Sample Developmental Edit: Before And After Examples

Gary Smailes | 18 November 2025

What Makes a Good Developmental Edit Example

Most writers think editing means fixing commas and catching typos. Wrong. That's copyediting. Developmental editing rebuilds the foundation of your story or argument. The difference between these edits is like comparing interior decorating to structural engineering.

A worthwhile developmental edit example shows you the bones of good writing. Not the pretty surface details, but the weight-bearing elements that keep readers engaged from page one to the end.

Structural Changes Over Surface Fixes

Look for examples that move chapters around, cut entire scenes, or restructure arguments. These demonstrate real developmental thinking. A good example might show:

• Three chapters compressed into one tight scene
• A flashback moved from chapter two to chapter eight where it actually belongs
• An entire subplot removed because it distracts from the main story
• A nonfiction chapter split in two because it tried to cover too much ground

Surface changes fix sentences. Structural changes fix books. The best examples show writers where their story actually starts versus where they thought it started. Often, the real beginning happens three chapters later than the writer imagined.

Addressing the Big Four Problems

Strong developmental examples tackle pacing, character motivation, plot logic, and reader engagement. These four elements work together. Fix one without considering the others and you create new problems.

Pacing problems show up as sections where nothing happens or everything happens too fast. A good example demonstrates how to distribute tension across scenes. Maybe the writer front-loaded all the action in chapter three, then spent five chapters on character conversations. The revision spreads conflict throughout and gives readers breathing room between intense moments.

Character motivation drives everything else. When characters act without clear reasons, readers stop caring. Look for examples where the editor identifies puppet-string moments. Where characters do things because the plot needs them to, not because they would naturally choose that action.

Plot logic means cause and effect. Good examples show how to eliminate coincidences and strengthen the connection between events. If your protagonist finds the crucial clue by accident, that's weak plotting. If they find it by using skills established earlier, that's strong plotting.

Reader engagement comes from stakes and investment. Examples should show how to make readers care what happens next. This often means clarifying what characters want and what they risk losing.

Editorial Thought Process Revealed

The best examples include marginal comments that explain the why behind suggestions. Not just "cut this paragraph" but "this backstory slows momentum right when tension should build."

Look for comments that show pattern recognition. Good editors spot repeated problems. If a character acts inconsistently in chapters three, seven, and twelve, that's a character development issue, not three separate problems.

Effective editorial comments balance criticism with encouragement. They identify problems without crushing the writer's confidence. Look for language like "this scene has great emotional truth, but it needs stronger conflict to match the internal drama."

Fiction Versus Nonfiction Challenges

Fiction and nonfiction face different developmental challenges. Good example collections show both.

Fiction problems center on story questions. Does the protagonist want something specific. Do obstacles escalate logically. Are character choices believable and motivated. Does the ending satisfy setup promises.

Nonfiction problems focus on argument and information flow. Is the thesis clear. Do examples support main points. Are sections organized logically. Does the conclusion synthesize rather than just summarize.

Both forms share pacing concerns, but they manifest differently. Fiction pacing involves scene rhythm and information revelation. Nonfiction pacing balances information density with reader comprehension.

Common Manuscript Problems Highlighted

Every genre has predictable weak spots. Look for examples that address these recurring issues:

Sagging middles happen when writers lose narrative drive after strong openings. Characters wander instead of pursuing goals. Subplots multiply without connecting to main themes. Good examples show how to maintain forward momentum throughout.

Weak openings fail to establish stakes or character investment quickly enough. Many writers bury their actual story beginning under setup and backstory. Strong examples identify the real story start and eliminate unnecessary preamble.

Unclear stakes leave readers wondering why they should care what happens. Characters want vague things like "happiness" instead of specific goals with concrete consequences. Good examples show how to make abstract desires tangible.

Unfocused arguments in nonfiction try to prove too many points simultaneously. Writers include interesting but irrelevant information. Strong examples show how to cut material that doesn't serve the central argument.

Measurable Improvements Demonstrated

The best examples quantify improvements where possible. Not just "this reads better" but specific gains:

• Reduced time to establish main conflict from three pages to three paragraphs
• Eliminated four unnecessary characters without losing story information
• Cut word count by twenty percent while strengthening impact
• Reorganized argument to front-load strongest evidence

Look for before-and-after comparisons that highlight reader experience changes. Does the revised version answer reader questions sooner. Are character motivations clearer. Does information flow more logically.

Warning Signs of Weak Examples

Avoid examples that focus mainly on:

• Grammar and punctuation corrections
• Word choice improvements without context
• Style changes that reflect editor preference rather than structural needs
• Minor scene adjustments that don't affect overall story or argument

These might be useful copyediting examples, but they don't demonstrate developmental thinking.

Also skip examples where the revision completely changes the writer's voice or story intent. Good developmental editing preserves the writer's vision while making it more accessible to readers.

What to Look For

Strong developmental edit examples feel like discovery rather than destruction. They reveal the better story hidden inside the draft. The writer thinks "yes, that's what I was trying to say" rather than "this isn't my book anymore."

The best examples teach pattern recognition. After studying several good developmental edits, you start seeing similar problems in your own work. You notice when your characters lack motivation. You catch yourself writing around conflict instead of through it. You recognize when explanation substitutes for story.

Most importantly, good examples demonstrate that developmental editing improves reader experience without sacrificing writer voice. The goal is clearer communication, not homogenization.

Look for examples where both versions sound like the same writer, but the second version serves readers better. That's developmental editing working at its best.

Fiction Sample: Opening Scene Transformation

Writers love to warm up before the story begins. Readers do not. They want a reason to lean in. Here is a before-and-after from a real kind of problem I see every week.

Before

Rain soaked the town of Graybridge as Hannah reflected on her childhood, the alley where she had tripped at age seven, the apple pies her grandmother baked every Sunday, and the way the mill used to hum before layoffs. She wore a blue coat, two sizes too big, which she had bought at the outlet last spring after losing weight. The police station sat three blocks away, pale brick, a reminder of order. Everyone in Graybridge knew everyone, which comforted her in difficult times. Her phone buzzed in her pocket. She thought about the upcoming reunion, a fresh start, a chance to reconnect. She had always wanted to leave but something always pulled her back. The rain turned to a mist. Lights flickered in the diner. Somewhere a siren wailed.

What stopped the story

• Entry is delayed. Scene time stalls while weather, history, and wardrobe take center stage.
• Hannah’s goal sits offstage. No immediate need. No choice on the page.
• No clear stakes. Nothing urgent seems at risk.
• Worldbuilding floods the first page, which smothers tension.

Here is how I would mark this for a client.

• “We open with weather and backstory. Start closer to the first decision Hannah makes.”
• “Wardrobe detail here does not move plot or reveal character under pressure. Save for later.”
• “Phone buzz hints at life, but no action follows. Give her a task with friction.”
• “Sirens tease drama somewhere else. Put the problem in front of her.”

Editor’s guidance

• Start with Hannah in motion.
• Put an obstacle on the page.
• Tie action to a concrete want.
• Shift backstory to spots where pressure invites it.

After

Boot prints stopped at the river. Hannah stepped past the caution tape and knelt. One boot lay on its side, mud packed in the tread. Her brother never left tools behind. Not boots. A siren grew louder from town.

“Ma’am, behind the line.” The deputy’s voice carried from the ridge.

Hannah closed her hand around the damp bootlace and stayed put. “Evan’s missing.” Her throat felt raw. “You found this here.”

“Evidence. Step back.”

“Then get someone who will look.”

Water slid over stones and pulled at the lace. She stood, held the boot up, and met the deputy’s stare. Someone had been here before dawn. Someone who knew where Evan worked.

Why the revision lands

• Story starts at the moment pressure arrives. No warm-up. No throat clearing.
• Clear goal on page one. Find Evan.
• Stakes read as personal and urgent. Family at risk, police in view, time running.
• Voice sharpens through action and word choice. Short beats, firm verbs, no filler.
• World details appear only when needed. Tape, tread, river. Enough to orient, not enough to flood.

Where the old pieces moved

Backstory still matters. Timing changed.

• Childhood memory of the alley now belongs in a later scene where she revisits that block while searching.
• The coat shifts to a moment in chapter two where she trades it for her brother’s jacket, which deepens loss.
• Mill layoffs feed motive in a conversation with a foreman, which adds context without slowing page one.
• The reunion text becomes a plot beat that complicates the search, which adds choice under pressure.

Techniques at work

• In medias res. We enter during a live situation, not a preamble.
• Showing over telling. Hannah proves who she is by stepping under the tape and refusing to move.
• Strategic placement of information. Facts arrive when a scene needs them, not all at once.

A quick check you can run on your pages

• Highlight the first five sentences. Who wants something, right now. If no clear want, move closer to the first decision.
• Circle every noun that describes weather, setting, and history. Trim until action breathes.
• Find the first moment where someone says no to your protagonist. Start within a page of that refusal.
• Take any backstory line from page one. Paste it into a later scene where stress triggers memory. Read both scenes aloud. Feel the lift.

What to keep in mind

A strong opening does one job. It makes a promise and pulls readers into motion. You do not need full context. You need a person, a problem, and a hint of a bigger engine humming under the hood.

Give readers a handhold. Give them friction. Then keep them moving.

Fiction Sample: Dialogue and Character Development

Writers reach for dialogue when they want feeling on the page. Then they put the feeling right in the mouths of their characters. That is where trouble starts. Readers do not talk like therapy notes. They talk around pain. They press. They dodge. They mishear. Use that.

Before

Kitchen. Two adult siblings. A realtor appointment in an hour.

Lena: I am angry that you are late again. It makes me feel like I cannot trust you.

Marco: I understand that you are angry, but I am scared to sell Mom’s house because I have an emotional attachment to it.

Lena: I need you to take responsibility and show up on time because this sale is important for my future.

Marco: I feel defensive when you talk to me this way, and I am afraid you will judge me. My motivation is to keep the house in the family.

Lena: My motivation is to move to a new city and start fresh, which is why the sale is urgent.

Marco: I think we should delay the meeting today so we can process our emotions.

What stopped the scene

• Everyone states feelings and motives like a filing cabinet.
• Zero friction. No competing goals in play.
• Voices sound the same. Swappable. Flat.
• Nothing moves the story. The meeting still sits on the calendar.

Here is how I would mark this.

• “Put something tangible on the table. A key. A contract. A clock.”
• “Let one of them need the other for a concrete action. Then block it.”
• “Cut the labels. Show the feeling through beats, word choice, silence.”
• “Give each sibling a rhythm and a verbal tic.”

Editor’s guidance

• Give them conflicting agendas tied to an immediate task.
• Let the ask be simple. Let the answer be no.
• Keep a line of action running through the scene.
• Bury the emotion under what they do and do not say.

After

Lena set the file folder on the counter and slid a pen across the granite. “Sign the listing. He’ll be here at ten.”

Marco opened the fridge. Milk. No milk. He took out a beer, set it back, grabbed the orange juice instead. “You eat? There’s stale cereal. The good kind.”

“The folder, Marco.”

He poured. “You still do that thing where you do not eat on big days?”

“Where is your key? He needs both.”

He shrugged, spoon tapping the rim. “Somewhere safe.”

“Safe. Like under your car seat.”

He grinned, then held the grin too long. “Relax. I’ll find it.”

“Now. Please.”

He crunched slowly. “You talk like Mom when you say please.”

Lena’s hand tightened on the pen. “She would have wanted the house sold.”

“She also wanted Sunday dinners.”

“She wanted you at them.”

He looked at the photo stuck to the microwave. Three kids on the porch. Mud on knees. “I can call the guy. Tell him I’m running late.”

“We are not late.” She checked the stove clock. “We are prepared.”

“Speak for yourself.” He swallowed, then wiped the spoon on the towel like he owned time. “What if we rent it out a year. See how we feel.”

“I already signed my offer in Boston.”

He stopped moving. “When were you going to say that?”

“When you signed.”

He set the bowl down. “So this is done, no matter what I think.”

“You think we can keep paying taxes and pretend nothing changed.”

“Maybe I think you are running.”

“Maybe I am tired of waiting.”

Silence. The spoon slid, clinked the bowl.

He reached into his pocket. Keys. He tossed them. They skidded past the folder and hit the floor.

“Oops.” He bent to pick them up, pocketed them again. “Looks like I need coffee.”

Why the revision works

• Two clear goals. She needs signatures and keys. He stalls.
• Tension lives in the gap between ask and refusal.
• Subtext does the heavy lifting. Running versus staying sits under the surface.
• Distinct voices. Lena clipped and direct. Marco deflects, jokes, stretches moments.
• Action beats carry feeling. The spoon, the keys, the photo. No labels needed.
• The scene moves the plot. The meeting is at risk, and a reveal drops about Boston.

Where the old pieces went

• “I am angry” turns into Lena’s tight please and white-knuckle grip on the pen.
• “I am scared to sell” becomes Marco pocketing the keys and aiming for coffee.
• “My motivation” shifts into the photo, the Sunday dinner jab, the stall tactics.
• The shared history shows up in small echoes, not monologues.

Quick ways to sharpen your dialogue

• Give each character a private goal for the scene. Write it at the top of the page. Make sure the goals clash.
• Build in a physical task. Signing. Packing. Cooking. Let the task interrupt speech and reveal control.
• Cut any line that names an emotion. Replace it with a beat or a choice.
• Trim greetings, farewells, and filler. Start where the pressure starts.

Tuning character voice

You do not need accents. You need patterns.

• Vocabulary. One character reaches for concrete nouns. Another prefers abstractions.
• Sentence length. One short and punchy. Another winding, with stops and sidesteps.
• Response style. One answers the question. Another answers a different question.
• Pet moves. A laugh that is not funny. An echo. A question repeated back.

Try this. Take a neutral line, “I do not know.” Give it to three characters.

• The surgeon: “Unknown. Need labs.”
• The teenager: “How would I know.”
• The aunt who overhelps: “Oh honey, if I knew I would tell you.”

Hear the difference. Keep that separation on the page.

A small exercise

Take a scene of yours where two people explain themselves. Do these steps.

• Write down what each one wants in one sentence.
• Put an object in play that decides who gets what they want.
• Make one of them say no without using the word no.
• Remove every line that names a feeling. Replace with action beats.
• Read it aloud. If both voices sound like you, rewrite one with different rhythm and fewer words.

Dialogue does not need to say everything. It needs to move the story and reveal the person holding the spoon. Let readers do a little work. They like that. They lean in. They connect.

Nonfiction Sample: Argument Structure and Flow

You know your subject. Your draft knows everything at once. That is where readers fall off. Nonfiction needs a spine. A clean claim, clear points, and a path from point A to point B. Let me show you what that looks like on the page.

Before

Topic: Weekly status meetings at a mid-size tech company.

Paragraph 1:

We hold our status meeting every Monday morning and it is good for team bonding. Sometimes it takes an hour or more. People share updates from different projects. Last week we talked about the holiday party and a tricky bug in the mobile app, and there was a debate about remote work that went long. Management likes when everyone hears the same message.

Paragraph 2:

Interruptions make it hard to focus. Engineers report fewer deep work hours on Mondays. I once read that meetings cost billions across the economy, and many people think meetings waste time. Our project timeline is tight and we have a product launch coming up. Lunch is catered on Mondays, which is nice.

Paragraph 3:

We could move the meeting to biweekly. Some teams post updates in chat and it seems to work. A lot of people do not speak up anyway. We want more accountability, and people should know what others are doing. We need to improve communication. There are many tools.

What is wrong

• No thesis. I do not know what the author believes or wants me to believe.
• Topic sentences are mushy. Each paragraph mixes claims without a throughline.
• Evidence floats without context. One study mention, no source, then a sandwich.
• Jumps between ideas with no clear link. Holiday party to deep work to lunch.
• Repetition without purpose. Communication is a problem, then a solution, then back to problem.
• Nothing tells the reader what to do next.

Here is how I would mark this.

• “Write one sentence that states your claim. Put it at the top.”
• “Give each paragraph one job. Start with a clear topic sentence.”
• “Order your reasons from strongest to weakest, or from simple to complex.”
• “Bind each point to evidence. Name sources or give concrete numbers.”
• “Use cause and effect. If X happens, then Y follows.”
• “End with an action or a clear takeaway.”

Developmental guidance

Build a pyramid. Start with a sharp thesis. Stack two to four key points under it, each with proof. Anticipate the main counterpoint and address it. Close with a next step. Keep the reader’s hand on the rail the whole way.

• Thesis, one sentence.
• Point 1 with evidence.
• Point 2 with evidence.
• Point 3 with evidence or case.
• Counterpoint and response.
• Call to action.

After

Thesis:

Weekly status meetings should move from a standing one hour on Mondays to a biweekly 25 minute format, because the current structure reduces deep work time without improving alignment.

Point 1, time cost:

On Mondays, average deep work time drops by 43 percent across the engineering group, based on our time-tracking reports from the past six weeks. A one hour all-hands interrupts the morning block, then chatter and follow-up consume the next hour. The result is a lost focus window on a day with the most handoffs.

Point 2, limited value:

Attendance is high, participation is not. In the last four meetings, 73 percent of attendees spoke once or not at all. Updates repeat what already appears in the project board. Decisions rarely happen in the room. When they do, they involve three people, which fits a smaller setting.

Point 3, available alternative:

Asynchronous updates in our project tool cover status better. The platform supports tagged blockers, due dates, and rollups by team. Teams that use this feature cut live meeting time by half in Q2 while shipping two releases on schedule. A short live check-in can focus on risks and cross-team dependencies only.

Counterpoint and response:

Some argue that a weekly gathering builds culture. We can keep a short cadence for connection without tying it to status. A 15 minute Friday social or rotating shout-outs meets the bonding goal with less disruption to the core work block.

Action:

Pilot a biweekly 25 minute status for the next two sprints. Require written updates by 4 p.m. the day before. Limit the agenda to blockers, decisions, and cross-team asks. Review deep work metrics and delivery dates at the end of the pilot and adjust.

Why the revision works

• Clear thesis. The reader knows the claim and the reason.
• Each paragraph does one thing. Time cost, value, alternative, counterpoint, action.
• Evidence ties to claims. Internal metrics, participation rates, tool features, team results.
• Cause and effect is explicit. The meeting structure leads to lost focus and weak decisions.
• Transitions are built into topic sentences. The reader feels guided, not dragged.
• The ending asks for a specific step. Stakeholders know what to try and how to measure it.

Before-to-after map

• Weak topic sentences became signposts. “On Mondays, average deep work time drops…” leads the eye.
• Scattered examples turned into measured support. Vague “billions” turned into our six-week report.
• Lunch and holiday chatter fell away. If a detail does not serve the claim, cut it.
• The fix is not a shrug. It is a pilot with terms, timeline, and success checks.

Quick edit checklist for your argument

• Write a one-sentence thesis. Read it aloud. Would a colleague nod or argue.
• Turn each main point into a topic sentence that could stand alone.
• Pair every point with at least one piece of evidence. Numbers, dates, names, or a short case.
• Order your points with care. Strongest first, or build to a decision.
• Add one fair counterpoint. Answer it without snark.
• End with a next step, who does what by when.

Mini exercise

Take a messy section from your report. Do this on a fresh page.

• Highlight any line that makes a claim. Keep those.
• Delete any sentence that does not tie to a claim.
• Sort the claims into three buckets. Cost. Value. Alternative. Or pick your own.
• Write one topic sentence for each bucket.
• Add one proof for each topic sentence.
• Write a one-line action at the end that follows from the evidence.

When your argument has a spine, readers follow. They remember. They act like you need them to act. That is the point. That is professional.

Scene-Level Reconstruction: Pacing and Stakes

Scenes are the atoms of story. Get them wrong and the whole thing falls apart. Most writers understand this in theory. They know scenes need conflict and purpose. But knowing and doing are different beasts. Let me show you a scene that limps across the page and how to make it sprint.

Before: The Conference Room Confrontation

Sarah walked down the hallway toward the conference room. She had been thinking about this meeting all morning. The quarterly reports were due, and she knew Marcus would try to blame her team for the missed deadlines. She paused outside the door, took a deep breath, and smoothed her blazer.

The conference room was cold as usual. The air conditioning hummed loudly. Marcus was already seated at the far end of the table, his laptop open, typing something. He looked up when she entered.

"Sarah, good, you're here. We need to talk about the Peterson account."

She sat down across from him. "What about it?"

"Your team missed three deadlines last month. The client is unhappy. I've been fielding calls all week."

Sarah felt her stomach tighten. She had prepared for this. "Those deadlines were unrealistic from the start. We flagged that in our initial assessment."

"Everyone else managed to hit their targets."

"Because their targets were different. Our deliverables were more complex."

Marcus closed his laptop. "I'm not interested in excuses, Sarah. The client wants results."

They argued for another ten minutes. Sarah tried to explain the technical challenges. Marcus kept mentioning the client's complaints. Finally, he said they would revisit the issue next week and left the room.

Sarah sat alone, frustrated. She gathered her notes and headed back to her office.

What kills this scene

• Slow entry. We watch Sarah walk and breathe before anything happens.
• Weak goals. What does Sarah want beyond "not getting blamed"? What does Marcus want beyond "complaining about deadlines"?
• No escalation. The argument stays at the same temperature throughout.
• Buried conflict. The real tension is about competence and workplace politics, but it never surfaces.
• Anticlimactic ending. "We'll talk next week" resolves nothing and changes nothing.
• Missing stakes. What happens if Sarah loses this argument? We don't know.

Editorial analysis

This scene reads like a meeting transcript. Two people exchange information, disagree politely, then quit. No blood. No revelation. No forward momentum. The writer treats it like a box to check: Sarah and Marcus disagree about deadlines. Check.

Here's what I would tell the author:

"This scene needs surgery. Start with what Sarah wants that she doesn't have. Make it specific. Then put Marcus between her and that goal. Raise the cost of failure. Show us what's underneath the deadline dispute. Make every line push toward a decision that changes something."

The scene should answer: What does Sarah want? What stops her from getting it? What does she risk? What does she decide? How is she different when she walks out?

After: The Conference Room Trap

Sarah stepped into the conference room and saw the ambush. Marcus sat at the head of the table with Jennifer from Legal and Tom from HR flanked beside him. Three folders lay stacked in front of him.

"Close the door, Sarah."

She sat across from them, phone face down, recorder off. This was not the Peterson account review she had expected.

"Your team missed three critical deadlines last month," Marcus said. "The client is considering terminating the contract."

"Which deadlines?" Sarah kept her voice level. "The ones we flagged as unrealistic in week two?"

Jennifer opened the first folder. "You signed off on the timeline during the kickoff meeting."

"Under protest. It's in my email from September 15th."

"Regardless," Marcus said, "we need to discuss performance improvement measures."

The words landed like ice water. Performance improvement. The corporate phrase that meant her job was on the line.

"Those deliverables required architecture changes," Sarah said. "We needed three weeks minimum for testing. Your timeline gave us five days."

"Other departments managed their deadlines."

"Other departments aren't rebuilding legacy systems from scratch."

Tom slid a document across the table. "We're implementing a 30-day review period. You'll need to demonstrate measurable improvement in project delivery."

Sarah read the first paragraph. Thirty days. With the Peterson project timeline, that was impossible. They were setting her up to fail.

"I need to see the original scope document," she said.

"That's not necessary for this discussion," Marcus replied.

Sarah stood. "Then this discussion is over. I'll be filing a formal complaint with the department head. And I'll be requesting a full audit of project timelines across all teams."

She walked to the door, then turned back.

"The Peterson client called me directly yesterday. They're happy with our work. They want to extend the contract for phase two."

She left the room with three stunned faces behind her.

Why the revision works

• Immediate tension. Sarah walks into an ambush, not a meeting.
• Clear stakes. Her job is on the line from sentence one.
• Escalating conflict. Each exchange raises the temperature.
• Specific goals. Sarah wants to keep her job. Marcus wants to document her failure.
• Character agency. Sarah makes a choice that changes the dynamic.
• Revelation. The Peterson client information reframes everything.
• Consequences. The scene ends with a power shift and new tensions.

Scene structure breakdown

Entry: Sarah discovers the trap immediately. No warm-up.

Conflict escalation:

• Missed deadlines (low stakes)
• Performance review (medium stakes)
• 30-day timeline (high stakes)
• Setup to fail (breaking point)

Character choice: Sarah chooses confrontation over compliance.

Reversal: The client information flips the power dynamic.

Exit: Sarah leaves with the upper hand, but the war is not over.

Pacing techniques

• Start mid-conflict. The ambush is already set when Sarah enters.
• Compress time. The scene happens in real time with no flashbacks or internal monologue.
• Build through obstacles. Each document and revelation increases pressure.
• Use silence. "Three stunned faces" does more work than a paragraph of dialogue.
• End on action. Sarah's choice creates momentum into the next scene.

Stakes ladder

Good scenes build stakes in layers:

1. Surface stakes: Missing deadlines
2. Professional stakes: Job performance review
3. Career stakes: Termination threat
4. Personal stakes: Professional reputation
5. Power stakes: Who controls the narrative

The revision climbs this ladder step by step. The original scene stays at level one.

Quick diagnostic for your scenes

Read a scene from your current project and ask:

• What does the protagonist want right now?
• What specific obstacle blocks them?
• What do they risk losing?
• What choice do they face?
• How are they different at the end?

If you struggle to answer any of these questions, the scene needs reconstruction. Start with desire, add obstacles, raise stakes, force choice, show change.

The scene test

Every scene should pass this test: If you cut it, would the story break? If Sarah's revised scene disappeared, we would lose the job threat, the performance review setup, the client revelation, and Sarah's decision to fight back. The story would have a hole.

The original scene? The story would lose nothing. Sarah and Marcus disagree about deadlines. We could learn that in a single sentence of summary.

Your scenes should be load-bearing walls, not decorative trim. Make them essential, make them move, make them matter.

Manuscript-Level Changes: Plot and Structure

Big edits save books. Line fixes polish. Structure work rescues.

Let me show you a typical case. A mystery with a romantic thread, working title, Blue Finch.

• Protagonist: Mara, a wildlife officer.
• Central problem: eco-sabotage at a coastal reserve.
• Antagonist: a developer hiding permit fraud.
• Goal: protect the reserve and keep her job.

Before: Where the book sags

The opening sings. A sharp scene on the shoreline, a dead bird with blue dye, a quick intro to the reserve. Then the story drifts.

• Act Two stretches into a travel log. Dingy bar. Drive to a marina. Stakeout at a bait shop. None of those scenes change the board.
• A romantic subplot with a local reporter floats beside the main story. Sweet, then repetitive. No friction with the central problem.
• Five recurring side characters. A grad student. A park ranger. A neighbor with a boat. A cousin in city hall. A retired biologist. Each offers a clue, none drives a turn.
• Mara’s arc stalls. She begins guarded, stays guarded, blows up near the end, then returns to baseline.
• The climax relies on a confession in a rainstorm. No setup earns that turn.

You feel the strain by page 180. Scenes exist. Momentum does not.

Editorial diagnosis

A book needs a spine. One desire, one line of pressure, a chain of cause and effect. This draft scatters energy across errands. The romance floats. The villain hides offstage without pressure. Stakes sit in the background. The second act expands without turning points. The ending leans on a speech, not a decision.

Developmental strategy

Three aims guided the edit.

1. Build a tight cause chain.
   • Every scene forces a choice or reveals a consequence.
   • Clues lead to action, action draws heat from the foe.
2. Merge and cut for focus.
   • Combine the reporter and the grad student into one character, Rowan. A love interest who also threatens Mara’s job if the story breaks wrong.
   • Fold the neighbor with a boat into the park ranger. Fewer bodies, cleaner relationships.
   • Remove the cousin and the retired biologist. Any unique clue moves to Rowan or the ranger.
3. Tie the romance to the plot.
   • Rowan’s editor pushes for a scoop. That pressure now endangers the reserve funding request. Love now collides with duty.
4. Rebuild the midpoint and climax.
   • Midpoint shift: a controlled burn at the reserve goes wrong, blue dye blooms across the marsh. Public outrage spikes. Funding hearing at risk. Stakes jump on the page.
   • Climax shift: a permit hearing turns into a showdown. Mara presents proof, Rowan asks the question that traps the developer, the ranger commits to a risky reveal on the record. No confession in the rain. Public forum, choices, consequences.

Before and after, in outline form

Old structure

• Act One: Shoreline discovery. Quick tour of the reserve. Early hint of a permit issue.
• Act Two part A: Rowing through leads. Bar. Marina. Bait shop. Neighbor’s dock. No turns.
• Midpoint: A tender date on the pier. Beautiful mood, no new leverage.
• Act Two part B: More leads. Cousin hints at files in city hall. Retired biologist shares a story about a flood, long anecdote, low heat.
• Act Three: Confrontation in a storm. The developer breaks down. Case closed.

New structure

• Act One: Shoreline discovery. Early encounter with Rowan. Reserve board sets a funding hearing for six weeks out. Clock starts.
• Act Two part A: A clue links blue dye to a specific supplier. That lead pressures the developer’s timeline. The developer strikes back with a smear about Mara’s conduct.
• Midpoint: Controlled burn goes wrong, blue dye spreads on live TV. Rowan reports, public heat surges. Funding hearing at risk.
• Act Two part B: Mara chooses to share part of the file with Rowan to expose the supplier’s shell firm. The ranger agrees to testify about falsified field notes, which puts career on the line.
• Act Three: Permit hearing. Evidence chain laid out. Rowan’s question triggers a perjury trap. The developer scrambles, the board halts the project. Mara wins the case, then faces fallout with Rowan. Personal and public stakes both resolve with choices.

Cause and effect, one clean chain

• Dead bird with dye leads to supplier list.
• Supplier list leads to shell firm linked to the developer.
• Exposure risk leads the foe to smear Mara.
• Smear leads to internal review, which threatens the funding hearing.
• Botched burn forces public pressure, heightens the deadline.
• Sharing files leads to proof that holds up in a hearing.
• Hearing leads to a decision that changes careers.

No more errands. Each step forces the next.

Character consolidation in practice

Before

• Reporter pushes for quotes without skin in the game.
• Grad student knows dye chemistry, exits for exams.
• Neighbor loans a boat for a chapter, vanishes.

After

• Rowan does the job of reporter and grad student. Science knowledge helps parse the dye, reporting pressure adds friction with Mara. Love meets risk.
• Ranger owns water access and local knowledge, which keeps support on-page and personal.

Fewer faces, stronger bonds, faster reading.

Arc repair

Mara begins guarded and punitive, distrusts press and public boards. The smear and the botched burn force a new approach. She chooses collaboration over control at the midpoint. That choice costs pride and safety. The hearing demands courage in public, not a private outburst. Growth shows on the page through decisions, not a speech.

Measurable change

• Total length drops from 105,000 words to 92,000.
• Chapters from 43 to 32.
• Point-of-view heads from five to two, Mara and Rowan.
• Midpoint lands at chapter 16, not chapter 22.
• Every chapter ends on a decision, a new problem, or a revealed consequence.
• The final scene sets up new equilibrium without a protracted epilogue.

Genre and market fit

Mystery readers expect a clean evidence trail, rising heat, a reveal earned by legwork and risk. The new structure delivers that rhythm. Word count lands in a friendly range for the shelf. The romance thread supports the puzzle instead of floating beside it.

A quick self-edit kit for structure

• Write one sentence for the spine. Protagonist wants X, antagonist blocks with Y, stakes equal Z.
• Mark act breaks. Setup, midpoint shift, crisis, resolution.
• For each scene, finish this line. Because of this, the next event must happen.
• Highlight any scene without a decision or a consequence. Remove or rework.
• Merge roles where two characters serve the same function. Mentor and boss. Love interest and informant. Pick one body.
• Place a public deadline on the board. A hearing. A race. A vote. A delivery date. A clock focuses readers and writers.

Why this level of change feels different

Surface prose smooths the ride. Structure sets the route. Readers sense intention when scenes deliver pressure and change. A book with a strong spine holds attention, page to page. Fewer characters and a tighter cause chain free reader memory for emotion. A strong midpoint and an earned climax send readers to bed late, happy to pay for it the next day.

Do the hard cuts. Fold stray threads into the main line. Tie love, work, and risk into the same knot. Your story will hold. Your reader will stay.

Editor Commentary and Revision Process

Writers deserve clear direction, not vague notes. You want to know what moves first, what waits, and why. Here is how a thoughtful editorial exchange looks when it works.

A sample editorial letter

Subject: Big-picture notes and revision plan for your manuscript

Dear [Author Name],

Thank you for the trust. The pages show a strong premise, a memorable lead, and a setting with pressure built in. Readers will follow this story once the path holds firm.

Global feedback

• Structure: momentum fades in the middle. Scenes exist without clear cause and effect. The climax lands, though the setup underfeeds the turn.
• Character arc: the lead resists change for too long. A midpoint choice will bring the arc into focus.
• Stakes: personal risk reads clearly, public risk sits in the background. More pressure on the board will sharpen choices.
• Point of view: a few head hops scatter focus. One primary lens, with rare, chosen shifts.
• Theme: responsibility versus desire surfaces, then slips. A clear decision near the midpoint can lock this throughline.
• Pacing: too many regroup scenes in a row. Fewer breathers, more consequence.

Revision priorities, in order

1. Rebuild the spine. One sentence, written on a card near your desk. Protagonist wants X, opposition blocks with Y, loss equals Z.
2. Scene triage. Label each scene goal, conflict, outcome. Keep scenes with a change. Cut or combine scenes with no change.
3. Midpoint choice. Force a trade that realigns the arc and raises risk.
4. Consolidate roles. Merge characters who serve the same function. Fewer faces, stronger bonds.
5. Prep for line work. Once structure holds, pass through for voice, rhythm, and language.

Wins to protect

• Dialogue spark in chapters 2 and 24.
• Setting texture in the harbor sequence.
• Tender beats between the lead and the mentor in chapters 9 and 27.

I attached a marked copy with scene notes and margin comments. Timeline and next steps follow below.

With care,
[Editor Name]

Marginal comments in action

A few examples, pulled from a marked draft. Brackets show the margin voice you want from a pro, firm and kind.

Line in manuscript: The rain pounds the shed roof. I want to quit, though the gate still hangs open.

[Good tension between body and duty. Tighten the last clause. Gate still open carries the weight.]

Line in manuscript: Nora smiles while asking for the file. My chest goes tight, and words fall apart.

[Subtext lands. Give Nora a micro-action to signal pressure. Touch on the folder, a glance at the clock, anything that turns the screw.]

Line in manuscript: We sit for coffee and talk about the plan. Nothing new comes out of the chat.

[Low heat. Replace with a decision or cut. What changes by the end of this exchange.]

Line in manuscript: The warehouse smells like rope and rust, a ship graveyard.

[Sensory win. Add one sound to anchor the space. Chain clank, gull cry, rain tick.]

Note the balance. Praise locks in what works. Questions and prompts point toward change without dictating a sentence-by-sentence fix.

A practical revision timeline

Plan for three passes. No rush. Quality arrives through sequence, not speed.

Pass 1, structure

• Build a scene list with goal, conflict, outcome for each entry.
• Cut or combine low-change scenes.
• Reorder for cause and effect. Because of this, next event must follow.
• Draft or replace the midpoint to force a choice with consequences.

Pass 2, character and stakes

• Track desire, fear, and belief for the lead across the book.
• Place public pressure on the page. A date, a hearing, a delivery, a vote. A clock focuses a story.
• Anchor relationships through action, not summary. Fewer chats, more choices.

Pass 3, pacing and promise

• Open and close scenes on movement or consequence.
• Trim repetition. One strong example beats three soft echoes.
• Check chapter lengths for rhythm. Mix short and long to keep readers awake.
• Flag lines for line editing. Voice notes, word echoes, filter verbs.

Optional buffer, proof of repair

• Beta readers or a critique partner read the new draft with a short brief. Ask for clarity, engagement, and any point of confusion.

Collaboration without losing voice

Healthy collaboration feels like a rehearsal, not a takeover.

• Kickoff call or memo. Agree on north star goals. Define reader promise.
• Shared vocabulary. Spine, stakes, turn, midpoint, consequence. Short words speed talks.
• Guardrails for voice. Name one anchor for dialogue, one for narration, one for humor or tone. Ask the editor to flag slips, not rewrite voice.
• Queries in the margin, not commands. The right question works better than a prescription.
• One captain. Author makes final calls. Editor offers options and rationale.

Quality benchmarks before line editing

Move to line work once the story holds under light pressure.

• Spine statement on one line, clear to anyone in the room.
• Every scene changes something, or leaves a clear consequence.
• Stakes present on the page by chapter 3, raised by the midpoint, paid off at the end.
• The lead makes hard choices, not only reactions.
• Point of view stable and intentional.
• Word count within genre range.
• A timeline that a stranger can follow.
• No orphan subplots. All threads tie to the main line or leave with grace.

Quick self-test

• Print the scene list. Draw arrows for cause and effect. No arrow, no scene.
• Hand a friend the first 30 pages. Ask where attention dips. Fix those pages first.

Professional standards for different paths

Traditional path

• Manuscript formatted to industry norms. Readable font, standard spacing, clean chapter breaks.
• Query package prepped. Query letter, one-page synopsis, brief bio, comp titles that signal shelf and audience.
• Word count aligned with market expectations.
• Full draft ready for a line edit only after structural sign-off.

Independent path

• Editorial packet in order. Editorial letter, scene list, marked manuscript, style sheet.
• Beta reads or sensitivity reads where relevant, with a clear brief.
• Line edit after structural sign-off, then copyedit, then proofread.
• Clean metadata and product description shaped from the spine and stakes.
• Launch plan shaped around genre signals, cover, and hook.

One final encouragement. Notes serve the book, not the ego of the editor. A good process respects voice, keeps pressure on the story’s spine, and offers a clear path from messy draft to publishable work. Keep the promise to the reader, page by page, and the revision will carry you to the right finish.

Frequently Asked Questions

Download FREE ebook

Claim your free eBook today and join over 25,000 writers who have read and benefited from this ebook.

'It is probably one of the best books on writing I've read so far.' Miz Bent

Leave this empty

Get free book