I’m undertaking a 1000-day reinvention project, blogging here daily to track my progress. In Sunday Planning, I plan for the week ahead.
This week I’m going to redraft my book. I have a first draft, but it’s not in the voice and structure I want. So I’m going to redraft it, to use terminology borrowed from novelist and short story writer Dean Wesley Smith.
In Killing the Top Ten Sacred Cows of Publishing: #3… Rewriting, Smith says you don’t have to rewrite to make something good, despite all the emphasis on using critique groups and developmental editors and rewriting multiple times.
He does, however, sometimes redraft his books. He distinguishes this from rewriting as well as from touch-up drafts and spell-checking drafts:
REDRAFT: That’s when you take the typing you have done and toss it away, then write the story again from your memory of the idea. When you are redrafting, you are working from the creative side of your brain.
REWRITE: That’s when you go into a manuscript after it is finished in critical voice and start changing things, usually major things like plot points, character actions, style of sentences, and so on. When you rewrite like this, you are working from the critical side of your mind. This often comes from fear or from workshop advice.
TOUCH-UP DRAFT: When you run through a manuscript fixing small things, things you wrote in notes while writing, things your trusted first reader found. Often very small things or typos. This draft takes almost no time, often less than half a day for a full novel, sometimes only an hour or so.
SPELL-CHECKING DRAFT: Since so many of us work with our grammar-checkers and spell-checkers off, we need a spell-check draft, often done before the manuscript is given to a first reader. This often takes a an hour or so for a full novel.
Redrafting non-fiction will look different than redrafting fiction. With fiction, all the details are up to you. With non-fiction, there are details that matter that are not up to you. My first draft has many short descriptions of stories from movies, tv, and novels as well as short explanations of philosophical ideas that relate to reckless romance. I will read the sections I’ve written (often with the help of ChatGPT or a Google search) to get the ideas and facts in my head. Then I’ll redraft into my own voice and structure.
I imagine as I do this, and as I absorb the philosophical ideas I’m writing about better, I’ll be able to draft straight from my head instead of having to do research first.
Or, an alternative is that I don’t even mention the philosophical inspiration and ideas behind the work. That would make the book likely punchier and more interesting. I could include short quotes from some philosophers or other thinkers. As I redraft Reckless Romance perhaps it will become clear to me how much I should reference complicated philosophical ideas versus just digesting them and presenting my own personal philosophy.
In the future, I aim to write my books in three drafts, as Smith does:
First draft I do as quickly as I can, staying solidly as much as possible in my creative side, adding in things I think about as I go along, until I get to the end of the draft. Again, I try to write as fast as the project will allow since I have discovered a long time ago that if I just keep typing, the less chance I have to get in my own way and screw things up.
Second draft I spellcheck and then give to my trusted first reader.
Third draft I touch up all the things my first reader has found and then I mail the novel or story.
For my next book Reckless in Relationship, I will aim to write in three drafts.
Actually for this next version of Reckless Romance, I will aim to write it in three drafts.
In another blog post Being Clear on Rewriting and Other Stuff, Smith shares Heinlein’s rules for writing, from Of Worlds Beyond: The Science of Science Fiction Writing, an edited collection of essays on writing science fiction:
- You must write.
- You must finish what you start.
- You must refrain from rewriting except to editorial order.
- You must put it on the market.
- You must keep it on the market until sold.
Those are such bold rules; I love them! I’ve started a lot of books but only finished and published one. It’s time to start finishing books, and getting them on the market. I had trouble getting art finished when I first started working as an artist. Then I entered shows and I had a reason and deadline to get them entirely finished, including a signing them, framing them, and wiring them for hanging. With book writing I don’t have any such deadlines, unless I impose them myself.
In that blog post, Smith also shares his own rules for writing:
1… I do not rewrite. I cycle back and forward through the manuscript as I write, thus ending up with a clean first (and final) draft.
2… I do not use ideas and haven’t for decades. I use triggers to get me typing with a character and I just entertain myself from there. (You guys have all followed that here through some of my challenges.)
3… I never know where a story is going or the ending. If I did know, chances are I would get bored and quit writing the story. I have the attention span of a flea and write to entertain myself only.
4… I never write to market or even care. I never much think about the final product or what it will be. I know I will figure that out later after I am finished. My focus is on the fun of the process of telling a story.
5… I try to practice something every story or novel, one area, one detail.
6… I think anyone who uses an editor of any sort (besides a copyeditor to find typos) needs to take some classes on self confidence. Then grow a backbone and trust their own work. Same goes for more than one first reader. (Go ahead, give me the excuses for having three beta-readers on a story and why you don’t trust your own work enough to leave it alone.)
7… I follow Heinlein’s Rules.
I love his counterintuitive unconventional idea about not using an editor. I really resonate with that. I want my writing and work to shine with my own voice, not be subdued by committee or critique.
In redrafting my book, I am aiming at a structure somewhat like Steven Pressfield’s in The War of Art and Turning Pro. In these books, he presents a short essay or thought per page, organized not into chapters but into three “books” or parts. This makes for an engaging read, I think. I often find nonfiction books a slog. Chapters get bogged down in exposition and explanation and argument. Sharing individual ideas, almost like a daybook of sorts, appeals to me as more modern and fun. I do know that some readers won’t like such a structure. But I can’t make my books for everyone, just like I can’t make my art for everyone.
However, I’m still using chapters, one per principle of recklessness. I have come up with nine. They are not orthogonal to one another; that is, they have overlap. And I could definitely come up with some more. Ray mentioned vulnerability to me as important in romance. It is, and especially so in reckless romance, where the key is to put yourself at risk, not try to control everything and keep everything safe. I could add vulnerability, and I might do so. I contrast each principle with its reckful counterpart, for example Transformation over Stagnation and Freedom over Fear. What would be vulnerability’s counterpart? Maybe protection.
But perhaps for now I have enough principles. I can always do different ones for different books. This week, I aim to get my first redraft done, and into shape to be touched up and spell-checked. That’s a bold deadline but not unreasonable given I have all the ideas and examples ready to go. And I can write very fast, if I get into a flow state.