Editing, life, and hard choices.

(Antoine de Saint-Exupery.)


Lord, take away my impatience--except for my eager expectation of Your return.

Lord, take away my cynicism--I don't know how many times You've admonished humankind that our mouths are lethal weapons that should never be aimed with evil intent!

Lord, take away my reliance on me...and substitute reliance on Thee!

* * * * * * * * * * * * 

Okay, this was going to be a blog about writing, not applied theology! But, in matters non-mathematical, (or animal or mineral--extra points for identifying the opus alluded to!) you gotta listen to your heart, where occasionally that Still, Small Voice actually can shove a word in edgewise!

* * * * * * * * * * * *

So, what am I cutting out?
--This past Lenten time, I cut out time-wasters on the computer. It was liberating.
--In my writing, I am cutting out excess verbiage. Often, I emphasize by saying the same thing in two or three different ways...but why not say it with sufficient punch, panache, and passion the first time?
--When we moved, we cut a lot of possessions out of our lives. Felt good then. Feels good now. Stuff and clutter just sit there, soaking up your energy, dulling your attention, so just clean up one small surface today. Right now--if you think this applies to you, and you know who you is--don't duck it. Do it! (David, this means y-o-u: clean up this desk! Now!)

THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY, part 6: The Grand Finale. Or, not?

 

“Writing a book is an adventure.  To begin with it is a toy and an amusement. Then it becomes a mistress, then it becomes a master, then it becomes a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster and fling him to the public.”

    --Winston Churchill--

 

Well, Sir Winnie is right. Again.

 

Once I've done my second or third reading, looking for grammar, spelling, and sentences that just go "thud," I mail the thing off.

 

A crazed entity called an editor then makes changes. So far, most of the changes have been wrong. That's right: mistaken, erroneous, faulty, specious, spurious, and defective. Words were struck from the text (okay, I confess--I can be wordy) without adjustment of verb/noun/adjective, so the residue, whilst shorter, is grammatically incorrect. Or, a stray comma or period was introduced after an edit.

 

One editor (at a thankfully now-defunct press) took on the following that I had penned for JOURNEY TO THE HEART OF GOD (still available from me):

 

"Jesus said:

      --love one another,

      --serve one another,

      --now, go and do this."

 

The newly edited version read:

 

"Jesus said to love one another. Jesus said to serve one another. He then told us to go and do this."

 

You tell me...is that "editing" in any positive sense of the verb? Apparently, he never moved beyond his third-grade teacher's dictum to always write in complete sentences.

I told the editor, "A love a affair with the complete sentence is a good thing. Generally."

 

The same editor  perfectly reversed the meaning of another sentence in that book. I didn't think it was a badly-composed sentence, but there was something that pushed a button for the editor, and they "edited." I steamed and stewed, ranted and raved, fussed and fumed. After this "editing," I replied with a four-page, single-spaced list of my corrections to the editing...perhaps 20% of which was response to constructive change...that's right, about 80% was clean-up of their introduced errors. I've still got the letter, it steamed me so!

 

So, what's the process...when there's one of these "edits" every page or two?
--do a side by side comparison, both documents open. Find what was changed/deleted/added/questioned.
--Ah, yes, questions--thank you, thank you--when they're asking questions, there's usually a good reason, and a need for me to clarify, simplify, expand, or delete.

--Next, repair any damages, or rework as they suggested...then, thank them for pointing out the need for clarification, as moi always knew what moi intended but it wasn't always gonna be clear to the reader.

 

Submit the changes. Review their next draft, where some of my edits were accepted, and some not. Come up with arguments to support my grammar...oh, editors don't seem to like commas. Strange, because sometimes a panda merely "eats shoots and leaves," but you'd better watch out if it "eats, shoots, and leaves." And, grammarians are divided about the usage of the second comma, "eats, shoots, and leaves." I think it sets off the action better than, "...eats, shoots and leaves." 

 

By the time I get through arguing over commas, colons, (oh, I do try to not overuse the semicolon--being a bit of an academic pedant, it's easy to overdo), and sentence fragments, I'm at a rolling boil. I try to sit on my replies for 24 hours so that the cloud of steam has a chance to blow away. Not a bad strategy for any angry letter, response, or rebuttal.

 

So, by the end of the process, I am one with Sir Winston: cast the beast loose! I care not to ever lay eyes on it again--begone wi'ye!

 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

PS: Of course there are great editors out there. Sadly, I've not yet worked with one.

PPS: David, beware hubris.

PPPS: I am...I'm just a fussy word-smithing grammarian from the outset. So, unless the editor is a FUSSIER word-smithing ultra-grammarian, I'll be arguing.

PPPPS: David, beware hubris.

 

 

 

 

The Story Behind the Story: part 5. EDIT/REWRITE. AKA: Murder!

 

Kill your darlings.

:::::::::::::::::::  :::::::::::::::::::  ::::::::::::::::::: 

Editing: writer's bane and blessing.

It's easy to fall in love with my words...after all, I dreamed the dream and then crafted the tale. They're my words, used to make the dream visible to others...I'd better love 'em!

Problem: more ain't always better..."But, let me make myself perfectly clear by adding that there are times when a judicious word here or there actually renders greater clarity..."

Hah! The author's patron saint needs to should be  is Les Izmore. The favorite surgical instrument the scalpel, not the suture and needle.

William Faulkner is credited with the quote, "In writing, you must kill all your darlings."

By that, he not only means characters whom you love but whose utility to the story line has long ago ended, but also those lovely turns of phrase that flow trippingly off the tongue, blessing the reader with alliterative or allusive attribution that demonstrate your wit, style, humor, and prowess with the pen. Ahem, keyboard.

[An even better ppgh: By that he means, get rid of no-longer-useful characters as well as extra words or pretty phrases. Ruthlessly.]

Now, I dearly wish Mr. Faulkner had taken his own advice--recently, I tried rereading something of his him...I so wanted yearned to take out the blue pen and strike out ten or twenty or forty percent of the verbiage. Felt like I was wading waist-deep. In molasses.

Not that every writer can or should be Hemingway: "Nick entered the woods. The day was warm. It was good."

That said--may Hemingway's spirit live on. Faulkner deserves highest grades for creativity, local color, and characters...but his editing? far from such a high grade.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, write (paint, sculpt, sing, invent, create) a lot. Days or weeks later, delete all the crap and fluff. If you have anything left at all--huzzah!

Ah, good point. The critical part of our mind needs time to sift, filter, and assess. Going into editorial mode too quickly, we're more likely to mount a defensive action: "Nah, that's a good phrase, it builds the tension...not bad. I like it."

A week or two later, one might be able to say, "Wordy. Prune it a bit and rewrite. No--actually, just lop it right off."

Sorta like pruning a vine or fruit tree--if in doubt, cut it out.

In sum:
--creative, brilliant, insightful writing is half the battle;
--decisive, cold, and bold editing...that's the other, winning half of the battle!

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- ===== -- -- -- -- -- -- --

All that glitters is not gold.

(Wm. Shkspr. The Merchant of Venice.)