Changing the Story

About six months ago I received my rights back on a short story. It was a story from an anthology where all the back stories were intertwined. As a stand-alone, it doesn't have enough to 'stand'. So I've been sitting on it, wondering what I could/would do with it.

About two weeks ago, it occurred to me I could revise it to fit in one of my series. The thing is--it would take considerable change. I liked the characters. I liked the story premise. But in order to fit in my series, the hero would have to become an angel/shifter. The story would have to change location. And most certainly, it would need to be lengthened and receive a new title.

My question is this--how does the author convey to the potential reader that the new book was loosely (very loosely) based on a previously published short story? I once bought a book by a favorite author, only to discover at least fifty percent of the new book was based on another book by the same author. There was no author's note in the book--nothing to explain why entire chapters were lifted from her first book, word for word.

So. What say you? Is this a no-no? Will readers be annoyed if certain scenes seem familiar? The short story had a VERY limited readership. Maybe I'm worrying over nothing?

All opinions welcome.

anny

Change, Change, Change

Edit~~Prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it.

Revise~~ To prepare a newly edited version of (a text)

I'm in the midst of edits for Spear of Retribution. I've noticed when other authors refer to edits, they're discussing something entirely different. So...Anny's definitions:

Revising~~What I do to my manuscript BEFORE I submit it to a publisher. That includes all the nitty-gritty of corrections, changes in plot, additions of scenes. All that stuff.

Edits~~What I do to my manuscript after the editor sends it back to me. If I did my job before submission, then this will primarily consist of READING MY MANUSCRIPT WORD FOR WORD, signing off on the corrections the editor noted, and also making any corrections needed as I read through it. It might ALSO include any revisions necessary based on the editor's recommendations. 

When I do EDITS, the process takes about a week. I spend a lot of time fine-combing through the manuscript, hoping to catch any bits that weren't caught previously--or picked up by my editor. Sometimes, this is the change in a verb or rewording a sentence for clarity. 

In this particular set of edits, I have two lengthy revisions to deal with, thanks to the excellent suggestions from my editor. Those will likely take a day or two to write and seamlessly fit in my current manuscript.

That's how I define what stage I'm in. How do you define your process?

anny

Do you see me now?

Yesterday my beta reader returned Shadows on Stone. I've been re-reading it with her notes in hand. There were no major issues though she pointed out a couple continuity problems-- minor plot lines I started but never wrapped up.

After pondering the possibilities, I started at the beginning. Page one. With a red pen. Several hours later, I'm up to page sixty-six...out of one hundred and eighty two pages. I suspect it will be a while before I finish.

Every author I know will tell you they find cringe-worthy issues if they read their work after a considerable time period has gone by. Then, every error, stupid mistake, awkwardly constructed sentence will leap out at the author, seizing them by the throat and screeching, "Do you see me now?"

You might ask, why doesn't the author set the work aside, then? Why not allow it to simmer on the back burner? I suspect it has something to do with income. Lost income. If the book is sitting on the side, it's not earning money for the author. It's as simple as that. Could it possibly be a better book if it simmered a while? Yeah, probably.

But in the current publishing climate, a book that is sitting only generates a loss of income and a loss of face time. You know what that is--it's the presence of your book cover prominently displayed so your readers remember who you are! In the electronic book market, with zillions of books to choose from, a lull of several months between books can mean the difference between some sales and a lot of sales.

There is a reason some authors seem to be banging out book after book. Every new book places their name out there to remind readers of their books--not just the newest one, but their entire backlist--because in the electronic world, books never go out of print. They're always available.

Unless a writer has an enormous following (J.K Rowling and Nora Roberts, I'm looking at you), he or she will spend an inordinate amount of time battling for that precious face time. It might be on the social media such as Twitter and Facebook. It might be on Amazon, Sony, Fictionwise and other electronic bookstores. But wherever it is, it's more valuable than gold.

No one knows what the magic formula is. Some authors take part in blog tours. Some spam their "friends" on the social media. Some post excerpts from their books--or have special pages for their characters. Whatever they choose to do, none of it matters if the finished book is a hodge-podge of errors, typos, and even in one case, part of a chapter missing.

I could submit Shadows on Stone as is. But now that I am reading it, the occasional typos and errors and odd word choices are screaming. What are they saying?

"Do you see me now?"

anny 

Rewrite, rewrite...

Anny's definition of rewrites: Starting the book over. Or major revisions of more than six consecutive pages.

I don't often rewrite once I've started a book, but I have done so a couple times. I'm what's known as a clean writer (no, get your mind out of the gutter) because I tidy up my work as I go. I tend to be a bit OCD about spelling errors, punctuation, and the odd missing word.

That's not to say there aren't huge plot holes big enough to drive a trailer through. Plot holes might require major revisions so I try to avoid them if at all possible.

And continuity issues (heroine is wearing skirt at beginning of scene in restaurant, but complains about how tight her jeans are in same scene) are relatively rare for me. I am capable of holding a mass of unrelated details in my brain while writing. Just don't ask me to remember where I put my keys or watch.

Now where was I going with this thought...oh, yeah. Rewrites. I confess I just don't get the idea of rewrites--in general. I'm not talking about gentle tweaks here and there. (See definition above.) It's the massive revisions some authors mention/complain about. Working on fifth round rewrites...should be done with this round in three weeks.


No. At that point the book would be deleted, merely a bad memory. I avoid that by invoking time. If the story is not working, I set it aside and work on something else. Hence the usual three or four works in progress I have running. When one isn't working, it goes on the back burner for two or three weeks (or in one case, two years). When I get to it again, I'm able to read it with a fresh eye and decide what the problem is.

In the meantime, I've maintained productivity by working on something else while the old brain has simmered a raft of possible ideas. I find as I get older, it takes longer for full-fledged ideas to bubble to the top.

I think the thing that puzzles me the most is the sheer futility of working, working, working on a story that isn't cooperating! Why? Why not set it aside and put all that effort into something productive?

Several authors have declared they can't possibly work on more than one story at a time. Okay. My style is not for everyone. But if that one story is not working, why not move on? I suppose I just feel my time is too limited to spend it working on a story that's not going anywhere.

What about you? What's your working style--and why?

anny

Revision Hell

Now that I've finally finished my current edit obligations (though I'm sure there will be more) I'm back to working on my current work in progress. Since I've been away from the story for about three weeks, this is a prime time to read it with a fresh eye.

Every writer has their own working styles and steps. When I get close to the end of a story I like to step away from it for a while and look at it after several weeks away. I print it out (yep, on real paper), put it in a three ring binder and walk away from the computer.

Then with my handy-dandy red pen and a pile of sticky notes, I read, take notes, mark changes and typos and errors. And when I finish I have a clearer idea of where I am as opposed to where I would like to be with the story.

As I'm reading, I put together a rough time-line of when what happened where. Sometimes I discover I have a character in two places at the same time. Not good. Once I found I had three different costumes on the same character at one party.

I also do a running list of all the "facts" I've mentioned regarding the main characters. If I mention that Joanie Heroine doesn't drink coffee, then it would be good to not find her in the cafe having a cup of joe with her girlfriend. If she started the story with red hair, it would not be good for Bob Hero to be playing with her ebony tresses at the end of the book.

The last thing I do is fill in a sheet with a list of characters from the book, no matter how minor. Because??? I once used "Jonah" for a minor character name three times within three chapters. I knew I liked that name, but really. Three Jonah's in one town?

Finally, I return to the computer and implement all the changes/revisions I jotted down. And then I finish the book. I always thought my need to print out the manuscript was just my own quirk. But recently I read an article that explained that human brains process the written electronic word differently than the written printed word. So I don't feel so bad anymore when I print and revise.

What about you? Do you revise? If so, what is your process?

anny