Funny you mention that, Emma. I often try and think through my stories before I put a single word on paper. That way I can find out what ideas work (if any) and what doesn't work. I much prefer to work the story out before I write, so that I don't spend hours sitting at a blank screen with only a title and nothing else.

If I want to think coherently, I do think on paper, but it'll be lots of charts and plans and lists of words and ideas and names and dates and scribbly notes, long before I actually write Chapter One at the top of a page - maybe a year or two's worth of on-off thinking, and I only start when I know what the first sentence will be.

In fact because I so strongly associate brainstorming and that kind of thinking with longhand, I write first drafts longhand too, so they feel more like a bit of casual brainstorming and less like Writing A Novel... Anything, as you say, to avoid the terror of the blank screen/page and the pressure to Get It Right.

Emma

One thing I tend to do (which I don't know is a good way to write) is to write chapters out of order from each other. Like for my new novel--I haven't even written the first chapter yet, but have practically finished the other chapters. I don't know why I do this, I just can't always think how a chapter should go, so if I know how another chapter should go, I go there first. It can be a real pain in the ass when I go back though and realise that what I wrote in one chapter doesn't link up with another. So I try to do it in order if possible.

I don't write chapters out of order but I sometimes miss one out and leave a little note telling me who's POV it should be and vaguely what I think might happen or could happen or just a note to myself like 'we'll need some back story for the homeless girl here.'
Thgis allows me to keep ploughing onwards without stopping to think about it too much.
Then if inspiration stikes I can easily go back and slot in.
Ad even if it doesn't, at some point, when I can avoid it no longer, I'll be forced to write something about that bloody homeless girl.
HB x

I know of some writers who write the whole thing completely out of order. As you say, Dwriter, it's great in that you're writing what wants to be written, but stitching it all up properly can be tricky.

Like Helen, I'll leave gaps which would slow me down if I tried to fill them, and do it later. In fact I've just - duh!- realised I can get Word to number the lines, so making the notes is infinitely easier.

I can never remember which writer it is who has a great story of finally, nervously, delivering her new novel to her editor, who rang up and said, 'It's great, I love it. Only thing is, there's a bit missing. That page 52, which just says, 'Huge row here'? The writer'd spent the whole novel dodging that row, which she didn't want to write...

Emma

Emma, a friend of mine subbed his last mss to our editor with the note 'bit f**king long this bit,' still included.
Cringe.
HB x

That was Louise Doughty, Emma

I don't write mine in order - just whatever scene inspires me to write on that partular day. But, then, I like jigsaw puzzles, so putting it all together at the end is the fun part.


- NaomiM

Actually, off topic for a moment, here's one question I'd like to ask. When submitting to agents or publishers--what's the standard of novels that agents/publishers are willing to accept when it comes to gramatical standard? I was just thinking about this the other day. Does a novel have to be absolutely 100% perfect when submitting it?

I'm not saying that you should submit a book that's dogged with spelling errors or such like, but I find it difficult to believe that EVER book that;s submitted is 100% word perfect (else they wouldn't have editors). Is there a limit where publishers go "Ok, I like this novel. One or two spelling mistakes but we'll let that pass".

I only ask because my grammar isn't always perfect and I worry that (even ruthlessly editing a book) it will still have the odd mistake here and then. I know there are many reasons why novels don't get accepted--but is there a limit where they can accept a novel with the odd mistake here and there?

There will always be odd typos and grammatical mistakes - even (sometimes) in the published book - and the agent or their reader will probably overlook them (unless they are having a bad day).
The thing to avoid is repeated mistakes; the same grammatical mistakes and typos - such as missing or misplaced apostrophies (its/it's), commonly mispelt words (to/too) - throughout the mss.
If you know your spelling and grammar are bad, if you're dyslexic, then get someone to proof-read it prior to submission - even if it means paying for it.

<Added>

- changes in tense are another bug bear. Writers should know what tense they are writing in, and should be of a standard to stay in that tense throughout the ms.

<Added>

Unintentionally wandering povs are another sign the writer has not reached publishable standard.

<Added>

My problem is putting commas in the wrong place, or simply using too many of them.

I don't necessarily think my grammar is bad, but I guess getting a proof reader wouldn't be a bad idea. Anyone know of any proof reading facilities that are (relitively) cheap?

I fear that proof-reading is always expensive, because it's slow and detailed: the Society of Editors and Proof-readers (?) can put you in touch with one, if you really feel you need to.

One thing to do is to swap your novel with someone else who needs the same thing done to theirs. You always see more mistakes in someone else's work than you do in your own, and the chances are that the things you get wrong are different from the things they do.

No book is ever perfect, and a few typos and a comma too few or too many don't matter. The main thing is to make sure you've clearly taken trouble: that you've got rid of the classic mistakes which make professionals wince and feel you're careless or ignorant: comma splices, grocer's apostrophes and other such, its/it's, affect/effect, principle/principal, and homophones like theirs/there's and they're/there/their, which are incredibly common these days because spell-checkers don't pick them up. Also all the mis-phrases like the ones in the book Damp Squid.

More broadly, it's really worth having a straightforward grammar book to hand, because then it's no hardship to listen to the little voice in your head which says you're not sure something's right, and check it out. (I've just read and liked OUP's Everyday Grammar, which is very clear, and also has boxes for explaining the whys and wherefores of both those classic mistakes, and why some of the terrible fusses pedants make are eithe unnecessary or, even more satisfyingly, wrong. I think there's an equivalent for punctuation, but I haven't looked at it.) Having said that, in creative writing there's scope for grammar, syntax and punctuation which wouldn't be correct in formal, normal writing. But that only works if you know how they work, so you vary them to a purpose. Agents and editors are hugely experienced readers, and they'll know whether your oddly-placed commas are ignorant, or successfully transmitting the effect you're after...

E

Just an opinion and late in the thread to make it, but cutting individual words from sentences to reduce word count in any significant way on such a big novel is lunacy that will just butcher the flow and rhythm.
Better, methinks, and quicker to look at the bigger picture and make structural changes that sharpen and condense the story as well as dropping huge chunks of verbiage.

cutting individual words from sentences to reduce word count in any significant way on such a big novel is lunacy that will just butcher the flow and rhythm. Better, methinks, and quicker to look at the bigger picture and make structural changes that sharpen and condense the story as well as dropping huge chunks of verbiage.

True, assuming that the flow and rhythm is as good as it could be in the first place, and that knitting up structural changes is quick, which it rarely is if they're to be integrated invisibly: the flow and rhythm of the structure is as easily sent awry, after all.

It seems to me that depends on where, in the particular novel, is the greatest redundancy. Of course there are novels with a whole subplot or episode, say, which basically isn't earning its keep/space, but if the plot and structure are right and tight it's next-to-impossible to extract a thread without causing huge problems. I've done reports on many a novel which were basically good story-telling, but every thing that was said, was said twice: one tell then one show, and/or every adjective and adverb doubled when the right verb alone would have done the job, and/or far more description of every scene and every minor character than serves the story... You could easily lose a quarter or even a third of the word count without changing the structure or the nature of the novel in the least.

Emma

I would suggest simply concentrating on Ben's pov and cutting out all the other povs including omnicient pov. This will probably involve a large degree of rewriting.


- NaomiM

<Added>

Also, agents seem to prefer the subjective, rather than the objective pov.

assuming that the flow and rhythm is as good as it could be in the first place, and that knitting up structural changes is quick

If the writing isn't as good as it could be, you'll have to fix it eventually anyway, but which is quicker:

1. Cleaning everything up and then finding your story is too big... so doing structural changes... which need to be cleaned up
2. Doing structural changes and then cleaning up a much much smaller amount of text