Premature . . .
By virtue of this blog or that six degrees of separation thing, where a friend of a friend of my third cousin writes to me, I get emails asking me something about publishing all the time. And I guarantee you that over the last five years, I have been asked the following twenty times, in one form of another:
Dear Erica . . . question for you. I worked on my novel for a year and a half and finally started querying agents. I got three requests for partials and sent them. Now two have asked for the full. The only problem is since I queried four months ago, I actually started showing my manuscript to some writer-friends and realize the pacing is off and I've totally changed the first three chapters, and actually now that I think about it, it affects the synopsis. What should I do?
Um . . . avoid premature ejacu-- . . . . oh, never mind.
I wonder about when enough is enough. When you've tweaked and rewritten and poked at and prodded and kneaded a book into submission. When you've gotten it into submission, THEN it's time to submit. But I have to question the whole dynamic at work with prematurely querying and sending out your book.
And for me, some of it boils down to this. What are you open and willing to HEAR? Because if you are asking for esteemed opinions AFTER you have submitted . . . why bother? Shouldn't at that point it be too late to fix (in practicality versus a philosophical sense of it's never too late)? Did you just want to hear that you were great? Or did you really want to lay bare your novel and take it to the next level? And if it's the latter, the point when that occurs should be much earlier in the process.
Are you afraid to hear that after a year or more, you still need to do a lot more work? Then I suggest you read this. And while you're at it, pre-order his book because it's great. And I know this because I read it and blurbed it.
And then, since the topic was raging over at Konrath's . . . and since a certain someone wrote me an email on the subject . . . I often then think this speaks to self-pubbing. To the "it's good enough" . . . the "might as well publish it." I have to wonder whether things then get pubbed that really needed to peculate for longer.
And I sometimes, still further, think this comes down to fear. Fear of what you might hear. And for the quintillionth (is there such a number?) time, I am grateful for my writers' group, which makes sure the writing foreplay goes on a little longer, and with whom I have great trust, not fear, of what I might hear.
Thoughts?

31 comments:
I loved Stephen's post. I really deeply hope that I know when my ms is ready. For me, I'm afraid I might revise it to death. I think that the first time you try to go after publishing a novel is a ton of learning. This isn't my first written novel, but it's the first I've really revised with an eye toward publication. I think that it's a huge learning experience. I want it to be ready to go when I send to agents. But, sometimes I wonder if I'll revise too much. Listen to too many critters. Boil the book down to dregs. Be too open, and forget my instincts. Can't ignore the instincts. Thanks for this post today--as you can tell, it hit a nerve! I'm so trying to avoid subbing prematurely.
For me the issue is timing -- when do I put my work out there for critique. I think each writer has their own time. For me, I've learned that I need to go underground for quite a while before allowing anyone to give me critique. I found I was too willing to believe every singe critique, and soon I lost my voice. Now I wait until I don't know what else I can do, and then send it out for critique. I think the premature critique issue stemmed from fear and lack of confidence in my own instincts and abilities as a writer.
Had to chuckle at "peculate." Percolate perhaps? LOL!
Heather:
I do know there is a flipside. You can tweak it to death, fret over it forever, and never submit--but I think even THAT is a side of the coin as far as fear--fear of rejection or whatever.
I always feel like if my critiques start getting to be about micro things--this word or that one . . . versus larger macro elements, that I am close. If you find yourself tweaking single sentences . . . then it's probably time to let the manuscript fly the coop.
I"m trying to avoid premature equerying this time around. I think I sent my first novel too soon (something you helped me realize) and hopefully I've learned my lesson.
Beth:
Yup. And if you can believe, auto-spellcheck did that! Will fix, LOL!
And yes . . . I agree . . . most definitely depends on when to show--but HOPEFULLY before you send out queries . . .
I've been very busy the past couple of weeks working on three solid pages of editorial comments for my thriller Pocket-47. As you know, it has been through several rewrites over the past three years or so, and once again I'm dealing with some fairly substantial issues. So really, even after your book is accepted for publication, it's not actually finished until your editor says it's finished.
Melanie:
I think everything is a learning process . . . I don't know that it was too soon . . . but I also think (don't know . . . ) that having those beta reads helped expose whatever your writing needs to you. I know my Achilles' heels now, and can largely avoid them, but I only learned what they were over time and critiques and writing a whole helluva lot.
Jude:
And I guarantee you I know what some of the issues are . . . and that's honed by reading a ton, writing a ton, and working as an editor for years. And the more times you go through those sort of substantial revisions, the easier it becomes to spot your own issues, again, if people are open.
There were some plotting issues, some action scenes that needed to be beefed-up, some scenes that needed greater emotion, a few pages of diatribes that didn't really add to the story and needed to be deleted...
So definitely a learning experience!
They loved the main character, and they loved the "voice," so my advice to anyone working toward submitting for publication would be to pay extra close attention to those two things.
And don't get me wrong -- I'm grateful you pointed out the things you did!
I definitely think it's helped me because I'm working on those issues NOW, before querying, which is the way it should be.
Yep. fear.
Micro vs macro critique is a big issue for me. I left a critique group because all I ever got was micro critique. That's the stuff I can already fix. It's the macro stuff that I don't see so well in my own work. It's impossible to get macro type critique with a 20 minute read and five 30 second critiques. You can't get a sense of pacing, character development, escalating conflict/stakes,plot problems, etc., in that type of crit. setting.
Your advice to read , read, read is absolutely spot on. I'm finding that multiple reads of fabulous books is helping me be able to see my own Achilles' heels and providing me with solutions. Reading like this has also greatly improved my abilities to give helpful critiques to others.
Jude:
The voice was DEFINITELY nailed.
:-)
But I also don't know if you can separate out one thing or another. It all has to fall into place. If coincidence drives a plot and it's not working as a whole, then a great voice can't save a book. Might make it memorable, say . . . because of the voice . . . but these days . . . the whole package has got to be as close to perfect as you can get it.
E
P.S. And I said it on email . . . but I'll reiterate it here . . .
CONGRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Huh. My original comment got eaten. Well, some people just get excited and send things off, but there's a lot of value to letting a manuscript "age" for a month or so before sending it off, so you can read it with more objective eyes. I'm not saying I'm patient enough to do that, most of the time, but it's a good idea.
Thanks, Erica! You know how excited I am about it. :)
I agree the whole package should be as close to perfect as possible. But even after all the critiques, beta reads, rejection comments, etc., are said and done, the editor who finally accepts your book for publication is probably going to suggest even more revisions. Sometimes sweeping ones. So I think it's healthy to remember that a book isn't really finished until you're holding the bound copy in your hands.
I am. The. Most. Impatient. Person. In. The. World.
I can't even finish. A Sentence. Before I put. A Period.
But I'm working on
Darn, I hit "Publish Your Comment" early.
:)
Erica--thanks for the wonderful advice. About the minute changes.
I'm the first to admit I have some fear of putting it out there. But, I'll make myself, when it's time. And, I love Mark's advice--of letting it sit for a while. Time away really shows you the flaws and missed opportunities!
Oi! *raises hand*
I've done this FIVE times! FIVE different stories!
The last one was tough because when I looked at it again, after six months tucked away safely with the dust bunnies, I realized I needed to CUT chapters two AND three!
I told a writing buddy to bitch-slap me if I try to query my next novel before it ages enough to remove the tannins and mellow out. . .
uh, what was the topic again?
LurkerMonkey: Very funny. But too true.
I'm a big believer in letting things "age," as someone else noted. When I leave something I've written for a week or so and then come back to it with fresh eyes, I always see things I could do better.
Mark:
So a manuscript is like fine wine?
:-)
Beth:
I think micro editing is a little rude because it often amounts to changing someone's voice or style or word choices. If a writer needs THAT much help . . . then I think micro-edit a page or two and guide them toward a writing course. Macro is where you start to see the big picture of pacing and characterization . . . the things that elevate something from the meh-pile.
Jude:
Most definitely . . . which points to my self-publishing comment, because if YOU (meaning you, Jude, in this process) feel the revisions your editor is suggesting are really elevating your book? And if you had instead just figured, "What the heck, I'll put it on Kindle . . . " then . . . it wasn't taken that extra mile. [Though I know you don't believe in self-pubbing, generally.]
Lurker:
ROFLMAO. Yes . . . I think I know that about you by now.
magolla:
LOL! Oh, gosh, I had no idea this would hit so close to home for some people. :-)
melody:
I used to hate rewriting. Now I actually really like it for precisely that reason.
This is an especially timely post, btw, because I just finished the first draft of my current book TODAY. And I've already sent out the first 50 queries. But it's OK, see, because it was totally ready.
No, in reality, I'm going to do something new: sit on the project for a few weeks and work on something else. I think it'll help me to ignore it so I can have fresh eyes later and so I can let the emotion drain away when it comes time to rewrite.
LurkerMonkey: You scared me when you said you'd sent out 50 queries. PLEASE don't--not yet!
I don't think anyone should send anything out until they are finished and it is ready. Once something is sent out, changes can be made on another version, and if it is sent out again, the second version can be sent out.
I believe a good deal of this has to do with confidence and discipline.
Stewart:
I think discipline is part of it, or maybe patience. Writing is definitely a marathon, not a dash.
Cheese.
Post a Comment