![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Indulging the Draft
Jul. 31st, 2011 08:06 pmAs I have often said, I write long in first draft. I revise a lot, and I find that I am revising more with each book in large part because I'm getting better at it. If I don't know how to fix something, I can't fix it or in some cases can't even see that it needs fixing. If I do know and can see, then I can.
With TRAITORS' GATE I found that I knew the book and plot so well that while I did write a very long first draft and then cut a huge amount (the first draft was 350,000 words and I cut 50,000 words in revisions -- which, yes, still makes the final book about 300,000 words in length), I was able to focus on what I needed as I wrote so there were no extraneous scenes or conversations. (What did I cut, you may ask? I cut one newly-introduced secondary character by folding the things she needed to do with those of another characters, by tightening up and combining conversations, and by cutting excess verbiage, as I am the empress of excess verbiage).
Sometimes, as with COLD FIRE, I have to indulge myself, by which I mean write things that I'm pretty sure I will have to cut later just because I need to write them either to tell them to myself or because I want the emotional satisfaction of having written those bits.
I'm realizing this is true with COLD STEEL as well. There are scenes and exchange I have to tell myself, even if I have to cut them later. The risk in this course of action lies in my own emotional attachment to interactions or scenes or even characters that probably could be cut but to which I have become unreasonably attached. But if I don't do it, then I can get bogged down through the process of yearning for things I'm denying myself. And while denial works just fine with a drafting process like the one I used for TRAITORS' GATE, when all the emotional points I'm going to be hitting wrap exactly around the spine of the main plot, it does not work so well with these books. Why? Because I have constrained myself by writing in first person, and so there are scenes and exchanges--not to mention points of view--which lie outside the purview of the focus necessitated by the point of view.
With TRAITORS' GATE I found that I knew the book and plot so well that while I did write a very long first draft and then cut a huge amount (the first draft was 350,000 words and I cut 50,000 words in revisions -- which, yes, still makes the final book about 300,000 words in length), I was able to focus on what I needed as I wrote so there were no extraneous scenes or conversations. (What did I cut, you may ask? I cut one newly-introduced secondary character by folding the things she needed to do with those of another characters, by tightening up and combining conversations, and by cutting excess verbiage, as I am the empress of excess verbiage).
Sometimes, as with COLD FIRE, I have to indulge myself, by which I mean write things that I'm pretty sure I will have to cut later just because I need to write them either to tell them to myself or because I want the emotional satisfaction of having written those bits.
I'm realizing this is true with COLD STEEL as well. There are scenes and exchange I have to tell myself, even if I have to cut them later. The risk in this course of action lies in my own emotional attachment to interactions or scenes or even characters that probably could be cut but to which I have become unreasonably attached. But if I don't do it, then I can get bogged down through the process of yearning for things I'm denying myself. And while denial works just fine with a drafting process like the one I used for TRAITORS' GATE, when all the emotional points I'm going to be hitting wrap exactly around the spine of the main plot, it does not work so well with these books. Why? Because I have constrained myself by writing in first person, and so there are scenes and exchanges--not to mention points of view--which lie outside the purview of the focus necessitated by the point of view.
