On rewriting another’s prose

---

A number of you give helpful and insightful comments on the openings of novels that are posted here, and both the writers and I are very grateful for them. But there's a type of comment that may not be as helpful as you think.

It's a certain kind of rewrite, the kind that fails to respect the writer's voice. There's an example from the recent comments on the opening I posted from one of my WIPs that falls into that category, and I thought it would be worth discussion here.

This is not to say never offer a rewrite. Rewriting can help a writer see an alternative way of expressing the narrative.

But not if it doesn't sound like his or her narrative.

When I do an edit, I'll frequently include "thought-starters" that are either new pieces of narrative or a reconfiguring of what's there. But the suggestions I make are, as close as I can get them, true to the voice of the writer. Actually, I'm a pretty good mimic. I may not be enamored of the writer's voice, but an agent or an editor might love it, so I feel obligated to be faithful to it.

What are good reasons for offering a rewrite?

In my edits, most frequently it's where there is a lack of clarity. If a line of narrative is clear, I'll leave it pretty much alone. If there's a dull verb, I'll point that out -- but not change it. If it's passive, I'll point that out, and maybe give an example. But if it's clear, it's untouched.

A lack of clarity because something is missing -- especially a transition -- may be another reason to suggest words or sentences, but the suggestions need to reflect the author's or character's voice.

My editorial philosophy: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Now, I'm not picking on this particular contributor, and he's not the only one who does what I'm talking about, nor am I trying to defend my writing. In fact, other thoughts in his comment were worth considering, as well as those in other comments that offered rewrites within my narrative voice. This is about editorial philosophy, about how I think an editor approaches trying to improve a narrative.

The problem with rewriting that is clearly not within the writer's voice -- especially if there's no problem that it's fixing -- is that the author can't use it. It won't fit. So what good is there in doing it?

In the last post, the 16 lines I put out there ended with this paragraph:

Kurt placed the gun back on a plaque that displayed a Bronze Star medal and a brass plate that read, "Major Jefferson T. Dengler." His grandfather hadn't made it home from World War II, but his heroism and his sidearm had. Kurt used his tie to polish away a fingerprint, snatched up the TIME and the new polls, and left his West Wing office for the Rose Garden.

A reader wrote this as a suggested replacement:

Kurt laid the gun carefully beside a plaque displaying a Bronze Star above a brass plate that read simply "Major Jefferson T. Dengler." Kurt's grandfather hadn't made it home from World War II, but his heroism and his sidearm had.

A quick swipe of his tie served to polish away any fingerprints. Then Kurt snatched up the TIME and the new polls and left his West Wing office for the Rose Garden.

When I read this, I wondered why the changes were there. To me, the original wording was perfectly clear. For example, in terms of clarity,

Kurt placed the gun back on a plaque

seems clear, and there's nothing gained by changing it to

Kurt laid the gun carefully beside a plaque

An unnecessary adverb was added, and the action was changed -- the gun went beside the plaque instead of on it. Why the changes?

Here's another puzzler. The original line:

Kurt used his tie to polish away a fingerprint,

And the rewrite that seems to be a change done solely to match the voice of the editor rather than the writer:

A quick swipe of his tie served to polish away any fingerprints.

To my eye/ear, both voice and meaning are changed. Even the visual picture intended by the original is changed.

• We go from a fingerprint on the plaque, which we can visualize, to a vague "any fingerprints" that may or may not be there, and we can't visualize. Remember that specifics create reality in a reader's mind, generalizations do not.
• We go from the character doing something to his tie doing something, a shift from active to passive.
• We go from polishing, which I think evokes a clear picture of a brief rubbing of a particular spot to make it clean and bright, to a "quick swipe" which seems to me the opposite of polishing.
• The rewrite is 3 words longer, but to no purpose.
• The use of "served to" is the biggest departure from the original voice, in my view. If you go back to the original post and read the whole sample, that kind of lingo just doesn't happen.
  

So why the rewrite? I don't think there was a clarity issue-- the guy taking his tie to polish away a fingerprint seems perfectly clear. Why change polishing to swiping? Why change a fingerprint to any fingerprints? Why go from active to passive?

The answer here is because the revisions sounded better to the editor's ear. Well, that's not a good reason to do a comprehensive rewrite of narrative. If you don't care for the author's voice, live with it. It will never conform with yours, nor should it.

So stifle your own voice

The point of all this is the care I owe a writer to respect the voice and intent of the narrative, and so do you. In fact, an editor's function is sometimes to help reveal the writer's voice by weeding the narrative of clutter that obscures it.

In my view, you don't alter the meaning and action that's presented if there's nothing incorrect about it. You don't change the flavor of the language from the author's to yours, though you can suggest ways to enhance it within the writer's style.

When you're critiquing another writer, whether in a critique group, online, a friend, whomever, leave your own wonderful voice in its box.

Okay, now I'm stepping down off my soap box. I DO NOT want to discourage this commenter or any other from helping the writers who appear on FtQ. But sometimes the advice, as in this case, just isn't helpful, at least the way I see it. When you suggest alternative language, you'll help the writer most if it fits with the rest of the narrative, and especially when it focuses on an issue such as a lack of clarity.

For what it's worth.

Comments, anyone?

Ray

---

Public floggings available. If I can post it here,

1. send 1st chapter or prologue as an attachment (cutting and pasting and reformatting from an email is a time-consuming pain) and I'll critique the first couple of pages.
2. Please include in your email permission to post it on FtQ.
3. And, optionally, permission to use it as an example in a book if that's okay.
4. If you're in a hurry, I've done "private floggings," $50 for a first chapter.
5. If you rewrite while you wait you turn, it's okay with me to update the submission.

ARCHIVES .

© 2008 Ray Rhamey

Comments

[Richard Mabry]

Ray,
Point taken, and I don't feel picked on. The problem I have--and one I've noticed when you've critiqued a couple of my own submissions--is that it's hard to know which way the writer is going with the story. For instance, in this case how important is it to wipe away all the fingerprints? Or is this just an obsessive-compulsive guy? And laying the gun on or beside the plaque--my first image was a plaque with a gun mounted on it with a clip or something. Sounds wierd, but that's the picture I got. So that edit's for clarity.

But you bring up something that's important for editors and crit partners alike. Respect the author's voice and edit only for clarity, even if you would have done it differently. Mea culpa.

Keep flogging.

[Kamila Miller]

I think you're dead on. This is one of the least understood aspects of editing and critiquing yet one of the most critical. Folks do it all the time because no one wants to tell them not to do it. They put so much time, energy and effort it seems ungrateful. But in the end you're doing the writer, editor and critiquer a service by calling attention to it.

The example I use is Faulkner. What if he was part of a critique group that rewrote all his sentences and kept hammering home how he was doing it all wrong and had to do it the usual way? If he listened to them (which I doubt he would have, people told him right from the start it was 'wrong' but he didn't listen) we would have no Faulkner. You don't have to like him. But respect him, and respect the voices of the writers whom you're editing and critiquing. It's more important than you realize.

[Ray Rhamey]

Richard, you're right that it's hard to know where a story is going on the first page, all the more reason to tread carefully.

Interesting how people interpret narrative. For example, the fingerprint. I deliberately chose "polish" because I hoped to communicate that this plaque was special to Kurt and he was just taking care of it. Thus "polish" rather than "wipe."

And your first image of the plaque was close; I see the gun mounted on the plaque on a peg arrangement, not beside it.

Thanks for commenting, and keep up the good work.

[Jon]

Good thoughts, Ray. Applicable to me in the broader sense, if not this instance.

I suspect that (for me) it's a bit of my work functionality creeping in -- taking other people's not-very-good (no fault of their own, they're not writers) text and polishing/combining it into user guides and product updates and such. As such, I'm used to my voice ruling, and have gotten out of the habit of letting others' voices shine through.

Good reminder.

[H. L. Dyer]

Great post, Ray.

I actually toyed with responding to the rewrite in that comment. I do think the tone and sense of the character's priorities were changed by the suggested edits, especially regarding polishing away a fingerprint vs. wiping away any prints.

I thought the scene was clear in the original version. I assumed there were pegs or something that held the gun.

[Deana]

Great discussion! If readers can interpret a passage many different ways, does it suggest lack of clarity on the author's part? Does the editor try to make sure the impressions are as consistent as possible, or does the author's "voice" trump this?

[Ray Rhamey]

Deana, it's hard to imagine interpreting a passage "many" different ways, but there certainly can be ambiguity in a portion of narrative. When an editor spots this, he should point it out, at the least. I try to indicate why it's ambiguous, and then offer thought-starters to give it clarity.

If the author chooses to ignore it, that's her call.

[Deana]

Ray, your description of the plaque is a good example of a passage that could be interpreted differently by readers. I realize you don't feel it was unclear, but it may have been.

An editor might suggest simply adding more description to clarify rather than changing the action around it as one critique did.

Of course a writer can choose to ignore suggestions, but what happens when an editor finds that preserving a writer's "voice" entails sacrifice of clarity?

[Ray Rhamey]

Deana, I think a key factor is just how important the detail is. Stephen King has some good thought on this in his "One Writing" book.

In this case, all that's really needed is for the reader to imagine the character putting the gun back where it was. The key information is not the configuration of the plaque, but the medal and the name on it. That part seems to be perfectly clear.

I doubt that an ordinary reader would even pause to think about whether the gun was on or next to the plaque. In this case, we have readers focusing on just 16 lines, with no page to turn to. In a book or a manuscript, I believe that no one will stop and try to visualize in tight detail just what the gun/plaque arrangement is. They'll get the stuff about the medal, the grandfather, etc. and turn the page. Don't you?

I don't see how a writer would have to sacrifice voice to achieve clarity. It's just a matter of rewriting within that voice, using the words the writer wants, to make things clear.

Make sense?

[JanW]

This is a fascinating article to me because I have been known to over-crit pieces and cause tears as a result. I've found that the reaction depends on the self-perception of the person requesting the feedback, with beginners being less reactive, but those who have been 'published' arcing up, telling me off, etc.

JA Konrath has an interesting blog post on A Newbie's Guide: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2008/07/bending-over-and-taking-advice.html about how to best use advice of any kind that is worth reading.

I think your point about 'voice' is good to make, Ray. But as you say, 16 lines is not nearly enough to get what that voice is. So the person making comments is less likely to get the rhythm and tone that develops over the course of several chapters.

As for ambiguity, there is a potential of being drawn out of the story if they are there. I couldn't visualise putting something on a plaque. My mind interpreted all that as the heavy object, the gun, having to go on a horizontal surface, but a plaque in my mind is on a wall. When I read that passage I was drawn out because the physical relationships of the two didn't make sense to me without having to stop and think. Stating 'hooks' somewhere in there would have been enough to make it work. 'Next to' wasn't a problem, but the three dimensional relationship and gravity was.

I also try to put in suggestions if I see something confusing in word choice when I do a crit, as well as an explanation as to why I'm making an edit. I'm a teacher from way back, and feel that it's important to provide more than a tick or a cross or a change without explaning why.

None of us need to take these comments and use them. But as Konrath says in his article, affirmation will only get you so far. It's the uncomfortable points that provide opportunities to learn, no matter how much they hurt at the time. But even then, a little sensitivity can go a long way. We can only ever do our best from a caring position, and telling the writer the intentions are to be helpful, not hurtful, and letting them know there may be more here than they expected, can help ease the response. After all, we spend time doing these reviews and hope they are helpful to make the work and writer better.

As you say, for what it's worth....

[Ray Rhamey]

Okay, there's been enough about the gun and its placement to provoke me to another pass (have I ever mentioned that I can be a little lazy?) What about this:

Kurt hung the .45 on its pegs at the bottom of a plaque. Above it was his grandfather's Bronze Star. A brass plate read, "Major Jefferson T. Dengler."

[Mai]

I agree with you, Ray. Because I'm new to writing and critiquing, I 've sometimes worried that my carefulness with others' work was an excuse for my own lack of confidence. I'm glad to know that you strongly respect the writer's voice.

[Kamila Miller]

I don't think a critiquer rewriting passages for an author (or not) is an issue of affirmation. It's a matter of voice intrusion. It's the difference between:
"I would rewrite The warriors grimaced as they advanced on the seething mob of twernites to read The warriors were grimacing as they advanced on the mob of seething twernites."
and:
The warriors were grimacing as they advanced on the mob of seething twernites. -- was-ing construction distracted me.

I deliberately had the first example 'corrected' in reverse of the natural direction I personally would choose to show that rewriting passages isn't necessarily going to lead the writer in a good direction. It's also injecting the critiquer's voice into the text.

As a teaching tool rewriting a section works fine, especially with emerging/struggling newbie authors, but I don't think it's necessarily appropriate in a critique, where there's more of a peer dynamic rather than a student-teacher dynamic. Teaching assumes a certain amount of expertise and a trust relationship that may not be appropriate to assume in an open critique situation.

Also, we all have a lot to learn and a lot to gain by having passages rewritten for us at one time or another, but in a critique if everything's rewritten, the writer won't learn to rewrite the passage for themselves in a way that will express their style. Assuming they're not asking you to doctor their manuscript for them, I think it's more constructive to leave the words on the page in the order that they're presented unless there's a compelling reason to start rephrasing sentences especially if they add things that weren't there before. I'm of course interested to see how someone would rewrite my work, but the rewriting, unless it's very, very lighthanded, won't be very useful for me. What is useful for me is finding out if the pacing is good or bad, if the opening grabs, if the character is sympathetic or at least interesting, if passive voice has snuck into an action scene, if I'm overwriting or too spare, etc.

Besides, rewriting passages takes a lot more time and effort. I think it's wise to let the author do that rewriting. It's my job as a critiquer to just try to point them in what I hope is a good direction.

Having said all that, feedback is valuable enough that even if something is not going to be useful for me, I'm still grateful that someone took the time to try to help out. So thanks everyone!

[Sarah Jensen]

I like to think my readers are smart and can draw some conclusions themselves. When I read, I like to picture things without the author pointing out every single detail. I also believe that you have to let the authors voice stand out with out imposing your own. I try to always do that when I read others work. The only time I make a comment on voice is if it isn't fitting with the narrater or the character. And my friends do the same. If the story is about a 17 year old girl, and it sounds like it's written by a 35 year old woman, (which mine did at first) then comments to the such are warrented. Things like that. Other than that, I leave voice alone.
But honestly Ray, I found nothing wrong with the way you had the gun the first time. I think it sounded better than your rewrite. but that's JMO.

[Hugh Meyers]

When I read the change, I figured that the change to "a quick swipe" was to make the action of polishing the gun accord with the quickness of snatching up the magazine. Having heard Ray's explanation, I wonder if perhaps there should be at least a sentence break after the polishing to show the transition from the careful placing and polishing to the hurry to meet the President. Perhaps I'm over-analyzing, but it might even be worthwhile inserting a quick thought along the line of: "His office was twice as far from the garden as the President's. He'd have to hurry to arrive first." I don't know how important a point it is for you to make but I would suggest at least a sentence break or possibly even having him polish the gun before placing it on the pegs. (The disadvantage being that you might have to add words to describe how he put it down without adding any fingerprints.)

I do have to say I like the passage. Snapping off a gun at someone's picture makes me suspect antagonist but doesn't rule out protagonist. I think it adds interest: I want to find out what was behind the "mock execution" to make my own judgement on its justification.