historical or contemporary?

In fiction writing, there are contemporary and historical story lines. Generally, the research required for contemporaries is much more easily attained, and most daily life stuff doesn't have to be researched at all because we are living it. Not so for a historical.

I have five WIPs. (works in progress) One is a medieval. Two are Victorians. One is a time travel that takes place both in this time and in Victorian times, and one is a contemporary. The truth is that I really WANT to write the contemporary because it sees like it would be easier and I wouldn't have people pointing out historical mistakes (because there will always be someone more versed in a certain historical period than I.) But I keep running into a wall that tries to turn me towards the others because my VOICE really is stronger in historical stories. If you've ever read an author that starts out in historicals and you love the way they write them, then, after they have a name, they write a contemporary (probably because their publisher told them to), you might know what I mean. The way they tell a story just "feels" better either in historical fiction or contemporary fiction. Think of a children's book author writing a romance, for instance. So I have faced the fact that historical fiction is what I like to read and therefore I will be more interested in writing a historical book, even if I don't really enjoy research since I'm so impatient, and I have finally settled on one of my WIPs.

Let-down

You know what I really dislike? When there's great suspense that keeps you reading to find out what is really going on or what happened in the past or what the mystery really is....well, you get the idea. And you are dying of anticipation and you force yourself to read the thing word for word to make sure you don't miss anything important, and then the end comes and it is so weak, or so ridiculous, or the answer is just hinted at, not even spelled out. Arggg.

I used to read all the time. Now I rarely have time to read, so if I invest the time, I have high expectations. I read a book by one of my favorite authors (who's a New York Times bestseller, BTW) and when I got to the end, I couldn't believe how weak it was. What a rip-off. It just seems like when a person becomes successful enough that they can make a living off their name alone, the quality of their work suffers. IMO, that happened with Paul McCartney and his music writing. Have you heard his last song? I guess when you are a Beatle, you don't need to put any effort into anything anymore. :-) Anyway, this author has written more than 40 books. The first twenty or so were great. Since then, I can tell the effort she puts into each one is less and less.

I watched a movie yesterday that was completely geared around a mystery. The entire thing was a mystery that made me keep watching, waiting for the answers to what could everything possibly mean. And when I found out, I was sooo disappointed at how weak and stupid it was. It is like all the effort is put into building suspense, and there is nothing left for the end to ensure that everything is tied up, makes sense, and actually challenges the reader/watcher.

What about the Matrix? I totally lost interest when I realized that a person could never REALLY understand what was going on.

When you write a story, I'm a total believer in tying up EVERY loose end and actually researching and thinking of a plot that might be a little out of the ordinary, something that someone couldn't just think of off the top of their head.

This is just a gripe post. Sorry!

Where to start

A question I am asked consistently as a judge of novel-length fiction is whether the conflict is strong enough to carry a story of that length. Another is whether the story starts in the right place.
So how do you know where to start your story? How do you know if the scene is needed?

You can write a great scene with lots of conflict and emotion; so beautiful it makes you want to cry. But if it does not have any relevance on the current plot, it has no business being in your book.

Let me give you an example. A story opens with a woman in a stagecoach accidentally shooting the sheriff (she just grazes him) because she thinks he is a highway robber. There is lots of action. There is lots of internalization and conflict. It is a good scene.

At the end of the scene, the woman arrives in the little western town to discover that the aunt she idolizes, the aunt she hadn't seen since she was a kid and is now coming to live with, has become a prostitute.

So was the first scene necessary? Was there a hook that makes you want to read on to see how the conflict is resolved?

The stagecoach scene, while action-filled, really has nothing to do with the real conflict of the story. There may have been conflict during the scene, but it was temporary and had no relevance to the real problem at hand. It was resolved by the end of that scene and never appears again. We are introduced to the real conflict later, the conflict that will carry the story until it's completion.

So in that case, the story started in the wrong place. The stagecoach scene should be cut.

You may say that it is really hard to cut your words, your babies, the ones you sweat over and are attached to. Especially if it is a scene you really like. I know. I've been there. I'm there all the time. I usually end up cutting about 40% of my rough drafts. But it's necessary to sacrifice words, passages, or even whole scenes for the sake of the story.

Writing is hard. Anyone who says different isn't a writer.

Keeping the audience interested?

How do you keep the reader interested in your story? The options are limitless. Let's say there's a mystery in your story. Do you let the reader in on the secret from the beginning, or keep it hidden from them to the end? I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. What do you like best? To "be in on something" the character has to find out, or to be surprised at the end? I like to be surprised, so I like to keep the reader from knowing more information than the characters do. Sometimes that is hard, but I keep trying to put myself in their place to keep myself on center. But be careful to make sure all IS revealed in the end. One of my biggest pet peeves is when an author hints about an event in someone's past that affects the story and I read the whole thing to find out what it is, but it is never really explained. I read a story like that recently where the author kept giving clues or memories of some awful event in the main character's past that made her act the way she did in the present, but at the end, the author wrapped it up with something like "The events of her past were now laid to rest and she was finally able to move on." Wha---???? That book went in the trash and that author will never be read again.

Another technique that goes along with the surprise element is to throw a brief glimpse or a clue into the story at the beginning, and the reader wonders all along what that has to do with the story. For example, in one of my stories, there is a murder of an obscure person in England, but in the next scene, we are in California where a rare painting by Rembrandt is discovered by a college art professor. Totally unrelated events where the characters aren't connected in any way. But they are in the story for a reason. Everyone who has read that opening tells me they are crazy to find out what the connection is, so they read on.

These are just two ideas for keeping a reader interested in your story, but keep in mind, everyone's different and although one person could love your writing, another could hate it, no matter what you do. That's the nature of writing.

Affirmation

My husband is a writer. A good one. He writes trade articles for magazines, among other things. I think he assumed that since he's a good non-fiction writer, that writing fiction would be easy for him, and that what I do isn't that hard, despite the fact that I've devoted myself to honing and learning my craft for over three years. Yesterday, he wrote the story of how we met on his blog. Then he read my post about Ireland. Afterward, he told me that he realizes now how different and difficult writing fiction is. Is it wrong that it made me feel good to hear him say that?

Critiques - Helpful or not?

Critiques are painful. Because a critique is, after all, CRITICAL, and when someone is telling you all the things that are wrong with the words that you sweat and cried over, it's hard not to be defensive. But, IMO (in my opinion) critiques are unparalleled in their ability to teach what you need to learn about writing in your genre. I learned about 80% of what I know about writing through critiquing the works of others, having my own work critiqued, and reading critiques on the online critique group that I'm a part of. My journey was probably pretty typical. I started writing for reals about three years ago. After I started writing something I considered worthwhile, I wanted someone to read it. I found several authors who have websites with "TIPS" sections and to my technique-starved mind, these were a gold mine. Then I found an online critique group! I was so green, I didn't even really know what it was, but it covered all fiction genres, (which is too broad in my opinion). The first time I got a critique from an eleven year old boy, I decided that group wasn't for me. After trying different ones (there are plenty out there), I found one that was a better fit, called RWCcrit. I found a wonderful critique partner through the group, a lady that I know I can send anything to and she will give an honest opinion. The best part of that is that she knows my style, knows my strengths and weaknesses, knows my story and struggles and loves me anyway, so there's no defensiveness.

Pantzer or Plotter?

I'm a pantzer. Meaning I write by the seat of my pants, making it up as I go along. This is directly opposed to a plotter. There's pros and cons to both methods and I actually think it would be easier to write a novel as a plotter, but I've spent months and months trying to be one, and it has never worked. The more I plot, the more I analyze. The more I analyze, the more I doubt and rethink and second-guess until I am hopelessly snarled and not even sure what I'm doing any more or if I even want to write. A bloggy friend of mine, Thomas Kingsley Troupe , author of Patrick's Super Socks and other fabulous pieces of fiction that haven't been discovered yet, gave me some advice not too long ago that, for me, cut through all the millions of other pieces of advice floating around out there. He said write the story quick before you get tired of it. I usually get stuck half way through because by that time, I'm so tired of the story, I lose all interest. I'm trying to take his advice though. I don't have much time to write, but I get an hour in the morning before school, and if I'm not too tired (although I usually am) I get 1-1 1/2 hours in the evenings. Ever since Christmas break, I've just been writing and writing. I never know what's going to happen next, so I write to find out. The problem is that I kinda forget stuff I wrote 50 pages ago (actually I forget stuff less than 10 pages ago). That's one time it would help to be a plotter. Sigh. But I'm at a juicy part now. One of the characters just decided to kiss another one. Here I was, writing along with no thought of that, and this guy just decides he likes this girl and he's going to show her...NOW. Without even asking me, the writer. Like he was a real person or something. Oh wait.