In part 1, we looked at the editing during the writing process, and the problems it might cause to the overall flow of the story. In this second part we’ll look at editing after the first draft has been written, and whether this process is more suited to a polished, finished product.
Editing After Writing
Most writers separate the two tasks of the writing process – writing and editing –and treat them as such. The first part of the process is the writing, getting the bare bones of the story written and laying the foundations with which to build a brilliant story. The second part of that process – editing – follows a short down time which allows the writer to come back to the story refreshed, with new ideas and a clear understanding of the plot. This down time separates the writer from the story in an objective way.
Writers do a read-through prior to actual editing. This gives them an idea how the story actually reads, however, the constant tweaking of editing as you go means this is just not possible.
Unlike the start-stop process of editing as you write, leaving this process until the story is written allows for an unfettered storyline that is more focused in detail and ideas, even if it is the first messy draft. That’s because the story has been allowed to happen without interference.
Not only that, but it will have taken less time to write because there is no constant back and forth trying to constantly edit everything. The argument here, of course, is that the editing process is just as long anyway, so how is this way more efficient?
It’s more efficient because the first draft, followed by the first edit - as two separate processes - is much quicker than the first draft being editing from day to day, tweaked, changed, then written, then tweaked, then written and then finally finished, only to have the same proper editorial process applied anyway, because even though the writer has edited during writing, it will not be ready for publication. It will still need editing properly. So the process takes twice as long as is necessary.
Mistakes that have been made in the first draft are much easier to spot during a proper, focused first stage edit, and that’s because the writer has taken some time away from it and therefore doesn’t fall into the trap of “not seeing the wood for the trees”. It’s also much easier to spot more complex errors in the characterisation, the plot or the continuity of the story and its events. That’s because the whole of the story is being observed, rather than in snippets.
Plot flaws, sub plots problems, cohesion of story, flow, pace, chronological events, continuity...all these are much easier to spot than they would be if editing as you go. And because there is no “interfering” of previous chapters during the writing process, then it stands to reason that the latter part of the story – the most important part of the entire thing – actually makes sense because earlier events tie in with concluding events as they should. Writers who edit as they go miss this cohesion, which is why their stories meander unnecessarily or lose focus.
By “seeing” the whole story from start to finish, it’s much easier to see what elements have worked and which ones haven’t. This just isn’t possible if you edit as you go, because of the constant changes. With the whole story, some things can be cut, some added, and some changed to make the story much better and stronger. It’s also possible to see story flow, correct pacing and correct continuity errors.
Of course, the best thing about editing after you’ve written the story is that you can add metaphor, similes, motifs and symbolism, foreshadowing, character motives, themes and other complex aspects to certain scenes or chapters, characters and situations that you can’t do if you edit as you go.
Pros and cons aside, the general advice is to leave the process of editing until the whole story is written. Of course, writers can do as they please when it comes to their writing, but there is general advice and certain guidelines in place for a very good reason.Next week: Is it important to have a clearly defined antagonist?