Get AI summaries of any video or article — Sign up free
Aggressive Self Editing: How To Become Happy with Every Word You Write with Jerry Jenkins thumbnail

Aggressive Self Editing: How To Become Happy with Every Word You Write with Jerry Jenkins

ProWritingAid·
5 min read

Based on ProWritingAid's video on YouTube. If you like this content, support the original creators by watching, liking and subscribing to their content.

TL;DR

Self-editing in this workshop focuses on line-level copy editing—word choice and sentence construction—rather than big-picture structural revision.

Briefing

Aggressive self-editing is framed as the fastest route to writing that agents and acquisitions editors can trust—because it tightens style and clarity without waiting for someone else to fix avoidable problems. Jerry Jenkins draws a sharp line between “substantive” revision (structure, flow, pacing, character) and the more mechanical but high-impact work of line-level copy editing: word choice and sentence construction. The goal is simple but demanding—be “happy with every word” before submission—since poorly edited manuscripts can get judged quickly and moved on from, often within a couple of pages.

Jenkins argues that editing isn’t just publishers’ territory; it’s writers’ responsibility to polish “publishable stuff.” He also pushes a style-first mindset: his self-editing checklist targets clarity and voice rather than treating grammar as the whole game. That emphasis shows up repeatedly in the workshop’s examples—passive voice that weakens sentences, redundancies that add bulk without meaning, clichés that signal low originality, and dialogue tags or adverbs that can intrude on the reader’s experience. Francine Prose’s idea is used as a north star: the satisfaction of cutting and reshaping sentences until they snap into a clearer, more economical form.

Chris Banks, creator of ProWritingAid, demonstrates how the software supports this “ferocious self editing” workflow. The editor can run a summary report that scores grammar, spelling, and style, then breaks results down by paragraph and surfaces actionable issues. Beyond quick checks, the tool provides targeted reports—like passive voice detection, readability measures, redundancy and cliché highlighting, dialogue tag and attribution checks, and “telling vs. showing” flags. Banks stresses that the software doesn’t replace human editors, but it delivers “quick wins” so later editorial time can focus on higher-level craft.

A major segment focuses on passive voice. The workshop teaches a practical detection method: look for “state of being” verbs (am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, has, have, had, do, does, etc.) and especially constructions that include “by” (e.g., “was planned by Jill”). A memory trick—if “by zombies” can be inserted after the verb, the sentence is passive—helps writers revise into more direct active forms.

Readability is treated as another lever for keeping readers immersed. ProWritingAid uses Flesch Reading Ease to estimate comprehension effort, with guidance that fiction often lands around a 60–70 target (roughly seventh-grade comprehension). The software also highlights “readability enhancements” such as nominalizations (e.g., “make a decision” → “decide”) and suggests removing overly complex words.

The workshop then stacks additional style fixes: subtle redundancies (“nodded her head in agreement”), overused adverbs and hedging (“smiled slightly,” “almost”), needless words (“located in the back part of the book”), and “glue words” that make sentences harder to follow. For fiction, extra reports flag repeats (words/phrases used too often), sentence-length variety problems, and provide exploratory tools like Word Explorer to spark fresh wording.

In Q&A, Jenkins and Banks reinforce practical boundaries: editing should not become endless—at some point, further changes only make sentences “different,” not better. They also address workflow and access questions: ProWritingAid works with Microsoft Word via plugins (Windows) and via a desktop app for Mac; it can open Scrivener projects without manual exporting; it’s currently English-focused (Spanish in development); and it’s positioned as secure, with encrypted transmission and storage only when users choose to save to the service.

Cornell Notes

The workshop argues that “ferocious self editing” at the line level—word choice and sentence construction—can materially improve a manuscript’s chances with agents and acquisitions editors. Jenkins emphasizes that editing isn’t only a publisher’s job: poorly edited work can be rejected quickly, and writers should polish for clarity, economy, and voice before submission. ProWritingAid is presented as a tool that finds style problems (passive voice, redundancies, clichés, dialogue tag issues, telling vs. showing, adverb overuse, needless words, glue words) and reports them with actionable guidance. Banks frames the software as a way to get “quick wins” so human editors can spend time on deeper craft. The session also warns against endless revision: once changes stop improving quality, it’s time to stop.

How does the workshop distinguish “substantive” revision from the kind of self-editing that matters most here?

Jerry Jenkins separates big-picture editing (structure, flow, pacing, character development) from line-level copy editing focused on “word choice and sentence construction.” The emphasis is on tightening prose—style and clarity—so the manuscript is polished at the sentence level before submission.

What practical method is taught for spotting passive voice?

Passive voice is linked to “state of being” verbs (am/is/are/was/were/be/being/been/has/have/had/do/does/… plus modals like shall/will/should/would/may/might/must). The workshop also highlights passive constructions that include “by” (e.g., “The party was planned by Jill”). A memory trick is offered: if “by zombies” can be inserted after the verb, the sentence is passive. Writers are encouraged to convert to active voice (e.g., “Jill planned the party”).

Why does the session treat readability scores as more than a vanity metric?

Readability is framed as a way to keep readers immersed. ProWritingAid uses Flesch Reading Ease, calculating syllables per word and words per sentence to estimate comprehension effort. The workshop suggests targeting about 60–70 for fiction (around seventh-grade comprehension), arguing that higher levels can force readers to work too hard. The tool can also show paragraph-level readability so writers can locate the hardest sections.

What kinds of “style clutter” does ProWritingAid help detect, and what’s the rationale behind each?

Several reports target common clutter: redundancy checks flag repeated ideas or filler phrases (e.g., “nodded her head in agreement”); cliché detection highlights unoriginal stock phrasing (e.g., “easy as pie”); dialogue tag checks find overreliance on attribution and “impossible” actions; telling-vs-showing flags emotion words like “felt” or “saw”; adverb reports warn against hedging and weak verb support; needless-words guidance pushes writers to remove words that can be cut without changing meaning; glue-word analysis highlights sentences with many structure words that slow comprehension.

How do Jenkins and Banks address the fear that aggressive cutting will ruin a novel?

In Q&A, Jenkins treats word-count reductions as evidence of removing over-writing—cutting “needless words” creates room for leaner scenes and stronger pacing. Banks adds that the goal is not to delete the book but to tighten it; if cutting reveals the manuscript was padded, the writer can add back only what truly strengthens the story.

Where does the session draw the line between revision and endless tinkering?

The final Q&A warns that there’s such a thing as “too much edit.” Jenkins says authors need to recognize when changes stop improving quality and only make sentences different. Banks describes the practical pattern of yo-yo revision—tighten, then loosen back—suggesting that after two passes, further changes often revert toward the original.

Review Questions

  1. Which specific sentence-level issues (passive voice, redundancies, clichés, glue words, etc.) are most likely to hurt an agent’s early impression, and why?
  2. Apply the “by zombies” test to a sample passive sentence you’ve written. What active rewrite would you produce?
  3. How would you decide whether a readability score is “too high” or “too low” for your target audience and genre?

Key Points

  1. 1

    Self-editing in this workshop focuses on line-level copy editing—word choice and sentence construction—rather than big-picture structural revision.

  2. 2

    Agents and acquisitions editors can reject poorly edited manuscripts quickly, so writers should polish for clarity and economy before submission.

  3. 3

    ProWritingAid is positioned as a style-first tool that finds issues like passive voice, redundancies, clichés, dialogue tag problems, telling vs. showing, adverb overuse, needless words, and glue words.

  4. 4

    Passive voice detection is taught through “state of being” verbs and “by” constructions, with a memory trick (“by zombies”) to confirm passive structure.

  5. 5

    Readability is treated as immersion support, using Flesch Reading Ease and paragraph-level breakdowns to target sections that are hardest to understand.

  6. 6

    Cutting is framed as power-building: removing needless words and clutter can create room for stronger, leaner scenes rather than shrinking the story’s value.

  7. 7

    Revision should stop when changes no longer improve quality—endless yo-yo editing can make writing different without making it better.

Highlights

Passive voice is presented as a sentence-strength issue, with a concrete rewrite path from “was planned by Jill” to “Jill planned the party.”
Flesch Reading Ease is used as a practical immersion metric, with fiction guidance around a 60–70 target and paragraph-level diagnostics to locate trouble spots.
Glue-word analysis explains why some sentences feel hard to follow: too many structure words “stick” and slow readers down.
ProWritingAid is framed as a “quick wins” engine—catching mechanical style problems so human editors can focus on deeper craft.
The Q&A draws a boundary against endless revision: once improvements stop and changes only differ, it’s time to let the manuscript go.

Topics

Mentioned