Over the weekend I cracked 70,000 words on the latest work-in-progress which will be the fifth book in my Twin Moons Saga, Champion of the Twin Moons. I anticipate the book to hit approximately 90,000 words.

To coordinate with my marketing team’s efforts, that means I’ve got to finish the draft by May 1. That means writing another 20,000 words of good content in that time. That’s not easy. Not only must I produce that much content, but I must also make sure the content makes sense. A rough draft that’s nonsensical needs to be rewritten, and I don’t have time for that.

Once my marketing team has the rough draft, I’ll have a couple of weeks to review it, self-edit, and revise. Then it will go to my editor who will work her magic to help me deliver something worthy of public consumption.

When the editor returns my manuscript dripping with virtual red ink—that always happens—I’ll revise the manuscript. I never blindly accept the editor’s suggestions. I review each and every recommended change and accept most of them. I’m the author and it’s my story. In that same vein, I advise those clients for whom I edit never to blindly accept the changes I suggest in their manuscripts.

Once I revise per the edits, I will submit the manuscript to the editor a second time. The second round of editing focuses mainly on proofreading.

A lot of new authors don’t understand the editing process. It’s one a once-and-done activity, it’s a process. At the very least, editing requires two rounds: a round of substantive editing and a round of proofreading. Most manuscripts need more. They either need a round of developmental editing, then line editing, then copyediting, and finally proofreading. Most indie authors can’t afford that “more.” That’s were editors like me come in: we combine the first three types of editing. It generally saves the author some money and may reduce the editor’s passes through the manuscript to what most of my clients opt for:

• An initial round of deep, intensive editing that always results in revision
• A second, lighter round of editing mosly focused on copy editing
• A final round of proofreading.

Here’s hint: the indie author can save himself (or herself) a lot of money by making sure the manuscript is as good as he (or she) can get it before it goes to the editor.

So, wish me luck, because I’ve got a lot of writing to do in the next couple of weeks.

Every so often, I come across a post asking what to do about writer’s block. Writer’s block is an inability to write; it does not refer to having written your character into a corner. I don’t believe in writer’s block. I do, however, understand when someone has a creative hiatus. I’ve experienced them myself. The only cure that works for me is tincture of time.

How much time? That’s anybody’s guess. I once took a 10-year hiatus. There were other demands on my time, energy, and focus, and I had nothing to spare for writing.

When I explain the concept, I use the analogy of a well. There’s a well within your mind or heart or spirit that contains your creativity. When you write or paint or compose or whatever, you draw from that well. Now just like real life, some people have deep wells that refill quickly and others don’t. If you draw from the well faster than it can be replenished, your suffer a scarcity of creative energy.

A well needs time to refill. Therefore, I advise those writers who have emptied their wells of creative energy to set their languishing manuscripts aside and do something else. Go for a walk. Ride a bike. Cook a new dish. Listen to music. Read a book. Watch a movie. This is not to say that a single excursion or activity will cure what ails you; it’s a suggestion for alternative activity to focus you conscious mind on other things while your subconscious mind takes a much needed rest.

The source of creativity is not the well.

My son likes to remind me that writers have one of the highest percentages of mental illness of any profession. There’s a good reason for that.

The source of creativity is pain.

Creativity results from the need to express pain. Humans express pain in beautiful ways: music, art, and literature. Other people express pain in other ways through physical exertion or a multitude of tasks or by shutting down.

I came to this conclusion with the realization that when I’m in a contented or generally happy state, I don’t write or paint. I have no urge to expel the emotion filling me, to get it out before it can do any more damage.

I’ll bet that those creative people who were acknowledged as “mad” or “disturbed” or “not quite right in the head” were the types who worked best when the well runneth over. They created their masterpieces in an effort to drain the well and ease the pain.

The key to sustainable creativity is to manage the pain, to keep it in balance with other emotions. Too much pain squelches creativity. Too much pain manifests as mental, emotional, and physical illness. The absence of pain removes the impetus to create.

I also think that this explanation of creativity doesn’t serve the majority of writers who are “plotters.” This explanation better fits the “pantser” category of writer who writes best when inspired.

Over the years, I have partipipated in several online writers’ groups. Some are general, targeted to writers of fiction and nonfiction of any genre; others focus on novice writers or publishing or specific genres. I no longer participate in some and continue to participate in others. Regardless of the forum, platform, community or whatever else you want to call it, the same questions recur. Most run along a handful of general themes.

1. Is this is a good idea for a book?

Whether your story concept is good enough to develop into a full-length novel depends entirely on you. It depends on your ability to develop the story, to write it, to persevere. It depends upon your skill as a writer and your creativity. How resourceful are you? How invested in the idea are you? If you believe the idea is worthy of development, then you’ve either got to have the wherewithal to develop it or let it languish. By “wherewithal,” I mean you either do it yourself or you hire a ghostwriter.

2. Is the idea unique?

The short answer is, no, your idea is not unique. According to literary experts, there are only a limited number of archetypal plots, and your story will fall into one of them. That doesn’t mean it’s not unique. The originality of your well-used, worn-out plot comes from what you do with it. How you twist the plot and develop it makes the story unique.

3. Can I write that?

Most authors who ask that question really mean “May I write that?” They’re asking for permission or validation. This question stems from worry that whatever they write will offend someone. My response: yes, you may write whatever you want. Whether you can is a question of ability. You need no one’s permission to write the story (or stories) in your head. Whether those stories are marketable is a different matter.

3. How do I start my story?

The simple answer is to write. Just write. Tell the story. However, a lot of people need more instruction than that. They need a plan with milestones. Those people benefit from an outline. For those who really don’t know how to start and are stymied by the blank page, I suggest beginning with “Once upon a time.” When the story is well under way, those four words can be deleted. Or keep them if you like. 

4. I wrote my story … how can I get it published?

Cool your jets, my friend. A lot of people think they’re finished when they reach the end of the story … but they’re not. You see, writing the story is the fun part. After your mind and fingers have vomited the story onto the page, it’s time for the real work to begin, that tedious phase involving editing and revision. This requires putting distance between you and your work. It vastly benefits from objective eyes. The editing and revision phase of the publication process begins with the author reviewing the entire manuscript and correcting the flaws and errors, filling plot holes, weaving in or removing subplots, and making other changes that change a raw story into a well-seasoned dish. When the author has done the very best he or she can, it’s time to hire a professional like me.

To restate this, getting published depends on the path you wish to take: traditional publishing or self-publishing. Your decision determines what you do. Either decision requires you engage in rigorous, meticulous self-editing and revision.

5. Do I need an editor?

Yes, you need an editor. I’m a professional editor and I need an editor. Whether you should hire an editor is another matter. If you’ll be pursuing traditional publishing, then you probably don’t need to hire an editor. (The publisher that accepts your manuscript will run your manuscript through several rounds of editing.) Many authors who pursue self-publishing assume that self-publishing is DIY. Not so. The author who self-publishes assumes the responsibilities of a traditional author, which means engaging professionals to provide the services that bring the book up to professional standards for public consumption. (NB: Robust editing software is helpful, but cannot substitute for a human editor.)

No doubt I will continue to respond to these and similar questions, because I really do want to help writers produce their best work. But they need to go into these projects with their eyes wide open. They should understand what they’re getting into.