Heinlein’s Rules – #3

So here I am, at the third of Heinlein’s rules. I did the first rule a few days back, and the second yesterday.

As I noted yesterday, the original premise that got me going had to do with the idea that the controversy surrounding these rules is often placed (or always placed) in the wrong area. By that I mean writers gnash their teeth over this third rule (that says they should not edit their work) when in reality the other rules are more often problematic. All that said, I do need to discuss this third rule—which is, of course:

Rule 3: You Must Finish Refrain from Revising (unless at an Editor’s Request)

If you want to see a writer lose their shit, you could do a lot worse than to tell them they should not revise/edit their work before an editor sees it. That is what this rule says, right?

No.

Not right.

I say that because of Rule #2. You really do need to complete a story. If that quickly done first draft misses a piece, or gives that piece a short shift, then of course you have to go back and fix it. When you are a new writer, and especially if you create in deep creative voice (which, really, you should), you make a lot of these mistakes. When you are more experienced, the rate of those mistakes falls off (but does not go to zero). A lot of us “rewrite” while in that first draft—a process we call “recycling,” which entails going over work we did the day before to make things better—or hitting a spot while writing into the dark, and realizing that we didn’t set it up well enough upstream, so going back and adding things in.

The point, though, is that if you are doing this, you are not at the point where Rule 3 is in charge. If you are building the story, you are in the realm of Rule #2. Of course, you need to make it right. Of course you need to complete the story.

In that sense, us clueless writers are pretending that Rule 3 infringes on Rule 2. But the point of Rule 3 is to keep us from constantly fiddling with things. To keep us from taking a fresh piece (that is a story) and polishing all the cool things out of it. Rule 3 is what says that the story you created while in the realm of Rule 2 truly is finished.

Rule 3 says when it’s done, it’s done.

Rule 3 tells you to get over the psychological barrier that lets us writers put the thing into the market.

#

There is something else here, too.

Since the best way to learn how to tell stories is to tell more stories, I think it is best for new writers to look at Rule 3 as permission to move on.

Do your best.

Make the manuscript tell the story as well as you can, but after a bit, dwelling on a manuscript will cause you to stagnate. Much better to declare victory and move on.

In earlier episodes of this I’ve restated the first two laws.

I’ll try doing it here, too.

Rule 1: “A writer gets to must make stuff up.”

Rule 2: “A writer must tell a story”

Rule 3: “A writer must stop futzing with a story that is finished.”

If the story is “good” (meaning other people like it) then it will succeed. If the story is not to reader’s tastes, for whatever reason, the writer is served much better to take the learning they got from writing it, and then go write a new story.

This is the realm of Rule 3.