Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
The Post Edit Demoliton
and I mean it. In a nutshell, my reader's opinion is that I have a lot of good stuff, well written 'n all and one character jumps off the page like an Olympic high jumper, BUT...
the plot is confused because the story arcs need clarifying in places
stuff is in the wrong order and back story is often presented as an essay (but I can correct that). I have the usual admonitions about Show Not Tell, but again I can correct that, although as a reader a like a bit of 'tell', so I find it hard not to use it. Any observations about that you'd like to add, such as 'Show is better when you want to...' and 'Tell is better when you want to...'?
I have a lot of characters.
She suggests I:
clarify the story arcs and redefine them where necessary
think again about the POVs I have used (I have multiple).
This post is not a moan. The reader is right and if I (broadly) take her advice, it looks as if:
two minor characters will be cut (but that's no loss, really)
the story will be told between two POVs only (and compensating for cutting the narrator's third-person POV will be a challenge, I'll admit).
I'm using the book 'Write A Blockbuster And Get It Published' by Weatherly/Corner.
So, I have a massive amount of good stuff, but all in building blocks. I have to demolish and reconstruct.
I'm using the Three-Act Structure which is a good skeleton for my concept. Right now I'm doing the individual story arc for each major character (four of them) and I assume that at each crisis point, the crisis points of each character coincide? Is that right? Is it effective? Any of you care to comment?
the plot is confused because the story arcs need clarifying in places
stuff is in the wrong order and back story is often presented as an essay (but I can correct that). I have the usual admonitions about Show Not Tell, but again I can correct that, although as a reader a like a bit of 'tell', so I find it hard not to use it. Any observations about that you'd like to add, such as 'Show is better when you want to...' and 'Tell is better when you want to...'?
I have a lot of characters.
She suggests I:
clarify the story arcs and redefine them where necessary
think again about the POVs I have used (I have multiple).
This post is not a moan. The reader is right and if I (broadly) take her advice, it looks as if:
two minor characters will be cut (but that's no loss, really)
the story will be told between two POVs only (and compensating for cutting the narrator's third-person POV will be a challenge, I'll admit).
I'm using the book 'Write A Blockbuster And Get It Published' by Weatherly/Corner.
So, I have a massive amount of good stuff, but all in building blocks. I have to demolish and reconstruct.
I'm using the Three-Act Structure which is a good skeleton for my concept. Right now I'm doing the individual story arc for each major character (four of them) and I assume that at each crisis point, the crisis points of each character coincide? Is that right? Is it effective? Any of you care to comment?
Comments
[quote=paperbackwriter]one character jumps off the page like an Olympic high jumper, BUT...[/quote]
That's is telling you something...
Please Miss {dunce raises his hand with query} what does "arc" mean?
Sorry PaperbackWriter,
Not a reader of "how to ...." books, the term "arc" in my experience {the construction industry} refers to part of a circle. Could you write a quick note of explanation, please?
[quote=paperbackwriter]demolish and reconstruct[/quote]
As with "my" industry, structure is best formed from a solid foundation. Once that is set then
[quote=paperbackwriter]usual admonitions about Show Not Tell, but again I can correct that, although as a reader a like a bit of 'tell', so I find it hard not to use it. Any observations about that you'd like to add[/quote]
a bit of individuality in the writing achieves colour and depth to enhance the readers enjoyment.
Following "rules" too rigidly risks producing a two dimensional creation rather than allowing imagery to protrude from the flat page.
Most folk appreciate a bit of "tell" amongst the "show". One can't better a piece of gossip shared over the garden fence to give perspective of a situation.
Don't worry, I'll admit to being a dunce too. It took me ages to find out what it was and if I'd done it sooner I'd have saved a lot of spade work in the early days. However...
On the left margin of a piece of paper, draw a vertical axis (tension) and along the bottom a horixontal axis (time). Draw a diagonal line up the middle but at four points in it, draw an upturned 'hook' (like the end of a crochet hook, or shepherd's crook) and then a compensating 'dip' like a 'u' before you continue the upward line. At the top (a 5th point) draw a big crest and then level the line off to the end.
As you've guessed, the idea is that tension increases with time. The 'crest' of each hook is a climax (C1,C2,C3 and the fourth one is High Point). The dip is the lull after each climax to give the reader a rest.
The High Point is where everything seems to be resolved and the protagonist has it all 'sorted'. Immediately after comes the Rug-Pulling Moment ( a big dip) where something horrible happens and the whole world comes crashing down; everything is lost.
Finally, the upward trajectory is resumed towards big 'crest' which is the final big Climax where the protagonist (etc) has to take the responsibility of sorting it out and solving the problems. The levelling off is the resolution and the end of the book.
Apparently this is all technical stuff and well known. I hadn't fully grasped the gradations of the rising tension. I have the tension moments but they don't really increase. It's nicely and clearly illustrated in the book I mention above.
Re-writing chapters from different POVs was a challenge, but I enjoyed exploring plot situations from another character's perspective, and if you know your characters well enough, the scenes will almost write themselves.
I think structural edits done after the book is finished, when you know your characters so, so well, are great fun - like being able to step into a favourite film or book and live with the characters. They kind of do everything for yourselves, you just have to write it down.
And if you can pin down what makes that one character leap so high off the page and apply it to your other characters, you're onto a winner!
With the crisis points, that depends on the characters. They don't need to coincide, but it could be nice to have a nice, big, spectacular crisis collision at the denouement stage :)
Are you thinking of trying the agent route again after doing these edits? I only started getting requests for full mss after doing major edits based on my RNA NWS report.
[quote=Van]I think structural edits done after the book is finished, when you know your characters so, so well, are great fun - like being able to step into a favourite film or book and live with the characters. They kind of do everything for yourselves, you just have to write it down.
[/quote]
I agree and this is enormously exciting, probably one of the main answers to the 'Why do you write' question. It's rather like living in your own feature film.
I certainly shall try the agent route after the edits, but I MAY go for another critique before I do it. The agent route is still the best way, whatever the hype round the ePublish world is. I shall have one more go at the agent route and if it doesn't pay off I shall ePublish (but then I risk having the 'big warty toad', hilarious...See the blog 'How Publishing Really Works')
http://howpublishingreallyworks.com/?p=4152
I'm working on the spectacular denouement at the end, where they all collide.
Your 'demolition' and reconstruction job sounds similar to mine, and I too learnt a lot from Helen Corner's and Lee Weatherley's book. The story arcs: I approached them in another way. I had seven main characters and for each of them I wrote a bullet point list of 'their plan' for the novel, because everything has to spring from motivation, the stronger and even the more desperate, the better. So: Ben thinks he's going to put Arthur out of business by dishing all the dirt he can lay his hands on to the press, but later by poisoning his wife Tabitha's view of him; Arthur thinks he's going to take Tabitha's father for every penny he's got before ditching her for Euridice, etc. These all criss-cross, of course, with moments of realisation, clash, change of direction, deepening of passions. It worked for me; in fact it was the only way I could make the plot feasible from all angles. Other people may say that they sort their characters first and then the plot follows. Don't be led down that path: the recent agent blogs I've been reading all insist that your plot is the be-all and end-all, and characters will damned well fit into it once you've got it in place.
Interesting and timely observation. My first/second drafts (which are still a good read, mind you) were written mostly with the brain in free writing mode, and I was led by the characters. There are some really good moments of tension but it doesn't lead to le grand denoument, really. Now I have done the four character arcs - on plot points (the emotional arc stuff will follow naturally and I know what issues and themes my book is exploring) - the whole thing knits together and builds nicely.
Oooh - er! I like the sound of yours! Looking forward to reading that one!
I was wondering the same thing Lou. If it was a professional critique do you mind me asking how much it cost?
Yes it was, thanks. It was the one I commissioned from Cornerstones.
It varies according to the length of your manuscript and what type of report you want. If you go on their web site, they advertise their rates and you can work it out.
http://www.cornerstones.co.uk/#/ratessubmission/cornerstonesrates/
As a writer, I found Dwight, Van and your posts very informative. After the mini critique I received from Writers' News all I could see was the big task ahead on the rewrite (plot restructuring, cutting the waffle etc) and I've been putting it off. Reading how others have been in the same position and ended up with a tighter, improved manuscript has given me the kick up the backside I needed. Thanks.
Not much help with your question, PBW, but given me something to think about.
Logic tells me it is better to kick the plot into shape more or less as you want it, and the restructuring, then select the chapters which you are definitely going to keep. 'Rewriting' (partial or whole), to my mind, comes under the 'cutting the waffle' category and there is no point editing at that level of detail if you are then going to discard that section.
So I am rebuilding, warts and all, although I have done some detailed redrafting where it's fresh in my mind, but generally speaking, I'll do the make-over last.
But if you have just received this feedback, give it time to sink in and almost let your subconscious do the work for you as it mulls over the suggestions.
But it all sounds very promising and encouraging.
Good luck with the next stage
As one of his comments was 'here's a suggestion, Chapter Six could be the start of the book,' I think I've a lot of discarding, plot mapping, reshuffling, before I get anywhere near rewriting. But I suppose that's part of the fun.
Yay!
Indeed, but I only wanted people's views on whether they value the collision-of-characters-at-each-crisis point idea. I won't be a slave to it, it's just that it provides insight to know what the different approaches are.
I don't think crisis points need coincide (a general opinion, with your story it might be better if they do) A series of escalating problems can work very well.
I made up those examples, PBW - nothing to do with my novel. Sorry to disappoint.
Food for the next novel,. perhaps?
Thanks!
I have three more to do and when I've done them I'll tell you what I'm doing next.
Yes, keep your unused text. In at least one situation I decided to reinstate an episode that I'd cut with only minor modifications.
Those darlings. Don't TALK to me about them. I ended up killing loads of my best stuff, because it was more hindrance than help. It's funny, but as the major re-edit goes along, I found I developed a sixth sense as to what should stay in, what had to go, what was suitable and what was not. I'll bet you're getting there with this 'sense of what's right', PBW,
http://greenhouseliterary.com/index.php/site/sarahs_blog/P72/
And this doesn't only apply to fiction writing. If I had a pound for every draft I write for every article... :rolleyes: