Revision, Zen, and Tao
February 28, 2002
7:44 a.m.
|
Louisville - 74 Cincinnati - 71    I'm collaborating on a story with John Bodin, who is a good friend of mine. He wrote the first drat, and I spent a couple mornings going through his work to make it my work. I sent it back so he can make it his work again, and the cycle goes on. Collaboration at its best is like that. The story is neither mine nor his. But it somehow, when the writers enjoy each other's stuff, it all works out. His first draft came in at 7,000 words. I cut it to 4,000. Actually, I probably cut it to 3500, then added stuff to take it in a little different direction. In the process I changed the effective setting, reshaped the antagonist, took out back story, and basically added what I'm calling "velocity" to the story. I mentioned this in passing on another list--that I had cut a 7,000 word story to 4,000--and I got chided for the mere suggestion that I get "credit" for this. (You would have to have been there ... it was all in good fun and good taste, but I thought I would still jabber about it some). John's draft was good. It was a useful, solid first draft filled with tons of ideas and lots of creativity. But its problem, like most first drafts, was that it was like water spilled from a cup. The words flowed, but the story didn't know exactly where it wanted to go. Revision, as I said a time or two, is the Zen of writing. I love revision. I like to play with the words, and to think about the situations involved. I like to come up with just the right thing in just the right places. Still, it takes a lot of work, and quite honestly, it's really hard work. The first draft (for me) is a "talent" draft. Perhaps this is why I try to get them done so quickly--fear that my talent will run dry! [no comments from the hecklers up front, all right?] The second draft is a "skill" draft. After that, assuming things have settled, it's really more a matter of mushing things a bit until the hole thing kind of sets up (of course they don't all go this way, I'm talking theoreticals here). To give you an idea of how far behind I fell while working on this book, I spent a vast majority of the morning printing stories and getting them ready to mail--and still I didn't finish the task. In a bit related to John, he recently sent me a piece from the Tao. Another guy has made a habit of turing these things into corporate management speak. I thought that was novel, so I figured I would take my best shot. Here's John's original note: LEADERSHIP BY EXCEPTION Man cannot comprehend the infinite; only knowing that the best exists, the second best is seen and praised, and the next, despised and feared. The sage does not expect that others use his criteria as their own. The existence of the leader who is wise is barely known to those he leads. He acts without unnecessary speech, so that the people say, "It happened of its own accord". And my version: LEADERSHIP BY TRANSFERENCE Managers comprehend the quarter; only knowing that their bonus exists, the status quo is seen and praised, and true vision, despised and feared. The boss does not suspect that others see his criteria as shifting sand. The existence of the leader who is wise is a danger to those he reports to. He acts without necesssary speech, so that his supervisor says, "It happened of my accord." Have a great day.  Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
"Good things happen to teams that work hard." Reece Gaines Louisville basketball player |
BACK TO 
|