And I find I'm not 100% sure how to do this. This is the first time I've done revisions based on feedback from a few different people at the same time.
First of all, I've been thinking that the feedback (at least for this project, though I think it may be true more generally) falls into three basic categories.
1. Micro: errors like commas that should be periods, quotes in the wrong place, etc.
2. Macro: questions like how the book flows and what order the stories should be in.
3. Mid-level: everything in between.
What I'm thinking about here is #3, all the things that are neither macro nor micro.
The micro stuff was the easiest. Since the stories are all online already, I fixed those sorts of mistakes right away, though I will double-check them as I go through this process.
The macro stuff was pretty easy, too. I've decided to tell the stories in chronological order, and I've figured out a way to move one of them later in the series, improving the flow, while also removing a character who I didn't really want in that story to begin with. I wasn't about to make any other major changes to the stories themselves. Once you've published a mystery, you can't start changing the victim or the murderer. 🙂
(They used to do that sort of thing in the Hardy Boys mysteries, rewriting them every few years, and it used to freak me out.)
I think it's important to separate out the different levels, since I know if I'm going through a story thinking about punctuation and verb tense, I can't also be thinking about the overall effect on the reader, character development, pacing, etc.
So, my plan is to take each story, read through the feedback on it, double-check that the proofing changes were made, make notes of what I want to think about changing, and then work through the story itself. My goal is to do this without thinking about macro or micro, confident that problems on those levels have been solved.
How about you? Have you tackled this sort of feedback (or are you tackling it now)? What methods work for you?