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

[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.