I\u2019ve just finished reading a book. I\u2019m not going to name the book, because we don\u2019t need to get into all of that. But it\u2019s a traditionally published book by a very well known author. Probably one you\u2019ve read yourself.<\/p>\n
In my opinion, the book offers an excellent reconstruction of a historical period. The characters are vivid. The book is a thoroughly decent read to anyone who wants their tale of domestic bliss to have a bit of Soviet-era menace.<\/p>\n
And the plot? Well.<\/p>\n
There is a plot, but it\u2019s thin. Because I\u2019m not naming the book, I won\u2019t tell you the story \u2013 but suffice to say, I tried summarising the plot just now and found I could do so, comfortably, in 20 words. That twenty-word summary really left nothing of substance out. Sure, there are further details you could add. (\u201cJude goes to Gretta\u2019s house, seeking help, but Gretta warns Jude that \u2026\u201d) But honestly? You can summarise the entire plot in twenty words.<\/p>\n
By contrast, I don\u2019t think you could summarise one of my plots at the same bare level of detail in fewer than a hundred words. Realistically, you\u2019d need a whole lot more.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s more, even if you summarised one of my plots as tautly as you could, you still wouldn\u2019t have everything. My readers want complex mysteries which operate like brain teasers. Ideally, my plot logic should be too large to be seen in one view. If you could comprehend my story in a single glance, I haven\u2019t done my job right.<\/p>\n
Now I write the way I do for many reasons, but one of them is a near-panic about the possibility of being boring. I don\u2019t want to bore my readers, ever. The simplest, surest safeguard against being boring is writing characters that people care about in a story that keeps changing.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t know how the author of this book thinks about things, but their priorities are surely different. They\u2019ll happily spend fifteen hundred words having their character travel to a nearby place to bury something. On their way, they\u2019ll think of their family, their life during the war, their times with past partners, and so on. And whereas in one of my books, burying something would unquestionably feature subsequently in the plot, (would they be found, or escape capture, or what?) in this book, the buried item never features again. The whole episode could drop out of the book and the story would be perfectly intact.<\/p>\n
Now, this author is commercially and critically successful. They don\u2019t sell in huge volumes, but they sell plenty and critics love what they do. So my strategy works. And so does theirs. And yet in some ways, they\u2019re each other\u2019s opposites.<\/p>\n
Their core strategy is \u201cgo deep\u201d. Mine is \u201ckeep moving\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Their readers don\u2019t get bored, because the \u2018being there\u2019 experience is rich enough to sustain interest in its own right. My readers don\u2019t get bored because I have characters that readers care about in a story that always moves.<\/p>\n
So when I worry about being dull, my thoughts will turn first \u2013 usually \u2013 to plot. If they have the same worry, I would guess that their thoughts turn first to texture.<\/p>\n
Which brings me to the big thought that propelled this email:<\/p>\n
I think this book would have been better if the story had contained more bite, more snap. At its heart, there\u2019s a sweet story about a happily married couple being happily married and everything being just fine and no real emotional challenge to their integrity as a couple.<\/p>\n
And with my books:<\/p>\n
I work tremendously hard to put as much texture in them as I can. Sense of place. Of changing season. Of minor characters. Of office and family dynamics. And I know for a fact that enriching my books in these ways makes them better. (And not just better, as in \u201cmore likely to elicit praise from critics.\u201d But also, better as in \u201cmore likely to sell.\u201d)<\/p>\n
So I want to suggest this:<\/p>\n
If you are naturally a plot-led writer, you should put a lot of conscious effort into enriching the texture of your books \u2013 anything to deepen that sense of \u201creally being there\u201d.<\/p>\n
Equally, if you are naturally a texture-led writer, you should work hard to enrich the plot structure of your books \u2013 anything to enhance that sense of \u201cwhat\u2019s going to happen next?\u201d<\/p>\n
By\u00a0working against your natural grain, you will most likely get the easiest wins, make the biggest difference, and do most for the all-round excellence of your manuscript.<\/p>\n
I know for a fact that\u2019s true of my own work. I\u2019m pretty darn sure this other author would have written an even better book if they\u2019d done the same. I\u2019m pretty damn sure the same thing will be true for you too. Do you need to choose between the two? That\u2019s a dumb question. You want both.<\/p>\n
Oh yes, and if one piece of presidential-grade, impeachment-proof writing advice isn\u2019t enough for you, here\u2019s one more to complement it:<\/p>\n
Keep your processes separate.<\/p>\n
If you\u2019re a plot-led writer, you\u2019ll probably finish your first draft with a whole bunch of plot-tangles you need to sort out and a whole load of texture-enrichments you want to work on.<\/p>\n
Good. Bravo. I applaud you. But do those two things in separate edits. Do the plot stuff first (because it\u2019s structural.) Focus on the structure. Get that tidy. Then take a second run through the MS and tackle the textural things. That way, you\u2019re looking at one thing, not two (or six). You can also get your head in the right place to tackle the task at hand.<\/p>\n
All this, for me, is not very theoretical at the moment. I\u2019ve 105,000 words into my first draft of Fiona #7, perhaps just five thousand words from the finish line. I know that there are several quite significant plot strands I need to sort out and I also know that my textural stuff isn\u2019t yet quite solid.<\/p>\n
Sense of place is going to be really important to this book and I\u2019ve a feeling I haven\u2019t quite got it nailed down. But my first edit will be for plot alone. The next will be all for texture.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s it from me. Go well, sweet people.<\/p>\n
Til soon.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I\u2019ve just finished reading a book. I\u2019m not going to name the book, because we don\u2019t need to get into all of that. But it\u2019s a traditionally published book by a very well known author. Probably one you\u2019ve read yourself. In my opinion, the book offers an excellent reconstruction of a historical period. The characters<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[29292],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-harrys-friday-email"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n