Hi Ani
I don't write to a plan. I don't know where the story's going until it gets there. Nearly everything I write is digression; I write chunks as they occur to me without really knowing where they are going to fit in. When I have enough bits of jigsaw, I put them together, try to figure out what the plot is and fill in the gaps. That's the first draft.
Once I have that, I just keep going through it adding and cutting until the story is coherent and then polish. I'm not actually sure how I do that though. Which is weird.
Sharon
P.S Grinder's earlier editing tips post is good.

Despite having taught academic writing courses for decades, I find myself almost incapable of editing my own fictional works. Why should this be?

My first thoughts are that essays can be analysed according to procedural methods, yet with fiction the 'rules' are a lot less governed by convention. Also fiction is an art (not an exercise in logic or inference).

Fiction writing is a 'left-brain activity' with inspiration, imagination and happenstance guiding what takes place on the page. It is all so painterly. How do I cut, find the right expression? And how do I 'stand outside' fantasy? Can one criticise a dream? (Switching the font is a great idea, Grinder.)

I have read many of the 'how to' books but, like a drunk taking his 'Leith police dismitheth us' test, I keep stumbling around the chalk line.

Hamburger Yogi

Hamburger Yogi,

For me there are just two main processes involved in fiction writing: 1) what feels right and 2) cutting what doesn't feel right. For 1) it's a bit like getting the chance to chat up a woman you really like: you've only got a few minutes and every word has to count. You have to be funny, interesting, creative, mysterious - not creepy, cliché-ridden and embarrassing. Over all, your story has to be convincing, one that she really wants to be part of. So, when I read back on something I've written, it's with that kind of an eye: does this convince? Does it grab my attention? Does it make me want to keep reading?

2) is cutting anything that interferes with 1) – a word that jars, a piece of dialogue that's too long or too full of dumped information, a description that slows down the narrative too much. It is a feeling thing, and of course that feeling varies from writer to writer. But I've noticed that whether a writer uses short, spare and precise dialogue-based language or prefers long descriptive passages, good writing will always feel smooth and, most importantly, will transmit the emotion and imagery of the story with apparent ease.

The bigger picture of 2) is usually more difficult for the writer to see. This is where there may be whole chapters, scenes, plotlines or characters that don't convince. But on this scale, they often become our 'babies' that we don't want to kill. Hence, I always seek feed-back from people I know who will have no hesitation in telling me which babies to kill.

Terry