Editing Myself

As previously mentioned I don't usually work with an editor, so I have to do it all myself. And again: This isn't best practice. The point of an editor is having a second set of eyes to look at your manuscript and spot problems you might've missed or suggest changes you wouldn't have considered to improve the work. Also to tell you the truth. If it's good, if it's bad, if it's really bad and should never see the light of day, an editor worth their salt will tell you. That attention and honesty from a second experienced person is valuable. I'd even say it's not possible to edit yourself. You can revise your own work like I do, but to actually "edit" as it's understood in the industry you need someone else to dig in with you. (Get an editor and listen to them.)

Also important to understand: Editing isn't proofreading. You do fix any errors you find as you go, but editing is focused on the content and style of the work, not small things like typos.

When I edit (revise) my work I rely on my sense of taste. It's not good taste or bad taste, it's my taste. A definite and distinct sense of what I like and want out of my writing that lets me make changes confidently. Developing taste is vital, but takes time and effort. You have to go out of your way to experience a wide range of things in order to really decide what you do or don't appreciate. My taste is the product of years spent writing, reading, talking with folks, and absorbing wisdom from my editor friends. Because I have it I can easily decide what feels right and commit to it in my work.

I also make a point to take time between writing and revising. Patience really is a virtue when it comes to work like this that requires flexibility and attention to detail. When I finish writing a draft I set it aside to ferment for at least three days. Two if I'm on a roll. The wait gives me an opportunity to step back, let possibilities bounce around in my head, and forget exactly what I wrote so I can see it with fresh eyes when I come back. If I jump right into revising without that time for reflection the momentum of what I just wrote makes it easy to miss things.

When it's time to revise I sit down and read the draft all the way through, being honest with myself about the quality of it and what could be better. There's always something I could improve. No draft is perfect, not even the final one, so I look for the weak spots and what needs the knife. Once I've read it I set it aside, make a cup of tea, and think about why the things I noticed weren't right and how to fix it. This is where my taste and gleaned editorial wisdom come into play. It usually doesn't take long to make a plan, then I go back and start making changes.

Since I work in analog for everything up to the final draft this means getting a different color pen so the changes will stand out and going through the piece like a surgeon. I'll cross out words/lines/entire sections, cram new material between lines or in the margins, rework phrases/passages/paragraphs that I like but are missing something, whatever needs doing. If it doesn't serve the overall piece it changes or gets cut. (And working in analog I can see everything together, revisions and original text, and judge if it really is an improvement.)

The major things I look for while revising are:

Consistency
Does everything fit the tone/conceit I chose for the piece? (Ex: Dry and academic, technical, in-world, conversational, etc.) If something doesn't mesh I'll rework it so there's consistency throughout the entire thing. I made a choice in how to present the ideas, it's important to commit to the bit.

Passive voice
Get rid of it. I try to avoid writing anything in passive voice, but we all make mistakes. There are situations where it can be appropriate, but usually not and if I see it I remove it.

Over-explanation and unnecessary words
I try to keep things concise. Only the most load-bearing words make it through to the next draft. The ones that are vital for clarity and conveying the essential flavor of the piece. That means filler words like qualifiers (just, very, likely, only, etc.) and extra adverbs get cut unless they actually serve a purpose and fit the tone. Otherwise it's the knife. I also cut sections that are too specific about minor details. When a passage is overly precise and dictating particulars that I could leave to the reader's imagination, it goes. It's important to trust the readers. I believe in you. You don't need me to hit you over the head with exactly what I've envisioned. I trust you to interpret what I've written into something fun for your table, so I'll let go and leave you to it.

Flow
Does the sentence and paragraph structure read smoothly? I check the timing and pauses while reading and make changes so it feels natural. The goal is to arrange the piece so it won't sound stilted if it's read aloud. It usually comes down to breaking up long sentences that don't serve a purpose, repositioning or nixing commas to set pauses in the right rhythm, and removing accidental repetition. Repetition has its use as a reinforcing device, but if I'm overusing a word/word fragment for no reason then I need to change it up.

Word choice
I try to keep a healthy and entertaining balance between purple and beige. If there's a spot where a different word or synonym would convey what I'm trying to express better than what I've got, I make the change. My vocabulary is my most effective tool. I have an entire arsenal of obscure, archaic, and niche technical terms on standby and I love using them. Words are fun. The challenge is making sure I've used exactly the right ones to capture the nuance of what I'm going for without breaking the tone and flow of the piece or vomiting a thesaurus onto the page. It's another thing that comes down to taste. The right word will click into place in a sentence, slotting in among the other words in a way that sounds natural. It doesn't matter if it's an oatmeal-hued single syllable job suitable for everyday use or an excessively ultraviolet flourish that would be over the top even in an 18th century love letter so long as it's the right word. It's the only word that can do the job perfectly, so of course it belongs there. Refining word choice is the most important step in my revising. As a writer my words are all I have to work with. They're the pins holding my dissected imagination open for you to view. They have to be correct and placed precisely.

After the major things are taken care of I double check for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and other proofing minutia. By then everything is mostly in shape and the only rule breaking is intentional. (You can warp or bend any writing rule if there's a specific reason for it, but it has to be intentional and good. Doing something on purpose doesn't mean squat if it's a bad choice or poor execution that doesn't serve the work.)

Then I read back through the marked up pages and once I'm satisfied my revisions feel right and everything is there for a reason I transcribe it all into a clean copy that will be my next draft. After another two rounds of revisions I've usually got something I'm happy with and willing to send out into the world.

Nothing I've outlined here is new. This is just how writing in drafts and revising them works. Even if I was working with an editor I would still be doing these steps before I sent my manuscript off to them.

I take the time and make the effort to do multiple rounds of revisions because I think it's important to release the best work I can. If I'm going to do something I'm going to do it right. That means accepting that there's always room for improvement and being willing to take a machete to my work in order to reweave the shreds into something better.

Nobody writes a perfect first draft, especially not me.