Editing Backwards

[vwl]

I've struck on a technique that might be of interest to other editors.

I'm in the midst of editing a 204-page novel. My time is limited -- I'm not able to spend what's necessary to bring it to New Yorker or Knopf quality. I have time to go through a manuscript only three times. So, here is what I've found works quite well.

First readthrough - get acquainted with the story making edits when they are apparent, putting questions into the text for my own checking or for passing on to an author.

Second readthrough -- make major detailed edits.

Third readthrough -- edit backwards. What I do is start at the last page, checking my edits, then the second to last page, and so forth until the first page. In this way, I don't get wrapped up in the story and overlook things because of the excitement of the story or just following the flow of it.

Obviously, what works for one editor won't necessarily fit another's style. I'm just offering my techniques that might fit someone else.

[colinian]

I've done the same thing. One suggestion: don't do a backward edit pass until you've gone through two regular edits so you can check for inconsistencies. They won't be noticeable when you're doing the backward pass.

Colin

I've struck on a technique that might be of interest to other editors.

I'm in the midst of editing a 204-page novel. My time is limited -- I'm not able to spend what's necessary to bring it to New Yorker or Knopf quality. I have time to go through a manuscript only three times. So, here is what I've found works quite well.

First readthrough - get acquainted with the story making edits when they are apparent, putting questions into the text for my own checking or for passing on to an author.

Second readthrough -- make major detailed edits.

Third readthrough -- edit backwards. What I do is start at the last page, checking my edits, then the second to last page, and so forth until the first page. In this way, I don't get wrapped up in the story and overlook things because of the excitement of the story or just following the flow of it.

Obviously, what works for one editor won't necessarily fit another's style. I'm just offering my techniques that might fit someone else.

[EleCivil]

I swear by the backwards edit technique. It was a staple of mine throughout college, both when editing my own papers and when editing others'.

[Cole Parker]

I never thought of that, but getting caught up in the story is definitely one of the reasons I miss things, so it's certainly something I'll try.

Thanks.

C

[Trab]

Since I'm a bit backwards myself, going forwards works okay for me.

[The Pecman]

Hmmm, it never occurred to me to edit a document backwards. Interesting idea.

I know that Oscar-winning film editor Walter Murch has said that he sometimes views scenes backwards just to judge their timing and visuals, to see how things look going the other way. But editing visuals is a lot different than editing words.

I think one of the most sobering ways to edit is to read your work out loud (preferably with nobody else around), and see how it actually sounds, with inflection and emotion. Trust me, you'll find out very quickly if the dialog is stilted or awkward.

[DesDownunder]

.sdrawkcab sgniht gniod snoitanilcni rou htiw elpoep tuoba tnemmoc a ekam lliw I kniht t'nod I

[TalonRider]

Something that I've found that helps me during the editing process is the use of a program that reads the text to me. I use it last and it has helped me find things that I missed while reading thru it.

[vwl]

ko

.sdrawkcab sgniht gniod snoitanilcni rou htiw elpoep tuoba tnemmoc a ekam lliw I kniht t'nod I

[EleCivil]

Hmmm, it never occurred to me to edit a document backwards. Interesting idea.

I know that Oscar-winning film editor Walter Murch has said that he sometimes views scenes backwards just to judge their timing and visuals, to see how things look going the other way. But editing visuals is a lot different than editing words.

It's the same basic idea - he uses it for timing and visuals, I use it to catch typos and spelling/mechanics errors that might have slipped in. It doesn't really help for editing story cohesion, realism, or scene transitions, but it's great for the mechanics. It's more like proofing than editing, I guess - that's why it worked so well for me when fixing up non-fictional school papers.

When you read straight ahead, especially something you wrote yourself, your brain tends to fix its its own errors. (See?) But if you're going backwards, you can really look at each word individually.

I imagine using a text-to-speech program would work the same way, actually. Same with reading aloud, provided you go slow enough to read what it says on that page/screen rather than what you think it says.

[Cole Parker]

Something that I've found that helps me during the editing process is the use of a program that reads the text to me. I use it last and it has helped me find things that I missed while reading thru it.

One of my several editors does just that, has the text read to him, and he finds an amazing number of things I never saw myself, and the other editors missed. That method is indeed terribly effective. It isn't perfect in that it doesn't catch things like homonyms that in fact are spelling errors, but it does catch all the little things like replacing 'of' with 'on' that the eye just leaps over.

C

[Camy]

.sdrawkcab sgniht gniod snoitanilcni rou htiw elpoep tuoba tnemmoc a ekam lliw I kniht t'nod I

.etiuq

[Merkin]

.sdrawkcab sgniht gniod snoitanilcni rou htiw elpoep tuoba tnemmoc a ekam lliw I kniht t'nod I

That's rather hard to read aloud.

[Cole Parker]

Probably make a good password!

C

[TracyMN]

My time is limited --

.... I have time to go through a manuscript only three times

Ok, I'll try not to be obnoxious about it, as clearly you all are from the same planet and don't

find what you're saying even slightly unusual. It's not that I doubt it's true, I just reserve my right to find it amazing.

Forget that your limited capacity translates into 3 x 204, 3 x intents and purposes, and 1 x intent in reverse (which I can't wait to apply to this task myself, to see if being left-handed is any kind of a plus). I'm trying to decide if it being your own work or that of another writer makes one more amazing than the other. I know, I know, ...i'm on my own with that one.

Having recently encountered the difficulty of proofing a second or third incarnation of a story, where familiarity tended to produce that fixing effect mentioned by Elecivil. More of the same approach that produces, or at least allows, the result was obviously never going to work. Throwing things was no help either.

But it does seem that even primitive application as in spelling and fundamental grammar, the function of the problem can be the function in a working remedy--and not a moment too soon. I'll let you know if it works for me--which will be TRULY amazing.

Many thanks from planet Dork.

Tracy

[Pee Jay]

This one caught my eye. I have read a ton of stuff on the net that needs editing, serious editing. However, an editor can not a story make and he should reject a request when that happens. He can enhance it whether he does it from beginning to end or vice versa. The point is, do not rely on an editor to make your story. Only you can make a story worthwhile.

An editor can correct tense errors, which stand out like a sore thumb to me. Man, I can't tell you how many stories disregard tense and pass for BONN. It drives me nuts to see present, past and/or present perfect tense etc. used in one paragraph. And then there's the adverb used in tandem. For Pete sake, who in the world says, "Surely absolutely" in a third person narrative? I don't know and it's nothing less than amateurtish. It's a turnoff for the reader to be sure.

thanks for the opp to vent and all the best,

Pee Jay

[The Pecman]

I have read a ton of stuff on the net that needs editing, serious editing. However, an editor can not a story make and he should reject a request when that happens.

I don't agree with that. I've occasionally had editors (and/or close friends looking over my shoulder) point out a logistical problem that has nothing to do with grammar or usage. They'll say, "hey, I don't understand... why did the character do this instead of that?"

Often, it forces me to take a look at the story from a completely different point of view, and I realize, "ah, it's ambiguous because of a detail I should've put in about five pages earlier." I know what's going on because I see the big picture, but an editor who only sees what's right in front of him (or her) has a different perspective -- often a very valuable one.

So sometimes, the editor can and should suggest actual story changes, even explanations of character behavior. That's assuming the writer doesn't have a valid reason not to do it.