Tattle-Tales From The Editor's Desk


Assuming a writer has a functional grasp of grammar and story, there are still a few too-common mistakes new writers make. As an experienced editor, I often see manuscripts with excess backstory, characters readers care for about as much as the first-scene victim in a bad horror flick (and they of course went to the basement, so we think it fitting Darwinism at work), too much telling rather than showing, and books that end without closure because the writer feels they need to save some mystery for a sequel or they need an exact number of pages or word count.  There are some fairly easy fixes a hopeful writer can do before submitting their work to a publishing house.
 Too much back story is probably the easiest to fix. If you have to set a mood, or let the reader in on something they simply must know ahead of time, think about adding a short prologue. Other than that, you should always begin a story en media res, in the middle of the action. That’s why they call it an opening hook. More and more retail outlets are letting the readers “sample” the books.  If you don’t hook the reader in the first few seconds, they will probably stop reading and definitely won’t buy the book. If your main character is thinking rather than doing, they’d better be a) thinking crazy thoughts as in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart, or b) thinking of doing something outrageous, like killing someone. 
 
Most new authors would benefit from just deleting the first couple chapters of their manuscript. Many authors do that intentionally. Think of it as the free-writing you did to get into the feel and sense of the work. Backfill the backstory in dialogue, either internal or spoken, and use a spoon instead of a shovel. Write tight!
 
If a reader gets to chapter two of a novel and could care less what is happening to the main character, the characters are made of dried up wood, and won’t stand up to a quick Bic flick, let alone sustain an entire novel. If the reader feels nothing for the main character, it’s because they have no idea how they should feel. The writer has not revealed the character’s motivations or emotional reactions. They may have the character say and do things, but a puppet could function that well. To become a living human being, even Pinocchio needed a heart. Writers must never forget action and then reaction (IN THAT ORDER!--just sayin').
 

The next and perhaps the worst mistake even some seasoned writers make is telling when they should be showing. This does not mean there is no place for passive voice in a story, but when something is happening in the present, especially, it is important to make the reader feel they are there witnessing the scene rather than hearing someone gossip about it after the fact. To do this does requires taking the reader to the location of the scene (setting), establishing the correct mood (pathetic fallacy works well here), and making sure the main characters are having a physical and/or emotional response to all stimuli.
Simply put, if someone slaps you in the face are you going to just keep talking as if nothing happened? Of course not, but I see it in manuscripts all the time. HOW the players react to stimuli is one way writers convey the character and morals of the individuals.
 
Telling someone the events, later on, does not allow the reader to know the character motivations and reactions as they happen so that they have a chance to react as well.  Do they feel sorry for the character? Angry? Hate another character? Understand a character better? They should.
 
That’s what helps a reader “see” the hero/heroine grow as a character, as an individual, as a person.  Stories are about people, even if the characters are not human. That’s why readers read.  They want to live in someone else’s world, and take a mental vacation. They can’t “picture” themselves there if they don’t get their 1000 words…which the writer has skillfully tightened to 100.
 
It’s fitting that I should talk about the conclusion last.
 
What?
 
How would you feel if that’s where this blog ended, with no discussion of how a good book should conclude? Magnify that by a few hundred pages and you know how a reader feels when they have invested the time and emotional commitment to a book’s story and characters only to have the writer leave them hanging.  We used to call those slam-against-the-wall endings. Chances are, that reader will never, ever read another book by said author, and will be sure to complain about it to all their friends, who will also never read a book by said author.  Selling books is like any other retail business. You need repeat customers. Just because your book isn’t a suspense or mystery doesn’t mean you can leave loose threads.
 
Would you want to read a whodunit that never revealed the killer? Well, readers also don’t want to read a romance where they don’t know what happens to the lovers, even if it’s only what they intend to do, as in a goal which the writer will most likely foil in the sequel. You can hint at coming events in the next novel, but you must give the reader a satisfying conclusion, even if it’s not a happy ending. But that’s an entirely different topic, so I will just conclude by saying that all’s well that ends well and leave the Shakespeare fans chuckling at the double meaning in that innocent phrase.
 
 

 
I hope you all now know to SHOW what happened next...and I bet Norma Bates knows....
 

No comments:

Post a Comment