Umm....anyone know what those steps are?

Well, since I just finished my novella, and also since I'm planning on publishing it, I have to edit it. How does one edit a novella/novel?

I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

I just read through it, over and over, and fix mistakes, I also would get someone to test read it(Such as myself) they can always help with typos and other stuff.

**considers**

I don't know if this would work for everyone, but here's what I do:

I print the book out and put it in a binder, then I go through it and make notes of the changes I want to make -- either writing with a red pencil right on the page, or writing on a sticky note and putting it on the page.

Then, I take that and start retyping the whole thing, making changes as I go (new scenes, character arcs, theme stuff, etc. The big changes). I don't copy and paste anything, I don't go through the existing document and change things... it's almost like starting from scratch, except I'm copying most of it.

After that, I decide if the story needs any more major changes (often going off of test reader feedback), and go through and tweak those things. Story and character things still, or perhaps adding detail and fixing inconsistencies).

After I'm happy with it, I finally do line-editing -- typo hunting, replacing words and rewording stuff, checking punctuation, etc.

And then you should be pretty well done.

Each writer should figure out their own personal editing steps that work well for them. Because we all have different strengths and weaknesses, there's no general formula. Some will have to remove excess details, some (like me) are so lacking in visual detail that we devote an entire edit solely to adding it. My 55,000 word novel grew by 2,000-3,000 words when I did that.

Some basic tips:

Watch for uses of 'was', 'were', and 'had been.' Especially where used with an -ing verb. A lot of cases where those words are used, in beginning and professional writing alike, is actually passive voice ('he was running' instead of 'he ran'), past tense constructions (double past tense...i. e. 'he had been running'), or just lazy descriptions of details and/or action that could benefit from more interesting verbs. Those three verbs are about the most overused and boring words in every writer's vocabulary.

Keep a lookout for telling phrases where you should be showing. A common place these pop up are in dialogue tags. If you have to use adverbs like 'gruffly' to describe how someone is speaking, your dialogue itself is weak. There are some authors who write dialogue so well they hardly ever need to say who's talking, and you just know anyway.

Speaking of adverbs, most of them are unneccesary. Search and destroy every single one you can (using the search and find feature to look for 'ly' is an easy way). Replace them by rewriting the sentence to use a more interesting verb, or if you already have an interesting verb, just delete the adverb.

As Stephen King says, 'The road to hell is paved with adverbs.'

I have a quote from Mark Twain on the use of 'very', but it has the D word in it. It's funny, though. Basically, he said to substitute every use of 'very' with the D word, and then your editor will take those out and your writing will be as it should. Haha.

A good book on self-editing that I recommend every writer read before trying to get published is called Self-Editing for Fiction Writers: How to Edit Yourself Into Print. I believe the last names of the two authors are Brown and King, if you can't find it.

For a lot more, you can go to my blog at http://www.LukeAlistar.com and check out the Articles on Writing category. I've got a lot of stuff there.

*agrees* Good point.


This advice sounds familiar. And is very good.

Bryan Davis.

I actually disagree with this. I have seen far too many times when people tell me that changing the dialogue like this and removing the adverb (such as gruffly) works better and communicates the same thing, where I read the new thing and go "Actually, no, I definitely interpret those completely differently..."

I hope that wasn't excessively confusing...

Every single professional writer will tell you to remove the adverb. Especially 'sarcastically'. That's the worst one ever. If you're not good enough to give the dialogue the desired tone, nothing is going to make up for that.

“Put that down and come with me,” he said gruffly. “This isn’t a time to be playing juvenile games.”

As opposed to:

“Put that down,” he said. “Come with me. This is no time to play games.”

What tone do you get from the second? Context and the mood of the character are missing, so it's not really a good example. In context, it would make sense. See, it's going to be different when you know the character. When you establish the character with all their quirks and personality and speech patterns, good dialogue WILL carry the correct tone. It's not just a matter of writing good dialogue, but of creating realistic characters that speak realistically.

Finally, there are myriads of better ways to describe how somebody is speaking other than using an adverb. You could say 'he said, his voice low and gruff.' Though it's still telling, in many cases it's much more interesting than an adverb. A very good and common technique is using body language in place of a dialogue tag to show the mood of the character.

“Put that down." He glared at the boy, thick eyebrows pulled into an angry V. “Come with me. This is no time to play games.”

I'm a bit of a rebel on this too, Arien. I say adverbs should generally be avoided, particularly in dialogue tags, and are way, way, way overused, but that they have their place. When sprinkled thoughtfully in things I read, they don't bother but rather help me.

Exactly. Don't kill all of them...just the vast majority. The reason I say to search out every adverb is because you want to find all the unneccesary ones you can and replace them with better writing. If you can't think of any other way to say it, that's fine. I typically use one adverb per every 200-500 words of story.

Not actually true. There's at least one who would, as far as I can tell, simply tell you that you should probably remove it. But not always. There are difficulties, at times, such as the fact that it may be a character who just showed up, giving the reader no idea of how this person talks. Or perhaps someone is saying something surprising. Or there could be something else going on. Having context can help, I agree, but I'm not sure it's actually sufficient. I know of far too many times when I interpret things differently than other people, and for all I know, it happens with context, too. I agree that such adverb use should generally be avoided. I don't agree with a blanket statement that it should never be needed.


While variety can be useful, I see no way in which 'his voice low and gruff' is superior to 'gruffly'. And for your example here, with, of course, no context, I would take that as more angry than gruff.

On the other hand, since it took me so long to type this up, this post may be entirely unnecessary.

That's what I said. There aren't really any things in writing you can say to never do, or always do. It's an art. But there are some good guidelines to follow if you want your work to look good to the professionals. Which include staying away from adverbs in most cases.


There are always difficulties in writing. One of those is introducing characters in captivating ways using interesting verbs to show us their personality, instead of telling what that personality is. What's more interesting, to be told that a new character likes to jog backward, or seeing them jog backward?

Not sure what you mean by someone saying something surprising. But it's always good to show reactions of the characters, and that can help define dialogue.


Superior? Not only does it say that he said the words 'gruffly', it also tells you his voice was low, which adds a slightly different element to the tone than just saying his voice was gruff. Gruff is surly, angry, brusque. Curt. Low adds a certain quietly menacing tone. Aside from that, there's also the fact that you have one less adverb. There are so many adverbs in poor writing that they've become a mark of poor writing. If you use enough of them for them to be noticed, it's going to annoy smart readers.

And of course...I wrote that last example to give an entirely different tone than the previous ones to show what you can do with the simple addition of body language.

You'll get my fully editing theology when I've finished attacking your manuscript, Vace. Right now I want to put in my $.02 on this adverb debate.

The rule of thumb indisputably is to have no adverbs. If you can't seem to cut it without losing the meaning or power - and you are supposed to agonize finding a way to cut it, since way more times than nine out of ten the adverb can be cut and the writing improved - then you've the exception that proves the rules. Please note adverbs are not evil, but rather hallmarks of an area that could be more powerfully written. "She quickly walked to the window" becomes "She sprang across the room to the window," a much more vivid sentence. There may be exceptions, but they are much more rare than we would all like to think.

And never, ever, ever, EVER use an adverb on a speaking verb. First, it is even more likely that the dialogue needs to be fixed, and secondly, if all else fails, just break the "only use said" rule and make it "snapped" or whatever. Breaking a rule and using one word is better than breaking a rules and using two words.

OK, another issue here. If I came across "he said, his voice low and gruff," it would annoy me just as much as "he said gruffly." Partly because you've added weak structure to the mix, but mostly because these are generic, cliched words. Don't tell me his voice was low and gruff. Tell me how it rumbled up from somewhere in his gut.

I've seen new writers try - ahem, I mean when I was a new writer I tried - to fix this by using fifty cent words from the thesaurus. That makes it worse, calling attention to a word that shouldn't have it and probably messing with your style.

*still disagrees* There are definitely times to use adverbs. Rare, perhaps, but there are times. Yes, when a single word will do, go with that, but there isn't always a single word that will work. This also assumes that you don't want to deliberately use a weaker phrasing, in order to shift what the reader notices. I'm curious as to how you would make this one not use an adverb: “Why, you rotten, sneaking, low-down scoundrel,” she said appreciatively.

I am quite sure that I use too many adverbs on speaking at the moment, but there are reasons for that, and I'm not sure I should fix that until later, since I tend to have trouble with characters anyway, and it helps me form the character in my mind, and flows better while writing. On the other hand, with a quick look over my most recent writing, I didn't use nearly so many as I expected: one in one thousand words at the beginning, at least. Modifying speaking verbs, that is. I'm not sure about other adverbs, but I don't use those so much as I'd thought, either. I use more non-said speaking verbs than some people like, but I actually prefer that, as long as it isn't overdone, in books I read. But as to rules such as don't use adverbs (on said, or at all) or even only use said, well, I disagree with calling them rules, and definitely disagree with using the word 'never' in there. But I think that might be a little off-topic...

First, I'd like to read about that character. Secondly,

"Why you rotten, sneaking, low-down scoundrel." She pecked his cheek.

Obviously how I would fix that sentence depends on context and character relationships - which would make the sentence all that more connected to the rest of the story.

Thirdly, mods, are we in trouble for using language or not or what?


So if you're struggling with something these rules cover, why not follow them strictly, at the very least for now? Either you will decide you writing is better w/o adverbs or you'll fix your "too many adverbs problem" and have better command of writing the way you want to.

It's interesting you've mentioned a style change in what you like to read, because I was going to suggest you look at books you want to emulate and count their adverbs. Style gets all sorts of leeway, but those with good style have merely learned how to break the rules.


Yet you just admitted you would benefit from following these rules strictly. Sure, they're not REALLY rules, which is where the whole "only those who use the rules can break them" attitude comes in. Get good at what you do, using rules. Then get better, because you've learned when they are to be broken then - and only then.

Now there are all sort of psychological reasons to insist on calling them rules and using never, but that's off topic too. XD

True. I still say it's better than an adverb, but they are boring words. Only made it into the discussion because 'gruffly' was the original example.

Language?

Am I a bad mod if I don't care?

Anyway, good points in all that, Kat. Well said.

Hmm. In a lot of potential circumstances I'm not sure you could really get that sort of thing to work, although it would depend on the person. While I wouldn't say that, I don't think I'd give any sort of action that would indicate the appreciative factor if I did. Actually, I also think I prefer the way it reads with appreciatively in there instead...

Oh, and I didn't even think about the language part... That's not actually something I wrote; it was in a blog post by my favorite author, and I didn't even think about whether that might or might not be appropriate...


Well, I have a tendency to not think about things like that when I write... And I have trouble with doing things in a way that doesn't seem 'right' just for the practice or whatever. It's hard, and makes my already often slow writing even slower, and the more I think about my writing consciously, the more danger I'm in of getting stopped and then stuck. I should try to use adverbs less, though, I suppose... *sigh* I'll just have to actually remember to think about it when I finally have time to write again. (Wait, that will be tomorrow. Maybe I will remember!)


That's a good idea. Actually, it's the sort of thing I've known I should do for a while; I just forget to do it. I'm really bad at paying attention to things like that while reading a story.


Well, I don't think it would be better (for the writing of a specific story; for my overall writing is harder to say) to follow the 'rule' exactly. I think following it as a 'strong suggestion' would go better, to be honest. Which is actually how I automatically rephrase rules like that... I guess it might help overall to treat them as rules to not be broken, but I rarely go about learning things the way people say you should; it's usually too boring. The thing is, I write because I like stories, and doing something that I don't think is, in the end, the best way to do it, for the purpose of getting better...kind of takes some of the fun out of it. Even just focusing on reducing adverb use while writing would make it a lot harder.
I think part of the problem is I have a tendency to be very precise, and while adverbs may be 'weaker', they can often make things more precise. Even if most people would consider two things to convey the same meaning, if I consider them even a little differently, it often feels wrong to change it, unless the new way is actually closer to the exact meaning I intend to convey. Anyway...


Hmm. Well there are also- (Bad Arien! Stop trying to go off topic!)

That's why this is a thread about EDITING. Let the first draft be bad, write it how it flows naturally. But when you're editing, search and destroy adverbs. It ain't that hard. I've written a ton of different genres, styles, etc. and busting adverbs has always only helped the writing, not hurt it.

Does anyone mind if I ask a rather stupid question that I should know the answer to but don't because I've only written about three complete books, and none of them were ever edited.

What is the definition of a draft?

What my under standing of a draft is, you write your book, like a prototype then you start from the beginning again, and "Copy/Paste" what you like the best, and rewrite the rest, having an understanding of where it's going.

When you finish the book for the first time, it's a draft. When you change it, it becomes the second draft. Whether you rewrite or merely edit. After that it's really fuzzy, because while you're editing it's in a constant state of change. Some people have specific beginning to end edits, and once they reach the end, it becomes the next draft.

*has been enjoying this debate muchly*

I'm still tending more towards Arien's side -- that adverbs should be used carefully, but not avoided entirely. I mean, adverbs are perfectly good words, no need to discriminate against them just because they very often prop up lazy verbs.

Hmm. And I agree to a point. I think this is one of those 'everybody has varying levels of strictness they think they should adhere to but basically they all agree' sort of things.

The "three easy steps" one should follow (not necessarily in this order, but this is I think fairly standard) on completing a story are (I say with tongue firmly in cheek):

1. Revise as needed or desired (by you or, if you're going the "traditional publication" route, your editor at your publisher). (This involves any changes to the story, charaters, plot, description, etc.; it's a matter of improving the story and your telling of it, not the particular arrangement of letters and punctuation.) Most of the suggestions so far have fallen in this category.
2. Edit as needed. (This involves any major grammatical issues, but also cases where you call a character by the wrong name, or changed the name of the place where the story is set but forgot to change it in a few places, for example.)
3. Proofread as needed. (This involves looking over a particular file for minor problems like missing punctuation, misspelled words, and such, which might have crept in when a theoretical perfect draft was retyped.)

Not that that's much help ...


The term harkens back to the days before computers, when you wrote either by hand or on a typewriter. In those days, a "draft" was a new copy, written or typed out fresh but incorporating any changes marked on or written into the previous draft. How that translates into the modern age is less certain.

I don't think this has been said yet, but when editing you should always read your work out loud. You will find what sounds correct in your head will sound out of place when actually spoken. It forces you to slow down and listen to how your story sounds, how words play off of each other, the pacing, and sentence structure.


A first draft is the unfinished, jumbled mess of ideas that is your story. The following drafts are you cleaning up the mess to make the story more clear, expanding on themes, and finding new ideas. The final draft is still the unfinished story, (honestly, our stories are never truly finished) but it's at the point in time where you’re happy with how it turned out and comfortable in letting it go.

My editing process goes like this:
1. I finish the first draft and hide the story for a couple of weeks or a month. Just leaving it alone and not even looking at it, giving it plenty of sunshine and remembering to water on occasion.
2. I print off the story and read it with fresh eyes, reading out loud and marking the troubled spots, errors, and pacing issues.
3. I start trimming the fat. Removing excess words, using 10 words instead of 20 to get the point across, and deleting scenes that do not move the story or provide character development no matter how much I love the scene. (The hardest part of editing .)
4. Find someone to read the second draft, collect their notes, hide story again, and rinse and repeat until satisfied.