{"id":520,"date":"2013-12-12T02:17:00","date_gmt":"2013-12-12T02:17:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jeremyvarner.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/the-three-laws-of-rob-edits\/"},"modified":"2015-03-24T00:07:55","modified_gmt":"2015-03-24T07:07:55","slug":"the-three-laws-of-rob-edits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/jeremyvarner.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/the-three-laws-of-rob-edits\/","title":{"rendered":"The Three Laws of Rob-Edits"},"content":{"rendered":"

As of this writing, it\u2019s been about a week and a half since the end of NaNoWriMo and a little over a week before the #Pitchmas<\/a> event on Twitter. Your editing should be getting along if you listened to me at all last week<\/a>. But there are some aspects of editing that always gall writers to no end, even after they get that feedback from their readers. How do you know when to keep a scene and when to throw it aside?<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

The general rule of thumb by the writing community is William Faulkner\u2019s quote \u201cIn writing, you must kill all your darlings\u201d. But William Faulkner\u2019s line being applied to editing is the worst advice that I\u2019ve ever seen and it still confounds me to this day that people keep using it in these conversations. That\u2019s right – the emperor has no clothes, damn it.<\/p>\n

The reason why people use this line is because they\u2019re trying to tell you to not be so attached to your work that you ignore the flaws. You may have loved a scene that just doesn\u2019t work anymore. But the advice itself is so vague that it\u2019s basically saying, \u201cdelete all the scenes you find likeable and see what you get.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s incredibly stupid.<\/i><\/p>\n

So when thinking of an alternative to this piece of advice I started to consider just how<\/b> you would go about determining what scenes to keep and what to throw out. It\u2019s hard to really know for sure what you can and can\u2019t keep because there\u2019s so many factors to consider. But then, my nerd side spoke up and told me: \u201cHey, Asimov provided a solution to the conflicting functions problem years ago!\u201d<\/div>\n

That\u2019s right, I\u2019m going three laws on you guys even though you\u2019re all fleshy humans (for now). In a hundred years, when this blog is found on some lost archive and is viewed again by my future counterparts, they\u2019re likely to be robots anyway.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
First Law of Rob-Edits!<\/span>\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
The scene must make sense<\/i> <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

This is the highest priority for everything you do. When you\u2019re editing and you realize that your scene makes no sense, it may be time to get rid of it. I\u2019m not saying that you should get rid of everything that people don\u2019t \u201cget\u201d. I\u2019m saying that if you ask yourself \u201cwhat is this scene about?\u201d and your answer is \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t explain it\u201d, you may<\/b><\/i> need to get rid of it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

This isn\u2019t an effort to dumb down your work, either. The thing about scenes that don\u2019t make sense is that they break your narrative flow. You have to make sure that when people stop to question those plot points that there\u2019s an answer waiting for them somewhere<\/b><\/i>, even if it\u2019s not immediately in front of them. This is especially true of mysteries – it\u2019s perfectly okay if people don\u2019t get it, so long as they get their answer eventually.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Sometimes there are scenes so complex that the audience isn\u2019t going to understand them. Maybe there\u2019s an extra detail of knowledge that isn\u2019t well known to the audience but makes sense of everything in hindsight when you eventually reveal it to them. These are not crimes. It is perfectly okay for the reader not to know what exactly is going on at any given moment so long as you<\/b><\/i> know what is going on. And most importantly, if you\u2019re planning for the long con (a series<\/a> for example), then you could and should be allowed to leave some scenes in there that don\u2019t make immediate sense to the audience.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

The point is, it has to make sense and be explained by the time you’re done, not necessarily as you write it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Second Law of Rob-Edits!<\/span>\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
The scene must have a purpose so long as that purpose does not violate the first law<\/i><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

This is another key thing to remember. A lot of times you will find, especially if you wrote your manuscript during NaNoWriMo, that there are scenes in your story which you wrote because you were either filling space or began to write it and forgot why you started. This is understandable and sometimes you end up with these completely by accident. But the point here is that your scenes have to have a<\/span> <\/b><\/i>point of some sort as you write them or decide whether or not to keep them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

However, it\u2019s not as simple as just having a purpose. That purpose has to make sense (like the previous law states). If the purpose doesn\u2019t make sense, then you still may want to consider getting rid of it. If you don\u2019t want to get rid of it then you\u2019re going to have to rewrite it to conform with the first two laws here, give it a purpose (any purpose) and have it make sense.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Once again, this isn\u2019t about whether or not the audience can see that purpose right away. Maybe your purpose is hidden from them or it\u2019s building towards something you plan to do later. These are perfectly okay so long as that purpose exists and that purpose makes sense. If both of these are true, then you keep it as is, unless, of course, it also violates the third law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/b><\/div>\n
Third Law of Rob-Edits!<\/b><\/span>
\nThe scene must be concise so long as its brevity does not cause a violation of the first two laws<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This one is simple and is also incredibly hard to follow through on. Thankfully, a lot of work today has also shown that it\u2019s the least important of the three.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

You must keep your scenes flowing quickly. The average reader\u2019s attention span is a valuable and finite commodity that you have to treat with the utmost respect. To maintain their attention you\u2019re going to have to make the story feel like it is running along at a steady pace.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

This isn\u2019t about word count, this is about the ease of which a person can get from point A to point B in your story. We\u2019ve all read stories that were short but felt like they went on forever<\/b><\/i>. These stories are violating the third law without even having the length for it. What you have to do as a writer, and an editor, is make sure that your story doesn\u2019t drag. If you can make it read smoother and more naturally, then you\u2019re going to succeed. If you can\u2019t<\/b><\/i> do that, then it\u2019s time to start cutting out the needless bits in favor of something that will<\/i><\/b> do the job without ruining your pace.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Mind you, only do this if cutting the material won\u2019t erase the purpose of the scene or make the scene more confusing. If your cuts make the end result come off looking less natural, even if they read faster, your draft has regressed. If it reads naturally and quickly but in the end has no purpose and\/or doesn\u2019t make any sense, your draft has regressed. So this law is to only be applied when you can also manage to follow the other two laws.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

It\u2019s a simple, common sense method of moving ahead, even if it\u2019s a little\u2026 mechanical.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n