# Rewriting When It's Godawful



## luckyscars (Oct 4, 2020)

Here's the situation: You have written a story...and it sucks. 

You like the general idea behind it, enough you don't want to just throw the whole thing away, but the problems are rife throughout, to the point there are very few or zero scenes that are remotely in the ballpark of acceptability. 

Do you:

(1) Start completely over, referring to the original as a guide
(2) Start completely over, not referring to the original, try to revisit it 'fresh' and with no loyalty to the prior iteration.
(3) Go through the existing text and make a zillion painstaking corrections to try to rescue it
(4) Give up and go stick your head in the oven.


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 4, 2020)

(3c) Never speak of it again.


----------



## codyrobi613 (Oct 4, 2020)

Lol. I'm currently doing option one to rewrite and expand a short story (that was ok at best) into a book


----------



## TWErvin2 (Oct 4, 2020)

Make a list of what worked with the initial effort and what didn't.
With all of that in mind, _if you think the story is worth telling_, start over, keeping an eye on the list, to keep on the right track and avoid the pitfalls.

I say 'if the story is worth telling' because you probably have many other tales to tell, and you have to decide if it is worth the time and effort. Or possibly that, at this moment in your writing career, you may not have the skills to tell the tale. In that case, save it (with the list--as a reminder), and move on to the next project.


----------



## Tiamat (Oct 4, 2020)

So far that answer for me is: Set it aside, go write other things, and then if the idea still won't quit nagging you, take another shot at it a few months or years later. That said, I've found that sometimes the second attempt still sucks--but differently, and possibly less so. Option four is always on the table. (Unless, like me, you have an electric oven.)


----------



## Pamelyn Casto (Oct 4, 2020)

What works best for me is to put the story away and start work (or continue work) on something else. Sometimes after ignoring the bad piece for a while, then coming back to it, it's easier to see where it can be improved. An intense period of reading can also help. We can get inspired by other writers' strategies. I write lots of poetry, short fiction, essays, am working on a couple of novels, and a nonfiction book, etc. so I *always* have work that needs improving. The oven is never an option for me. I have too much work to do in getting my work to shape up the way it should. Literally hundreds of pieces are patiently waiting for my attention. Some bad pieces have been with me for over twenty years . . .


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 4, 2020)

(5): put down the pen and never take it up again.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 4, 2020)

Put it away and go about my normal business while it turns over vaguely in my head, until one day there is a degree of coalescence and I feel I can rewrite it, or include some essential parts of the idea into a different story.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Oct 4, 2020)

I would personally rescue it only if I got the right feedback. In a rejection I got it said (hence me rescuing it and rewriting it): needs more prose, read choppy in some places, you got the technology right. People sugarcoat often but I know it's because they don't think I have thick enough skin despite the fact I respect them despite their opinions. I respect them and sugarcoating which was probably best since I have an emotional disability ( although now I am stable according to my doctor). I can accept that I need to keep improving and that feedback is important despite this. I need to read out loud if not dictating. That is to say people should respect abledness and it's brother or twin that represents the opposite. Its an attitude I have seen. I got a story I got paid for despite some saying it had problems. I would take the less cynical approach to rewriting. Because of my unique background and circumstances. I suspect scrapping wasn't a option I wanted. I rewrote the old story many months later since I wanted to since I always thought it had potential. Now if it is a bad approach many famous writers have said rewriting is for them or never rewrite. And between the long period of acceptances of short stories it seems to me worth it. A zillion is an exaggerated number. Writing is for most of us a solitary pursuit. I don't want to throw away my muse. It can be used. A bad story is subjective. I don't know what that is. I do know what rewriting is. Sounds like biased language used to discuss rewriting. I hope my opinion doesn't sound negative. I am the very definition of a rewriter. I rewrote old works of mine. Maybe since I received positive feedback. But now I just reread something. I didn't concentrate on that  strategy before as much as now. Now maybe this is just me. But then I only write short stories since it is therapeutic. For dsylexia rewriting happens even if you don't want to do it. Because of that I rewrote often. Then I need to double check for mistakes. So yes dyslexia makes this happen quite often in my case.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 4, 2020)

Put it a drawer for 6 months while you deal with the covid crisis, then, without looking at it, write a synopsis; that way you will possibly remember the bits that worked and find a better way to join them up.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 4, 2020)

You're describing what a lot of writers refer to as the "first draft". 

Granted, not everyone likes to draft. But for some writers, writing a crappy/terrible first draft is a normal step in the process. Then they get started writing "Draft 2", now that they have a better idea of the story they want to tell.

I think a lot depends on expectations, as well. If you go into it expecting a near-publishable product on the first shot, you'll either be pleasantly surprised, or terribly frustrated. (For me, it's usually the latter.) :grief:

But if you go into it expecting a "first draft" on the first shot, then you're more likely to be mentally prepared (and, hopefully, _eager_) to tackle the second draft.

Worth considering, anyway! :encouragement:


----------



## TheManx (Oct 4, 2020)

Print out the story, tear it to shreds, burn it in the fireplace, bury the ashes in the back yard.


----------



## Pamelyn Casto (Oct 5, 2020)

I have a huge collection of totally failed haiku. Hundreds and hundreds of completely failed haiku. I don't destroy them because I've at least captured the images I might want to use in other work (and I've done that very thing several times). I find my collection of failures quite handy for my other writing. So I think what can seem to be failure in one sense, can turn out to be helpful in another.  Or that's what I tell myself.


----------



## Deleted member 64995 (Oct 5, 2020)

I put it on pause, I forget it.
Then I reread it, and change it.
I wait a while.
Then I reread it and decide.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 5, 2020)

(1) Start completely over, referring to the original as a guide

I would take it as a story I wasn't quite ready to write. So, I'd put it on hold and come back to it at a later date.


----------



## JJ Dean (Oct 6, 2020)

First 4, then 3, then 1, then 2.


----------



## Sir-KP (Oct 7, 2020)

I did number 2, though not exactly.

The concept of the story was unchanged. The nuance, theme, genre, characters (except protagonist and a supporting character), events, were changed. 

Saved the draft as new doc file, wiped nearly everything out and began the new-same story.


----------



## Phil Istine (Oct 7, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Here's the situation: You have written a story...and it sucks.
> 
> You like the general idea behind it, enough you don't want to just throw the whole thing away, but the problems are rife throughout, to the point there are very few or zero scenes that are remotely in the ballpark of acceptability.
> 
> ...



It depends if it's gas or electric.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Oct 7, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Here's the situation: You have written a story...and it sucks.
> 
> You like the general idea behind it, enough you don't want to just throw the whole thing away, but the problems are rife throughout, to the point there are very few or zero scenes that are remotely in the ballpark of acceptability.
> 
> ...



This doesn't happen to me often, but when it does, the choice is usually #1. I have started completely over, but kept the rough draft to duplicate the idea, and modify the story to make it more palatable. It's a bit of a pain when this occurs, so when I do start over, I make sure that the second attempt works because I don't like to keep reinventing something over and over while wasting so much time on it.

-JJB


----------



## VRanger (Oct 12, 2020)

I like to go off the wall with suggestions sometimes. ;-) Have you let anyone else read it? If not, get someone to do that. Don't tell them you think it's bad. Let them tell you that. Maybe you are your own worst critic. It's not uncommon for even veteran writers to have a crisis of confidence over something they just wrote, when what they just wrote doesn't really have a problem.


----------



## David K. Thomasson (Oct 12, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Here's the situation: You have written a story...and it sucks. You like the general idea behind it, enough you don't want to just throw the whole thing away, but the problems are rife throughout ....


(5) Think more clearly about it.

Suppose a beta reader said of something you wrote: "It sucks. It's rife with problems." Would you consider that to be helpful criticism? I wouldn't. I would want to know _why_ it sucks. If it's rife with problems, tell me -- specifically -- what those problems are. Only when you've done the hard thinking of _identifying_ the problems can you make an intelligent decision whether to repair the piece one problem at a time, or start over on a blank page, or chuck the whole project, etc.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 12, 2020)

David K. Thomasson said:


> (5) Think more clearly about it.
> 
> Suppose a beta reader said of something you wrote: "It sucks. It's rife  with problems." Would you consider that to be helpful criticism? I  wouldn't. I would want to know _why_ it sucks. If it's rife with  problems, tell me -- specifically -- what those problems are. Only when  you've done the hard thinking of _identifying_ the problems can  you make an intelligent decision whether to repair the piece one problem  at a time, or start over on a blank page, or chuck the whole project,  etc.



“It sucks. It's rife with  problems" coming from a beta reader with no clear direction is different  than a self-evaluation. I'd presume that if he thinks it's worth  revisiting, he's going to do the "hard thinking" required to fix it. 

6) Think more clearly about THAT.


----------



## David K. Thomasson (Oct 12, 2020)

TheManx said:


> I'd presume that if he thinks it's worth  revisiting, he's going to do the "hard thinking" required to fix it.


I wasn't alluding to what *luckyscars* would do. He asked _others_ what _they_ would do if their writing sucked and was rife with problems. The point of my reply was that no one could make an intelligent decision about how to proceed based on such empty description. You would have to do the hard thinking of _identifying_ the problems first.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 12, 2020)

David K. Thomasson said:


> I wasn't alluding to what *luckyscars* would do. He asked _others_ what _they_ would do if their writing sucked and was rife with problems. The point of my reply was that no one could make an intelligent decision about how to proceed based on such empty description. You would have to do the hard thinking of _identifying_ the problems first.



The same -- regardless of who it is. If someone thinks the writing sucks and is rife with problems, and they want to try and fix it, why assume they _wouldn't_ do the hard thinking and identify the problems? Kind of a no-brainer. Are they going to just type aimlessly and hope for the best?


----------



## TheManx (Oct 12, 2020)

That might have been a bit snarky. I mean, whatever it takes to keep people from putting their heads in the oven.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 15, 2020)

TheManx said:


> The same -- regardless of who it is. If someone thinks the writing sucks and is rife with problems, and they want to try and fix it, why assume they _wouldn't_ do the hard thinking and identify the problems? Kind of a no-brainer. Are they going to just type aimlessly and hope for the best?



Actually I would be more inclined to identify problem areas and avoid them rather than trying to fix them. 'That bit of the idea doesn't work, I'll leave it out and try writing it without it.' Trying to fix things can just complicate matters and make them worse quite often.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 15, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Actually I would be more inclined to identify problem areas and avoid them rather than trying to fix them. 'That bit of the idea doesn't work, I'll leave it out and try writing it without it.' Trying to fix things can just complicate matters and make them worse quite often.




What? If you've already written the piece -- and you decide to avoid the problem and edit accordingly -- then you're fixing it.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 15, 2020)

This is what happens when people try to talk about writing with ZERO content...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 16, 2020)

My experience of it when it is 'Godawful' is that there is insufficient basis for a rewrite and I am not so much fixing it as writing something new and rescuing some of the ideas, but I guess it's a matter of semantics in the long run.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 16, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> My experience of it when it is 'Godawful' is that there is insufficient basis for a rewrite and I am not so much fixing it as writing something new and rescuing some of the ideas, but I guess it's a matter of semantics in the long run.



Yep, to a degree. I'm hard on myself. So I might think something is "Godawful" -- but if I come back and look at it objectively, then sometimes I can see the concept is good, but the execution wasn't. The amount of editing or rewriting varies, of course.

This is all relative -- that's why context is important...


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 16, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> My experience of it when it is 'Godawful' is that there is insufficient basis for a rewrite and I am not so much fixing it as writing something new and rescuing some of the ideas, but I guess it's a matter of semantics in the long run.





TheManx said:


> Yep, to a degree. I'm hard on myself. So I might think something is "Godawful" -- but if I come back and look at it objectively, then sometimes I can see the concept is good, but the execution wasn't. The amount of editing or rewriting varies, of course.
> 
> This is all relative -- that's why context is important...



It is semantics but kind of an interesting question...

I didn't put much thought in initially to what I meant by 'godawful'. Now that I am, it is apparent to me that I have almost never written anything that I didn't think was 'godawful' at some point.

 I have work that was, at some stage of its journey, such a source of existential anguish that I came _this close _to not only giving up that story but giving up writing entirely. Yeah, it happens. I still think a lot of my work is guano-on-a-plate. 

Curiously, my opinion of my work seldom matches anybody else's. Some of the stories I've written that I really liked nobody else seemed to. Some of the stories I was like 'lol, nobody will want this absolute mess' ended up getting published.

I think that's probably my biggest source of motivation for getting done, honestly. It's this reality that actually writers are very poor self-critics, that often what we deem as colossal failure is really minor, or even not a failure at all. Basically, it's entirely possible, or even probable, for what we deem as 'godawful' to be the exact opposite. 

Once you dispense with the idea that you know a damn thing about whether your writing is good or not...you can simply write according to your instincts and psychologically play the odds: "I hate this...but maybe I'm wrong."

I think I'm quite a poor writer, overall. I think most of my work wavers somewhere between total crap and middling crap with occasional sparks that are 'all right' and that whenever I write something people like it's a sheer accident, like an ape who managed to bash out Twelfth Night on a typewriter. I think that's a perfectly healthy and constructive view to have toward one's work. 

It does lend itself to some problems sometimes, especially when you feel the negativity being reinforced, but, on the whole, I would rather be tepid toward my writing than be in love with it.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 16, 2020)

To illustrate just how acute my dislike of my own work is: I have _never_ read anything I have written in full. The snippets I have read, come with a massive dose of cringe. I have printed copies of my books on my shelf, all of them completely unopened.


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 16, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Some of the stories I was like 'lol, nobody will want this absolute mess' ended up getting published.



I wish I shared your predicament.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 16, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> I wish I shared your predicament.



Honestly, it's not really a predicament, Eternal.

(1) Read a lot to water your brain
(2) Write a bunch of shit that you feel like writing
(3) Edit it to remove that which is objectively and universally 'wrong' (i.e. SPAG, goofs)
(4) Rewrite it until you can't stand it anymore
(5) Submit it and see what happens

^ None of these steps involve self-critique as to whether something is 'good' or not. You may just surprise yourself.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 16, 2020)

Another important thing is to purge your brain of other people's styles. The absolute worst, most 'godawful' writing is that which is dishonest through attempting to ape a certain style or incorporate gimmicks. Good writing is just writing, just words without psychological gimmicks and shoehornery.


----------



## Terra (Oct 16, 2020)

I’ve spent a few decades as a wannabe writer who didn’t write anything more than journaling and the occasional poem, telling myself that it was still considered writing (which it is).  Thing is, that sort of writing was not fulfilling that deep desire inside me.  When I finally acknowledged that and made writing a higher priority in my life, I started spitting out what I considered to be godawful pieces, riddled with writing atrocities ... but I didn’t give up and I didn’t throw anything away or burn anything ... although I did lose a terrible story (with promise) because the silly “free” writing program I was using crashed.  I still hold a resentment to that program regardless of the story being crap and I have yet to go back and write it over.

It’s only been a handful of years since I started investing time and attention and energy into writing, and left the workforce last December to give even more effort to writing. When I sift through some of the stories, poems, essays and so on from five years ago, I see garbage ... BUT I also see a willingness to fulfill a desire to write no matter how raw and helter skelter my pieces were.  The growth in five years is remarkable, and I see that in how and what I write now .... and that feels pretty damn good I continue to struggle with using the same tense throughout a piece and I tend to write passively, but in 2025 I wouldn’t be surprised if those challenges have completely disappeared.

My answer to the initial question in this thread is to keep everything ... if for nothing else, but to recognize the growth in being a writer.  Oh and isn’t it Emily Dickinson whose poetry wasn’t even discovered until after she died, or at least a major chunk of it? For some reason, I feel that some of what I‘ve written and consider to be garbage will be used after I’m gone.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 16, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I didn't put much thought in initially to what I meant by 'godawful'. Now that I am, it is apparent to me that I have almost never written anything that I didn't think was 'godawful' at some point.



I figured it was hyperbole. It should go without saying that you're probably not going to go back and rework something if you don't think there's _something_ worth salvaging.

And yeah, at some point I always think it's shit. It's cliche. It's boring, etc. etc. Sometimes it's true to some degree. Sometimes it's a kind of light paranoia.  

Maybe some people can avoid it, but I can't imagine doing anything worthwhile and creative without going through some phase of self-doubt -- or even thinking, what the hell are you doing? Take up another hobby.  

You have to be hard on yourself, to dig deep, be self-aware. To me, that's how you fix things and improve overall.


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 16, 2020)

Emily Dickinson didn't even want her poetry published, I believe. She must have had beta-readers of some kind, but they may have been friends and family.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 17, 2020)

There Are various sorts of 'Godawful'for me

Godawful. The basic idea simply not good enough to make a story, it's never going to work, there is no oomph in it, or it is simply not believable.

Godawful. There is something in it, but it needs more than that to make it work.

Godawful. The basic idea is not bad, but I wrote that in a hurry, it's all the wrong way round and mixed up. My reasons are coming after the event, stuff like that, I need to think it through.

Godawful.  The story is good , but it is full of basic mistakes like four sentences in a row starting 'Then ...'  It needs a really good edit.


There is usually something salvable in the first, but it will possibly only be an appealing phrase or a character I can use in another story. The others I'll try and work with. And yes, I have written some stories and thought 'Yes, that's good, that's all right', it is only when I come to look at it later that I think 'That's Godawful, really needs tidying up'.


----------



## indianroads (Oct 17, 2020)

I think that pretty much every first draft can be considered godawful - but if it has good bones you can pull it together. However, if the author didn't do their up front work before starting in on the writing, and the work is rife with plot holes, inconsistencies, and just meanders all over the place without any sort of conclusion - I'd suggest trunking it and starting over.


----------



## VRanger (Oct 18, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Another important thing is to purge your brain of other people's styles. The absolute worst, most 'godawful' writing is that which is dishonest through attempting to ape a certain style or incorporate gimmicks. Good writing is just writing, just words without psychological gimmicks and shoehornery.



I'm not at all trying to argue this point, just discuss it, because I'm not sure that's even possible from my own view of the world. If we're widely read, we've probably read authors with every style that interests us. Face it, there aren't that many unique styles to begin with. Having one or more of those styles influencing our own is natural. It's very common to read an interview with a famous author where they discuss which author(s) influenced their style.

I can name three or four which influence mine, and it's not out of any desire to consciously copy their style. For my favorite author, whose entire body of work I've read since I was a kid, and my favorites several times, there is no question that some of him makes it into my writing. However, many of his books did have a little bit of business concerning meals which I include on purpose in mine as a tribute.  I do the same thing with a bit from Elizabeth Peters, who occasionally has her narrator think something, then immediately repeat it in dialogue. She always manages to make it amusing, and I've done that on purpose a time or two in tribute. However, I wouldn't necessarily call either of those things 'style', so I'm digressing.

I certainly agree that a conscious attempt to 'ape a certain style' probably isn't going to turn out well, although in the right hands and with the right skill I don't see why it couldn't turn out just fine. On the other hand, the styles that naturally influence us are, I believe, endemic to authorship.


----------



## David K. Thomasson (Oct 18, 2020)

vranger said:


> I certainly agree that a conscious attempt to 'ape a certain style' probably isn't going to turn out well, although in the right hands and with the right skill I don't see why it couldn't turn out just fine.


Yes, and you're in good company. *Imitating Authors* [Colin Burrow, Oxford University Press, 2019] is a serious study (and defense) of authors imitating authors. Abstract:

Imitating Authors analyses the theory and practice of imitatio (the  imitation of one author by another) from early Greek texts right up to  recent fictions about clones and artificial humans. At its centre lie  the imitating authors of the English Renaissance, including Ben Jonson  and the most imitated imitator of them all, John Milton. Imitating  Authors argues that imitation is not simply a matter of borrowing words,  or of alluding to an earlier author. Imitators learn practices from  earlier writers. They imitate the structures and forms of earlier  writing in ways that enable them to create a new style which itself  could be imitated. That makes imitation an engine of literary change.  Imitating Authors also shows how the metaphors used by theorists to  explain this complex practice fed into works which were themselves  imitations, how those metaphors changed, and how they have come to  influence present-day anxieties about imitation human beings and  artificial forms of intelligence. It explores relationships between  imitation and authorial style, its fraught connections with plagiarism,  and how emerging ideas of genius and intellectual property changed how  imitation was practised. Imitating Authors includes detailed discussion  of authors who imitated (notably Virgil, Lucretius, Petrarch, Cervantes,  Ben Jonson, Milton, Pope, Wordsworth, Mary Shelley, and Kazuo Ishiguro)  and of the theory of imitating authors in Plato, Cicero, Quintilian,  Longinus, Castiglione, the Ciceronian controversies of the sixteenth  century, in legal and philosophical discourses of the Enlightenment, and  in recent discussions about computer-generated poems.
​


----------



## indianroads (Oct 18, 2020)

IMO Few if any authors start out writing in their own voice, because that voice takes time to grow and develop. Most authors have probably read A LOT before ever striking out into their own work, and when they do they tend to stumble around a bit before finding their direction and voice. Through imitation of others, we discover ourselves.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Oct 18, 2020)

I am postponing my short story's rewrite since my descriptive skills have been a lacking which is frustrating. That and I think my short story needs more conflict. I could delete parts of it that don't add conflict. This is the same one I workshopped on the forums. Since I don't think the exposition in the story is helping me set the setting or add tension. I see it as being expository since it's a summary of the character's situation. I did find a book that explains how to apply syntax to write descriptive phrases. It's an old grammar book. No linguistics is mentioned. The book can be used for self-study for description and narration. I need to describe better what happens in the story like a movie. That is a scene which is similar to a kidnapping of the person.

That said the story idea seems good to me since no one has tried this trope before (the invention and how it impacts the character). That is why I will keep trying. I think descriptive prose keeps people from wanting to read my work. It's difficult to write dialogue only and expect them to read the story. Having said that since I have a specific problem regarding that. I keep trying. I invested a lot of money. I want to know if I have what it takes to write only short stories.

I don't want to abandon the idea. Especially when I think it has potential. 

I think I may delete assets just to use the shiny idea like Kyle calls his discovery of a new story idea in a draft.

This idea seems to be interesting. I think I can fix the story I have written but it's mainly the description and conflict which is the problem. As of now it seems to be a dumping ground for ideas for a future draft starting from scratch maybe. I will save the ideas. I might delete the whole thing. Just because I have new ideas to begin a new story based on the story's problem.


----------



## InTheThirdPerson (Oct 20, 2020)

My user name here (and the Patreon page I'm working on setting up) is a direct reference to this very topic.

I wrote a novel in the first person. Super proud and feeling accomplished to have completed my very first full length novel. Then I went back and actually read it from some distance. What I realized was that narrating it in the first person simply required way too much exposition from other characters to describe the action -- I simply couldn't have the main character actively participate in EVERYTHING.

I still really liked the story and the concept, but realized that the only way it has a chance of being any good at all is if I completely rewrite it -- almost from the ground up -- as a third person narrative.

So that's where I am. I'm roughly 3/4 of the way done with the rewrite. It's a tough process because it's really forcing me to rethink some of the story, which I honestly feel like is making it better.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 20, 2020)

vranger said:


> I'm not at all trying to argue this point, just discuss it, because I'm not sure that's even possible from my own view of the world. If we're widely read, we've probably read authors with every style that interests us.





David K. Thomasson said:


> Imitating Authors analyses the theory and practice of imitatio (the  imitation of one author by another) from early Greek texts right up to  recent fictions about clones and artificial humans. At its centre lie  the imitating authors of the English Renaissance, including Ben Jonson  and the most imitated imitator of them all, John Milton. Imitating  Authors argues that imitation is not simply a matter of borrowing words,  or of alluding to an earlier author. Imitators learn practices from  earlier writers. They imitate the structures and forms of earlier  writing in ways that enable them to create a new style which itself  could be imitated. That makes imitation an engine of literary change.  Imitating Authors also shows how the metaphors used by theorists to  explain this complex practice fed into works which were themselves  imitations, how those metaphors changed, and how they have come to  influence present-day anxieties about imitation human beings and  artificial forms of intelligence. It explores relationships between  imitation and authorial style, its fraught connections with plagiarism,  and how emerging ideas of genius and intellectual property changed how  imitation was practised. Imitating Authors includes detailed discussion  of authors who imitated (notably Virgil, Lucretius, Petrarch, Cervantes,  Ben Jonson, Milton, Pope, Wordsworth, Mary Shelley, and Kazuo Ishiguro)  and of the theory of imitating authors in Plato, Cicero, Quintilian,  Longinus, Castiglione, the Ciceronian controversies of the sixteenth  century, in legal and philosophical discourses of the Enlightenment, and  in recent discussions about computer-generated poems.
> ​





indianroads said:


> IMO Few if any authors start out writing in their own voice, because that voice takes time to grow and develop. Most authors have probably read A LOT before ever striking out into their own work, and when they do they tend to stumble around a bit before finding their direction and voice. Through imitation of others, we discover ourselves.



Just to clarify the point, there are some key observations/differences:

'Imitating authors' is written in the plural and that is a key aspect. Imitating authors is a great way to develop when the net is cast to include a large variety of different voices, structures, styles, etc. With that in mind, this is a variance on the T.S Eliot quote, to paraphrase: "Good writers borrow, great writers steal". 

But this would be a long way from 'wanting to be Stephen King so badly it hurts', which is an affliction and a tragic one. 

Point being, one's own voice should be paramount and the goal should never be 'to write just like X' because in doing so you will likely fail...but _even if you succeed _your writing will not be honest and while you may be able to provide a subpar emulation of *whoever* what exactly is the point? 

The other key difference is the act of imitation (as opposed to influence, which is entirely different) should be a transitionary thing. Totally fine, if we are talking the early stages of learning to craft a narrative and stuff. But ultimately this is a matter of training wheels versus the Tour De France: At a certain point, we do need to kill our idols. Or, at least, come to view them and their work dispassionately. 



InTheThirdPerson said:


> My user name here (and the Patreon page I'm working on setting up) is a direct reference to this very topic.
> 
> I wrote a novel in the first person. Super proud and feeling accomplished to have completed my very first full length novel. Then I went back and actually read it from some distance. What I realized was that narrating it in the first person simply required way too much exposition from other characters to describe the action -- I simply couldn't have the main character actively participate in EVERYTHING.
> 
> ...



I think the difference between effective writing in third person and first person comes largely down to the strength and comfort level with the characters internal voice.

If your main character is one who you can write from an internal perspective -- if, that is, you feel totally comfortable being 'inside them' (...said the actress to the bishop) -- and that an intimate perspective on their thoughts is better, then a first person perspective makes far more sense and is probably easier. If you see this character as being kind of the center of the universe.

If not, if the person needs to be viewed as something small amid bigger things, third person is often better. I prefer to write characters in the third person when I want the reader to feel something _toward _them rather than _be _​them, if that makes sense?


----------



## InTheThirdPerson (Oct 20, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Just to clarify the point, there are some key observations/differences:
> If your main character is one who you can write from an internal perspective -- if, that is, you feel totally comfortable being 'inside them' (...said the actress to the bishop) -- and that an intimate perspective on their thoughts is better, then a first person perspective makes far more sense and is probably easier. If you see this character as being kind of the center of the universe.



This was exactly the problem when I revisited the story. It was much bigger than the main character.


----------



## Moose.H (Oct 22, 2020)

I am facing that at the moment. A great theme and first 3 chapters. I have had to go back and redo the technical aspect to dumb it down and the rest of my Scifantisy has gone from Orsen Scott-card to decafe-children's hour. So here I wait with my trusty water blaster by my side for the return of the monkeys. I know they will come, I know they will come. Like a dog returns to its vomit a monkey will head for my bin. I am soh frustrated.....


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 22, 2020)

> I prefer to write characters in the third person when I want the reader to feel something toward them rather than be ​them, if that makes sense?



It makes very good sense to me, I shall remember this.


----------



## VRanger (Oct 23, 2020)

InTheThirdPerson said:


> My user name here (and the Patreon page I'm working on setting up) is a direct reference to this very topic.
> 
> I wrote a novel in the first person. Super proud and feeling accomplished to have completed my very first full length novel. Then I went back and actually read it from some distance. What I realized was that narrating it in the first person simply required way too much exposition from other characters to describe the action -- I simply couldn't have the main character actively participate in EVERYTHING.
> 
> ...



I'm in the middle of that with my WIP, and I realized I would need a lot of narration from other characters to fit the model I want to achieve. So I reread Zelazny's Amber series. He does just that. Other characters narrate much of the action which the first person narrator cannot witness. Since it's one of the most brilliant works of fiction to my experience, that can work if you do it well.

The caveat is exposition by other characters must be compelling, and it absolutely CAN be. Essentially, you write multiple first-person POVs. It's just that all OTHER first person POVs are narrated to your MC, rather than directly to the reader. This has an odd advantage. Your MC can react to the other narratives, which is something you can't do for the reader.


----------



## WailingDusk (Nov 15, 2020)

Ok, so this is my story regarding this topic. I write a book series 11 years ago, and I had never written a novel in my life. In fact, I'd never written any story before. The reason I wrote it was because I had a dream that inspired me, and before I knew it, I created characters I loved and plot that was solid. It was 109,000 words, more than I'd ever written before all at once. I posted it to a site (in its rough stage mind you) and it got me like 300+ followers in a couple months. I even started writing the second book, and I got around 90k words into it before I noticed something had gone terribly wrong with the plot. (Yeah I'm a pantser, and this happens to us all the time) 

People loved the story, but when I went to go back and read it, I HATED THE WAY I WROTE IT! Everything was wrong: the creepy/cheesy dialogue, the voice, the confusing 3rd person omniscient PoV, the constantly shifting characterization, the deux ex machina magic system, everything. After writing that book, I noticed all of this without being told, because I do read and I realized I levelled up. I tried revising, but I was not happy with the result. I eventually pulled it down, stuck all the word documents into a folder on a backup drive and left it alone. 

A decade goes by, I have a new career as a software developer, a parent dies, other tragic deaths and events take place, and my creativity takes a nosedive. I never get around to rewriting the story, and I wasn't sure I wanted to. This year during lockdown, the creative muse smacked me across the face one evening, and I sat down and started writing a sci-fi romance. I wrote 100k words and I wasn't done, but when I went back to read earlier chapters I noticed pacing problems. This story wasn't really something I wanted to take seriously, it was something I wanted to write to get the creative juices flowing again. I had levelled up again. 

I wanted to really hone in on my craft, so I started reading writing blogs, watching authortube, reading books I wasn't interested in, but liked the writing style. I got so many ideas, and then I remembered that book I wrote a long time ago. Even after 10 years, the plot really stuck with me. I loved the characters and the world I developed, despite all the flaws. It was so good that people I got to know from my first time posting it would tell me they still think about it as well. When a book does that to other readers and yourself, and the plot stands the test of time, you know you may have a gem. 

I decided I'd revisit the book. I read it, cringed, but knew exactly what I'd cut and how I'd write it. I changed the point of view to first person for a more "voicy" narration, and to add more mystery to the plot. I kept the idea and the plot, but rewrote every character arc and even deleted/added some. The book ended up being 126,000 words. A little long, but it's the first draft and I'm an over-writer (if you can't tell from this post). I wrote it in one month from May to June. I let it sit for a month, sent it to my critique partners and then reread it. I liked the story, but the pacing was so bad I couldn't salvage it. I rewrote everything, changing narration to dialogue/action, doing way less telling, adding more interesting subplots at the suggestions of critique partners and alpha readers. 

It took another month of writing for around 5-6 hours on the weekdays, and 8-12 hours on the weekends to get the second draft finished. Then it took another 2 months to revise the book twice. By this time everything was tightened up and the pacing was fantastic. It was ready for beta readers. I found 25 random beta readers online (everywhere from Twitter, Goodreads, old contacts) and gave them access to comment on the google doc. Not only did everyone finish it, the reception was incredible. Here I thought I had a niche book I didn't think many people would enjoy, only to have strangers not able to put it down. There's no better feeling than pouring every bit of work and energy into something and having it show in the form of praise and complements (and suggestions, criticism, corrections, and comments littered throughout the document). I fully expected at least half of these people to hate it. I've received most of the feedback I requested, still waiting on two more people (one of which wanted to read it again before he submitted the form). 

Right now I'm taking all of those suggestions and comments, everything I've learned and making the final draft to send to a line editor in January. The deadline I set for myself to publish is July of 2021, a year and two months after I started writing the first draft. 

What was the point of all of this? Well, just because you have to rewrite your whole story (in my case rewriting a whole story two times), doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad story idea and you should give up. If you really love what you wrote, and it's all you can think about, you have to bite the bullet and learn how to love to edit, revise and rewrite. And keep all those drafts, because it's amazing to see where you started, and where you ended up. A lot of love, hard work, time, and tears went into writing the first book of this series, but it was worth it to me. I hope a lot of people also get as much enjoyment from the world and characters I created. There are still two more books to write, and I'm looking forward to taking everything I've learned and applying it to the next. 

Sometimes you have to trunk a book idea and come back to it later to see if it's something you still want to put the work into. Sometimes the story might not be interesting to you anymore. You've outgrown it and it's time to move on. Most of the time though, don't be afraid to rewrite a bad draft. Learn from your mistakes, and you'll do a lot less rewriting in the next book.


----------



## Twisted Head (Nov 19, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> You're describing what a lot of writers refer to as the "first draft".



This is my thinking too and is one reason I outline. By outlining, I basically have the entire story in front of me by the time I get to the actual writing. I've already figured out what's going to work and what's not. I know if there are holes in the plot as well as if the story will be entertaining. In the end, it definitely saves me a ton of time.

~T.H.


----------



## EternalGreen (Nov 19, 2020)

Twisted Head said:


> This is my thinking too and is one reason I outline. By outlining, I basically have the entire story in front of me by the time I get to the actual writing. I've already figured out what's going to work and what's not. I know if there are holes in the plot as well as if the story will be entertaining. In the end, it definitely saves me a ton of time.
> 
> ~T.H.



For a short story, I go with the flow. For a novella or novel, I plan with rigor and don't pick up the pen until I have an outline and synopsis of every chapter.


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 21, 2020)

Depends on if I feel it's worthwhile taking another crack at it, or maybe I'd rather chase a shiny new idea, or maybe the inside of that oven is looking good.


----------



## natifix (Nov 21, 2020)

I'd go with something between options 1 and 2 if you were attached to the main story idea. And if you were tired of working on it, or had feelings that it just doesn't sit well, likely option 4.


----------



## Newman (Nov 26, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Here's the situation: You have written a story...and it sucks.
> 
> You like the general idea behind it, enough you don't want to just throw the whole thing away, but the problems are rife throughout, to the point there are very few or zero scenes that are remotely in the ballpark of acceptability.
> 
> ...




Certainly not (4). My instinct would be to improve it incrementally, but hey sometimes you just have to rip it up and start over.


----------

