Once the first draft is finished, then it's time to start editing.
There are three major forms of editing that I have identified: structural editing (also called developmental or substantive editing), peer-group critique, and copyediting.
The first two are most important to the neophyte writer, and the last is more a form of polish for the finished product before it goes to publication.
Structural editing is the practice of evaluating the larger themes and narrative flow of the manuscript.
The focus here is on the nuts and bolts of a manuscript in order to determine whether its overall architecture is thematically sound, and to identify existing deficiencies that can be remedied.
Some key questions to be answered are whether plot, dialogue, characterization, and setting are fully developed and balanced; whether the overall themes of the work are consistently maintained; and whether point of view is consistent and appropriate.
Peer-group critique is the basis of most writers' groups and focuses both on receiving critical appraisal of your writing as well as the development of your ability to offer substantive critique and apply it to your own writing.
Key questions to be answered are whether your approach to any given passage of writing is effective and engaging, whether your choice of words is accessible, and whether your dialogue is natural and believable.
Generally, these analyses are based on excerpts of your work, and so do not have the same scope as structural editing, which focuses on the complete manuscript.
Copyediting is the technical review of language elements such as spelling, grammar, and punctuation which would otherwise detract from a well written manuscript as it moves forward to publication and distribution.
In effect, structural editing is a review of the content of your manuscript, peer-critique is a review of its style, and copyediting is a review of its linguistic precision.
Structural editing is often the most lacking, so let's focus on that more closely.
The first element to be reviewed is plot, i.
e.
the flow and pacing of the narrative itself.
Do events proceed in a logical and consistent fashion? My first editor commented that a generic novel is built around an engaging opening incident, followed by the development of two or more plot threads, of which half are resolved in a minor climax about halfway through the book, and the rest are resolved by the major climax at the end of the book, followed by the denouement (sort of like the cool down part of a physical workout) and closing.
This narrative structure does not necessarily preclude a non-linear storyline, but is aimed at determining whether the storyline chronology is internally consistent.
Do the elements of the action flow naturally from one scene to the next? Another aspect of plot is pacing, whether the progress of the story maintains tension and draws the readers along rather than allowing them the opportunity to disconnect from the narrative.
Ideally, the aim of all storytelling is immersion, such that the readers lose themselves in the text and are unaware of the passage of time while engaged in the story.
In effect, they shift from the absolute time of objective reality, to the artificially relative time of the storyline and its progress.
Narrative flow and pacing are key elements in establishing this effect.
The second element to be reviewed is dialogue.
Do your characters communicate in an accessible fashion, so that knowledge is acquired without becoming cumbersome? Beware the dreaded info-dump, in which background information is supplied without context or relevance to the scene and the needs of the characters, and the "As you know, Bob" manoeuver, in which characters trade information that they both already know and would therefore have no believable reason to actually discuss.
Ideally, any information that is imparted from one character to another in dialogue must be driven by the needs of the characters, such that there must be an acceptable reason for the background material to be discussed, as well as a limited scope of the discussion confined to just the information the characters need to advance the plot in a coherent fashion.
Setting is the art of bringing the readers to the narrator's location, so that they experience the action with immediacy rather than from a remote distance.
Once again, the objective is immersion.
I generally have a sense of the surroundings within which the action takes place, but the trick is to impart that vision to the reader in a manner that doesn't create a solid block of text that the reader just skips over to reach the next bit of action.
One way this can be done is to try and engage the reader by all five of the senses, so that purely visual descriptions are not discarded as repetitive and irrelevant.
For any given location, don't just focus on what it looks like.
What does it smell like? Are there background noises that can be blended into the text to give the reader a richer image of the location? Does it feel hot or cold, smooth or textured? Is there a particular taste in the narrator's mouth as he describes the action? By scattering the sensory data throughout the narrative, you allow the reader to form associative connections between mind and body that elevates the story from language to experience.
Characterization is the hardest.
What makes your characters distinctive from each other? What elements of their appearance, personality, speech, or actions can concisely impart that sense of uniqueness to the readers? Physical description is a start, but everyone looks like something.
What is needed is a defining element that becomes a metaphor or shorthand for the character as a whole.
Juxtaposition can be of use here, by marrying a physical descriptor with an unexpected conceptual association.
Like setting, association between language and sensation can make for a stronger impression in the readers' minds.
Once the basic elements of the story are fully developed, then the underlying themes of the work must be assessed.
What message are you trying to convey? What lessons do the characters learn from the events of the book? How does the protagonist's personality and character develop in response to those lessons? Each scene should have a specific purpose in defining and advancing the primary themes of the book, so that at the end of it, the reader is drawn to the same conclusions as the narrator.
In the end, the process is complex, and often painful.
The writer is forced to critically examine his or her work, and decide what needs to stay, what needs to go, and what needs to be radically changed.
Most likely, several follow-up reviews will be required to determine whether the revised manuscript has addressed the initial deficiencies, and whether new concerns have developed.
The partnership between writer and editor should be viewed as a cooperative process, in which both work toward developing a good manuscript into a great one.
It is a necessary process, however, and no manuscript will ever reach its potential without this level of analysis.
Yes it hurts, but it's a good kind of hurt, and in the end it makes your work all the stronger for it.