I’m at the point of revision where I’m unconfident any word means what I think it means. Cue looking up big, snooty words¹ like “rife” and “meander.” Spellcheck randomly putting a red squiggly under “extent” didn’t help. And spellcheck approves “troublemaker” but not “troublemaking,” so does or does not the latter need a space? A hyphen? A different word entirely?
(This is procrastination. Microedits are infinitely easier than being creative and immediately rewarding.)
I saw a gentle reminder from an editor that when writers think they’re being too obvious, it’s because they know the importance of the “too obvious” thing. They see their tracks leading to it, the lump where they worked to make it blend into the scenery. To a reader, however, it’s indistinguishable from every other bit of sand on the beach of words. They may overlook it entirely unless a distinct pattern of lumps emerges. Readers who want to be entertained by a story aren’t actively searching for author tracks and will trample right over them in pursuit of a good story.
In other words, Rule of Three should probably be more like Rule of Seven if you actually want readers to notice three iterations of an important detail in one reading.
HA HA, feeling groovy about my “redundancy” cuts right about now! Oh well. “Is anything confusing? Does it feel like any information is missing?” is at the top of the first-reader checklist for a reason. If they can spare the time for only one thing, let it be clarity.
Hero says “I was wrong” in a context that doesn’t compel Heroine to say “damn right.” Past the halfway point, she has more faith in him than he has in himself. Since he has more faith in her than he has in himself, he’ll strive to live up to her expectations.
He doesn’t get much POV time, but he still has a development arc.
Heroine, pre-story, had a lengthy convalescence. Present conditions aren’t conducive to good health (lots of desperate physical activity, little sleep). She notices she’s holding up remarkably well—because people keep feeding her when she otherwise would be making do with scraps. Since community is where this book ends up, I made myself a note to play up this caretaking in the next revision pass, since even I had taken it for granted.
It’s not just characterization—it’s worldbuilding. Culturally, people across multiple walks of life are shown not letting others go hungry.²
Most of this “progress” was mathematical—adding less to the current draft than I purged from the previous draft thanks to the two days cut from the journey. I generated a lot of padding for those two days before realizing there was a better solution, so very little of that chunk will find a new home.
I don’t mind! At this point, I’ll take any kind of closer-to-done I can get.
ETA: Sorry if you saw the “hidden” SEO crap in feed readers. Failed experiment!
¹ I recently came across “revanchist” for the first time and felt like I spotted a cryptid because new-to-me words are RARE AND AWESOME. What I didn’t feel was a need to fire off an email of grievance to the author because my personal knowledge base wasn’t taken into consideration during the writing. Haha, that would be so embarrassing, right? *dead-eyed stare at my inbox*
² An unpleasant discussion recently put the hot lights on the huge difference between hating people and hating to be around people. I believe everyone’s physical needs should be met, everyone should have justice and safety, and one-size-fits-all systems that serve only a small fraction of bodies and minds and make living within those systems exponentially more difficult for everyone else should be abolished. I still don’t want to socialize! The other sorry excuse for a human being involved in that discussion delights in the suffering of others. These are not equivalent sentiments.