Revision & Self-Editing

How to Edit Your Own Writing (When You Can Still Hear Your Own Voice in It)

Kia Orion | | 10 min read

A few things I've learned about editing your own work, mostly by doing it badly for years and then reading people who'd thought about it more carefully than I had.

The six-week gap between drafts exists because you need to forget what you meant to write

Stephen King, in On Writing, says to finish a draft and then put it in a drawer for six weeks. Minimum. He's specific about the number. And when people talk about this advice, they usually frame it as "getting distance," which is true but vague enough to be useless. The distance isn't the point. The forgetting is the point.

When you finish a draft, you can't read what you actually wrote. You read what you meant to write. Your brain fills in the gaps, smooths over the clunky transitions, supplies the emotional beats that never actually made it onto the page. You read your intentions, and your intentions are always better than your sentences. King understood that the only way to break this is time. Enough time that when you open the manuscript again, you've lost the memory of what you were trying to do in any given paragraph, and you're left with what's actually there.

This is the same reason you can't proofread an email you just wrote. Your eyes skip over the errors because your brain is still running the version you meant to type. Six weeks is King's number. Yours might be different. But the principle holds: you can't edit from memory. You can only edit from the page.

King also has that formula: "2nd draft = 1st draft minus 10%." Which sounds like a math problem, but it's really a permission structure. It tells you, before you even start, that the draft is too long. That something in there needs to go. The question is never whether to cut. The question is where.

Your first draft is supposed to be bad, and treating it otherwise is the problem

Anne Lamott's "shitty first drafts" chapter in Bird by Bird gets quoted so often that I think people have stopped hearing what she's actually saying. She's making an observation about what first drafts are for: they exist so that something exists. That's their entire job. A first draft is raw material. It's the block of marble before anyone picks up a chisel.

What Lamott noticed, and what I think is the more interesting point, is that perfectionism during drafting is a form of editing before there's anything to edit. You're trying to polish a sentence that doesn't have a paragraph around it yet, that doesn't have a structure to live inside, that might get cut entirely once you figure out what the piece is actually about. She calls perfectionism "the voice of the oppressor," which sounds dramatic until you've spent four hours on an opening paragraph and then deleted the whole section the next day.

The first draft has one job. After that, you can be as ruthless as you want. But you can't revise something that doesn't exist, and perfectionism is very good at making sure nothing exists. Lamott knew that the hardest part of editing comes earlier: having written enough bad pages to give yourself something worth editing.

Revision is a daily practice, not a phase. One reflection every morning to sit with before you open the draft.

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe anytime.

Self-editing requires you to become a different reader than the one who wrote it

Zadie Smith wrote an essay about two types of writers. Macro Planners work everything out in advance, then write. Micro Managers write their way into the structure, revising constantly, sometimes rewriting a single page twenty times before moving to the next one. Smith identifies as a Micro Manager. She can't move forward until the paragraph she's in feels right.

What's interesting is that both types eventually face the same problem. The Macro Planner finishes a draft that follows the plan and has to ask whether the plan was any good. The Micro Manager finishes a draft that's been polished sentence by sentence and has to ask whether those polished sentences add up to anything. In both cases, the shift is the same: you have to stop being the person who wrote it and become a reader who owes this manuscript nothing.

That shift is harder than it sounds. It's a bit like how a concert pianist can't hear their own performance the way an audience member hears it. The pianist is tracking finger positions, anticipating the next passage, managing tempo from the inside. The audience just hears music. When you edit your own work, you're trying to become the audience for a performance you gave while tracking all the finger positions. You have to let go of how hard the writing was, what you were trying to accomplish, which sentence took you forty-five minutes. The reader doesn't know any of that. The reader just sees what's on the page.

I don't know exactly why some writers find this shift easier than others. Smith seems to suggest it's temperamental. Some people can detach. Some can't, or won't, or haven't learned how yet.

The sentence you're proudest of is almost always the one that needs to go

John McPhee spent decades writing for The New Yorker, and his book Draft No. 4 is the most honest account of revision I've read. He describes a process that's less about improving sentences and more about recognizing which good sentences are in the way. He'd write a passage he loved, a paragraph that showed real skill and real thinking, and then he'd realize it was pulling the reader's attention away from the thing the piece was actually about. So he'd cut it.

This is the self-editing skill nobody wants to develop. Cutting a bad sentence is easy. You can see it's bad. Cutting a good sentence because it's serving your ego instead of the piece requires you to know the difference between writing that's good and writing that belongs. Those are two different things, and confusing them is how you end up with drafts that have beautiful paragraphs and no momentum, pieces where every section shines on its own and none of them add up to anything because each one is too busy being impressive to do its job.

McPhee's method was structural. He'd write the whole draft, then go back and ask of each section: what is this doing here? If the answer was "being good," that wasn't enough. It had to be doing something for the reader's experience of the whole piece. If it was only there because he liked having written it, it went.


Revision is its own practice. I think we get this wrong when we treat editing as something that happens after the writing is done, a cleanup phase, a final pass before you send it out. The writers I've been talking about here treated revision as the place where the real thinking happens. The first draft tells you what you might want to say. The revision tells you whether you've said it. Those are different kinds of work, and the second one is at least as hard as the first.

That's what we send writers every morning. One reflection to sit with before you open the draft.

Get tomorrow's reflection free.

Open something you wrote last month. Find the sentence you like most. Ask yourself: is it doing something for the reader, or just for you?

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe anytime.

K

Kia Orion

Author of The Writer's Daily Practice, the #1 Bestselling book in Journal Writing and Writing Skills. He writes a free daily reflection for writers.

Keep reading

Stop staring at the blank page. Start writing with purpose.

A free daily reflection delivered to writers every morning. Quotes from literary masters, an original reflection, and a prompt to get you writing.

Join 1,000+ writers. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.