Self-Editing for Fiction Writers

Rating:
Summary: I seized my magic marker. I writhed with shame.
Review: "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" literally had me writhing. At least my toes curled and I kept saying, "Ouch," as chapter after chapter critiqued yet another one of my cherished writing habits ('Tom Swifties' for one). I have two suggestions for potential readers: (1) bypass "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" completely if you have a delicate ego; (2) if you do read it, stock up on several different colors of magic markers and keep your manuscript nearby. It will soon be streaming with color.

Renni Browne and Dave King also explain why self-editing, "is probably the only kind of editing your manuscript will ever get." Many publishing houses have eliminated the tedious step of editing a promising manuscript to bring it up to its full potential. If they like it coming in the door, the manuscript is published 'as is'!

I'm sorry, Renni and Dave. I had to use an exclamation point to end that last sentence. Your book explains why I've been struggling through so many bloated fantasy novels, lately. The editors who used to take a red pencil to them are now gone missing, probably in the interests of 'cost cutting'. And if there is anyone out there who still believes fantasy novels do get edited, read "Rhapsody: Child of Blood" by Elizabeth Haydon.

"Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" is not just for the unpublished. The authors take examples of bad dialogue mechanics or second-hand reporting right out of the classics and show us how to rectify them. F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry James, and P.D. James all take their lumps in this book, and once you've seen how Renni and Dave improve these authors' paragraphs, you will probably agree with them (I did). You also get to practice on "The Great Gatsby" yourself in one of the exercises that follows the chapter on "Dialogue Mechanics".

Each chapter except the last in "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" has a checklist that you can take to your own manuscript. I used all eleven of the checklists on mine, and all I can say is, thank God for the 'cut and paste feature' in word processors. This novel of mine originally started out on a typewriter, and I would have been forced to commit hara-kiri if I'd read this book before 'cut and paste' was invented.

Seriously, this is a most helpful book for would-be 'published' authors of fiction. I'll give it five stars for now, but I'm going to hack in to Amazon.com and up its rating to seventeen stars if I actually do get published. Right now, I've got a few more changes to make to my manuscript....

Rating:
Summary: Still a good book
Review: However, I give it 4 stars for the slight "cover blurb vs actual content" problem. In short, if you already have a copy of this book, the second edition is not dramatically different. One of the chapters has been moved to earlier in the book and the checklist questions at the end of chapters are pretty much the same. If you have the earlier edition, I don't recommend buying the second one. If you DON'T have this book at all, then you definitely should.

Rating:
Summary: A must for fiction writers
Review: I ask that all of our fiction writers buy a copy of this book. Enough said!

Eric Bollinger
Publisher
McKenna Publishing Group
Publisher of "Two Dozen Lessons From An Editor" by Jim Woods

Rating:
Summary: If you write fiction, buy this book
Review: I discovered the first edition of this book only a few months before the 2nd edition was published. I wish I had found it earlier. The three elements I found most helpful: Interior monologue, dependant clauses using -ing, and dialogue beats. I'm writing on a higher level. Thank you Renni Browne and Dave King.


Rating:
Summary: Some problems, but overall great.
Review: I have a love-hate relationship with this book. It is very useful in editing, others and your own writing, but there is one main thing I hate about this book.

As I have read other books (including HARRY POTTER, classics such as THE THREE MUSKETEERS) I have noticed that whoever worked on those books plainly did not read SELF-EDITING FOR FICTION WRITERS. They break all the rules of the book. And if some of the best books break the rules, why should everyone else follow those rules? It bugs me, because I've read and loved those books, and now I don't get to enjoy them as much because I see what's wrong about them. But I never noticied it before.

So if these things need to be followed to get published, why are there so many books out there that don't follow them?

On the other hand, a lot of things in this book are relavent and are useful when editing and writing, and for those that can forgive the above mentioned problem, it's a great book.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but...
Review: I was given a copy of this for Christmas, and recently went to read it. Two things I've learned from "How To" books of this sort should first be given as a precaution: the first is that all writers have their own unique writing style, which doubtlessly influences things such as their views on editing. The other is a direct consequence of this: not all writing books are for all writers.

For myself, I can summarise the book in three words: "Show, not tell." Most of their advice, I found to be trying to repeat this, with the "cut the fat" suggestions being so standard as to become quickly second nature to you if this is not the first book on writing you've read.

My main feeling while reading this was a sort of arrogance on the part of the editors. Several times you run across a remark to the effect of, "Well, this was how things were done in the 19th Century, but we don't do that anymore."

One star for being usefull as an insight into at least how two editors think; one star for being approachable, and having a rather large number of examples. There are some people who will undoubtably not find this work as stifling to creativity as I did. For me, the Elements of Fiction Writing series from the Writers' Digest was more helpfull.

The best thing to do is to read the excerpt which is up here. It pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the book.

Rating:
Summary: questionable for romance writers
Review: I was recommended this book by a writer, so I thought great. I used many of the suggestions they make and found myself running into people challenging their teachings and telling me I was going it wrong. They run contradictory to many editors, agents and dozens of writers, and if you are going through Romance Writers of America contests be WARNED many of the things suggested in this book will see you get slapped for using their techniques.

This book is good and make some useful suggestions, however, it's geared more to "the Great American Novel" and is not as adaptive for commercial fiction.

This books is rather simple in it's goal and goes about it in a very usable fashion. It's presented in what not to do and what to do sections for every phase of your work, characterisation, Point of View, Dialogue, etc. Each sections you are shown and example. Then they tell you what they did wrong. Next they give examples for you to take an rewrite properly. It's a "keyboard" exercise for writers to stay sharp and learn how to better present their novels.

However, I disliked their choosing successful commercial writer as "examples". I am sure Larry MacMurtry really cares they don't approve of his POV or style! The tone can be condescending instead of encouraging.

So this is "one" tool in learning. But don't use it as "the" guideline or you might run into that many people to not endorse these approaches.

Rating:
Summary: so-so advise that will not always serve you well
Review: I was recommended this book by a writer, so I thought great. I used many of the suggestions they make and found myself running into people challenging their teachings and telling me I was going it wrong. They run contradictory to many editors, agents and dozens of writers, and if you are going through Romance Writers of America contests be WARNED many of the things suggested in this book will see you get slapped for using their techniques.

This book is good and make some useful suggestions, however, it's geared more to "the Great American Novel" and is not as adaptive for commercial fiction.

This books is rather simple in it's goal and goes about it in a very usable fashion. It's presented in what not to do and what to do sections for every phase of your work, characterisation, Point of View, Dialogue, etc. Each sections you are shown and example. Then they tell you what they did wrong. Next they give examples for you to take an rewrite properly. It's a "keyboard" exercise for writers to stay sharp and learn how to better present their novels.

However, I disliked their choosing successful commercial writer as "examples". I am sure Larry MacMurtry really cares they don't approve of his POV or style! The tone can be condescending instead of encouraging.

So this is "one" tool in learning. But don't use it as "the" guideline or you might run into that many people to not endorse these approaches.


Rating:
Summary: a superb primer on good prose
Review: If, like me, you are just starting to dabble in fiction, sit down and read this book. Even if you construct brilliant plots, create engaging characters, and turn a clever phrase, the odds are pretty good that you naturally fall into several stylistic traps that instantly brand you as an amateur. This book points out all of the common faux-pas of the hack writer, and shows how they can be avoided. Applying the principles learned here to your own writing will take some effort, but you will not be disappointed in the result.

Although the title makes it sound about as interesting as a term paper style manual, Self-Editing for Fiction Writers is also a surprisingly enjoyable book for those who just like to read fiction, but don't plan to actually create any. It's a lively overview of the difference between well- and poorly-constructed prose, and it's interesting to gain a formal awareness of writing attributes (both good and bad) that as a reader you previously only sensed.

Rating:
Summary: One of many guides to have
Review: Never use this book as your only guide for effective writing. Renni & King greatly disagree with other editors. What makes R&K different is how condescending they are on anyone who doesn't do things their way. They often cite passages from major successful authors and say it's evidence they're confused and, their favorite insult, they lack confidence.
Occasionally R&K violate their own laws within their book. For example, in their chapter on not repeating oneself, they echo some sentences almost verbatim. I do not see it as something they did for effect.
They have many bizarre rules. When a writer wants to show someone is drunk, R&K say they shouldn't stagger but rather pronounce their words carefully. How many readers will recognize this means someone is drunk?
The fact is no two publishers or editors agree on all their fundamental rules. R&K provide just one set of guidelines. Writers should read books by other editors and be cautioned that R&K will try to intimidate you into being their follower. I now know why some people quote R&K with such arrogance-they've become bullied patsies.
It's a good guide, but I don't like the authors based upon what their books shows about them.