To Rewrite or Not to Rewrite, That Is the Question
Reflecting on the Past, Rewriting for the Future ✍️
Lately, I’ve found myself thinking about the quality of my earlier writing, not the research itself (that still holds up!), but the way I told those ancestral stories. When I look back at those first biographies, something feels... missing. They lack a little bit of me, my voice, my personality, that spark that I feel shines through in my more recent ramblings.
Having said that, they do serve as a constant reminder of my own writing journey. Now that’s a sentence I thought I would never ever write in my lifetime ‘writing journey’, my old English teacher would probably laugh at that.
But in all seriousness, my early work does serve an important purpose. They show my growth, not just in how I write, but how I connect the past to the present. Over time, I’ve picked up tips from others that helped me to make the narrative flow better and not appear like a cold set of data
So why are we hear?
Well I was recently inspired by my good friend and wonderful writer
who recently posted this on Substack:I have a question for the family history writers: Have you ever rewritten a story and if so, how did you feel about doing so? I’m talking strictly rewriting for streamlining and writing style — not for updating facts.
Part of me thinks that the fact that my writing style has evolved over the past 3 years is part of my history. But other parts really want to update the style on some of my older stuff because it just feels rudimentary to me.
And if I do make the updates - do I delete the previous version, or publish a new 2nd version? I’d love to hear what others have done?
That really struck a chord with me.
Part of me feels that the evolution of my writing style over the past three years is part of my story, it reflects where I started and how far I’ve come. But another part of me wants to revisit those earlier pieces and give them the polish they deserve.
So I’ve taken the plunge. I’ve rewritten the life story of my great-grandfather, William Chiddicks. And now, I’d really appreciate your help.
What I need you to do is give me your honest opinon;
Do you prefer option 1 - The original post The Life and Times of William Chiddicks
Do you prefer option 2 - The new post In The Footsteps of William Chiddicks
Or do you prefer option 3 - A hybrid of them both?
Please be open and honest, I genuinely value your feedback. And I’m sure Kirsi would love to hear your thoughts too.
Thank you, Paul, for sharing both versions of William Chiddicks’ story. I enjoyed reading them both, and I can see the value in each. The first gives a clear, structured account of events and offers a strong factual foundation. But for me, the second version resonated more. It felt more personal and reflective, and I found myself more emotionally drawn into William’s life. I think that tone helps readers feel closer to the subject, as though they are being gently guided through his experiences rather than being presented with a formal record.
Of course, it is a matter of personal preference. This might reflect my own writing preferences. In my own family history work, I try to convey a human tone while also placing individual lives within the broader political, social, and economic context of their time.
Your post also prompted me to reflect on the question of rewriting. I agree with Kirsi’s original point, it can be challenging to know whether to leave earlier writing as a record of how far we have come or to update it to reflect where we are now. I suspect most of us end up doing a bit of both. As others have said, the hybrid approach is a practical and often satisfying middle path. But in this case, I think the rewrite works very well on its own and shows how much you have grown as a storyteller.
Thanks again for inviting readers into the process and into William’s life.
Interesting question.
As a general comment I would say both are well written (although the addition of footnoted sources would improve the first one) ... Which is best? ... Well it depends on who is reading it and who you are writing for. Is it progression? ... Or is it just about finding your own style? Which do you feel more comfortable writing?
Personally, I prefer version 1. I suppose when it comes to genealogy, I am a bit of a purist. I want to know the facts and where they come from. I don't much care for embellishments. I tend to read for information not entertainment. I occasionally but rarely read fiction. I want to know the facts about someone, where they lived and details of the events surrounding them without surplus descriptive material unless it is coming direct from the subject of the story e.g., via a diary. That's just me. I don't need it storyitised. Is 'storyitising' even a word? If not it should be!
Having said all that, I found your version 2 relatively easy to read. I can't say the same for all pieces of the same type. ... Some have a tendency to stretch the truth and I find myself screaming in my head ... "How do you know that? ... Show me the facts! Where's your source!-?"
So ... I come back to where I started - Which is the best? It depends ... Think about who it is you are writing for and find a style that you are comfortable with that will suit your audience.