Maybe you have hit a wall. "Revision" in your
writing has turned into a series of minor word changes and sentence
alterations. You don't feel as if you are really
revising. You’re simply marking time, waiting for some new thought, some new
way to express your ideas. How to break
out of this funk?
One my go-to solutions at this point is an old book. Revision by Kit Reed was published in
1991 but I still find it useful. It was written for the fiction writer. I'm usually
stuck in a mess of non-fiction or creative non-fiction. Will any of Reed's
techniques be able to help the non-fiction writer, you ask? I do feel somewhat like a trespasser, a
person visiting a church I don't attend. If I sit in a foreign pew and stare at
someone else’s' altar, will God still hear me?
If I read a book about revising fiction,
will it help me out of my non-fiction slump?
I can say that it does.
Kit Reed is ready for doubters like me: "Even attitudes
need revision," she says almost immediately. (p. 4) I have been clinging to the idea that I lack
the ability to go any further with my stories. I read this sentence in Reed's
book and sheepishly recognize that part of my so-called slump concerning this
latest round of rewrites might be a result, not of ability, but the other "A" word: attitude.
Revision, Reed points out, ". . . closes the distance
between you and your audience." (p.10)
So, revision is not about what the writer wants to say as much as what
the writer wants the reader to know. Have I been going about this all
wrong? I was writing a series of
chapters relating the historic development of forensic science. The first story
tells of Paul Revere who identified the war-torn body of a friend from the
false teeth Revere had made for him. As I was writing my Paul Revere story,
members of my critique group kept saying: "We just want to know about the
teeth." I got so caught up in Paul
Revere the silversmith, Paul Revere the father of eight children, Paul Revere the
Revolutionary, that I included all of those things when I should have been
focusing on Paul Revere the maker of false teeth. Kit Reed encourages the
revising writer to stop thinking about the story at a certain point and
focus on the receiver of the story.
My critique group was giving me the same advice.
Reed divides revision into two basic types: 1) draft
writing, draft revision; and 2) block construction (or revising as you go).
(pp. 29 - 32) Draft revisers write the
complete story before beginning revisions. They may make large organizational
changes between one draft and the next.
Block constructionists work on one sentence until it is perfect then
move to the next. They work on one paragraph until it is perfect and so on.
I am a draft writer. I need a beginning, middle, and end
before I can make any changes. I admire people who can work from an outline or
write the last chapter before they write the first, but I'm not one of those
people. I start each story with a vague idea of what I hope to accomplish, who
my characters are and, if I'm lucky, something of a plot. Even a work of non-fiction needs this basic
plan.
After several revisions, however, when the story seems
"cooked,” Reed reminds us that there is still more to do:
“No matter which method
we choose, sooner or later we come up against that moment when we have written
"the end" and discover we still need to consider one more reading,
for that third major kind of revision: revision to strengthen structure and
story.
This relates to an important
point. There are things you have to do
even after you think you are finished." (p.38)
One of the great mysteries of my writing life is why, after
I've spent so much time researching, reading, thinking, and preparing to write
a story, I can't just skip all the junk and go immediately to a perfect
piece. Kit Reed tells me I'm not alone.
As frustrating as it sometimes becomes, revision is part of the package. She
suggests three ways to tell whether a piece is really done: 1) by reading the
works of others and comparing what you've written. 2) by putting the work aside
and giving yourself distance from it. 3) by allowing outside readers (critique
groups, friends, even editors) to judge whether the piece continues to need
work.
I have done all of these things with past work and the truth
is, they are all helpful. Unfortunately, the answer I really wish for (Someday you'll get it down perfectly in one
try!) doesn't exist.
Reed does provide me with an alternative: a series of
step-by-step questions to ask myself as I rework my latest story. The author
means her book to guide fiction writers. Will her suggestions help me over the
wall I've hit with my non-fiction pieces?
Some do:
Am I saying what I mean?
Are my word choices working for or against me? What about sentence variety? Do I sound like me or the last writer I read?
Is my opening interesting? Does my story
really begin here? Have I added enough
(or too much) detail?
I rethink the beginning to my piece on Zachary Taylor. I had
started with the day he became ill. Does my story really start there? My book is about forensic science. Why is
Zachary Taylor even interesting to a forensic scientist? This story must begin with his death and the
reasons it was considered mysterious enough to warrant forensic research. I
want to grab my audience, too. So I start on the day Taylor died:
"July 9, 1850. The news spread
quickly: the President of the United States was dead. Many, many people were
glad to hear it."
This opening feels better. I have set the time of the story,
the character, and a statement that just might make my reader want to know
more.
As I begin to write a piece on Jesse James, I keep Reed's
question in mind: Am I saying what I mean?
I mean to tell a story about
forensic science so how do I turn an outlaw's story into a story of
science? I must start this story not at
Jesse's death, but at the point his death becomes a forensic mystery. I begin
the story sixty-six years after Jesse's death, when an elderly man claims that
he really is Jesse James. I feel as if I'm beginning to get to the
"teeth" of all my stories.
1 comment:
I found a copy of Kit Reed's Revision for a steal at amazon.com. Thanks for the recommendation.
Post a Comment