By
Lisabet Sarai
Treatises
for authors often recommend against editing as you write. Get the
story down first, they advise, no matter how rough it might be. You
can go back and refine it later. Write quickly, from instinct,
without introspection. Analyze and revise after you’ve captured the
flush of inspiration.
I
recognize the wisdom of this proposal for some authors, but usually
it doesn’t work for me. I have to make plot decisions, finalize my
characterization and massage my prose while I’m creating my first
draft. Over the years I’ve discovered that my writing has
incredible inertia. Once I’ve finished a story, it’s set in
stone, or something close.
Over
the years, I’ve had many editors comment on how few modifications
they needed to make to my manuscripts. That’s one external
consequence of my writing method. I’m very grateful that most of my
submissions have sailed through the editing process with only minor
revisions. Because making larger changes turns out to be ridiculously
difficult for me.
This
fact became painfully clear last year, after I submitted my erotic
romance novel The Ingredients of Bliss to Totally Bound. The
book was part of a multi-author series that had some specific
requirements. The first manuscript I turned in apparently did not
meet those requirements. I realize now that, influenced by my erotica
roots, the book veered too far from the canons of romance. Not only
did my heroine Emily have two lovers (Harry and Etienne), but she was
sexually attracted to the villain Jean as well. There were good
reasons – Jean was almost the perfect double of Etienne, right down
to the way he smelled, and she was trying to seduce him in order to
rescue Harry and Etienne after they’d been kidnapped. Nevertheless,
this sort of dalliance is verboten in romance, as it smacks of
infidelity. Then there were strong hints of Emily’s attraction to
the kick-ass lady cop who joins her in the quest to free Harry and
Etienne. F/F eroticism in a straight erotic romance is the kiss of
death from a marketing perspective. Finally, the tone of the book was
far darker than the publisher really wanted.
I’d
already committed to provide this book to the publisher. Indeed, it
was a sequel to a short piece (Her Secret Ingredient) that I’d
written for the same series. Hence, I was strongly motivated to
address the editor’s concerns. I didn’t fully understand the
discomfort I was about to endure.
Over
the course of the next three months, I revised the entire book four
times. I rewrote the scene in which Jean is coming on to Emily to
make her disgusted and frightened rather than aroused. I cut all
references to F/F attraction. I softened the language in the
attempted rape scene. I completely excised Emily’s dramatic, bloody
nightmare, in an effort to lighten things up.
At
one point, deeply frustrated, I considered pulling the book and
publishing it elsewhere. Unfortunately, for that to make sense, I’d
have to reclaim the rights for the short piece as well. That would
have been awkward and expensive. So I tried to twist the story into
the form the publisher wanted.
The
book resisted me, every step of the way.
The
final result satisfied the publisher. However, after all that effort,
sales have been miserable. Is this because The Ingredients of
Bliss still doesn’t match the expectations of erotic romance
readers? Or is it because readers can sense that the story isn’t
wholly mine, that I compromised my vision to bring it into print? Or
perhaps the edits did violence to the narrative integrity of the
story. Maybe there’s a problem with continuity, or with consistency
of my characters.
I’ll
never know. All I know is that I don’t want to go through that
again.
Although
this is the most egregious example of inertia in my writing, it’s
by no means the only one. A number of years ago I decided to rework a
5K short story, “Detente”, into
a 15K erotic romance novella (Truce of Trust). The publisher
wanted third rather than first person narrative. In addition, they
suggested I remove the M/m interaction at the conclusion of the short
story, making the book a straight M/F/M ménage.
I
had a lot of trouble at first. I kept slipping back into first
person, because that was the way I’d heard the original story in my
head. Gradually I realized that I had to think of Truce of Trust
as a different story entirely. Once I’d made that decision, the
process became easier. I changed the names of the characters and
moved the action from the west to the east coast. I added new scenes
and modified some of the ones from “Detente” to fit my new
vision. The final result shares some text with the source, but not
much.
One
sort of change that doesn’t give me too much trouble is simple
expansion. I have several books that began as short stories and then
grew. My erotic thriller Exposure began as a theme story
(erotic noir) written for the Erotica Readers & Writers
Association Storytime list. That story, “Private Dance”, became
the first chapter of the novel. I hardly changed it at all. In fact,
I had to work out the plot so that the later chapters fit with the first chapter,
because when I wrote the story, I had no idea about the cause or
motivation for the events that occur. I never really considered revising that first chapter, though.
In
response to a request from a special reader, I also expanded Bangkok
Noir, turning it from an 8K short to a 30K novella. Once again, I
didn’t alter the original, aside from a word here and there.
Instead, I shaped the latter events to fit the former.
I
view the inertia of my writing as a weakness. A real professional
should be more flexible. After all, words are infinitely malleable.
Aside from being willing to try revising, though, I’m not sure what
I can do.
In
any case, it’s often hard to summon that fundamental willingness.
By this time, I know better than to try to radically work something I
view as finished. It’s rarely worth the pain.
