Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, Second Edition: How to Edit Yourself Into Print

Most of the advice and suggestions in this book are fantastic. If I absorb even a third of the lessons in it, I’ll be a better writer for it.There are, however, a few things that made me full-on cringe. I should have done a search for the word “hack” before I posted this review, because I’m pretty sure it’s the most repeated noun in the whole book. Considering the authors’ cautions against repetition, I can only see it as painfully ironic that they didn’t follow their own advice. The first two or three times I saw the word, I didn’t really have an issue with it, but by the 70 percent mark, it was ceasing to look like a real word anymore. Every time I read it, it turned into a mustached bald guy sitting behind a desk yelling “hack, hack, hack!” in a voice that sounded like the short guy who tries to poison Westley in The Princess Bride.Also, the advice regarding sex scenes is so out of touch with the romance market, that I legitimately feel bad for anyone who tries to use it. They want writers to shy away from descriptions of action because in their opinion, people are just inured to sex any more. It’s so PATENTLY against what actual sales figures show that it’s going to hurt a romance writer’s bottom line to follow their advice.They want writers to pattern their sex scenes a la Margaret Mitchell. There is a euphemism and fade to black market. Absolutely… but in the greater majority of romance sales, and what the romance community calls “spicy” books, that kind of thing will literally change your genre. And the fact that they quite literally encourage writers to write a la Gone With the Wind even if they are writing books titled “Lust Motel” (in the authors’ words) just tells me they do not understand the genre. At all.If you actually want to improve sex scene writing, read Diana Gabaldon’s book “I Give You My Body”.This book has a ton of fantastic information in it. I absolutely recommend it. But… take some of their opinions with a grain of salt. Some of it is their personal taste wrapped up and presented as pure fact.

If you're even considering the thought of editing your own work, whether it's a full length novel, novella, short story, flash or whatever other piece of fiction you have, go out and buy this book now. Read it cover to cover. Take notes. Read it again. Do the exercises. Relate it to your own work. Read it again. And again. And again.This book highlights what really are some of the most obvious fallacies a writer can make and it does it in the most poignant of ways. Everything they say is in the simplest terms. No bushes are being beaten and they don't cut any writer any slack. Chances are, your manuscript has at least three of the fatal errors outlined in this book. At the very least. More likely, it has nearly all of them. I'm unashamed to say that the latter is me, to one extent or another.Probably one of the greatest things to come out of this book is the acronym R.U.E., Resist the Urge to Explain. This carries over in multiple chapters, from reiterating explanation in dialogue to redundant points being made and back again. I found that a common theme in many of the editing points they make boils down to over-explaining. Writers want to press the point so badly, and make sure the reader understands exactly what they're saying that that they'll flog the dead horse explaining it. Often the author, usually subconsciously, doesn't trust the reader to get it so important points are reiterated at the expense of the reader's intelligence.As I write my fanfiction (yes, I write fanfiction) I'm more conscious of writing mistakes that I knew I shouldn't be making but it's something I need to re-reference in the book. For example, using dialogue tags such as "she said as she twirled her hair around her finger" are markedly amateurish. This is actually one of the points in the book I have the hardest time with. I get it but if the action is relevant, I don't see how it can weaken the writing. Here's a little further explanation on this from a comment I made on the original post--. . . Chapter 11, Sophistication. According to the authors, "Both the 'as' construction and the '-ing construction' as used above are grammatically correct and express the action clearly and unambiguously. But notice that both of these constructions take a bit of action ("She pulled off her gloves") and tuck it away into a dependent clause ("Pulling off her gloves . . ."). This tends to place some of your action at one remove from your reader, to make the actions seem incidental, unimportant. If you use these constructions often, you weaken your writing.The two examples they gave are, "Pulling off her gloves, she turned to face him" and "As she pulled off her gloves, she turned to face him."They then go on to say-"We're not suggesting that you avoid these phrases altogether. There are going to be times when you want to write about two actions that are actually simultaneous and/or genuinely incidental-actions that deserve more than a dependent clause. And given the choice between an 'as' or '-ing' construction and a belabored, artificial alternative, you're well advised to use the 'as' or '-ing.' But be aware that hacks have long ago run these useful constructions into the ground. Learn to spot them in your own writing and, if you see more than one or two a page, start hunting around for alternatives."This is the second to last chapter so most of the points made in this one and the following are more about fine-tuning the work after all the other stuff has been fleshed out. The authors are crazy adamant about eliminating hacks (I can't count how many times they repeat the word) so any style common in hack writing, they've pounced on. So it's not that it's wrong, it's just more of an easy, lazy way out. And I know I'm guilty a hundred times over, at least.I still have the most trouble with that one and I'm more inclined to think they've just seen that technique used so much in writing that they want to see alternatives. Too much of anything is bad technique but I think this is the only borderline point they made.I also see flaws in works that I read, ones that I didn't see before, especially in web serials, because of this book. I bite my tongue, of course, because I'm not these people's editor and it's much more than just an improperly punctuated sentence but this book has made me so much more aware of others' flaws as well as my own weaknesses.For instance, I'm getting better at spotting redundant text in writing but that's still very hard for me. My eyes see someone making a point, not beating me over the head with it. That's another chapter I need to read again (as if I'm not going to read all of them again, right?) because I want to soak in all the information, make sure I'm getting it right and apply it to my own work. I want to recognize the redundancies, not just on a small scale but a much larger one in order to make my book better.It comes with learning to be a better editor that the ability to look at works more for fun kind of starts to fade. It becomes harder and harder to turn that editor off and just read, especially after reading a book like this. I just have to keep telling myself to shut up and read because I like the story. But I think that's a small price to pay in order to make my work that much better. I can chain the inner editor up when I'm not using her, even though I might be able to hear her screams but I'd rather have that than no inner editor and novels that should never see the light of day.So if you want to edit, you want to do it well, do it right and make your manuscript as good as it can be, pick up this book. I've even made it super easy for you. You don't even need to leave your seat. Just go to my Amazon widget to the right and click until you find the book and buy it. I promise you, you won't regret it.Really, there's a reason why every writer I've met, both in person and over the internet, recommends this book to edit their novels. Just remember, these are not hard and fast rules. Keeping to them too strictly will just result in sterile writing and you don't want that. Listen to your own judgment and make the call based on that.

All of the advice is down-to-earth and laid out in different chapters and with lots of examples. I enjoyed it and found my money to be well spent on the book. Be warned, though, this isn't a guide that'll tell you how to write a story, just improve the hell out of it. This is stated inside, but I wished to reinforce it, in case anyone else missed that.

For me editing is much more difficult than writing. Good editing can correct a lot of crappy writing. During my study, this book was recommended by a lot of different sources. They were right. It's well worth the money.

Intimidated, I didn't really want to read this book, but wanted the knowledge. I highlighted, underlined, starred, triple starred, dog-eared pages, wrote notes in the margins, and lists in the front and back. This book will be by my side every time self-edit. Shout out to JFM for the recommendation.

An excellent book! Some of the simplest suggestions were the best – short sentences, 3 paragraphs to a page, use “said” almost every time a character speaks, try to avoid long, expository speeches, don’t use cliches, use fewer exclamations points and italics, stuff like that.My only nit to pick are that I would have found navigation easier if the answers to the exercises at the end of each chapter immediately followed the exercises themselves.But that is, as I said a nit.

This book’s title is misleading.Its only advice on self-editing is in the Introduction, wherein it advises putting the manuscript in a drawer for a while in order to look at it “with fresh eyes”. The Introduction makes a reasonable case for not paying an editor, when one might do it oneself - but this book was written by professional editors who don’t seem to have experience of editing their own work; at least, there are no examples of such, all the examples are of editing the work of others.The 12 chapters duplicate advice for writers that one can find in decent books on writing, but not as well. After the Introduction, there’s nothing on self-editing. So the title is misleading. I’d ask for a refund but it’s too much of a faff to bother. The one star is because Amazon doesn't allow zero stars.Self-editing includes many hazards as well as gaining distance (“fresh eyes”) such as reading, not what’s written, but what one expects to read; lacking the objectivity required to cut precious, favourite bits; getting tired of editing and stopping when it’s “good enough”; thinking the text is clear when to others, it’s not; missing major plot holes; editing away the passion that originally impassioned the writing; allowing the inner perfectionist to make the story perfectly inhuman, e.g. with proper grammar everywhere proper grammar don’t fit.I usually say nothing about a book if I can’t say something nice. Well, all the pages are there, and I didn’t spot any grammar errors.It’s beyond me how this book has made it into the second edition, still without living up to its misleading title.

At times I felt another title would have been more appropriate such as 'How to Write Good Dialogue' for that is both the strength and the weakness of this book. I am disappointed in it for the following reasons. 1. It is just another book on writing fiction and not specifically on editing. 2. The huge number of sometimes lengthy extracts from novels make it seem almost like literary criticism. It also makes for tedious reading. 3. The style is somewhat hectoring, especially in the opening chapters - this is how you should be writing - there is no other way. 4. The type of fiction used as illustration tends towards crime, thrillers, suspense etc. Literary fiction just does not get a look in. 5. At the start of an otherwise good chapter on dialogue the authors give the game away when they claim that "the first thing [an acquisition editor does] is find a scene with some dialogue. If the dialogue doesn't work the manuscript gets bounced." Are these people really so narrow-minded as that. Narrative fiction is a perfectly good and valid genre but the authors give it no place. There are helpful chapters but do not expect too much from this book.

I started reading this book about four years ago shortly after completing a novel. Then, I thought it was interesting but unimportant. Four novels (and a lot of good advice) later, I think it's brilliant.Why?The authors are not trying to make you a better writer, they are trying to make you a saleable writer in today's climate. Many of the great works of the past would not have made it through the modern editorial process (they give many examples of this). Quite possibly, in the future, the rules may change again. But, for now, Browne and King teach you the process of getting your novel into a shape that an agent or a publisher's reader will want to look at twice.This isn't just (or even mainly) about getting rid of adverbs and 'showing not telling', which you can find on any 'advice for authors' website. Browne and King give a balanced picture of all the areas that might trouble your prospective publisher. The chapter on Proportion is especially important, particularly since the subject is often overlooked.Actually editing your book using the checklists presented here will be a fairly painful process for most writers. Browne and King do their best to get us over that with frequent examples from their own practise, as well as exercises where you can get your teeth into someone else's work before starting on your own.You may disagree with some, or all, of the things they advise. However, this is not a book about becoming a great writer or producing great fiction, but about overcoming the common issues which generate the all-too-familiar "we're sorry, but we couldn't see this fitting with one of our lists" letters.Strongly recommended if you really want to be published.

Right from the start this book is both helpful and useful. There is a brief introduction, which sets the scene, and then it's straight into the meat of the book. Chapter 1 is Show and Tell. The authors explain what this is and demonstrate the difference with some useful examples. This involves giving a passage which does not quite work and then showing how it could be improved by changing, removing or adding words. This works well as it is clear to see the differences and how they were achieved. There are also exercises to do at the end of each chapter. The suggested answers to these are at the back of the book.Each chapter uses a similar format and is equally as good. Chapters cover, dialogue, interior monologue, using beats, and point of view, amongst others. I would say it covers all those areas which many writers find difficult.The one thing I did find slightly jarring was the cartoons. I do not feel they added anything of value and the writing which accompanies them is difficult to read. The book is excellent without them.Whilst more experienced writers may find they know much of the advice given in this book already, those newer to the craft will find it to be useful. I would suggest it is read before starting the first novel. Once the first draft is written then it should come into play to help shape and develop the novel. Overall, an excellent book which I can highly recommend

As many reviewers have already testified, this is a very useful book for aspiring fiction writers hoping to get into print. The advice is generally sound, and the examples of what or what not to do are mostly clear and well-chosen. At the price, its excellent value for money.A couple of minor criticisms. The book is written - perhaps to some degree unconsciously - for North American readers and possibly even a particular class of reader. That's not to accuse the book of snobbery, or even exclusiveness, but there's a lingering sense that something is missing.The well-hammered points about the changing tastes in literary styles are not to be ignored, but don't necessarily apply equally all places, all traditions nor all genres. Examples abound of writers who have done the opposite of what the authors recommend, and pulled it off.As for the cartoons, they are desperately poor - poky drawings accompanied by captions that resemble the lost wanderings of a dwarf species of spider - a kind of visual example of prose that is so bad you don't even attempt to read what it has to say. Oops.