on it often, but I am happy to just talk through a story with a writer. I think that would help with a lot of your organization problems if your editors share my mind set. Just run down your basic structure and ask for feedback. This could even be done by e-mail--it takes five minutes to make sure you're on the right track and saves you both valuable re-write time. Also, when I write, I actually set up an outline for myself first to tell the story, then fill in supporting details from my notes. Giving yourself a clear structure to begin with will help you avoid going off-track by writing as you experienced it. I think skipping this step or not thinking enough about it is the major problem I see from my writers. They write their story rather than the story. Now, how can I get other writers to share your concern about becoming too much work for an editor? :) |
| Metro Writer | Posted – 12/17/2006 7:57:45 PM | show profile The point is that Rick knows what details to include and how to construct a good story, even from other people's reporting. Every historian uses someone else's reporting, but what makes that history book or biography great rather than just good is how the author tells the story and what the reader gets out of it. I used to write for a regional Jewish newspaper and I would always compare my stories with the ones covered in the secular press. It was important to me to see what they thought was important and in what order. |
| Thabit | Posted – 12/18/2006 5:47:24 AM | show profile thanks for all the tips I've tried letting it sit for awhile, a day even, but sometimes it doesn't change much... Looking forward to trying out the other methods though, and thanks to everyone for the valuable advice =) |
| A~ | Posted – 12/18/2006 10:56:39 AM | show profile It's All Over But The Shoutin' MW, point taken, but he describes details in his stories that as if he observed them. Journalism relies on first-hand accounting. Second-hand information loses value. Also, describing intimate details based on another person's recollections as if you observed them is dishonest. The comparison to historians is weak. By definition historians re-construct events based on other people's observations, in most cases observations by people who are dead about events in the past. Journalism is about the present. Yes, Rick Bragg knew what made a good story, but not what makes a good reporter. He got lazy once he got comfortable with his status at the NYT. (NYT reporters in many ways have it easy because they have the paper's name on their press badges. People want to talk to the Times. They should be held to the highest possible standards because of that. And what Bragg was doing probably wouldn't be considered kosher even at smaller papers.) |
| Thabit | Posted – 12/18/2006 11:38:23 AM | show profile question for glurf Frankly, even if I have a decent relationship with an editor I'd be wary of opening up while writing. Not because I'm afraid they'll derail the story, but because I'm afraid that trying to get more correspondence going labels one as a "needy" or newbie -- and definitely too much work. Most times they say "OK give me x words" to a pitch and "Yeah I got it" that's about the extent of it... How did you get that kind of dialogue going? Are these writers you see in person every now & again or strictly email? |
| Angela Dobbs | Posted – 12/18/2006 12:17:01 PM | show profile Most of my "feature" stories wind up going to print dressed completely different from how they left my inbox. The first time this happened, I was offended and doubted my ability to write a good piece, but then it kept happening (with different publications), and the changes made seemed to be more of a style preference than grammar no-nos and form dysfunction. I think a major issue with new writers (such as me), is that we sometimes ignore the voice of the publication in an effort to let ours blare louder... I'm still learning. Yet, the editors who reworked my pieces didn't seem concerned with my writing and even thanked me for a job well done. Weird. |
| 6monthstogo | Posted – 12/18/2006 2:39:14 PM | show profile I do realize that many editors don?t like to be bothered. I am very busy myself at all times, and do most of my correspondence by e-mail, but I still encourage writers to discuss stories with me. It saves us both time in the long run. And most don?t take me up on it! I think maybe because most of it is lifestyle writing, they don?t feel they have to put the same work into it as other, more hard-hitting stories. But I do make them re-write. I would just try calling or e-mailing an editor, *ask if this is a good time* or when would be, and just say I want 10 minutes to talk about how I feel this story should go. I would guess most editors would appreciate that. I have had my share of needy writers and believe me, it?s much different than one quick call. You don?t have to do this every story but maybe ones you are struggling with. Just have specific questions when you call, a rough outline of the story in mind to run through. Then your editor can give specific advice and everyone wins. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 12/18/2006 3:32:11 PM | show profile >From another Poynter workshop, I learned to drop "jewels" in my stories. Use descriptions that make something seem more real to the reader> I can't remember if this is from Poynter or Roy Peter Clark...the trail of golden coins...the idea being you have to keep tossing sections of perceived value (a great quote or color or anecdote) all through your copy, certainly if it's a long feature, to keep readers moving all the way to the last graf. Original reporting is key to credibility; it doesn't hurt to check your historical references as one Time-Life history (one might have supposed fact-checked and accurate) I used in my book research turned out to have a fascinating and colorful myth offered up as fact. I think 24 hours away from your copy isn't enough, unless you do that several times. Even more time away is better. On a freelance feature you have to balance the division of your time (i.e. your fee) on reporting, writing, revising...and whatever additional time (not much, one hopes by then) is necessary revising, after it's been submitted, to your editors' needs and style. That's basic advice, I know, but I wonder if every writer makes that necessary division in their head as they pitch or take an assignment; some stories demand inordinate time for the reporting (or one of the other steps) and if you're trying to juggle multiple assignments (i.e. make some money) you have to budget your time/quality on each step. I wonder if revising-time ends up with the smallest portion when it might need more. It's tough, if you've spent a lot of time on a story, to remember that every word of it will be new and unfamiliar to your editor(s) and readers -- because by the time we hit the send button after revising it over and over it can feel overly familiar to us. |
| pleiades | Posted – 12/18/2006 5:33:14 PM | show profile As and editor I, too, have no problem spending 10 minutes to discuss a story with a writer. This is, by far, much easier than asking for a rewrite or worse, rewriting the story myself. Ask intelligent questions that show you've already done a fair amount of research on the topic and have good sources in mind and I'm happy to spend time with you discussing the piece. |
| pleiades | Posted – 12/18/2006 5:33:53 PM | show profile As *an* editor, oops. |
