September 29, 2018
Why Rewriting a Novel Is a Bad Idea
Inspiration for this post came after I read about someone almost bragging about having just finished the 26th rewrite of their novel. Editing your book is an essential key to success. Tweaking things here and there or changing your mind and rewriting, say, the ending, can be useful. But there is no benefit in rewriting a novel. I am rarely so absolute in my declarations when it comes to literature, but I’m doing it now.
Rewriting a novel is about as useful as trying to please your audience, and twice as pointless. If a novel needs rewriting as opposed to editing then you are much better off scrapping the whole thing and writing a new story. Let’s see why.
Rewriting a Novel Is an Exercise in Futility
First of all, let’s see why rewriting a novel is a futile enterprise. Presumably, rewriting a novel (again, and again, and again, and again) should make it better, right?
Well, assuming that certain editing tweaks are made along the way (and new problems are not introduced) then yes, it will slightly improve it, at least from a technical standpoint. You will catch a few errors, and you might come up with some new ideas.
However, proceeding like that is like setting up a machine gun in your living room to kill that fly you heard buzzing a while ago. You might end up killing the fly, demolishing your own house at the same time.
Rewriting a Novel is not the same as editing It
Editing is about zeroing in on specific issues – whether linguistic or narrative – that can be corrected with certain implementations. A great editor usually deploys a “surgical strike” method of editing; a few strategically crucial changes that make a difference without disrupting the author’s vision.
To rewrite a novel (not to mention, rewriting a novel multiple times) is futile. It doesn’t address the original problems, while it probably introduces new ones. But why do I say that?
Rewriting a Novel Introduces Serious Risk
Writing fiction is an affective process. You need to convey emotions, state of mind, or thoughts. The problem with rewriting a novel is that it is an inherently clinical process.
You might have heard a phrase attributed (probably erroneously) to Ernest Hemingway:
Write drunk; edit sober.
What this little literary piece of wisdom implies is that one should write with emotion (a subjective process) and edit with reason (an objective process).
Rewriting a novel disrupts the natural flow of writing. A writer who attempts to rewrite their novel applies an objective process to a subjective endeavor.
It goes without saying that the more the rewrites, the more damaging the process for the end result. A novel that has been rewritten… 26 times, is no longer a work of fiction. Rather, it is a workshop item, clinical and devoid of affective power, sanitized to the point of being beyond recognition.
“You Don’t Complete a Shakespearean Adaptation; You Abandon It”
Kenneth Branagh said that. And he’s 100% right. Furthermore, it applies to all works of fiction. There comes a point that an author needs to say “alright, I’ve done the best with it, there’s nothing more that can be done to improve things”.
Some people might object to that. They might think, there’s always room for improvement. There are two aspects here, one relative and one absolute.
The relative way of seeing the matter is basically an issue of value. Let’s suppose that yes, you could see improvements for as long as you keep attempting them. Is the time and energy you’ll invest worth the improvement? The answer is almost always no for editing (and always no for rewriting).
No matter how great an editor, there is a limit to what can be done to improve a text. This is the second aspect, the absolute one: a novel is only as good as its structure.
Rewriting a Novel: On Narrative Structures
In other words, the way a narrative is structured is usually such a core, cemented element inside a novel that it’s virtually impossible to alter it without scrapping the novel. That’s why rewriting is doomed to failure.
To attempt to rewrite a novel is like changing the foundation of a building without causing its collapsing: impossible. It’s much easier to just pull the building and start afresh.
In conclusion, if you’re not happy with your novel even after some serious editing, the reasons are structural. And if that is the case, you could rewrite the damn thing 100 times. It will change nothing.
There’s nothing wrong with saying “good enough“. Sometimes “good enough” is all you need. Perhaps it wasn’t what you intended – it happens to all authors (including this one) and it’s part of the improving process. Give this novel a kiss, let it loose, and focus on new experiences.
6 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
An excellent article although the author should consider using the word ‘scrapping’ rather than scraping.
And that’s why editing is important. Thanks for catching that!
I am rewriting my novel for these reasons:
* I used “had” and “was” over 1,000 times
* I did not “show” rather than “tell”
* I did not use “said” 90% of the time for dialogue tags
* I didn’t really tell a story, I explained a story
Rewriting a novel dozens of times may be futile, but rewriting it to fix mistakes is necessary to make what could have been a bad novel into something that will/could instead be something beautiful and good.
As I often say, each author is the ultimate authority regarding their work. They have (or should have) the final say; and bear the responsibility.
Having said that, I’d argue that everything you describe can be rectified with editing, rather than rewriting. Rewriting often introduces new errors, because our brain operates in a different mode.
Thanks for your comment! š
Interesting post, though perhaps you might be breaking your own rule in this case about being “prescriptive” rather than “descriptive”. The reason I say that is because, while reading this, it reminded me of the novel writing process of Lauren Groff who by all accounts is a successful writer of literary novels, and who says she writes the draft of her novel in longhand with pen and pad and then THROWS IT ALL AWAY (!), and then starts all over again. She says she may do this several times for each novel before proceeding on to an editing mode.
You’re absolutely correct regarding the pre/descriptive part. I do confess it in the introduction as well: “I am rarely so absolute in my declarations when it comes to literature, but Iām doing it now.” Maybe we can call it the exception that proves the rule.
As for the example you shared: Generally, I think authors should do what works for them ā and that can indeed involve some extreme things, as in this example. Pure speculation on my behalf, but doing something like that (i.e. throwing it all away) would certainly create some intense emotions. If an author could work with them, maybe that’d be one sort of modus operandi ā one I certainly wouldn’t recommend!
Thanks for your comment.