Supercritical

A friend of mine today in writer's group made a comment that got me thinking (which is never a good thing, ask anyone), along the lines of the fact that I'm always critical of items that end up in front of my editing pen. Now, this friend happens to be a full-time writer, multi-published, with publishers that have distributed her books far and wide, and we've been friends a long time. She has also been a big fan of my books (and vice versa) ever since she first saw them, so I'm not so sure about her taste, but hey...

The author in question...I do love her books, so go give them a read.

The comment struck me today for some reason. I've given comments and critiques to folks for many years, and I'm no different (in my mind, at least) with her than I am with any author. I have this built-in need to do my best for anyone, because that's how I'm wired. Writers always see things in another author's work that the other author may never see (and I'm not immune to that issue). That leads me to always give every thought that comes into my head when commenting or critiquing to the fullest extent, when another author asks (and when I have time to do it). The way I figure, I'm trying to give another author a tool to use for the next time they're editing their own work, to help them improve.

I've noticed, too, that I tend to get odd reactions from my direct employees (where my job puts me in a place where I need to comment and critique on their work), in that they almost seem fearful of my critiques. My assumed duty is the same thing there. I'm not trying to be mean or supercritical, just to help them improve so that they'll have the tools they need for the next time they're doing the same work.

My guess? This is why the comment hit me today...that maybe my mindset has been off-kilter this entire time. Perhaps all of those who've received writing critiques view me in the same vein as my employees (presumably) do...that I'm mean and supercritical. Perhaps my perception of what the feedback should be is not the same as those who are looking for my feedback.

So, then the question is...is being supercritical an issue?

I'd love to hear your thoughts...because at the moment, I have a chapter from Nancy that needs a critique.

How Many Edits Does It Take?

How many edits does it take to finish a novel after the first draft is completed?

Much like the elusive question, "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?" this is a question that may never be answered. But there really is not a right answer, and the answer will vary depending on the author.

There are certain authors who subscribe to the "look through [one aspect] in the first edit, and change [another aspect] in the second edit, and so on" camp. I'm not one of these. I simply work my way from start to finish, and then let it set for a little while, and then repeat. I'll often times put in electronic notes for myself, to review the next time around, but I'll do this at the same time as I'm working on correcting typos and grammatical issues.

I've also seen some authors who think that short stories shouldn't be edited at all (or perhaps a cursory spelling and grammar check). I personally think this is crazy, because even the best author is going to make a major snafu from time to time, and taking the extra night to make sure isn't going to make or break your writing career.

Ultimately, my edits are finished when I feel I've done the best job I can, and then I send it off to the publisher or start formatting it for the self-publishing gig. Only you as the author can best judge when it's ready, and hopefully you've honed your skills enough to have a good idea when that should be. At the moment, I'm working on final polish edits on Death Brings the Victory. And I've already decided that this is going to be the last one.

So, feel free to comment...do you subscribe to a different plan for edits?