6 Things I Tell Myself Once I’m Done Writing a Book

By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund
 
Recently I finished the first draft of a new book of a new series. Not counting the research, the book took me approximately eleven weeks to write.

Usually after I type out the last few words, I expel a deep breath of relief. And then I tell myself the following 6 things:

1. “Thank God for the editing process.” 

In fact, thank God for the MANY edits that the book will undergo in the months to come including my own self-editing as well as my publisher’s various levels of editing.

Even though I’ve written over 20 previous books, I wouldn’t ever think about skipping the editing process. I put every single one of my books through the most stringent and vigorous editing process. In fact, I’ve learned to be grateful for the feedback that can make my books better.

2. “Wow. I actually made it to the end.” 

As I was writing it, I felt the normal mid-book panic and asked myself questions like: Is the tension strong enough to keep readers' attention? Where is this story taking me? Will I be able to wrap up the plot believably? 

I admit. I second-guess myself and my writing ability with almost every book. So I feel satisfied at the end when somehow I manage to land the book at the destination without too much turbulence.

3. “Don’t get too attached to the words.” 

After all, they’re just words. Words. Sentences. Paragraphs. As much as I love my book, I will go back through the document and ruthlessly eliminate some of the prose that I labored and sweat over.

To make the process slightly less brutal, I’ll open up a new, blank document and save those eliminated sections there. Not that I’ve ever used any of the eliminated words again. But knowing that my hard work isn’t totally wiped out makes the process of cutting easier.

4. “Whew! It’s a relief to finish another book.” 

I love being in first draft writing mode. I love playing the roles of my characters and living out their stories.

But those 10-12 weeks of living in another world get a little intense. I push myself hard with daily word count goals, and I’m very strict about getting in my “words” for the day.

That means I sacrifice other things (like free time!) during the weeks I’m writing the first draft. While I’m emotionally and physically drained after I finish climbing Manuscript Everest, there’s also a sweet sense of accomplishment.

5. “I hope readers like it.”

I always write the books I love to read. I figure why write anything else?

However, various readers come into my books with differing expectations. I’ve long since realized that I can’t please everyone with every book. But I do hope that each book hits the sweet spot for the majority of my readers. And so at the end of every book, I sit back and ask myself what things about the story will or won’t please my readers.

6. “It’s time to put the baby to bed.” 

In other words, I need to stick my book in a virtual folder, step away, and say goodnight to it. I need to let it sit there untouched for a while (weeks if not a few months).

After time away, when I finally go back to it for my first round of self-editing, I’m not so in-love with it anymore and able to approach it more objectively. I’m able to see issues and flaws more clearly and also able to start the hard work of editing with more enthusiasm.

What about YOU? How do you feel after you finish writing a book?

The Love-Hate Relationship Writers Have With Their Manuscripts

By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund

Recently in a radio interview, the host made a comment about how hard it must be after a book is published to part ways with the characters and story that I've grown to love. He asked me how I handle that. The question made me pause for an instant.

Yes, I do fall in love with my book, but only while I'm writing the first draft. I usually get super excited about the way everything comes together. I put my heroine in deadly trouble and love when I'm able to figure out how to get her out of a deep dark black hole believably. I love when I develop those tricky character arcs so that my hero and heroine grow emotionally and spiritually, but are still imperfect. And I even love when I'm able use symbolism throughout, wrap up the romance sweetly, and find perfect metaphors and similes for descriptions.

However, I know the love I’m feeling for my story won’t last. After writing the first draft, I'll edit the book at least four times if (of varying levels of editing) if not more. During all of those edits, I’ll grow increasingly more critical. My love for the manuscript will continue to diminish. Then finally I'll turn the book in to my publisher for the very last time. At that point, I’ll loathe the book. And seriously consider ripping it up and throwing it away.

Yes. This happens every time. I fall madly in love with my book and think it’s the best thing I ever wrote, but then I gradually fall out of love and think it’s the worst thing in the world. As much as I wish I could avoid the painful swing of emotions, I’m coming to realize it’s normal, even helpful.

Writers need to fall in love with their stories during the first draft.

Our creativity needs freedom during the first draft. Sure, I carefully plot out my book. I’m intentional with themes, character development, and story pacing. I even challenge myself with each new book to focus on growing in a particular area.

But . . . during the writing process, I delve deeply into my imaginary world. I ignore my internal editor. I give the story the freedom to grow and become its own entity. I give my characters permission to change and develop. And I don’t allow myself to be critical of my book in any way, shape, or form. I don’t compare myself to others.

I focus on my story. I let myself only see the good and the positive. I relish in it. I rarely experience writer's block because during the first draft, I keep the mental red pen locked away. I write uninhibited, letting the words flow without stopping to critique anything.

But after the first draft, writers need to fall out of love with their books.

That initial blindness to our story’s faults and problems serves us well during first draft creativity. But when we reach the editing stage, it’s time to pull out the guns and start shooting holes in our work.

We need to open our eyes wide to our faults, the areas where we’re weak, the many problems our stories will have. At this stage, we need to take off the protective, rose-colored glasses and see our work in all its nakedness.

We’ll do ourselves a favor to put our work under the intense scrutiny of our own self-editing, the eagle-eyes of a critique partners, and any other outside help we can get (contest feedback, freelance editors, beta readers, etc.).

We should begin to feel the pain of having our work ripped apart. And if we don’t feel pain, we’re probably not being honest enough with the quality of our work. At this point, it’s perfectly normal to grow so critical that we loathe our work. It’s then, when we ache that we can use the negative energy to push us to work harder to get our stories even better.

Problems arise when we get the love-hate relationship in the wrong order.

During the first draft, if we fail to fall in love and instead turn on the inner critic, we’ll risk a number of problems: writer’s block, word flow issues, slower speed of writing, lack of motivation, etc. We could even risk losing out on the joy of the writing process itself.

During the editing, if we fail to fall out of love and instead see our work too highly, we’ll risk a number of problems: we won’t be able to evaluate our work critically enough, we might reject hard feedback from others, we could even become embittered by a writing industry that we deem as “unfair” or too “limited.”

My Summary: Allow ourselves to fall madly in love with our first drafts. That’s important to the creative flow. But then make sure we put an end to the love-affair during the editing. That’s equally important to the process of writing.

What do you think? Have you ever gone through the love-hate relationship with one of your books? Have you ever gotten the love-hate relationship in the wrong order?

The Most Important Type of Edit and Where to Get It

By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund

Writers should self-edit their own work. That's a given.

Some writers approach the self-editing process haphazardly, putting little effort into the process. Those types of writers may rely heavily on a good copy or line editor to catch their mistakes.

Other writers self-edit a manuscript to death, striving to make every tiny detail perfect. An editor-turned-writer can often find the typos, grammar issues, sentence structure problems, etc.

However, even the perfectionists still need to get outside feedback. The truth is that no writers can view their own work objectively enough to catch all the mistakes, especially the bigger plot and character problems.

Writers become too enmeshed in their own story to be able to step back and view the whole thing from start to finish with a cold, critical eye. Writers gain that critical eye usually after they've stuck the manuscript in a drawer for several years. Then they're able to go back to it as if seeing it for the first time. (And usually they're amazed at the problems they find!)

Thus, no matter how skilled writers think they are in the self-editing department, at the very least every writer should get a big picture edit (known in the industry as a macro, substantial, or content edit, often lovingly referred to as rewrites).

A big picture edit pertains to all of the things that make for a well-told story like plotting, pacing, character development, themes, opening hooks, the closing, etc. These are the elements that win readers. Sure readers will get turned off by typos and poor sentence construction. But they can overlook some of the minor issues if the story grabs them and won't let go.

Thus I would venture to say that a content edit is THE most important type of edit, but in the industry is probably one of the hardest to get.

Where should writers seek this big-picture feedback?

It can come from a variety of sources. However, since this type of edit also tends to be the most subjective, a writer needs to weigh the feedback according to the source. I've listed them in order of degree of helpfulness (least through most) (although the order can vary depending upon many factors!):

1. Beta Readers: Beta readers can be anyone– family, friends, readers, fans, other writers, etc. The job of a beta reader is read the book with the "reader hat" on and not the "editor hat" and provide constructive criticism on what works and what doesn't. A writer can give beta readers some directive (issues to look for), even going as far as having a short questionnaire to fill out. Or the writer can simply ask for overall impressions. Beta readers should know they're NOT to edit or spend a lot of time making comments within the manuscript (if any!). They're simply reading.

2. Critique partners: Critique partners (or critique groups) are usually other writers at or about the same level of writing skill. These writers use a reciprocal exchange system for giving one another feedback on manuscripts. The exchange should contain overall impressions (similar to a beta reader's), but usually goes beyond that to include comments about writing techniques that need adjusting.

3. Mentors: Mentors are usually published authors who are above the skill level of the writer. Mentors can be found by entering contests and gleaning feedback through the contest judges. Mentors can also be found at writing conferences via paid critiques. Sometimes mentors can even be found through local writing chapters or an author who is also a good friend.

4. Agents: Although agents don't often have the time to give specific feedback on queries, sometimes they do. And when they offer advice, writers should listen carefully. Experienced agents sort through thousands of manuscripts and can usually spot what works and what doesn't. If a couple of agents are saying the same thing (i.e. that an opening doesn't grab them), then a writer should definitely take note of the issue.

5. For-hire editors: Over the past few years, many people have hung out a shingle offering editing services. However, before hiring someone, look at how long the editor has been in business, credentials, recommendations from current clients, and what levels of critiques the editor offers. The more intimately the editor knows your genre (and the more experienced), the more weight you'll be able to give their big picture feedback.

6. In-house editors: Editors who work for traditional publishers and have been in the publishing business for years are often the experts in their genre. They work closely with their marketing and sales teams and usually know what concepts, ideas, and issues sell better than others. They're often intimately in tune with what readers of a genre like and don't like (based on reader feedback and sales trends). Thus, in-house editors can offer an expertise to editing that is difficult to find elsewhere.

All of the above can be incredibly valuable methods for getting big-picture feedback. No matter which source, there is always some level of subjectivity (personal preferences) that come into play. Because of that, I never rush off to change anything (even when my in-house editors provide me feedback).

Even so, I always weigh each piece of advice carefully and thoughtfully. I lay aside my love-affair with my manuscript and try not to take the criticism personally. If I go into the content edit process with an eager desire to improve my story, then I'm better able to analyze the feedback and figure out what will help and what won't.

Usually if multiple people (at a variety of levels) are pointing out the same problem, then writers can rest assured that the issue needs to be addressed (and possibly changed).

How about YOU? Are you getting big picture feedback on your stories? If so, who's giving it to you? 

Why Writers Are Often Blind to Their Own Faults

 
By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund

No one ever sends their manuscript off to an agent thinking, “There goes that horrible piece of junk. Boy am I glad to get that worthless manuscript off my desk.” No one sends the first pages of their book into a contest saying, “I know I’m going to score poorly and lose.” And certainly no one who self publishes says, "It's not all that great, but oh well, I'm publishing it anyway."

Instead, most of us polish up our work until we think it shines with brilliant glory. We labor over it and try to get every word perfect. Sure, our fingers might tremble with anxiety when we finally hit send or publish. But let’s admit it. We usually think our work is pretty darn good. Otherwise we probably wouldn’t put it out there.

Yet . . . many manuscripts that agents and editors see just aren’t ready for publication. I've judged numerous contests entries that still need a lot of work. And let's face it, there are even plenty of self-published books that aren't up to par either.

Why do we struggle to know our skill levels? When we’re just beginning, why do we often think we’re better than we really are? Why are most of us blind to our own faults?

Here are a few of my theories: (Make sure to chime in with yours!)

We naturally view our work through our maturity level.

My daughter likes to bead. Recently, she pulled out some bracelets she’d beaded when she was younger. “Wow, these are ugly,” she remarked. “I can’t believe I ever thought they were pretty.”

“At the time you made them,” I said, “that’s all you were capable of. You viewed their beauty through the eyes of a little girl. But now that you’re older, you know more about colors, designs, patterns, and styles so you can create more complex jewelry.”

The conversation reminded me that we naturally see our writing through the eyes of our maturity level. As a beginner, we’ll think our story is riveting or our descriptions beautiful simply because we don’t know better yet.

As we grow, our insight and understanding will deepen. We’ll see writing patterns and styles with more complexity. And we’ll realize what we once thought was beautiful was amateur at best.

We have a tendency to overlook our faults.

Whether in marriage or parenting or whatever, we can easily point out the faults in our spouses or children. But it’s much harder to recognize our own issues.

No matter how long we’ve been writing, it will always be easier to see what someone else is doing wrong and so much harder to see the same problems in our own work.

In some ways the blindness to our issues is a natural defense mechanism. We want to protect ourselves from the pain that comes from admitting we’re wrong, that we’re not perfect, and that we have an uphill battle of hard work before us.

The creator’s love is a powerful bond that precludes objectivity.

If you’ve ever been a parent, you’ll understand the bond that happens the moment you give birth to your own flesh and blood. As the parent, your love for that creation supersedes the love anyone else could ever have. After all, the baby is a piece of you.

When we birth our stories, no one else will have the same depth of love for our creation that we do. Invariably as I write my first drafts, I fall in love with each story. That’s why it’s always so hard when my editors don’t fall in love with it right away and end up sending me lots of rewrites.

Most of us don’t realize how much hard work published authors have put in.

We often have a distorted view of writing and the publication process, especially when we’re starting out. How many times have you heard someone bash an author by saying, “This book isn’t any good. I’m sure I could write something better”?

Now that I’ve been writing a while, I realize writing isn't just about talent. What I’ve come to understand is that it’s more about hard work. Those authors with 10, 20, or even 40 books aren’t where they’re at because of luck or talent alone. They make it look simple and easy, but in reality they’ve put in hours, weeks, and years of sweat and back-breaking labor.

If we think writing a book is easy, then we likely haven’t immersed ourselves in the reality of what it takes to write good fiction in today’s market.

The point of all this theorizing is threefold:

1. ALL writers MUST have critical and objective feedback on their work, preferably multiple edits from qualified writers or professionals.

2. We must resign ourselves to the fact that writing a publishable book is NOT easy. We have to stop trying to take the easy way and simply embrace the reality of the hard work.

3. Stay humble. If we attempt to view our skill level realistically and humbly, we’ll be much more open to hard feedback and subsequent growth.

I’d love to hear your thoughts! Why do you think it’s so hard for writers to know their own skill level? And why are so many of us blind to our faults?

The Nitty-Gritty of Galley Editing

By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund

I'm in the middle of reading two different sets of Galley Reviews. The first Galleys is for Out of the Storm, a historical romance novella that kicks off a 3 book lighthouse series. The novella releases in late fall of 2014. The second Galleys is for Love Unexpected which is the first lighthouse book. And it releases December 1, 2014. 

Whenever I mention that I'm working on Galleys to friends, they invariably raise their brows. Most people don't really understand what Galleys means or entails.

Before I was published, I had no idea there was even such a thing as Galley edits. And even after I got my first Galleys, I was still confused about what the term meant.

So I did a little investigating and discovered that the term "Galleys" is actually short for Galley proofs.

Old wooden galley tray with lead type. *Source Wikimedia.org*

In the old days printers had to meticulously place each individual letter of each individual word together to form a printed page. The printer laid and tightened those letters into wooden or metal trays called galleys. Then a limited number of copies were printed and proofread. The printer would make further changes, re-arrange the type, and print the final copy.

Nowadays, printing has evolved beyond metal letters and trays. Actually, the Galley editing stage involves different things for different publishers. But I think it's safe to say that overall, Galley Reviews are one of the final editing stages that a book goes through before publication, and the stage usually involves proofreading a printed version of the book.

My publisher is somewhat unique in that they have two sets of printed Galleys.

During the first round, I'm able to see the manuscript that has recently been line edited by my in-house editor. Most of the time, I can't even tell my editor has made any changes unless I carefully compare the Galleys to an earlier manuscript. I've realized that's the sign of a good line editor, when he's able to make important changes but his fingerprints are invisible.

Here's an example of the kinds of changes he makes during line editing (this is taken from the first page of my novella):

My version: "The man's wide-open eyes peered into the heaps of gray clouds covering the early morning sky, the streaks of black the reminder of the storm's fury."

My editor's version: "The man's unseeing eyes stared up at the dark-gray clouds covering the early morning sky, a reminder of the passing storm's fury."

As you can see, he subtly trimmed some of my wordiness. If I don't agree with the changes he's made, I make notes on my printed Galleys about how we can further adjust things (and usually we come to a compromise). I also trim, check for repetitions, and try to catch any mistakes, before finally sending the Galleys back to my publisher.

During the second and final set of Galleys from my publisher, each page is already set for how it will look in the book. So at that point, I'm not allowed to make any big changes. I can only mark little mistakes, missed commas, misspellings, etc. It's actually the very last time I'll see or read my manuscript before it goes to print.

Why are Galleys done six months ahead of the book's release?

There are actually many benefits to having the book *mostly* edited and ready to go that far ahead including allowing time for publishers to begin marketing the book, sending it out to reviewers, and soliciting endorsements.

For me personally, Galleys are a rather depressing stage in my love affair with my book. By the time I see the Galleys, the gushing and giddiness that I felt with my first draft is definitely over. I've read and edited the book so many times, that it's lost its appeal. In fact, as I nitpick the manuscript, everything begins to glare at me. And by the time I finish reading the last set of Galleys, I'm ready to throw it in the trash. Needless to say, I never read the book again.

What about you? What do you think of the Galley stage of editing? Do you think it's a worthwhile editing stage or is it antiquated?

Attack Your Story so That Your Readers Don't Have To

 By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund

The past month I've been drowning in edits. I've been working on substantial edits on Love Unexpected, the first of my lighthouse books that will release in December. The edits are due back to my publisher by the end of January.

And then in the midst of the big rewrites on Love Unexpected, I also got the Galleys for my July release, Captured by Love. And those are also due at the end of January.

Once I turn in the two books, I'll need to start editing a book for my new agent, getting it ready for her to send out on submission. And then I have the first draft of another book I have to self-edit before turning it in for the first time to my publisher.

Whew!

I've been breathing, eating, and sleeping edits with no end in sight. As the pin says, "Writer: Not Crazy; Just in Rewrites."

Any time I get into editing mode, I realize that I'm really more of a first draft girl. I absolutely adore the process of writing the first version of a book. I could write all day and all night and never tire of it.

But editing is another matter altogether. Compared to the free-spirited, creative writing process, editing requires an entirely different mind-set. And for me, editing is laborious, pain-staking, and incredibly time-consuming.

It's like taking a fine-toothed comb through every page, every paragraph, every line of an entire novel. Such a task takes hours, days, even weeks of concentrated, focused energy. It's draining.

And quite frankly, it's also nerve-wracking. At the back of my mind I think, "I have to get everything right this time. No more fooling around. This is serious business."

Because the fact is, if we don't get things right during the editing phase, we risk disappointing our readers.

In some ways that fear is a good motivation.

It pushes us to keep going when we're tempted to cheat on our editing, to skimp, to gloss over details, or to disregard depth.

It motivates us to ruthlessly chop whole paragraphs, whole pages, even whole scenes that we once thought were brilliant.

It forces us to let go of words, to see them as just that–words.

It challenges us to exert painful effort to push, shove, and shape the story into something better, something that whispers with the breath of life.

In this current publishing climate that entices authors to produce more content, we're faced with the challenge of giving enough time and energy to quality editing. It's all too easy to focus on writing and publishing more books and to let the hard work of editing become the last thing on our to-do list, especially because editing tends to be tedious and difficult for many of us.

I only have to think of my readers, however, to quickly give editing the high priority it deserves. I don't want to disappoint anyone who picks up one of my books. I want to hand them my best every time.

If we as writers don't take the time to brutally and viciously attack our stories (during editing), readers will brutally attack the book later. But why give them reason to lash out? If we're brutal with our books, then our readers won't have to be.

Here are some of my favorite quotes on editing. These show just how seriously most successful authors take the editing process. (I love Shannon Hale's quote the most!)

“I'm writing a first draft and reminding myself that I'm simply shoveling sand into a box so that later I can build castles.” ~ Shannon Hale

“I've found the best way to revise your own work is to pretend that somebody else wrote it and then to rip the living [crap] out of it.” ~Don Roff

"Editing fiction is like using your fingers to untangle the hair of someone you love.” ~Stephanie Roberts

"Editing is like pruning the rose bush you thought was so perfect and beautiful until it overgrew the garden.” ~Larry Enright

"Your first draft is a petulant teenager, sure it knows best, adamant that its Mother is wrong. Your third draft has emerged from puberty, realizing that its Mother was right about everything.” ~Angeline Trevena

“It is perfectly okay to write garbage—as long as you edit brilliantly.”~C.J. Cherryh

"Put down everything that comes into your head and then you're a writer. But an author is one who can judge his own stuff's worth, without pity, and destroy most of it." ~Colette

Are you tempted in the current publishing climate to skimp on editing? Are you attacking your story during the editing phase or are you being too gentle on your work? 

The Most Important Kind of Edit a Book Needs

By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund

Over the past several years of having multiple books in the traditional publication pipeline, I've now experienced LOTS of editing.

After all that editing, I've come to realize THE single most important edit is the CONTENT edit (also known in the publishing business as macro edits, rewrites, or substantive edits).

Having an overall critique of the story is critical to the success of a book. No I'm not diminishing the importance of line-edits that focus on smaller issues like transitions, dialogue, cliches, etc. Neither am I turning my nose up at the need for a thorough copy edit that can catch grammar and spelling mistakes. It's not acceptable for any writer to publish material that's riddled with errors.

What I've learned, however, is that readers can forgive a few smaller mistakes. In fact most average (non-writing) readers don't even notice we when get a little clunky with our narrative or dialogue. Or when we use adverbs or passive tense or over-describe some things.

The fact is, when readers get swept up into an exciting STORY, they might overlook the minor things we do wrong. That's probably why Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series did so well (besides the fact that she was on the cusp of a new genre). I wasn't super impressed with the writing style or descriptions when I read the first book in the series. But the STORY was fascinating and compelling and kept my interest.

Readers hardly ever–if never–come away from a book and say something like, "Wow, that was perfect grammar. I liked the word choices. And what amazing spelling." Don't get me wrong. As I said before, we should strive to give our readers a clean read.

But most of the time when a book really resonates it's because of the STORY. Readers come away saying, "Wow, what a great story. The characters came alive and the plot was so riveting I couldn't put the book down."

In the publishing world, the content edit is often the hardest to get and to get done well. All too often, it's easier for publishers facing budget cuts to toss out the content edit (or at least spend less time on it). And in the self-publishing world, many face the difficult challenge of finding someone who's qualified to give them that kind of edit.

Recently I got back my content editorial notes on Captured by Love, my novel releasing next spring. My editors read the book, took notes of what wasn't working, and then compiled those and sent them to me. Generally speaking, when I think back on all my content edits, here are the top issues that my editors address:

1. Main character growth – Are the major character arcs solid and woven throughout?

2. Minor character development – Are there issues with any of the minor characters?

3. Story pacing – Does everything flow smoothly or are some areas too slow or over-the-top?

4. Plot issues – Where are the plot holes?

5. The ending – Does the ending wrap up the story the way it should?

My editors point out as many issues as they possibly can about the story itself. And because they've become experts in the historical romance genre, I've come to realize that they're usually right about most of their suggestions, even the suggestions I didn't think mattered or that I didn't like.

So how does a writer go about getting a content edit? 

I think there are several possibilities. First a writer could put together a test group of beta readers, particularly fans of the book's genre. Formulate a short survey those readers can fill out with questions about the bigger picture issues such as I've mentioned above. The drawback is that readers often have very different opinions, and so it becomes difficult to sort through whose opinions are valid.

Second a writer could look for a critique partner, perhaps another writer (or several) within our genre, who would be willing to do a read-through to specifically assess bigger issues. Again the drawback is that even experienced writers within the same genre have various likes and dislikes. And so we're not wise to change our stories at every shift of opinion.

Third, a writer can hire a professional editor who has gained a reputation for content editing. As self-publishing as come of age, I've noticed more and more writers hanging out an editor-for-hire shingle. While I'm sure some of those writers make good editors, there's nothing that compares to someone who knows our genre and is trained to spot the weaknesses in stories.

My summary: Don't skip or even gloss over the content edit. It's the story that matters most to readers. So make sure to get feedback that will make the story the best it can be.

Do you agree or disagree with my opinion about the content edit being the most important? Why or why not? For those who are self-publishing, how have you gone about finding a good content editor? 

When Should Writers Get Critiques?

By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund

Recently a newer writer asked me when she should start searching out critiques for her manuscript.

Her question brought to mind two separate issues regarding getting feedback:

When is the right time in the life of an author to start soliciting feedback from others? Should a writer send off a first book? Or should they wait until they've written a couple of books before looking for a critique partner or garnering outside feedback? Are there benefits to waiting?

And when is the right time in the life of a book to send it out for critiques? Should a writer pass it along to beta readers or critique partners right after finishing the first draft? Should she solicit feedback before doing her own self-editing? Or should she do the re-writing first, and then ask for critiques?

I'll give you my thoughts on both issues, then you'll have to fill me in on your opinions in the comments!

1. When is the right time in the life of an author to start soliciting feedback from other writers or editors?

I believe newer writers need to be careful about getting critiques too soon in their writing careers. The wrong kind of feedback (or too much) can overly-discourage and crush the writerly spirit. Usually our first couple of manuscripts are full of problems. And rightly so. We're still learning and growing in our writing skill.

In hindsight I'm relieved I never solicited feedback on my first couple of manuscripts. They were riddled with mistakes–backstory dumps, passive verbs, clichéd descriptions, etc. If another writer would have ripped apart my manuscript at that point, I'm not sure that I would have had the strength or desire to keep going. I would have felt terrible, like I had no potential or talent.

Instead, ignorance was bliss. I kept writing, and of course, kept studying how to become a better writer. With each book, I continued to improve, so that over time I could see problems in those earlier books for myself.

I encourage newer writers to set aside their first manuscript (or two) for a while and work on a new book. Then come back to the book in six months to a year. By that point, you'll have gained objectivity and hopefully some new skills that will help you self-edit the book again. (Or perhaps you'll find like I did that the books will need to be completely re-written to be worthwhile.)

2. When is the right time in the life of a book to send it out for critiques?

This is a question I've struggled through. And while I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, a little planning can save some time and effort (and frustration!).

The first step of any editing process is to get big-picture feedback. At this stage we can look for beta readers or someone knowledgeable of our genre to give an over-arching critique–what works and what doesn't as far as plot lines and character development.

I've learned the hard way, that it doesn't really make any sense (and is essentially a waste of time) to line-edit a manuscript before doing rewrites. Why pour our attention into the commas at this stage when large chunks will be added or deleted?

After making rewrites on the bigger problem issues, then it's time to focus on getting a more detailed critique of the smaller details. That means checking for repetitious words, historical accuracy, setting and sensory details, varying sentence structure, etc. A good critique partner (particularly another writer) can be helpful in pointing out these kinds of details.

Then finally, before a book goes to print, every writer needs to have a skilled editor (or two) comb through the manuscript for copy edits. This is the stage for nit-picking, for finding every jot and tittle that's wrong.

In other words, in the editing process make sure to go in order from macro-edits down to micro. Sometimes you may even have to do each a couple of times before moving on to the next level.

And when asking someone for a critique, be sure to specify what level of feedback you're looking for so that they know where to focus (i.e. big picture versus details).

Those are my opinions! Now I'd love to hear yours! When do you think is the right time in the life of an author to start soliciting feedback from others? And when do you think is the right time in the life of a book to get input?

***********************************************************
Thanks to everyone who helped me celebrate the release of A Noble Groom last week! I had one of my daughters draw the names of the winners for the two autographed books. And the winners are: Shelly Daum and Marissa Mehresman. Congratulations! I'll be in touch with you soon!

One Simple Trick That Makes Editing Less Painful

By Jody Hedlund, @JodyHedlund

Most writers (myself included!) have an awful time cutting words during the editing process. After all, we pour out our life blood trying to come up with the words. We spend weeks and months laboring over the story, getting details just right, the metaphors perfect, and descriptions dazzling. 

So the thought of hitting delete makes our fingers tremble with terror.

How can we part with our beloved words? How can we so callously kill our darlings?

Yes, over the years I've struggled with deleting during the editing phase. But every first draft will need pruning, and sometimes lots of it. In all my editing from macro down to line edits, I usually delete anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 words of the original document. (Of course most of that gets replaced with new words and scenes.)

But of a 100,000 word document that means I could essentially cut a tenth of the book. I know some authors do even more rewriting, perhaps changing up to a quarter of the book.

The truth is that we can't cling too tightly to our words. We established that in this post: The Unnecessary Shame Writers Feel When Getting Feedback. But, how can we make it easier to pry our fingers away from our words, so that it's easier to let them slip away?

I've found one simple trick that makes it less painful for me to delete. 

Here's what I do: When I get ready to edit, I open a brand new Word document. I label it "Title of Book.Deletions." At the top of the first page, I type "Chapter One." Then I start going through Chapter One of my first draft. I cut everything I absolutely don't need, and I paste it into my new document under Chapter One. I do the same thing with every chapter.

Sometimes I delete only lines here and there. Other times I cut multiple paragraphs.

But knowing that my precious words are safely tucked away in some other document gives me the freedom to slice away at my manuscript. I'm fooling my mind into believing that those words I once labored over are still safe and secure. 

The whole mind-game frees me up to edit with abandon. I can chop without feeling guilty or disappointed. I don't cling too desperately to the original words. I'm able to let go of paragraphs I once crafted with sweat and blood. Because I'm not destroying what I've written. I'm still keeping everything . . . just in case.

In reality, I've realized that I rarely go back and use any of what I ruthlessly delete. But even so, the process of knowing my words are still there, provides a safety net that allows me to edit with more freedom.

Other than releasing us to edit with more ease, there are additional benefits to saving our deletions in a separate document.

If we want to paste a description or theme somewhere later in the book, we have them saved and can weave them in elsewhere. I usually highlight the sections in my Deletions document that I want to try to add back in.

We can use those deleted sections as "bonus" material for readers after the book is published and we're in our promotional phase. We can use a bonus scene on Facebook that we give to readers as added content for "liking" us, or we can even add a page to our website for "extra" or "deleted" scenes. 

Sometimes in interviews we'll be asked for a deleted scene or to describe something we changed. Having the deleted material to refer back to has been a lifesaver for me.

So how do you handle your editing? Do you save your deleted sections? What other tricks or tips do you have for making the editing less painful?

Why Skimping on Macro Editing Could Cost You Readers

Macro edits are critically important. (Also known as rewrites, developmental edits, substantive edits, or content edits.) This type of edit is the first a writer should make in the three stages of editing. (Read more about the three stages of editing here or here.)

I like to refer to the macro edit stage as rewriting. I think the term sufficiently sums up the entire process, which involves analyzing the big picture elements of our stories and rewriting, adding, or deleting major parts in order to make the story more appealing to readers.

Last week, my publisher sent me macro edits for my book, A Noble Groom, releasing next spring. When I saw my editor’s email pop up in my inbox, I froze.

Even though I’d been expecting the rewrite notes, I was still overcome with fear. What would I find when I opened the document? Where had I fallen short with the story?

My editor wouldn’t be sending me pages of praise. Flattery wouldn’t help me. Only the complete, honest truth about what needed improvement would benefit my story.

Ultimately I knew that. But still, that knowledge has never made the initial rewrite experience any easier. It’s always hard to take criticism of a story you’ve carefully researched, crafted, and labored over for months.

It took me a couple of hours to work up the courage to open the email from Luke, my editor. I’m grateful he began his notes with a few words of praise and encouragement along with this sentence: "Thanks so much in advance for your hard work and willingness to revisit the manuscript, to do what you can to improve the story as much as possible for the sake of your loyal readers." (Emphasis mine)

That sentence was an incredible reminder that I’m striving to make my STORY the best it can be for the sake of my loyal readers. Readers care most about the STORY. And the macro level stage of editing is where we carefully analyze all of those story elements that can make or break a book.

For this particular book (A Noble Groom), FOUR talented Bethany House editors had read through the manuscript, made notes, and then decided which areas most needed my attention. The notes were about 6 pages long and consisted of things like:

*The hero needs to have a stronger character arc. There needs to be more at stake for him.
*The emotional (friendship) part of the hero/heroine relationship needs to be deepened.
*The villain’s threats need to be spaced more consistently.
*The ‘ticking clock’ needs to be more of a factor than it is.

Those are just a snippet of the things that all of the editors pointed out. As you can see, they’re larger story elements and won’t be easy to fix. The edits will require many weeks of chopping, pasting, adding and deleting. That’s why the term rewriting is so appropriate, because essentially that’s what I’m doing.

No matter how many times I get a set of rewrites, they always knock me off my feet. In fact, I’ve been known to have major melt-downs, to decide I’m not cut out to be a writer, then assuage my depression by eating large quantities of chocolate.

Fortunately, this time, I put on my big girl panties much faster than in the past. A further email from my editor helped lift me up. Luke said this:

“I’ve learned over the years that for even the best of writers out there, almost all of their first (rough) drafts have serious issues which need to be dealt with, head-on, unflinching. In that way, writing and especially rewriting—the persistent back and forth, applying a lot of patience and love—is much like the art of sculpting. It’s physical, mental, emotional, spiritual . . . as you carve, chisel, shape, sand and polish what you’ve created into something good and beautiful and truthful.”

Beautiful analogy, isn’t it?

The point is this: Without the macro-edit, I could spiff up my story, get rid of adverbs, tighten my dialog, and make sure I’ve included sensory details, etc., etc., etc. (all the things that come with line and copy edits). But what good would all of that do if I’ve neglected to shape the story itself.

If we skip the macro edits, then we’re neglecting the sculpting part of the process, the chipping away, the molding, the plying. If we move directly to the line and copy editing stages, then we’re polishing a lump of clay.

We win over our readers by a well-told story. So don’t skimp on the macro-edits. Get the big-picture feedback (particularly from people who are qualified to give it). Sculpt the story into a lovely work of art before polishing it with the other edits.

How about you? How important have macro edits been in your editing process? Are you taking enough time to shape your story before starting the polishing?

Why We Need to Put Our Books to Bed

Every book we write needs a good night’s sleep. Once we finish writing and tweaking and shining it up as best we can, then it’s time to put that baby to bed.

Over the past few years, I’ve come to realize the enormous benefit of taking a break from a manuscript before pushing it down the publication pipeline.

In traditional publication, there’s usually a built-in waiting period. The timeframe can range anywhere from six months to a year or more from when an author turns in a completed manuscript to the in-house editor until the time it actually hits shelves.

For example, I turned in a completed manuscript, A Noble Groom, to my publisher in January of this year. But the book won’t release until next spring of 2013. That’s over a year from when I completed it until it gets into readers’ hands.

Over the past couple of months my Bethany House editor has read the book. And he’s also passed it around the office for other editors to read. Once a team of editors has read the book, they’ll compile a list of changes for me to make, the first edits (aka rewrites) of many that I’ll get over the coming months.

While many writers decry the lengthy timeframe that accompanies traditional publication, I for one have found some benefits to the wait. The biggest benefit is that I’m forced to put some distance between myself and my manuscript.

Yes, I have to give my book a good night’s sleep.

And why exactly do I see that as a benefit?

Here are just a few reasons:

1. A good night’s sleep gives us fresh perspective.

The biggest benefit to having some time away from our book is that we gain objectivity. After many weeks (perhaps even several months) apart, we can see our work with clearer eyes. The problems we missed during the first round of editing are suddenly glaring.

2. A good night’s sleep helps us let go easier.

I’ve also found that I’m not quite so attached to my words after the break. I can cut and delete with abandon. I usually open a new word document and paste all of my deletions into it. Not only can I then easily retrieve them if I need them elsewhere in the document, but saving the deletions reassures me that my words—that I once labored over so diligently—are still there, just not in my book anymore.

3. A good night’s sleep gives us renewed energy.

Usually by the time I’m done writing a book, I’m worn out, I’m ready to be done with the story, and I’m tempted rush through my editing. The weeks away from manuscript gives me a fresh burst of energy for the story that I didn’t have before, as if I’m waking up refreshed, ready to tackle the big issues with more vigor.

4. A good night’s sleep can help us grow.

During my time away from a book, I brush up on a writing craft book or two, and I review some of the writing lessons I needed to remember. I also start a new story, and in the process of writing another book and stretching myself, I grow even more so that I’m able to apply what I'm learning when I go back to edit the older book.

5. A good night’s sleep helps us handle the criticism better.

If my kids are upset about something late at night before bed, I usually tell them that we’ll wait to discuss it until the morning. It’s never a good idea to argue or have important discussions when you’re tired. We usually only make things worse.

And the same is true with our writing. When we take a step back from our writing and refresh ourselves, then we’re better able to handle the constructive criticism we get from critique partners or editors. Sometimes I find that when I let feedback settle for some time, I’m able to mull it over, come to terms with it better, and then apply it with more enthusiasm.

My Summary: Whether traditionally or self-published, writers should wisely consider how much rest they’ve given their books before pushing them toward publication. Often we're in such a hurry to get our books out there, we miss out on the benefits that a good night’s sleep does for our manuscripts.

How much of a break do you usually give your manuscripts before going back to editing them? Days, weeks, months? And if you’re not giving yourself objective distance from your manuscript, why? What’s your hurry?

P.S. The Doctor's Lady is currently ON SALE on Kindle for only $2.99 as part of Amazon's "The Big Deal" through March 25. Snag a copy while you can!

Walls on the Path to Publication: a Necessity or a Nuisance?

How can writers know when they’re ready for publication? How can they know when their writing skill has reached a quality that rises above amateur? And likewise, how can they know if they have a story that will resonate with readers?

These are age-old and very sage questions. I wrestled with them back in the days when I was querying. I think any wise writer will wrestle with such questions—trying to gauge their readiness and show caution before plunging into publication.

In the past, particularly with traditional publication, writers would hit brick walls that would cause us to evaluate our readiness. And those walls usually came in the form of rejection letters or agent or editor passes. The rejections would force us to work harder, challenge us to learn more about writing fiction, and push us to take our stories from mediocre to standout quality. If we had any hope of breaking through, we had to strive really hard to become better.

But nowadays, with so many writers opting to self epublish, the traditional wall of rejection has crumbled. The walls of waiting, persevering, and the pain of the journey are no longer barriers either.

The road to publication is wide open. Anyone, anywhere can publish anything without any barriers. Writers no longer have to push through the walls that once stood in the way.

Some would claim that’s a good thing, that the wall prevented too many good writers with good stories from having the chance of publication. Others would claim that the crumbling wall is now contributing to a new problem—a flood of poorly written self-published manuscripts crowding virtual shelves making it difficult for those good books to stand out.

Whatever the case, we would all do well to remember the mantras: Nothing good ever comes easy. No pain no gain. There are no shortcuts to any place worth going (thanks Christy Farmer for that one!).

In other words, walls of some kind or another are worthwhile to each of us. Whether those walls come externally or internally or both, we’re usually better off for having scaled them rather than skirted them.

I liked how my agent Rachelle Gardner recently described walls. She said, “Obstacles to our dreams are like brick walls, put there to test how badly we really want something . . . those brick walls stop the people who don’t want it badly enough.” And the brick walls strengthen those who persevere.

So, back to the original question: How can writers know when they’re ready for publication?

My answer: Set up a few walls.

What do I mean?

Before rushing into publication, put into place some barriers or trials that can test your writing skill and story-telling ability.

Of course, those heading toward traditional publication will still hit the walls of rejection from agents and publishers. But even so, all of us, no matter our publishing venue can put into place walls that will help us test our work and abilities. Instead of rushing to put something out there whether on Smashwords or CreateSpace or in a query to an agent, first we should evaluate if we’re ready.

Here are just a few ways we can do that:

• Hire a freelance editor. This is a must for anyone self-publishing. But even those seeking traditional publication can benefit from the skillful eyes of an editor. The lists of freelance editors has exploded over the past year. I suggest beginning with recommendations from other writers you trust. I also suggest my agent’s list of editors as a place to start.

• Get into a critique partnership or group with other skilled writers who can give qualified and objective feedback about the writing craft.

• Give the book to beta readers who can test your story-telling ability. They may not be qualified to catch editing mistakes or writing craft issues. But they can give feedback on the story.

• Enter writing contests that offer written feedback from judges. Sometimes the contest scoring can let us know how we’re doing compared with other writers.

• Give ourselves some distance from our manuscripts. After completing the first draft of a book, I edit it, but then I usually wait several months before I go back to it and do my in-house rewrites. The time and distance help me approach my book with a fresh perspective. I’m usually able to see the story more objectively.

• Use a how-to-edit book during our self-editing. I highly recommend Revision And Self-Editing by James Scott Bell and Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Browne & King.

The point is to establish some walls that keep us from rushing headlong into publication, some bumps that slow us down, some checks that help us evaluate more clearly just how ready we really are.

What’s your opinion? Are walls a necessity or a nuisance? Do you think the road to publication has become too easy? Or do you think the crumbling wall has been a good thing for writers overall?

Why Every Writer NEEDS As Much Editing As Possible

I recently received an email from a writer who had self-published his book but had decided against professional editing because of the extra cost that was involved. I got the feeling that he later regretted his decision.

He asked me this: “With a professional edit and help promoting it, I think the book has potential. I’m stuck on what to do next? I hope you can help?”

Of course, I emailed him back my initial thoughts, and I referred him to a recent post Master the Craft of Writing by my agent, Rachelle Gardner. Basically, she said that most traditional publishers are offering less editing. And as more writers try self-publishing, the levels of editing will vary depending upon how much a person is willing to invest.

In other words, overall, there are more books hitting shelves that have NOT had the intense scrutiny and depth of professional editing that has been typical in the past.

At the same time, there’s been an explosion of online review sites. Readers are becoming more vocal—about both the good and the bad in books. In fact some reviewers are very blunt—they say exactly what they like and don’t like about our stories, down to the tiniest detail.

As the quality of editing is decreasing and reader reviews are increasing, the NEED for editing is becoming more critical in today’s market. Whether we self publish or go the traditional route, we can’t afford to sit back, put our manuscripts out there, and hope for the best. We only hurt ourselves by NOT investing time (and money) into editing.

So what are the benefits of editing?

1. Editing helps please our readers.

We definitely can’t neglect the line and copy edits. Readers don’t want to be taken out of the story because of simple grammar, spelling, or punctuation mistakes. Even worse is when we neglect the substantive edit that can solidify our plot and characters. If our story lacks the pizzazz that comes from the big substantive (or content/macro edit,) readers may not exactly know why they don’t like the book, just that they don’t.

My books have undergone many, many intense edits (read about it here and here). And readers still find faults. I can’t imagine the feedback from readers if my books hadn’t been through all of the various levels of editing.

2. Editing helps us grow in our writing skill.

Every time I have an edit, either from my critique partner or my in-house editors, you can be sure I learn something new. Each tough edit pushes me to examine my weaknesses and then to work at improving them. Without that critical feedback, I wouldn’t have known what areas I needed to grow in. Editing has been one of the best things for my writing career in helping make my books successful. The tough feedback has challenged me to move beyond mediocre and to make my stories really shine.

3. Editing helps us maintain professionalism.

We have a lot of competition for our reader’s attention (internet, movies, video games, busyness of life, etc). We risk pushing readers into their love affair with the competition even more if we rush to put poorly edited books out there. As a writing community, don’t we want to work together to keep our readers and maintain a high standard for our work that sets us apart as professionals? If we consistently put sub-standard work in front of readers, we risk diminishing our profession altogether.

So what do you think? Have you ever skimped on editing because you were in a hurry or didn’t want to invest in the time or money? How do you think editing benefits writers?

3 Factors That Influence How Much Editing a Book Gets

No writer—whether newbie or multi-published—is capable of writing a perfect first draft. Even though we’d like to think our books are made of all sweetness and sugar, we only have to put our manuscript under the scrutiny of a skilled and objective editor or fellow writer to quickly learn that our book has faults—and lots of them.

Recently, Sally Hepworth sent me a few really great questions. She asked: "How much does a book change from first draft to when it hits the shelf? Is it recognizable? Are you embarrassed of your first version?"

While I didn’t keep detailed records of all of the changes in my first two books, I can give estimates. With my debut book, The Preacher’s Bride, about one-fourth of the book was changed in one form or another between my very first draft and what now sits on shelves.

With my second book, The Doctor’s Lady (releasing SEPT. 1st!!), I ended up changing much more than I anticipated. When all was said and done, I probably deleted and rewrote close to one-third of the manuscript—all in bits and pieces here and there.

You’d expect that with each subsequent book the need for editing would diminish rather than increase—and hopefully that will be true over the long haul as we strive to grow in our writing skills. But, ultimately, every author will need some level of editing. The exact amount will depend upon a number of factors:

First, some of the need for editing will depend on a writer’s level of experience. I’m a “young” author and am still discovering what my readers like. Slowly but surely, I’m learning to create likable heroes and heroines and other elements that comprise a satisfying romance. I’m also figuring out my publisher’s expectations. With our first few published books, most of us will have a learning curve. Agents and editors realize that newer authors will need more directing and shaping—which is one of the reasons they can only take on a certain number of debut authors at one time.

Second, every author has a different writing and self-editing process. Some write very precisely during the first draft and won’t need much overhauling of their stories. Others write loosely knowing they’ll have to spend an enormous amount of effort getting the story “right” during the editing phase. I happen to write slowly and carefully with my first drafts and so my own self-editing doesn’t involve any big changes. I also incorporate suggestions from my critique partner—which helps tighten my book, but again, usually doesn’t require major rewriting.

Third, every publishing house offers different levels of editing. Some smaller houses may not have a large or experienced in-house editing staff. Due to the tight economy, bigger publishers might be short-staffed. Once, when I was whining about my edits to my agent, she remarked that while many publishing houses are cutting back on edits mine has actually increased theirs—which says a lot about their dedication to quality fiction. They require about 4 different levels of in-house editing—which is a lot of work!

In summary, I think every book that makes its way to publication (whether traditionally or self-published) should look different than the first draft. If it doesn’t, then it probably didn’t receive enough editing. As I said, nobody can write a perfect first draft. 

Am I embarrassed by my first drafts? Well, let me just say, I’m glad I didn’t rush to self-publish them! I’m grateful for all of the editing, even though it was painful at times. Are my stories edited so much that I wouldn’t recognize them anymore? No. The basic plots and stories are still the same. But the editing takes them from something readers will merely like to something readers can love.

The sign in the picture above sums up the editing process: We can't view having to do a lot of editing as failure. Rather, finding all of the problems within our manuscripts is an opportunity for us to take our books beyond ordinary and make them great.

What about you? Are you surprised by the amount of editing a book needs? How much have your books changed over time? Are they recognizable from your first drafts?

*Photo credit: flickr

What Happens After an Author Finishes a Book Contract?

About a week ago I finished writing the third book of my 3-book contract. The first book was The Preacher’s Bride (2010). The second book The Doctor’s Lady releases in three months (Sept. 1). And the third untitled book (the one I just finished) will release next year in 2012.

You may wonder why my third book has to wait so long for publication—possibly a year or more. And you may wonder what steps the book will go through now that I’m done writing it. And I'll bet you’re wondering (*wink!*) what I’ll be up to next now that I’m done with my contract.

Why does a book have to wait so long for publication? And what steps will a book go through once it’s turned in to a publisher?

The turn-around time from when an author finishes a book until when it hits shelves varies from publisher to publisher and project to project. However, it’s usually a lengthy process, often taking about a year.

When I finish self-editing Book 3 (including getting input from my critique partner), I’ll send it to my editors at Bethany House. I happen to have two—an acquisitions editor and a line-editor. They work together on all my books.

My editors will do an initial read-through of my manuscript. They’ll also ask several other in-house editors to read it, forming an initial reading team. This incredibly talented group of editors will take about a month to read my book. They’ll make individual notes and then compile their feedback. They’ll discuss big changes I’ll need to make (including character arc changes, plot development problems, and any other issues).

One of my editors will call me, and we’ll have a phone meeting to discuss all the things that I’ll need to “rewrite.” This call is always painful for me. It’s never easy to hear your story isn’t perfect and may need overhauls. But I have learned to trust my publisher’s advice. They have their pulse on what readers love. They know what sells. And they’re only trying to help me shape my book into something readers will enjoy.

Once I have my rewrites (aka substantive/macro edits), I’ll spend six to eight weeks working through the changes. Obviously, the amount of time this takes varies depending on how much is “wrong.” I’ve found this stage to be one of the most critical but also one of the hardest.

After I finish my rewrites, my editors will reread the entire manuscript, and possibly involve another team of readers (as they did on The Doctor’s Lady). They may give me more rewrites, although not quite as intensive. And once I go through the manuscript again, I’ll be finished with the hard work on my part. By this point a couple more months have elapsed.

Finally, my line-editor will begin going through the manuscript. She’ll spend approximately a month checking for accuracy of historical details, smoothing out awkward sentences, looking for repetition, and all the little things that need fixing. About this time, the cover is developed, the sales team begins selling the book to distributors, and marketing puts together the marketing plan.

Next the book heads to copy-editing with a completely different editor who looks for typos, grammar mistakes, punctuation, etc. I read the Galleys which is my last time to make changes. Then finally, another editor makes a last run through the manuscript.

Whew. Eventually, after all that, the book is ready for its first print run.

Did I mention the entire process is lengthy?

What happens after an author finishes his or her contract?

After an author finishes a contract, there are never any guarantees the publisher will automatically dole out another. Obviously, they’ll take into consideration how well books have sold. They hope to see an earn-out on advances and preferably a steady increase in sales with each book.

Since I’m off to a good start with sales and have proven myself to be a hardworking author, hopefully my publisher will want to continue our partnership. I’ll spend some time brainstorming future book ideas, dialog with my agent, and figure out where we both see my writing career heading. Then we can put together a proposal to give my publisher for another contract (hopefully for 3 more books).

But what if my publisher decides not to offer me another contract? Will we consider other publishers? What if we want to look for a better offer elsewhere?

These are all questions I’ll be dealing with over the next couple of months. As with anything in the writing industry, nothing is ever certain. And nothing is ever easy. But we keep going anyway because of the pure and simple love of writing.

So what do you think? Does anything about the length of the publication process surprise you? And now that I’ve shared my uncertainties, I’d love to hear yours. What uncertainties are you facing with your writing future?

*Photo Credit: flickr jayneandd

How Much Editing Does a Contracted Book Need?

I'm in the process editing The Doctor’s Lady (releasing in September). Technically, it’s the fifth edit. Here’s a brief over-view of the editing process I’ve gone through with this book:

Edit #1: I self-edited the book (Using the three stages of self-editing).

Edit #2: I sent the book to two different talented writers for critiques. I evaluated their response and made changes accordingly.

Edit #3: I turned in the book to my publisher. They had a committee of editors read the book. Based on their collaborative feedback, they required me to do a major overhaul on several key points within the book (involving character arc’s and major plot threads).

Edit #4: My two in-house editors read the book again. This time they had 8 pages of “smaller” requested changes (things like clarifying setting, fleshing out a couple of minor characters, tightening some pacing, etc).

Edit #5: After getting the input of additional readers (professional editors and my agent), my editors felt like the book was “almost ready.” But they gave me a few more suggestions (approximately 2 pages) based on input from the readers.

Once I turn in the book, it'll be out of my hands. First it will go on to line-editing. One of my in-house editors will consult me as she combs through the manuscript. She’ll look for word flow issues, repetitions, historical accuracy of details, etc.

Then the book will go to copy-editing where a different editor will check for minute details (commas, periods, spelling, etc.). Lastly, I’ll get my galleys. That will be the final time I can make any minor changes.

But what does all that editing really mean? I’ll attempt to answer a few questions.

1. Wow, you might be saying. That’s a LOT of editing. Does every book need so much?

No. Not every book or every publisher will require the same amount of editing. It varies from publisher to publisher and book to book.

On the other hand, yes, every book going down the traditional publication pipeline gets edited. Most publishers will ask the author to do at least one substantial edit, and then go on to give the book a line and copy edit.

2. If a book needs extensive editing, why do publishers agree to publish it? Especially with so many other books out there that might not need as much work?

First, publishers (like agents) can spot when an author’s writing skills and story-telling ability are of publishable quality. And they can also spot novels that fit the needs of their target readers, even if there are some parts of it that may need adjusting to give it broader appeal.

Second, no writer anywhere is perfect. Published or not, we can’t produce a perfect first draft. We’ll never be too good for objective feedback. We’ll always be too enmeshed in our stories to see the bigger picture. Thus, even well-told stories and talented authors undergo editing, sometimes even extensive editing.

Finally, most publishers want to invest in authors and not just a book. Each additional book has the potential to expand the author’s readership. Therefore publishers are willing to stick with their authors and work with them.

3. Is it hard to let go of your story and bend it to the will of others?

Yes and no. Yes, it’s never easy to plan a character arc or plot line and then have someone tell you “your readers won’t like this,” and then have to go back through the entire book and weave in something else. It’s downright hard and painful.

But, I’m also realizing I can trust my publisher’s judgment. They know what their fans like. They have an intimate pulse on what sells. They eat, sleep, and breathe the historical romance genre. And really, in the end, they only want my book to succeed as much as I do.

With traditional publication, writers have to be willing to shape their stories so that they’re commercially viable. If a writer won’t make changes to her story (for whatever reason), then a small press may be a better publication option.

4. How much “say” do you have in the process?

I’ve had an incredible amount of dialog back and forth with my editors. I’ve also conversed with my agent since she read my latest draft. While I haven’t felt the need to challenge my publisher on any of the requested changes, if I ever did, I know I’d have an advocate in my agent.

What do you think? Did you realize the collaborative effort that goes into editing a contracted book? How much of your story are you willing to change—is it hard for you to let go? And how much “say” do you need in the process?

*Photo from flickr.

How Much Does a Book Change From First Draft to Final Copy?

No writer that I know has ever written a perfect book on the first attempt. Most writers finish the first draft with the full expectation that they will self-edit and get feedback from others. Even if a writer somehow manages to produce a “perfect” first draft, once we get a book contract, there’s very little chance the book will escape a publisher’s in-house rewriting and editing process.

Yes, change is inevitable. But how much change can the average writer expect?

Heather Sunseri recently asked me: How much did The Preacher’s Bride change from the first draft to the final copy?

Although every writer’s editing experience will vary, I’m guessing my experience with The Preacher’s Bride is fairly typical.

Self-Editing

After I finished writing the first draft of The Preacher’s Bride, I took approximately twelve weeks to self-edit. My self-editing process has evolved more over time, but I’ve mostly used Three Simple Stages of Self-Editing: First substantive edits (big picture changes), then line edits (scene and paragraph changes), and finally, copy edits (smaller detail changes).

Of course the three types of edits will overlap at times, but starting with the big issues and working my way to small problems, helps me stay focused. I can usually cut and change upward of 5000 words during this stage.

Outside Editing

Once I completed my self-editing, The Preacher’s Bride had the input of a several other outside critiques including a beta reader, freelance editor, and three judges (from a contest entry which consisted of the first 15 pages). During this stage of the process, I probably cut or changed close to 5,000 words. It was at this point I completely rewrote the opening chapter into the current version (and Chapter 1 is now available to preview on my Books Page).

It was after these edits, that my book finaled in a nationwide contest for unpublished authors and garnered the attention of my agent. She felt my story was solid enough to send on to a publisher without her edits, and she was able to attain a 3 book deal with Bethany House.

In-House Editing

A team of editors at my publishing house read The Preacher’s Bride and came up with a list of things they thought needed to be changed. Many of these changes had to do with story elements they didn’t feel fit their Bethany House readership. Here are a few of rewrites I made at that point:

• I had to re-do the ending of the book. Originally, I had my main character John stay in prison (to replicate what had happened in real life). But I had to have a Happily-Ever-After and so needed to come up with a believable way to get him home by the end of the book.

• I had to add in a new character arc for my hero. At first I had John struggling intensely with the grief of dead wife. But this made him a bit whiny and negative. So I toned down his grief and had to revamp his arc into a struggle with work being more important than his family.

• I had to clarify some of the historical conflict and make sure I wasn’t overwhelming the readers with the Anglican versus Puritan issues.

• I had to take out a subplot thread regarding John’s past and how he ended up with the scars on his back. My editors thought my first reason was too contrived and so I had to figure out another way for him to get his scars that was more believable and fit the story.

I could literally fill pages with all the in-house changes I had to do. Some were more major than others, and in the end I likely changed up to 15,000 more words between two rounds of substantive edits. Then the book went on to receive in-house copy and line edits as well.

In all, from first draft to final copy, the story slowly and pain-stakingly evolved into what it is today. At least a full quarter of the story is completely different from the first draft, if not more. Some of the changes were chopped out in large sections, but most were chipped out in bits here and there.

How did it feel having to make so many changes? Of course some of the changes were easy, especially the early ones. But there were others that I found much more difficult to want to make, particularly some of my publisher’s requests. At the time, I wondered if I was “compromising” my story and making it into someone else’s.

Now in hindsight, especially in light of what readers are beginning to say about the book, I can see the wisdom in ALL the changes my editors asked to make. The story is giving readers a satisfying reading experience, which in turn makes me very, very satisfied.

We would all do well to have the attitude, “I’ll do whatever it takes to make my story better.” And we can do that by staying humble, teachable, and hardworking.

What about you? How much of your story has changed over time from your first draft? And how much are you willing to change and where do you set the limit?