1. Is it better to write the entire novel before revisions take place, or should revisions be a constant part of the writing process and,

2. IF it's better to revise as one writes then how often should it happen.

"Dare to be bad, at first." (That's a quote from Kevin J. Anderson.)

After it's written, you can fix anything, but first get the story down and don't look back.

I spend a lot of time thinking about my book: what I'm going to write, what I have written, and how I'm going to make everything work. It's a great idea to start out writing and keep going until it's done, but what about when you think about some change you need to make earlier in the story so it makes sense or flows smoother? Do you wait until you're done and then get back to it, maybe forgetting important points in the process?

One thing that's especially helped me in getting going on writing is to not treat the continuum as sacred from beginning to end. If I have an idea, even one I might not use, or some fragment of a scene that I like, I sit down and write it. I'll skip to whatever part of the story is coming to me at the time. And while I'll try to make sure they're in proper chronological order, sometimes I just let the scenes flow, then create an entirely new document to put the chapters in with a more refined format, revising and editing as I go.

Now, after saying 'get the story out quickly', doing Nano was a very depressing venture for me because I knew major things needed to change and because I couldn't or didn't I felt most of what I wrote was a waste. I still haven't gone back to look at my nano novel.

In my current WIP I realized the second major section was not working and scrapped 10k words for something that will actually move the story. I regularly add little details to the previous writing so I won't forget to add them later. Is that editing? Yes. But it fills me with more enthusiasm that the novel will be in a coherent format at the end.

But I really don't invite anybody to read my story until after the second draft.

I'm of the camp that thinks it's a good idea to keep writing to the end before revising (whether you're a panster or an outliner, I think it still applies). It's good for discipline, and for experience under the ol' belt. Otherwise, if you revise each sentence after you write it, you really won't get anywhere.

Your story's a vehicle: you need a destination but you will never reach it if you get out to check the oil every mile.

Or "Note to self: go back and change character from A-B" (then I begin using character name B from that point forward.)

For me I can't do much revision while I am writing because it totally pulls me out of the story. I re-read a bit at the beginning of my next writing session, and if I happen to see a typo I'll fix it at the time (particularly if it's something like bets when I meant to write boats - that wouldn't have come up with spell check but make the sentence COMPLETELY unintelligible.)

I think everyone has to find their particular style of writing and editing and figure out their groove, but my primary caution to those new at writing is to ensure you're getting to The End at some point, and that anything you're doing will contribute to reaching The End.

It depends on what you mean by revision. Even after I an done with a chapter and am onto the next I will go back and add something I forgot or realize that I haven't explained something very well or decided I need to expand a scene. So I continually go back and make tiny revisions. But I like to wait until I am all the way done to do a complete revision. Even though I have, at times, redone a chapter before I was finished with the whole book. This is especially true here with the F&F book forum, the chapter group and something similar on another site.

For longer works, I will re-read the last bit of what I wrote the time before. If I see any glaring mistakes I change them, but otherwise leave it for the end.

As to how many rewrites to do... that is a tough one. It is so easy to over do it. I have scrapped more then one story because I revised it too much and the story lost all appeal.

In observing others' WIPs, tho, there seem to be two major schools of revision:

-- Line edits to fix the usual issues (wordiness, needlessly purple prose, awkward/broken grammar, etc.) This doesn't generally do any harm (unless over-editing kills the voice, but that's another issue) and usually improves the work.

-- Wholesale slaughter, hack-and-slash revision that cuts and replaces whole sections. You don't need that scene, it does nothing for the story, so kill it!

But wait, I say... are you so sure it's unnecessary? More often, in my observation, the problem is that the scene is unfinished, or poorly developed, rather than needless.

I just beta-read a novel that has this very problem. The whole 2nd act is flat; the MC is bored and wants out of there, and the reader does too. So the initial impression is that it should just be omitted and dealt with via backstory bits. But then the book as a whole loses balance, and later parts lose impact.

The real solution is that this 2nd act needs to be made more full and complete, so the reader remains interested in it. The MC has to become more involved in his own avoidance of what's around him, to express active, fretful boredom rather than passive wait-for-it-to-end boredom. And the motivations of the people holding him need to become more full-dimensional, less idealized.

But I think most writers would kill it in frustration, rather than realising that the problem was ... the whole section just isn't FINISHED, in this case because it's unfleshed, so it remains unfocused and flat.

Now, that's not to say that you should permit clutter like the author lecturing us, or characters that navel-gaze to no purpose, or infodumps that make our eyes glaze over. But before you cut that scene that you can't make work, consider: Is the problem that it doesn't fit, or that you didn't actually finish and flesh out that scene?? Or maybe you didn't finish the scene that should lead into or out of it?

Before you cut that scene, be sure you're removing a tumour, not lopping off a limb.

I start my WIP's with a timeline file that I begins with vague events becoming specific as the story file progresses (I also have a bio file).

In practice, going through I write to the end, I do make minor changes at the "present" if I run into a problem (did the MC have a rifle or a pistol?..go check the timeline...ahh right, well it needs to be a rifle...go back to page X make change). Now if I've changed it in those two places, after I've written the end and go back for a whole revision then if I run into inconsistancies I can fix them because I know where I was going, its like reading a typo and knowing what it was supposed to be because you know where the sentence goes.

The problem with making major revisions for style/prose before you reach the end, is that if you don't know where the story ends how are you going to make course corrections enroute? Even minor plot issues I would say the same, we might not have the mechanics today of how the MC does such and such, but by the time you reach the end you might.

I can think of at this moment that there are three schools of writing, most authors seem to use all three at some time or another, and may combine them also. There may be others but at this second, I cannot think of them.

One,
They create their characters and worlds in detail so when they write, their characters will tell them what is going to happen. They will do a certain thing in a given situation, so all you do is guide them into the situations.

Two
One outlines the story and then writes to meet the outline points. How detailed the outline is depends on the story and and the author. I liked just having the absolute high points and aim for them. Others will write the outline in super detail and then just fill in the spaces. I have done a quick free write of the whole story, one to three pages, before I start, to act as my outline.

Three,
This is the one I do the most of. All my story ideas are written this way and an unpublished too big novel was written like this. One has some scenes and situations and start writing to set up the situation, experience it, and then finish up the story. In a way it is like an outline but without the detail. It is also like character development but it is done on the fly rather than detailing it out.

Each one has advantages and disadvantages. they each react differently to plot changes decided on while writing.

If one outlines in some way, one can redo an outline quickly to see how the plot change will effect the entire story line. Lot faster than rewriting a whole story to meet the change.

If you created your characters and world before hand, does this plot change mean a change in your world or character creation? I don't know.
I have not started writing that way. I admit I want to get to story first, work out the details later.