Welcome to Problem Space, a new series where I break down common writing advice and explore the problem space it inhabits. Today let’s explore how writers edit a draft while anticipating the many ways readers will misinterpret their intentions.
A stranger at a park yells, “Duck!” And a man walking beside the pond thinks to himself, do they mean a species of waterfowl, or are they instructing someone to lower their head ever so slightly? Then, slam! A duck hits his head.
All sentences are infinitely interpretable, given an infinite number of interpreters.
— George Gopen and Judith Swan, The Science of Scientific Writing
In George Gopen’s reader expectation theory, a reader’s interpretation of a sentence often conflicts with the writer’s intentions. By understanding the structure of a sentence and what content readers expect to find where within the structure, writers can reduce the misinterpretation of their intention.
However, writing is also an act of interpretation, not fully seated in intention. When writing a first draft of a story, writing tends to be more of an interpretive act whether working from an outline or not. Then near the end of the story, the writing becomes more intentional as the ending becomes clearer to the writer. Michael La Ronn calls this the glimmer, the moment when the lights come on.
Once you're near the end of the novel, you generally know how it's going to end. There's usually a moment where you know.
— Michael La Ronn, The Indy Podcast, Episode #234
No matter what strategy a writer adopts, even trying to write in a more interpretive way (discovering the story as the reader would) they finish the draft knowing the intention of the sentences they wrote. And here we arrive at the common piece of advice which instructs writers to distance themselves from their own knowledge of what they intended to write.
Advice:
“Set the draft aside.” After finishing a draft for a story, slide it into a desk drawer. Forget it exists. Once time has passed, the story is flushed from the writer’s brain, and this let’s them edit with fresh eyes.
Contradiction:
This problem space pits interpretation against intention. The more you know of the writer’s intention, the less you can anticipate how readers without this knowledge will interpret the text.
Interpretation: What an author or reader interprets as they read the text and perceive mental imagery.
Intention: Knowledge of what the author intended, even if that intention was first discovered through interpretation.
Solutions:
Here are some representative solutions to the interpretation/intention conflict during the revision phase.
Equal Neglect (low effort): Do nothing. Most writers start here—not understanding the tension between interpretation and intent.
Lean into Interpretation: Get distance from the work by setting it aside. Hand the draft over to beta readers or an editor.
Lean into Intention: Edit as soon as possible so you don’t forget your intention. Refer to an original outline or story bible during the revision phase.
Alternate between Extremes: Cycle—edit after each writing session to solidify intention immediately. Outline during the writing process to capture key details.
Balanced Parity (high effort): Study how readers use structure to locate the key details in a text, and use this knowledge to reduce the likelihood that one’s intentions will be misinterpreted.
Keep in mind, parity is not the ideal solution at all times. For one thing, you must be willing to invest energy into maintaining this parity solution throughout the story or it will seem inconsistent. Alternatively, you can practice to such a degree that your efficiency at maintaining this solution brings costs down to match your energy budget. Also, the best solution will depend on moment-by-moment changes in constraints: individual constraints, task constraints, and environmental constraints.
Consider this example. An author who writes books quickly with a discovery writing method can’t afford to forget their intention when editing. They have another book to write and need to tuck their current book away in bed. Setting the book aside is not an option. Trying to maintain the parity solution would slow down their process. Alternating between the extremes gives them the best of both worlds. If you want to know more about this solution, check out Michael La Ronn’s Pocket Guide to Pantsing which he uploaded for free as an audiobook. (I will interpret this as La Ronn being generous rather than saying his intent was to position himself as the premiere expert on discovery writing.)
The advice to set the draft aside can be good advice given the right circumstances. And even if it’s the right advice for an author right now, there’s little guarantee this will always be the case. Circumstances change… 💩 happens. For this reason, I invite you to explore the problem space created by this conflict between interpretation and intention.
Further Resources:
Here are some related exercises you can use to explore the ideas unearthed here. Yes, this whole article exists so I can recommend writing exercises. 😁Practice is really the best way to explore a problem space.
Understand sentence structure by practicing the four tenets of the reader expectation model in Exercise #104: A Sentence in Four Parts.
Practice interpretive writing by trying out different prompts with a range of pre-existing intentions in Exercise #149: Ready, Steady, Write!
Learn how John Updike wrote a lot of high-quality manuscripts that expressed his intentions with only two drafts in Exercise #155: John Updike’s Two-Draft Process.
Explore contradictions in one’s writing process, including the conflict between planning versus spontaneity, by writing characters facing their own problems in Exercise #189: Characters with Contradictions.
Consider some ways this tension between intention and interpretation affect believability in Exercise #204: For the Love of Verisimilitude.