When Well Enough is Best Left Well Alone; or, Confessions of a Serial Rewriter - Mari Biella
One of my major problems in life is that I’m rarely
satisfied. Nothing is ever really big enough, exciting enough, or good enough
for my liking. Far from being the motivating factor that some might think, this
is in fact something of a curse. Whoever said that the key to a happy life was
having low expectations was absolutely right.
This perfectionism is never more pronounced than in my
writing. Frankly, the things I write are never
good enough. There’s a sense, of course, in which this is an advantage; I’d
never hit that “Publish” button unless I was absolutely satisfied that the work
in question represented my best effort. There is, however, a downside.
If you hold to the principle that perfection is unattainable
in this life, then revision and rewriting are, theoretically, infinite tasks.
It could always be better in some
way. There is, therefore, a danger that you might spend years – decades,
perhaps – going over the same ground, trying desperately to get it just right.
And while your dedication to your craft might be laudable, too much rewriting
can sometimes be as dangerous as too little. Endlessly reworking the same book
can suck the life out of it, besides keeping you, as a writer, dangerously
stagnant and limited, condemned to run like a hamster in the endlessly-turning
wheel of revision.
In these days of digital publishing, there is another
danger. It’s very easy to upload a revised version of your book – altogether too easy, in fact, for those of us who
are never satisfied. That’s fine, of course, when all you want to do is fix a
typo or a formatting error. But sooner or later a dangerous little thought
might worm its way into your head: couldn’t you maybe tweak that book just one
last time? Tone that obnoxious character down a bit, make the ending a little
less predictable, cut out the bits that drag . . .? Couldn’t you? Just this
once?
Hindsight is, of course, a wonderful thing. We’re always
growing and developing, and viewing past accomplishments through the prism of
the present can be both informative and troubling. With the penetrating vision
granted by hindsight, it’s easy to see where you went wrong, and exactly how you
could have done better. Just think how much better that book might be if you
could write it again now!
I was recently talking to an author friend who found herself
tempted to do just that. Reviews of her first book had, generally, been
positive, but some reviewers were of the opinion that the opening third of the
novel was a bit slow for their liking. My friend, having read these reviews and
taken them to heart, was toying with the idea of one final post-publication
rewrite – of upping the pace, trimming the fat, and generally making the book
just that little bit better.
The danger of this, as I told her, was that that “one final
rewrite” could potentially become many. If she thinks her book could be
improved now, she’ll probably think so again in the future, albeit for
different reasons. Will she keep on rewriting? Will she produce a slightly
different version of the book every few years? Besides, in producing a rewrite
on the basis of some lukewarm reviews, might she not in fact strip the book of
the things that those who enjoyed it liked about it? Couldn’t a rewrite,
however well-intentioned, conceivably make her book worse, not better?
Jackie Collins' The Bitch, rewritten and self-published in 2012 |
It’s up to her what she does, of course; it’s her book. But
the idea of a book being substantially rewritten after it has been published worries me. Sometimes, of course, there
might be very good reasons for revising a novel – no less a person than Jackie
Collins did so, after all, when she completely rewrote and updated her novel The Bitch for self-publication,
twenty-five years or so after it first hit the shelves. But to do so on the
basis of one or two tepid reviews, or because you think a rewrite might just
make it slightly better, worries me. When you click on “Publish”, aren’t you in
effect saying, “Take it or leave it, but this is the best I can do”? If you
rewrite it later, aren’t you treating the readers of the earlier version as
unwitting beta readers, rather than paying customers?
But then again, being a serial rewriter, I can certainly see
the appeal of republishing a book a few years down the line. I resist the urge,
of course, in view of my above-stated convictions. Or am I just being unduly
stiff-necked and puritanical? Is there something to be said for going back to a
book and making it that little bit better? Any opinions?
Comments
But fiction I play with forever, going over plot, structure, point of view - the whole gammut of writing choices. Sometimes I can see it makes it better, and sometimes I've no idea but just enjoy playing with it!
What was he thinking?!
I've never quite understood the emphasis on producing a novel which is always a radical departure from the last. Some writers do, some don't. Both can work.
Jan, thanks for that! We all need reminding from time to time.