Revelatory sequencing

I'm reading a mystery where the victim is widely disliked, so there are lots of suspects. (I'm summarizing and paraphrasing here, but you'll get the point.)

So the detective has just arrived at the scene and has said he'll go tell the new widow that her husband is dead. He thinks that her reaction could tell him something.

The woman sees that he's a policeman and stands up and says in exasperation, "I hope you're not here to tell me my son has been arrested."
He says, "I have some bad news. Your husband has been murdered."
Next line:
She reacted with shock but not sorrow, and Yanif saw clearly that she didn't love her husband. Could she have murdered him? He didn't know. He just knew she wasn't mourning his death.

--
Okay. We know she has a husband, the victim.
We know now that she has a son.

Now this is a big moment in the plot. The detective tells the widow, and she reacts in a way that puts her right at the top of the suspect list.

But I think the scene could have been made more emotional, more fun, with a bit of a diversion here. Let's say the woman rises and says with exasperation, "I hope you're not here to tell me my son has been arrested."
The detective -- craft the dialogue carefully here, because my point is... draw it out. Take your time. Take it slow.
The detective replied, "No. But I have some bad news--"
And then he pauses. Maybe you want him to draw a breath here. Maybe he's pausing so that he can see her reaction to the news. But when he pauses, instead of waiting, the widow rushes in.
"No! Not my son! He's not--"
And the detective says hastily, "No, no, not your son. It's your husband. He's been murdered."

So she drops into her chair, hand on her throat, and whispers, "Oh, thank God. I thought you were going to tell me-- but he's all right. Philip. My son. He's all right, you say?"

And the detective then has to say again, "Yes, ma'am. This isn't about your son. This is about your husband. He has been--"
"Murdered, yes, you said. But Philip is all right-- Thank you."
"But your husband--"
She took a deep breath. "Yes. Walter. Murdered. Yes. Please tell me where, and when."

--

What's the difference? Well, first, we learn something about this woman. She loves her son. She doesn't love her husband, but that's not because she's incapable of loving. She's no sociopath.

But more than that, we are now SHOWING and not just telling. How do we SHOW that she doesn't love her husband? By contrasting her terror about her son with her nonchalance about her husband. The detective doesn't have to tell us that she has no sorrow-- we see it, because we see what grief would look like in this woman-- and it's not for the husband.

Important moments, like revelations and challenges and confessions, should be set up. So often writers rush these moments, and shortchange the reader by shorthanding the event. The enjoyment for the reader is the process of getting to that moment, the understanding and experience created by the process. This is not the place to get concise. (Back at the restaurant scene? You know, where the detective spends a page telling the waitress how he likes his salad prepared? Try conciseness there, just a thought. :)

In fact, interruption, digression, misunderstanding, misinterpretation-- these are your tools to making the event more interesting. You don't want to be obnoxious about it, of course.

(This is below is obnoxious.)
The new widow rose and said with exasperation, "I hope you're not here to tell me my son has been arrested."
The detective replied, "No. But I have some bad news--"
He looked around the room. It was a typical upper-class drawing room, except for the fine Addam mantlepiece over the hearth. It was such a fine piece, in fact, that he wondered if it was original to the house, or purchased recently at that Sotheby auction in town. He'd wanted to attend that auction, but the press of work-- a murder in the cathedral-- had kept him away. But there had been an Addam mentioned in the catalogue for that event, and he wondered if this could be that one. He had to give the Lindens some credit for good taste, no doubt about it.

He turned a more approving gaze on the lady of the house. "Your husband has been murdered."

That's obnoxious because it's false suspense. Yeah, it slows things down, but no decent human being would stop just before giving bad news to mentally assess the decor. What is natural? What will feel plausible to the reader? Let the event cause the suspense. Let the interaction draw out the scene.

(I've actually got nothing against a paragraph of good description of the setting, and tying it to the POV character's own experience. But the place for that is at the start of the scene. We naturally notice our surroundings when we come into a new place or have to move around. Get the room described concisely, but once the action starts, put in only the description that is natural or you can do subtly-- "The widow dropped onto her yellow couch and pressed a square of linen to her cheek.")


Alicia

Ending after the climax

Teresa asks:
Did the ending come too soon or not fast enough after the climax? I know the writer has a certain latitude before we give the reader their catharsis, but I beginning to think it's a more of a feeling than a technique.

If Alicia or Theresa have any hints, I'd love to hear it!


Well, it all depends on the individual story, of course. But in general, yes, most novels tend to end better with a resolution or coda scene rather than smack after the climax.

Now a lot depends on what your story conflicts are. If it's a fast-paced, entirely plot-driven story, and you've got the murder solved or the quest fulfilled in the climax scene, the reader might not care to have the story drag on. "We're done! Leave me alone already!" is not the last thought you want the reader to have.

Also beware of the perpetual ending, where you just drag on and on after the climax, resolving one subplot, and then another. One scene after the climax is usually sufficient. Truth is, most or all subplots should be resolved in the rush towards the climax. (Watch Casablanca and see how the 6 or 8 subplots are resolved on the way to the romantic/external climax, leaving only the internal conflict-- Rick's alienation-- to be solved in the short coda after the climax.)

There has come a trend in Hollywood called "You always kill the dragon twice." That is, there's a false climax where the hero/ine THINKS the dragon (or external conflict) is resolved, but noooooooo. Here it comes again! Right over that building! Miraculously alive! Must slay it again!

It's a cheap shot of adrenaline, and less and less effective now that we watch the first kill and think cynically, "The dragon's not really dead." If you must do this, make the two kill scenes dissimilar in several important ways, like use a different setting and a different method the second time.

Okay. Resolution scene. Don't think, "What threads have I not knotted up?" Think instead of the ending as resolving the major conflicts. So the climax usually resolves whatever you've set up as the external conflict-- that's what the climax is for. She solves the murder, or he wins the gold medal, or they save the king's son. Ta-da! What's left? Well, presumably, if this is a character-driven story, the protagonist has an internal journey to complete (to forgive Dad, to show trust in the future, to abandon materialism, whatever). THAT is usually a great, satisfying way to end a book, to show that the protagonist is changed by the events of the book and does in fact complete the journey. (Sometimes this is also a great place to resolve any remaining romantic or interactional conflict-- but remember, often what is holding him back from really loving is that internal conflict, so determine which has to be resolved first.)


If you have more than one scene after the climax, think about combining the events into one resolution scene. If he needs to make up with his sister AND say a final goodbye to his late father AND decide to move back to the hometown, well, how about he goes to Dad's cemetery, and there by Dad's grave, he says goodbye, and turns to leave, and there is his sister, and they kiss and hug, and she offers to cook him dinner before he leaves town, and he says, oh, I'm not leaving-- can I bunk on your couch for a few days till I find a house of my own?

End of story. Smiles and sighs all round.

(And I am NOT a fan of the "we're having a baby!" epilogue so popular in romances. If, I think, the reader isn't convinced by the story that they're going to be happy together, an epilogue of them beaming at each other over her belly won't help. But I realize I'm in the minority on this... just please don't make it TOO treacly. Make it reflect who they are as a couple. If they've wisecracked like Grant and Russell for 300 pages, they're not going to turn into simpering fools in the last scene, are they?)

Alicia

Romance University Column Today

Today's substantive post is brought to you by the letters R and U.

Over at Romance University, we're talking about one method to avoid an info dump in the first chapter by focusing on conflict. Unless I'm mistaken, the question came from one of our edittorrent readers.

This RU thing is going to be a regular monthly column now. If you have a question you'd like me to tackle over there, they've set up an emailbox that routes to me. Naturally, I can't remember that address, but it's on the RU website somewhere.

Theresa

Initiating event-- response

I'm teaching a class in Major Scenes, and so I'm thinking about the initiating event, often called the inciting event, which is the early event (often at the end of the first scene, in fact), which forces or encourages the protagonist into the action of the plot. ("Did you hear? Tom Wilson got fired. So there's an opening now in Corporate Communications. Are you going to apply for it?" or "The tornado is coming! Dorothy! Where is Dorothy? We have to go into the storm cellar!")

So what is the character's response? Yeah, we know she has to join in somehow, else there will be no story. But does she JOIN in? Apply for that opening? or does she have to be DRAGGED in? Swept away by that tornado?

And what is her internal response-- dread or excitement?

Well, you know, a lot of it will depend on whether she likes her pre-existing life or not. She will probably dread a change if she likes the status quo, and welcome a change if she hates the status quo.

If you watched Buffy (and everyone should :), you'll remember she had what she considered a great life-- she was 15, pretty, popular, a cheerleader, a good student at a cool LA high school. Then some guy came and told her she'd been Chosen to save the world from vampires, and she didn't like it. It ruined her perfect life. This was something imposed upon her from above, and though she accepts the mission, she never-- and I mean never-- really feels normal again. It's years before she thinks of herself not as "Buffy forced to be the Slayer," but "Buffy the Slayer".

But then there's Harry Potter. Before Hagrid appeared, he did NOT have a perfect life. He was orphaned and being raised by relatives who resented him. He had a cousin who was obnoxious and spoiled. He slept in a closet. No one loved him or thought he was special. Then out of the blue came the message that he WAS special, and he was so special he got to go to this cool school and learn magic. And suddenly he feels like for the first time, he's HIM, he's found himself and his place in the universe. So he's happy with the news that he's got another identity, and enthusiastically plunges into his new life.

So think about that for the first major scene, when life changes for the protagonist in some important way. Is he/she enthusiastic or reluctant? Not that being enthusiastic means there'll never be any conflict! So maybe hint at the conflict to come-- Harry, for example, learns not just that he's a wizard-to-be, but also that the mark on his forehead wasn't a birthmark, but a scar from an infantile fight where he killed Voldemoort. He also learns that V killed his parents. So while he learns who he is and enthusiastically embraces his new life, he also learns of the central conflict that had been hidden from him along with that identity.

A mixed blessing, an opportunity AND crisis, as turning points should be. :)
Alicia

My Radar Works Fine, TYVM

My schedule, on the other hand, leaves a bit to be desired. But I turned in a book today and cleared another very large project off my desk, so I've got that posty feeling and a bit of time to indulge.

All the way back in the post on present participial phrases, I asked folks to provide examples if they wanted them handled here. Ever the good sport, Murphy volunteered.

Hollywood could have a field day filming horror movies here, she decided, wincing as the gates creaked and moaned, puncturing the oppressive quiet and causing a group of crows which dotted the lace canopy of trees that stretched out overhead, to burst from their perches and fly away.

There's a lot happening in this sentence, and the other commenters provided loads of good suggestions to edit this sentence. But I have to tell you, the thing that leaped out at me was not the present participial phrases, but the thought tag,

she decided,

Which is something I've wanted to talk about for quite some time but just haven't gotten to it. So, thank you, Murphy, for the nudge.

What Is A Thought Tag?

You all know what a dialogue tag is, right? It's the little bit that identifies the speaker of the dialogue.

"But I thought she was going to talk about participles," the commenter said.

The part of that sentence which falls outside the quotation marks -- the commenter said -- is the dialogue tag. Easy. You all know this, I'm sure.

A thought tag is like a dialogue tag except that it attaches to interior monologue. Instead of tag verbs such as said, muttered, blurted, etc., which describe the manner of speaking, thought tags describe the manner of thinking.

Hollywood could have a field day filming horror movies here, she decided

In this sample,the interior monologue is

Hollywood could have a field day filming horror movies here,

And the thought tag is,

she decided

Still pretty easy, right? Thought tags take verbs like wondered, thought, believed, figured, hoped, pondered, and so on. They're pretty easy to spot in the narrative.

One Danger With Thought Tags

Thought tags can serve many useful purposes -- in Murphy's sentence, for example, it creates a pivot point between the interior monologue and the description which follows -- but there is one big danger with using thought tags. They can create narrative distance between the character and the reader, in some cases going so far as to convert the interior monologue to narrative summary.

(Not talking about Murphy's sentence now. Hers uses the thought tag wisely.)

Think about it like this. A dialogue tag identifies who the speaker is, right? And a thought tag identifies who the thinker is. But if you're writing in deep third person, the identity of the narrative point of view character should already be known to the reader. It should be obvious. And that means the tag should be unnecessary for pure reasons of thinker attribution.

To understand how this creates narrative distance, compare,

If she invited Sally, then the table would be full but she would have more women than men. So maybe skip inviting Sally and have an odd number of guests? No. And she couldn't invite Jim without inviting that horrid wife of his, so they were out.

which has no thought tags, to the same passage with thought tags,

She realized that if she invited Sally, then the table would be full but she would have more women than men. She wondered if she ought to maybe skip inviting Sally and have an odd number of guests? No, she decided. And she couldn't invite Jim without inviting that horrid wife of his, so they were out, she concluded.

Can you see the effect that the thought tags create? Instead of the pov character relating her thoughts directly, the narrator is "telling" them -- interpreting the nature of those thoughts as realizing, wondering,deciding, and concluding. In a more exaggerated version of this exact effect, the interior monologue is not presented at all but is interpreted in its entirety by the authorial narrator.

She thought about her dinner party seating chart and decided not to invite Sally, Jim, or Jim's wife.

This is narrative summary. The real event (that is, the sequence of thoughts leading to a conclusion) is summarized and encapsulated for the reader. Despite the presence of the tag "she thought," we're not actually in the characters thoughts at all. If you were listening directly to the character's thoughts, the words used would probably be quite different.

One Final Thought - Reflecting Character Minds

Intimate points of view such as deep third must, by extension, reflect the character's state of mind. Think stream of consciousness, which is a purist form of deep third and can make a reader crazy. (Hello, James Joyce? Just what the hell is up with that Ulysses thing, anyway?)

But this principle can be used with a lighter touch to achieve certain effects in the prose. Is your character being chased by bad guys who want to kill her? Her interior monologue might be choppy and breathless. Is your character luxuriating in the sensual pleasure of a bubble bath? Her interior monologue might be languid and loose.

For a good example of this dynamic, take a look at The Shipping News by Annie Proulx. In the early part of the book, Quoyle, the protagonist, is experiencing emotional trauma and his thoughts reflect that. The narrative is disjointed, even fractured in places. But as the book progresses and Quoyle begins to heal, his interior monologue takes on a more lucid, even graceful, tone.

If you want to avoid presenting a fractured interior monologue that might be hard on the reader, then one helpful technique would be to insert thought tags and create narrative distance. But generally, if you're writing in an intimate point of view and hoping to bond the character to the reader, you can deepen that intimacy by stripping out your thought tags.

Theresa

From the Comments

Yesterday's post drew a couple of comments that deserve a front page response.

Evangeline asks,
I keep hearing that everyone is hoping for the return of historical romance. Could this be the result of the Regency glut, or was there buzz about a wider variety of settings? And good news about contemporary romance--I've been dipping into it after years of feeling I couldn't relate and am pleasantly surprised at how fun and relatable many are!

It's no secret that I love historicals, real old school stuff, meaty books with actual history in them, so I always listen for the buzz on historicals because it makes my inner fangirl happy. Honestly, though, there wasn't much historical buzz at this conference. I think the consensus opinion is that this is a genre that has seen a smallish uptick in recent years, and we would all like to see it really catch fire again.

That won't happen with a garden-variety Regency or Victorian, though. These books will continue to sell because they're "comfort reads" for many readers. Some of them will even sell in big numbers. The world is familiar and beloved, but there are rarely any surprises there. The next wave of historical frenzy will most likely come from something with a bigger feeling -- perhaps wishful thinking on my part, but the market seems to be softening up in that direction -- and my guess is that it will be in a fresh setting. That's if at comes at all. It might not, though that doesn't mean historicals are dying. (For most readers like me, we gravitated toward historical romance in the 80s and early 90s, and then shifted into mainstream historical novels after that. I would love to see romance as a whole make a play to recapture this reading segment.)

Here's my take on the state of reader interest in general. We've just come out of almost a decade of a culture of fear. The media would have had us believe that a terrorist lurked in every shadow. And what was popular during that time period? Vampires. Werewolves. Rogue villains being defeated by Navy SEALs. "Get it while you can" erotic romance story types. It all fits with that particular zeitgeist.

And which story types felt less compelling? Low-conflict contemporaries. Anything purely relationship-driven. Small-town sweethearts. Not that these particular story types went away, but they sure weren't the ones getting the big buzz.

Now we're in a serious economic situation, and families and friends are pulling together to help each other through it. We're shifting away from "fear of other" and into "we're all in it together." This might be a temporary mindset, but for now, the result is that the conference buzz was about books with weepy family plots (Jody Picoult) and warm, emotional women's fiction/romance feelings (Kristin Hannah, Susan Wiggs).

But will this perceived trend bloom? Eh. Who knows. Predictions are like assholes, you know. (Or is that, only assholes make predictions?)


Green Knight says,
A few years ago we were seeing a shift towards trade and I hate them. Won't buy them. Like hardbacks, they're expensive and unwieldy and don't fit on my paperback shelves. Unlike hardbacks, they're not durable or beautiful.

Worst of both worlds.

Hope your granny gets better - and will we get to hear a rounup of the e-publishing panel you did?

There's a good write-up of our Rogue Digital workshop here. This is from the Scorched Sheets blog, and it contains most of the numbers disclosed during the workshop.

My personal take on the panel has to start with a shout-out to the girls from Romance University, who kept me giggling in the bar the night before the rogue panel. Ah, good times. So I was fashionably late to the panel and missed the first couple of speakers.

I could not believe how packed that room was. I would describe it as standing room only, but that would be misleading. There wasn't even standing room. When I got there, bodies were spilling out into the hallway. I had to pick my way through the crowd to find a spot to stand in the back of the room, if you can believe it. Folks were sitting on the floor in the front, too. Sardine city.

Angela James was talking about the digital publishing model when I came in. She had just started. For details on her presentation, check the Scorched Sheets blog I linked above. Angela did a great job demystifying the digital publishing model and explaining how and why it differs from print. She's a terrific speaker on this topic.

To what Angela said in that panel, I would only add that there is one hybrid model used by us and one other publisher. (As far as I know -- there may be more doing it our way now, but I'm not aware of them.)

In our hybrid model, everything gets an advance. Everything. Our contracts are set up like standard print contracts with digital rights included, and the same contract is used for print and digital. There are some variances on the royalty rates to account for the different costs and distribution expenses with print and digital, but those are spelled out in the contract. Also, we don't do POD but regular print. We've never been POD. Angela didn't get into the differences between POD and print -- it wasn't the panel for that kind of discussion -- but the basic idea is that POD is more expensive to create, but you avoid some warehousing expenses. A well-made POD book is virtually indistinguishable from regular print, but there are some badly made POD books floating around out there. But those are dwindling as this technology improves.

GK, you also commented on the trade size. I hear you. But there are two other details to keep in mind about trade. The first is that in the early days, books came out in trade only if they were upmarket enough to warrant the production of the extra format in a mid-range price point. Otherwise, it was mass market for genre stuff and hard/soft for the big books.

The early perception with consumers, then, may have been that these books were better than a regular mass market paperback.

But then POD became a more widely used form of book production, and POD is always done in trade size. So cheap books that weren't expected to sell more than a couple hundred copies started coming out in POD. Public perception may be slow to change on this point -- I get the feeling that buyers still associate trade with quality -- but until there's a POD process available at the mass market size, and as long as consumers are guarding their wallets, we may see a continued decline in trade.

Any other questions? Now is the time to ask, while this information is all still fresh in my mind.

Theresa

Industry Notes

I'm back from DC. Fully a quarter of the email awaiting my return can be summed up as, "We're in the hotel bar/hotel restaurant/conference center. Where are you?" I made it into the hotel bar twice all week, and I had a couple of brief meetups here and there around the hotel, but for the most part, I was off playing tourist with friends and family. DC is one of my favorite places to visit. I took advantage of it. I was everywhere -- even, briefly, in one of the slummy parts of town. And if you heard the fabric of the universe tear on Saturday, that's because I was inside actual churches lighting candles for my sick granny. They've got some extra-fancy churches in DC, so maybe that will grant her some extra-fancy relief. Apologies to those of you who were looking for me.

I did manage to pick up some industry news. Not sure it's really news, though, but perhaps more just confirmation of what we already knew was going down. A NYC print publisher has slipped under RWA's stated "$1,000 for all books" requirement on a recent 2-novel contract (yes, in print). This is the second NYC house to do so, though RWA may not know about this one yet. Keep watching. This is far from a dead issue. Advances are falling almost everywhere, and I expect they'll continue to fall as long as we have this economy.

There's a definite shift away from trade size to mass market. Trade has taken hard hits in this economy. People seem to be returning to cheaper mass markets or are switching to digital formats. If they're willing to pop for a big-ticket book, it's usually hardback. Over and over again, I heard about lines cutting trade releases or shifting them into mass market formats. Will this be the end of the trade format? Hmm. I keep thinking about that one, and I'm just not sure. We'll have to give that one another six months, I think, but trade is certainly on the decline.

The erotic romance market is also in decline, but this is not a bad thing. The market has been oversaturated for probably two years now. Scaling back means that quality should improve across the board. Readers aren't going to stop wanting to read books with sex in them, but we may see fewer titles with typical erotic romance premises. (Think: girls weekend with flings, one-night stands turned serious, revenge sex plots, "she's just experimenting" plots, and the like.) We were never big into those kinds of premises at Red Sage, so it doesn't affect our submissions guidelines. We have published that type of thing on occasion, but only if the surrounding story was rock solid.

The buzz was mainly surrounding contemporaries with a women's fiction feel. The same authors kept getting namechecked -- Susan Wiggs, Kristin Hannah, that sort of book. My feeling for some time now has been that we're turning into bigger book territory, and that women's fiction feeling fits right in with where I think we might be going.

So, what kinds of things did you all hear in DC? Got questions about particular things?

Theresa

Over-modification that's really cool

Just want to point to one of my favorite over-modified phrases, just to show I'm not a fuddy-duddy:
...the deep South dead since 1865 and peopled with garrulous outraged baffled ghosts...

That's Faulkner -- Absalom, Absalom. I have always loved that "garrulous outraged baffled ghosts," and loved how he did it without commas to create that propulsive effect.

Why is that okay and "towering high mountains" isn't?

1) It's not redundant. None of those adjectives are synonyms, and none of them are obvious connections to "ghosts".

2) Each modifier adds something new and surprising. Garrulous ghosts? Outraged ghosts? Baffled ghosts? Those are some cool ghosts.

3) "Ghosts" itself is a modifier, or at least a descriptor, a metaphor (the people in the south aren't actually dead) for the lost and angry white Southerners who just couldn't believe they could lose the war, or especially that they SHOULD lose the war.

4) The modifiers are interesting words, and well-chosen (though when I recite it, I often reverse the last two because the rhythm sounds better to me). None of them clearly lead to each other, but together they resonate-- garrulous but baffled, and of course they'd be outraged if they are garrulous (expressive, loud) and baffled, and especially if they find themselves to be ghosts.

5) The phrase expresses something interesting, something meaningful. There's no triteness there in that phrase, no slackness. It's taut and thoughtful; it expresses the anguish and fury that powered the vicious actions of the post-war century.

6) It sounds good. I'm not sure why. I like the garrulous/ghosts alliteration. Also there are several a-sounds, but notice each is a different a-- gAHr, rAYged, bAAff. And several O sounds, also each different -US, OU, OH. I think it has all those sound links, but also profoundly different sounds, hard-g and fricative f and the plosive B. I'm a sound slut. If it sounds good, I don't care about sense or meaning or depth.

But there is meaning and sense and depth. This is over-modified with purpose, as so many of Faulkner's great sentences are-- piling on the power and the meaning with each word. Can't you just hear one of those ghosts? "I'm garrulous! And I'm outraged! And I'm baffled, goddamnit!"

That's voice. That's taut and meaningful and reflective of the situation. The over-modification forces an accumulation of emotion and theme that adds great depth.

You have control over your sentences. You can make meaning by combining words. And you can break the rules whenever you like-- as long as it adds to the meaning-- and the reader gets it. (So often, frankly, writers say, "Oh, I did that comma splice or sentence fragment to convey XYZ," but if the reader doesn't immediately get it or feel it, you haven't done it right.)

I just love that. Garrulous outraged baffled ghosts. They're still there. I was just in Richmond (my family is there), and those ghosts are roaming Monument Ave., still grumbling because Arthur Ashe was given a monument on the boulevard of Confederate generals. I just hope Arthur is a triumphant happy serene ghost. :)

Alicia

Jami's edits

Everyone's made such great comments already in this edit exercise, and Jami's made a few great changes, so I don't have much to add (except this is a great exercise for writing groups!). Also, notice how each of us might see something different to fix. Hmm. It takes a village to revise a paragraph?

My thoughts:

She cringed at his perfectly innocent question. Before he noticed, she quickly faked another yawn and covered her face with her hands. Sharing the reasons she’d stared at the ceiling for hours last night would only add to her guilt. It was bad enough that she’d dreamed about her ex-boyfriend, Daniel. Add in his command that had burrowed into her thoughts – ‘Come to me’ – and it would sound downright horrible. Instead, she offered, “Uh huh.”

Okay, I'm one of those who has to sleep 10 hours or I yawn the whole next day, so I'm not clear why she had to fake a yawn if she hadn't slept well. But beyond that=
Before he noticed, she quickly faked another yawn and covered her face with her hands.

Can you clarify with some transitional word? I mean, is she faking the yawn SO she can cover her face then? Why are those two actions together? See if you can make the connection more than they happen about the same time.

Sharing the reasons she’d stared at the ceiling for hours last night would only add to her guilt.

Sharing with whom? I'm saying that because, though of course the reader will know that from earlier paragraphs, you might want to have a bit of emphasis. It's not just sharing, but sharing WITH HIM. We all know that as soon as he's gone, she's going to be on the phone with her best friend. "You would never believe what I dreamed last night!" She won't mind sharing with her... it's the current bf she doesn't want to share with. So think about putting his name after-- Sharing with Joe the reasons....

It was bad enough that she’d dreamed about her ex-boyfriend, Daniel.
Don't use a comma with a "name appositive" like Daniel there. An appositive is a word or phrase that explains more about a noun, and generally, yes, you set it off before and after with a comma (no comma at end of sentence, of course)-- I went to Chicago, my favorite US city, to visit Theresa. You don't use a comma usually with a name or a one-word appositive (her coach Joe Parcells/ the color purple). So:
It was bad enough that she’d dreamed about her ex-boyfriend Daniel.

Add in his command that had burrowed into her thoughts – ‘Come to me’ – and it would sound downright horrible.
I'd put "Come to me" in italics, to distinguish it from the real dialogue that follows. As it's not vocalized (it's in a dream), I think we can get away with italicizing as we would thoughts.

Whenever you use "it," think about what "it" refers back to. There isn't a clear antecedent there, so I wonder if you can recast that? I can't actually come up with an alternative, but put your mind to it and see what you come up with. That's two sentences in this paragraph I've ended with a preposition. Don't follow my bad example. :)

Instead, she offered, “Uh huh.”

Instead of what? See, where that's placed suggests that "instead of doing A, she did B"-- it's what we call a "sentence adverb" which modifies the whole sentence or clause, rather than a verb (as adverbs usually do). "Additionally, I will sing The National Anthem" is an example of a sentence adverb-- It's not "I in addition to dancing will sing," right? When you put an adverb at the start of the sentence, removed from the verb, usually you're saying it's a sentence adverb. Okay. What I'm getting at is I think you want it to be, uh, the direct object (that is, not a modifier at all, but a noun). Okay, that all sounds weird, but understand, some words can be different parts of speech depending on where you put them, and depending on the role they're playing in the sentence. So words like this have to be placed especially carefully. In this case, I think you mean "instead" as "instead of that other thing she could be saying"-- that is, a noun phrase that is the object of "offered". So "She offered instead" might be more correct.

Finally, this is a long leadup to an uninteresting line of dialogue. But maybe that's what you want? It's sort of funny, really, that "uh-huh" is all she can manage.

But that come to me is so sexy, and it's sort of buried in the middle of the paragraph. Is it important, like is she going to have to go and find Daniel? If so, I'd really suggest =that= line is what the paragraph is about, not about the heroine saying, "Uh-huh." I guess you might want to assess what's important in this paragraph, and make the last line in the paragraph reflect that important aspect somehow. How could you do that? Well, now really, I might be entirely wrong about come to me being important-- I'm easy to seduce, obviously-- but if in fact that's important, try putting it at the end and go back and build the paragraph towards that.
Just an example of rearranging:
She cringed at his perfectly innocent question. Before he noticed, she quickly faked another yawn and covered her face with her hands. Sharing the reasons she’d stared at the ceiling for hours last night would only add to her guilt. So she offered, “Uh huh.” It was bad enough that she’d dreamed about her ex-boyfriend, Daniel. Add in his command that had burrowed into her thoughts – ‘Come to me’.

Okay, obviously it needs some work. But think about what you want to lead to, and if it's not that "come to me," ignore me. :)

Just everyone keep in mind -- a paragraph is a unit of meaning. It has some purpose beyond just grouping sentences together. When the paragraph ends, the reader should have advanced to some additional understanding-- maybe not a radical advance, but an increment. That this is a paragraph, that these actions and events and reactions are grouped together adds some meaning. And where you end the paragraph adds meaning too-- you're saying, "This is what all this has been leading up to." (Another ending preposition! Arrgh!) There's a dramatic pause in there, just by the line ending and the white space of the next paragraph's indentation. So when you end the paragraph, you're identifying what's important, what the reader should pay attention to. (Eeek. Another one. You can tell I'm tired. I can't figure out how to fix those.)

You can reverse this to bury a clue, btw. If you hide the clue in plain sight in the middle of the paragraph, the reader can't say you tried to trick her.

I think also you can manipulate this expectation for comic effect, by ending as Jami does on something anticlimactic.

Alicia

Over-modification

When you're revising, watch for the "excessive" modifiers that
1) might make you sound gushy, and
2) weigh down the clarity of your prose.

That last is a bit counter-intuitive, because you modify in order to increase clarity by making everything more precise, right?

But you might be drawing attention to something that doesn't need more attention, or amplifying a perfectly good word, or making other unmodified words pale in contrast.

He shouted loudly into the wind.

She bit back an obscene swear word.

The vista was filled with toweringly high mountains.

The top of her knee was a little bit more than an inch below the bottom of her skirt.

The hole in the fusillade was immoderately large.


Beware of inadvertent humor. I mean, really, any hole in the fusillade is way too large, wouldn't you say?

Of course, sometimes it works to over-modify (especially for comic effect). But this is something to watch for. "An inch below the bottom of her skirt" is a good description. "A little bit more than an inch" makes me envision some nun with a ruler measuring the space. Precision is actually distracting sometimes.

And especially watch out for redundancy. Mountains are high, but some are higher than others, so maybe we will allow "high mountains" (I did grow up in a valley below some not very high mountains, I guess-- 3000-4000 feet, so I'd allow "high mountains" if you're talking about the Rockies, say). But "toweringly high?" Come on.

If you need to trim 1000 words or so from your manuscript, here's where to start. Delete the over-modifiers, and I bet you won't miss them. (I just deleted "even" there before "miss"-- "even miss them". See, it's easy once you set your mind to it.)

Alicia

Your turn!!! To edit!

Jami G generously donated a paragraph so that YOU GUYS could have a chance to edit. (Lucky you. :) So how about making suggestions in the comments, and when you all are done, I'll try too.

Jami said:

Here's one paragraph near the beginning of my WIP, but not the opening. Setup: Her husband, trying to figure out why POV character didn't sleep well the previous night, just asked if she's okay.

Faking another yawn, she covered her face with her hands to hide her cringe. Did she need more guilt by sharing the reasons she’d stared at the ceiling for hours last night? Just because of a stupid dream about her ex-boyfriend, Daniel, and his command for her to ‘Come to me’? Um, no… Instead, she offered, “Uh huh.”

I chose this selection for two main reasons. 1) It has an unintended sentence fragment (i.e. the "Just because" phrase is not a fragment for stylistic reasons), but due to the voice of the character, I can't figure out another way to word it. 2) That same sentence fragment clues the reader into essential backstory that plays into the end of the chapter (the Inciting Incident) and I want to make sure this paragraph is clear.

Thanks for this opportunity!
Jami G.


So let's have a few brave souls who will make helpful suggestions on how to clarify, improve, tighten, revise, etc., this selection!

Just put your suggestions in comments for this post.
Alicia

Leona line edit

Leona:

She heard Daniel-Jirel’s repeated no’s as he looked at Jenna’s face. She could also feel the guilt rolling off of him in waves. He rolled her partially over, holding his breath as he turned her to check for more wounds.
The body was cold; telling him there was no chance to save the baby that rounded Jenna’s body. He held back his despair by looking around to see if he could find clues as to who had done such a despicable thing. He was afraid he knew but hoped he was wrong. He was fairly certain the damage to her face had been done by an optical resonator crystal laser.

Am I right to assume that the optical whatsit means this is set in the future? Heck, what do I know-- maybe that already exists. But it makes me think this is the near-future.
She heard Daniel-Jirel’s repeated no’s as he looked at Jenna’s face.

I don't know who "she" is-- presumably you identify that in the paragraph immediately above. You're right to use the pronoun. You don't want a name is this line when there are two others.

repeated no’s
This is one of those quandaries I'd write around. See, an apostrophe-s usually means a possessive, which this is not. An S with no apostrophe of course usually means a plural, which this is (more than one no). There really isn't an easy way to pluralize words like "no" or dates like the 60s, though we're going much more for the simple S these days (see, the Royal Society for the Preservation of Apostrophes is having an effect :). Trouble is, it makes "nos" almost unrecognizable as "the plural of no", and adding -es (as we sometimes but not always do after an O ending) results in "noes," which looks like a misspelling of "nose".

So rather than try to figure out what would be 1) correct, and 2) easy understandable, I'd re-cast the sentence. :) You know, also, if it's something he's saying and she's hearing, I'd prefer it in dialogue anyway. It's more visually interesting that way, and adds the sharpness of authenticity where a narrative summary wouldn't. So try something like--
She heard him whisper, "No, no, no," as he looked at Jenna’s face.


She could also feel the guilt rolling off of him in waves.
"off of him" can be trimmed to "off him" and then you don't give the reader that momentary "huh?" of the two similar words next to each other.

You have "also feel" like she's been feeling before, but in the sentence before, she was hearing. So She could feel is just fine.

Whoever "she" is-- she's not giving a very interesting perspective, and I wonder why you decided to put this paragraph in her viewpoint, especially when the NEXT paragraph is in his viewpoint. What's interesting about her POV? She's kind of just narrating what's happening, and there's no reason that can't be done in his POV (so there's no shift).

Maybe she's an empath, and she can literally feel the guilt coming off him? But notice that first, you don't need to be an empath to pick up another person's guilt, and second, she has no reaction. If the guilt is rolling off him, if it's strong emotion, wouldn't she react? Maybe step back, or put her hands up to ward off the feeling?

That's the real problem-- "She" isn't really here at all. She's just a narrator, a camera recording what's going on. Where's her emotion? What does this all mean to her? Does she have some connection to these two people? Does she care what's happened? Daniel feels guilt-- what does she feel? Triumph? Horror? Jealousy?

Now you might not want to get into her emotions, but if you're going to use her just as a narrator, make her a better narrator. What's it feel like to be there? Can you subtly insert some setting detail? You might have done this in the paragraph before, but if she is narrating, she notices what as this is happening? Do Daniel's words echo in the still night? Or do they get lost in the cacophony of the traffic in the nearby street? Does he fall on his knees on the wet pavement next to the body, or squat down in the mud, or move carefully across the marble floor to her side? Does "she" see all this in the glow of the streetlamp or the glare of the sun?

You don't need all the senses engaged here, just the ones that "feel" most to her. She's the POV character, our eyes and ears on the scene, so what can she tell us that puts us right there? This might take more words, of course.

He rolled her partially over, holding his breath as he turned her to check for more wounds.

Who is "her"? Two women in the scene. He rolled Jenna? He rolled "the body"? (That will signal, of course, that Jenna is dead- no longer Jenna, but "the body", and you might not want to signal that yet.)

This line isn't in her perspective, or rather, it could be just as easily in his, in the next paragraph. Think about why you put this paragraph in "her" POV. What effect did you mean to create for the reader? If "she" can't give us a more interesting perspective, I'd say put the whole passage in Daniel's POV. He has what "she" doesn't-- a stake in the event, an emotional reaction, a specific task to perform (checking the body).

I truly don't mean that single POV is the only way to go. However, it should probably be the default because it's easier for the writer and the reader. Use another POV when it can provide something important, a new approach, an interesting perspective, a glimpse of character through her perception. You can do that here in the first paragraph-- she's got to care, if not about Jenna than about Daniel, right? So be in her. What emotion is she feeling as Daniel falls to his knees on the wet pavement (or the marble floor or whatever)? You don't have to explain it all, but KNOW it. Know what she's feeling, what her emotional filter is, and let that infuse the word choice and sentence design.

Let's say, for example, that she was the one who murdered Jenna. Well, that's interesting. So she sees Daniel drop to his knees (or whatever) and what does she feel? If she loves Daniel, if Jenna was a rival, she might initially feel triumphant that her rival is dead, and then, when she feels Daniel's pain, she might feel a sort of uncomprehending anger, and realize that even if Jenna is dead, the jealousy is not.

Or maybe she's Jenna's sister. Or maybe she's Daniel's mother. What's her role here? What's her emotion? Even if she's a sociopath, she'd feel something, even if it's the absence of feeling.
She felt nothing but mild interest as Daniel turned the body over. How intriguing, those waves of guilt coming off him. She wondered what it felt like, to feel guilt.
Just an example-- her lack of emotion is an emotional response.

The body was cold; telling him there was no chance to save the baby that rounded Jenna’s body.
Now we're in his POV, and we know that because you have a mind-term (telling him-- that is, we know we're in his mind).

Here’s a website with all sorts of information about punctuation.
The semicolon should be a comma. Semicolons separate two independent clauses (can be a complete sentence on its own), and what you have here is one independent clause:
The body was cold
and a participial phrase, albeit a long one:
telling him there was no chance to save the baby that rounded Jenna’s body.

Notice that the clause there is a lot shorter than the modifying participle, and that the participle modifies not a noun (body?) but the whole clause-- what told him? The coldness of the body. So you might think of simplifying the clause into a noun so the participle can become the predicate. I'm not saying that's a good idea-- I tend to like short clauses with long modifiers, just because I'm difficult, and I sometimes like that rhythm. But just try it out. Remember: One of the glories of the English language is its near-infinite variety of sentence constructions. So experiment. Here's how it would look:
The body's chill told him there was no chance to save the baby that rounded Jenna’s body.
The benefit there is that the most important information isn't buried so much.

Also think about action here. Does he reach out and touch her still belly? What would his hand do? What would his body do? What would he do?
One interesting trick is to show emotion through body action, especially nearly involuntary body action. Strong emotion shows itself in body action. The emotion that leads a man to touch a woman's dead body is a different emotion than the emotion that would make him back away. The reader will know the emotion by "seeing" the action.

He held back his despair by looking around to see if he could find clues as to who had done such a despicable thing. He was afraid he knew but hoped he was wrong.

See, you're using words instead of action to show the emotion. Try using action. The words are fine too, but if you can SHOW in action, you might not have to TELL in words. Keep in mind that you're in his head, and he's not necessarily going to think those words. Maybe he will. Just try and act it out in your own body; act the emotion, and then narrate what the emotion would make him do. You actually already have that-- his despair is shown by him looking around. Now here's how it might be in a sort of deep POV, which I don't think you are doing, but here's an example:

Clues. There had to be some clues. He looked around the body-- anywhere but at the body-- for the clue that would tell him who had done this. He already knew. But maybe he was wrong. He hoped he was wrong.

Now watch the shiniest words. "Despicable" holds the unfortunate echo of Daffy Duck's lisp, so it's probably the wrong word no matter what. But I just deleted a "terrible" from something I wrote -- "It was a terrible thing to say." What's wrong with that? (Okay, it's a cliche, and "thing" is seldom a good option. Besides those.) Words like "terrible" and "despicable" draw too much attention to themselves, when the attention should be on -- on what was said, on what was done. A murder is a despicable act-- we don't need to be told that. If what my guy just said was terrible, the reader probably noticed without having to be told. You don't want the reader to be irritated: "Yeah, yeah, I noticed."

He was fairly certain the damage to her face had been done by an optical resonator crystal laser.

Come on, come on. We're not babies. We can stand it. Show us her face. What lets him think it's been done by a whatever?

Also watch your wiggle-words. "Fairly certain" implies a calibration of certainty that we can't interpret. It's precision without meaning. How about "He thought" or "The damage looked like it had been done with..."

"Fairly" calls way too much attention to itself, and it's not even a shiny word.

And remember that he's got a body and it can move. What can he do to her face to tell him what did the damage?
With a gentle finger, he touched the scorch mark under her lower lip. That sort of damage could have been done with...

He steeled himself and spread his hand over her forehead. The gel there used to be her skin.

etc.

So try writing this more in the body of the POV character. Try showing emotion in the action. If that doesn't work, you can always go back to the words. But try it and see if you can FEEL it more, and show it more.
Alicia

Re: RWA in DC

Before I forget, I wanted to let you all know that Red Sage is co-sponsoring a seminar on digital publishing Thursday morning at 8:30. I'll scare up a copy of the announcement, but it's over on Dear Author and Smart Bitches and probably a few other places, too, if you want to take a look now.

This seminar is not part of the RWA national conference. You don't have to pay the conference fee in order to attend. The panelists are, quite simply, the best people to speak on this topic, and we're very happy to support their efforts to educate writers about the only publishing sector experiencing meaningful growth.

I will be in DC on vacation next week. I'm not attending the RWA conference, but I will attend this rogue seminar. I'm attending one other non-conference event (the Passionate Ink event on Thursday night) and will be in the hotel bar Wednesday evening, but other than that, I won't be around the conference grounds. Feel free to say hello if you see me, though. (I'll also be sightseeing quite a lot, so if you see me at the National Archives, the Smithsonian, the Capital, the National Gallery, the zoo, or dining with my DC friends and family, feel free to say hello then, too. I'm a pretty approachable person, and you're not banned from speaking to me outside of the hotel bar.)

Theresa,
sick of sitting at her computer and SO ready for vacay

The Last Piece of Theory on Present Participial Phrases

You're probably sick to death of listening to all the talk about the routine abuse of present participial phrases. Trust me, it could be worse. If we posted about this every time we rejected a sub for having too many of these errors, we'd have to rename the blog -ingtorrent.

But in all our talk about these pesky phrases, it occurs to me that we've never given you the final piece of theory. We explained that these phrases are adjective phrases. We talked about the nature of modifiers and how present participial phrases sometimes indicated weakness in the sentence's main clause. And, most recently, Alicia talked about using present participial phrases to signal concurrent actions.

Maybe you've already read these posts and drawn the conclusion I'm about to present. But just in case, and just so we're all clear on how these different bits of advice and theory work together, let's take a look at why these phrases must be concurrent and relevant to the main clause.

In the simple sentence,

The orange cat leaped onto the windowsill

we can all see that orange modifies cat. The cat's orange quality exists at the moment of leaping. In fact, we can assume the cat is orange at all times, barring unfortunate accidents with dye pots. Easy enough so far. But what happens when we replace that simple adjective with a present participle used as an adjective?

The hissing cat leaped onto the windowsill.

The act of hissing still describes the cat, and the act of hissing is still concurrent with the main action verb. Hissing is a state of being that exists during the totality of the leap. Hissing is not a discrete action all on its own. Or, I should say, it's not presented as such. If it were, it would be presented differently, perhaps,

The cat hissed and leaped onto the windowsill.

Then we would be describing a compound action (hissed and leaped) instead of describing a state of being (hissing) of a noun (cat) at the moment an action (leaped) occurs.

You with me so far? Verbs are actions. Adjectives describe qualities or states of being of a noun. And -- this is the main point -- the description of the noun must be simultaneous with the action. If the hissing and leaping occurred in sequence, one first and then the next, you would have to separate them in the sentence, perhaps with an adverb,

The cat hissed and then leaped onto the windowsill.

(Then is an adverb modifying leaped.)

Or you might shift the hissing into an adverb phrase,

After hissing at the dog, the cat leaped onto the windowsill.
While hissing at the dog, the cat leaped onto the windowsill.

These phrases are adverbial in nature because they describe the time elements involved with the actions. They don't qualify the essential nature of the cat. They qualify the timeline. Because adverbs modify verbs, right? Verbs usually lay out the timeline for prose actions, so any time you need to clarify sequencing, you might need adverbs or adverb phrases. And these adverb phrases are not the same as,

Hissing at the dog, the cat leaped onto the windowsill.

Because this doesn't tell us diddly-squat about the sequencing. All we've done in this sentence is elaborate on an adjective (which modifies a noun, not a verb). (Forgive me if this sounds like harping. I'm trying to make this as clear as I can, and this seems to require some repetition of concepts.)

Remember that in the sentence,

The hissing cat leaped onto the windowsill.

the adjective hissing modified the noun cat. All we have done here is add a prepositional phrase to provide more information about the hissing. It's not just any hissing. It's hissing at a dog. But it still describes the essential nature of the cat.

The hissing at the dog cat leaped onto the windowsill.

This sentence is structurally awkward for a whole lot of reasons we won't get into here. But leaving aside all that awkwardness (and the punctuation issue, also a separate matter), the point is that hissing still modifies cat, and at the dog still modifies hissing, and modifiers still go next to the words they modify. You could use punctuation to get around the awkwardness,

The hissing-at-the-dog cat leaped onto the windowsill.

Or you could shift the phrase into an introductory position,

Hissing at the dog, the cat leaped onto the windowsill.

The cat's hissing-at-the-dog nature exists at the moment of the leap. And this is why present participial phrases, which are adjectival in nature, are simultaneous with the main actions of the sentence.

When Alicia was talking about causal and other connections between the present participial phrase and the main verb, I think she was mainly trying to make a point about relevance. We could describe the cat in lots of different ways.

Staring with its blue eyes and hissing at the dog, the cat leaped onto the windowsill.

Now there's a craptastic phrase for you. I had to use one that talked about what the cat is doing with its eyes, because these are generally weak phrases, far less meaningful than dynamic actions like hissing and leaping. Using less meaningful (or even irrelevant) phrases will dilute the impact of the sentence. The cat may very well have staring blue eyes for the duration of the leap. But so what? The fact that it's eyes are blue doesn't give us important information about the actions underway. And the staring -- well, anyone who has been around a cat knows they are champion starers. They stare because they're bored, content, hungry, etc., etc. But hissing only happens in response to a threat, so hissing gives us a more clear description of the cat's state of being at the moment of the jump.

Do we all understand this? Any questions? Got any sample sentences with participial phrases you want us to tackle? Post them in the comments if you do.

Theresa,
tempted to bore us further with another similar post on past participial phrases

Rachel line edits

Rachel Lorber said... Thank you so much. This is a paragraph I've been having a lot of difficulty with.

Fog drenched the bridge in luminous light. The white mist rose from the choppy blue water below to float around the red steel of the Golden Gate Bridge, where it lingered to catch the lamplight. I stared out the window in awe, trying to see the city beyond the fog. I could only make out the dark outlines of skyscrapers and apartments, taller than anything I’d ever seen before, taller even then the Iron Tower.

We've had a run of first-persons. :) It's such an interesting viewpoint, isn't it?
Fog drenched the bridge in luminous light. The white mist rose from the choppy blue water below to float around the red steel of the Golden Gate Bridge, where it lingered to catch the lamplight.
Okay, you seem to be starting with the results-- the fog is drenching the bridge, and then you go back down to the water. See what I mean? It's a pretty image, but it's a little backwards. The fog starts up from the water, so think about moving that first line later.

I stared out the window in awe, trying to see the city beyond the fog.
Now wait. The narrator is inside? I'm sure you set that up in the paragraph before this, but I have to say, it jounced me. The first two lines are outside, and suddenly we're inside.
"in awe"-- that's one of those, um, gosh-golly-gee-whiz terms that kind of contrast with the rather discreet terminology before. Is there a less gushy term?

I could only make out the dark outlines of skyscrapers and apartments, taller than anything I’d ever seen before, taller even then the Iron Tower.
Well, as you know, "only" is a word that can be put anywhere in a sentence, and so you want to make sure it's placed right. It sounds good where it is, but actually, it belongs before "the dark"--
I could make out only the dark outlines
the dark outlines of skyscrapers and apartments,
Skyscrapers and apartments aren't in the same category. I'd get rid of "apartments," which aren't buildings, but parts of buildings.
taller even then the Iron Tower.
THAN the Iron Tower. Here's a great link, which helps you find homophones: Commonly Misused Words.

Again, get tough with yourself as you revise. Imagine every problem the reader might have.
Alicia

Mystery Robin edits

This is for a YA suspense. These four lines come after Oliver, the POV character hears the song Lili Marlene sung to the girl he’s with.

I felt overwhelmed -- emotionally, experientially. I didn’t know what to do next, so I just looked at her face. It was the perfect song for her, I realized. She did have a sweet, haunting sort of face -- a face for shadows, for standing under lamp posts and casting spells with her eyes, spells that could follow a man across an ocean, or across a dream.


I felt overwhelmed -- emotionally, experientially.
I know what "experiential" means, but don't know what it means here. I like the alliteration, though, and that might be enough. I'm easy to seduce. :) However, consider whether your diction is right for YA. I don't think we should ever condescend to younger readers-- CS Lewis didn't, and neither did JK Rowling-- but just make sure that you're not selling out clarity for euphony. I of course have no problem with that-- I can't imagine a better bargain-- but just keep that in mind. :)
I didn’t know what to do next, so I just looked at her face.
Okay. I kind of think you're wasting an opportunity here to say something, but it's an okay placekeeper. I'd like to challenge you to make that more meaningful or more beautiful, but it's a bit nothingish.

It was the perfect song for her, I realized.
What is "it"? I'd rather have even "This" as it implies more urgency.
Also, I'm far out of the YA market, and I barely remember the song Lili Marlene, since it hasn't been all that big since, oh, WWI. So, again, consider your audience and how much you need to explain to them. I wouldn't know what this means in relation to the song or her, for that matter.
She did have a sweet, haunting sort of face -- a face for shadows, for standing under lamp posts and casting spells with her eyes, spells that could follow a man across an ocean, or across a dream.
Can you connect this with the song? Maybe "a Lili Marlene sort of face"? I also keep hearing:
"She had a sweet"-- "did have" makes it sound like he's contradicting something someone else has said. "Yes, listen. She did have...."
The word "sweet" doesn't really connect with the face for shadows, etc.
a face for shadows, for standing under lamp

And very nice, but faces don't stand. They shine or glow or hide, maybe, but they don't stand.

spells that could follow a man across an ocean, or across a dream.

I like it-- but would a "man" be in a YA novel?

So mostly my question would be-- are you writing for your audience? Now if I were a YA editor, I'd know if the voice was right. I do like the voice. So let's just say, assuming the YA angle is right, I would just challenge you to hone this. It's good, but it could be better.
I didn’t know what to do next, so I just looked at her face.
I just have to say, you can make this beautiful. I hear an echo of one of my fave poems, from After the Storm by Derek Wolcott:
I try to forget what happiness was,
and when that don't work, I study the stars.

Murph's Challenge - The Answers

Thanks to everyone who played along with Murph's Challenge, and thanks, too, to Murph for being such a great sport. This was a lot of fun.

I enjoyed reading the entries and, even more so, I enjoyed reading some of your comments. What a delight to discover that some of you have made friends and formed critiquing relationships through the comments. It tickles me to think that this blog has that kind of ripple effect.

So, without further ado, here are the correct answers.

Secrets #23
Reflections of Beauty – Theresa for copy edits
Forever My Love – Theresa for copy edits
Educating Eva – Alicia
The Sex Slave – Alicia

Secrets #24
War God - Alicia
Hot on her Heels -Theresa for line editing
Shadow Wolf - neither
Bad to the Bone - Theresa for copy edits

Secrets #25
Blood Hunt - Theresa for line/copy edits
Enter the Hero - Theresa
Scandalous Behavior - Theresa for line/copy edits
Up To No Good - Theresa for line/copy edits

Secrets #26
Enchanted Spell – neither
Secret Rendezvous - neither
The Spy’s Surrender - Theresa
Exes & Ahhs – Theresa for line/copy edits

Secrets #27
The Bet - Theresa
The Boy Next Door - neither
Devil in a Kilt - Theresa for line/copy edits
Heart's Storm - Theresa for copy edits

So here's why this starts to get complicated. We had some orphans when another editor left, and I gave them a quick spin through the Theresa machine before they went to proofing. So that accounts for some of the ones I line or copy edited but didn't acquire.

And then somewhere in the middle of this run of volumes, we changed our style manual, and I re-copy edited a couple of stories to make sure they were consistent with some of the rules changes. (Our copy editor also had a hand in that process. I was just pitching in.)

As if that's not enough, I also consult with editors here and there through the editing process. I made some recommendations to the editors on a couple of these stories, but not all of those recommendations were implemented. So my grubby little fingerprints are all over these volumes, even if I didn't acquire many of the stories in them. (I do acquire more e-books, if you're wondering about numbers.)

On this list, there are only three titles I acquired and saw all the way through: Enter the Hero, The Spy's Surrender, The Bet. Two are historicals and one is a dystopian futuristic. This isn't a coincidence. I like stories with strong world-building, and historicals and ffp are more likely to have that element. Paranormals, sometimes, too.

Want to know a bit about why I acquired each of these three stories?

Enter the Hero -- This story was so outside-the-box that I simply had to have it. Had to. It's like a highly eroticized kung fu movie that manages to pay tribute to Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale." I loved the way the hero rescues the heroine over and over in their play-acting, and then rescues her for real at the end. Plus, I had to reach for my sweater while reading the scene where she's naked and shivering during a prison intake inspection . That was some vivid writing.

The Spy's Surrender -- I tend to go halfsies on Regency stories. Half I love, and half bore me silly because this world has been done to death. But Juliet's story was anything but boring. The chateau setting really comes alive, and the dirty Shakespeare game was so inventive that I wished I could play it, too. The heroine is neither a sheltered bookish priss nor a foot-stomper in boy's clothing. She's a mature woman (in outlook if not in years), sexually sophisticated, and tenderhearted. A very appealing character.

The Bet -- Here's a story I've told a thousand times. Alicia and I were having one of our emailfests, and we were talking about story tropes we didn't ever want to see again because they'd been so overdone. My choice for the dead plot award -- stories in which characters bet each other that they can have sex with someone. I was so over them. Well, about a week later, here comes this story from Leigh, who had already dazzled readers with "The Disciplinarian" in Secrets 15. She proved that I should never say never. Yes, her story is about a sex bet, but the terms of their bet are so intriguing that I had to keep reading just to see how Damian would pull it off. (He bets that he can make a woman have an orgasm just by talking to her.)

Well, there you have it. A glimpse into the inner workings of Red Sage. Probably not too enlightening, but maybe it was fun. Well, it was fun for me, anyway. ;)

Theresa

(fwiw, not one entry picked me as editing any of these stories. A perfect bagel.)

Need film/tv scene help

Help! For an article about romantic conflict, I want to use a scene I thought I remembered from a TV show or film. (Most of the details have fallen into a hole in my Swiss-cheese mind.)

Young woman. Young man. They're connected in some way, like they have to work together. They don't get along well.

So at some point, he indicates in some way-- you think I'd remember this-- that he's fallen in love with her, and it's a total surprise to her.

She says, and this is the only thing I remember precisely, "But you don't even like me!"

And he kind of turns away, embarrassed. And then something happens and it all works out.

Anyway, anyone recognize that? I know it's not much. And it occurs to me, because I can't think of how they looked, that this was in a book, but I'm pretty sure it was in a movie or TV show.

This is going to plague me and make me utterly useless until someone puts me out of my misery by telling me what I mean.
Alicia the Clueless

Ana edits

ana said...

I had a paragraph in the mix, but I found a different line I would like to go over. It is one heck of a long sentence.

He attended the University on a football scholarship. when he realized that he didn’t intend to make a living as a wanna-be football player for the rest of his life, he changed his program from under water basket weaving to the MBA program, and started a successful business in computer consulting.

He attended the University on a football scholarship.

Hmm. In the US, we generally don't capitalize "university" except when it's part of the title (like Bradley University). Now some universities have pretensions that they are THE university and probably do insist on capitalizing it, but that's the sort of red flag -- stray capitalization-- that comes off as old-fashioned. The trend is towards less and less capping at this point. So unless you have a reason for capping it, I'd lc it.
I do understand that there are other English-speaking countries, where they also have universities and a game they quaintly call "football," and at least Britain tends to be more profligate with capital letters. So go with the style of the publishers you want to approach. (Ducking to avoid brickbats from all those "football" hooligans. Hey, what's with those towels, huh?)

when he realized that he didn’t intend to make a living as a wanna-be football player for the rest of his life,

There's a period before this, so here you SHOULD use a capital letter. :)

The first thing to do when you work on simplifying a sentence is to find the verbals-- verbs, verb forms, gerunds (-ing words used as nouns, like "living" there). See if you can limit those, because when they are the actual sentence action (the predicate), they tend to distract. So notice the verbal words:
when he realized that he didn’t intend to make a living as a wanna-be football player for the rest of his life,

The one that is the most cluttering is probably "didn't intend to"-- couldn't? After all, making a living is seldom just a matter of intent. If you really mean that his problem was that he didn't intend, keep it, but just make sure, as it does kind of distract. (But if it's the precise term you want, go with it-- truth always trumps. Well, the sort of truth we have in fiction, anyway.)

Now get ruthless with the rest of that-- what's a "wanna-be football player"? How could he making a living as a wannabe? Either you're a pro football player, or you don't make a living at it. A wanna-be wouldn't make a living. What is it he realized? Possibilities:
When he realized he'd never make a living as a football player....
When he realized he couldn't make the pros as a football player....
When he realized he was only a wanna-be and would never make it as a pro football player....

Thing is, if he would get into the pros, of course he'd make a very good living, so it's not clear whether it's his inability or his lack of desire keeping him from making a living as a football player.

Also "the rest of your life," well, there are few professions LESS likely to be for the rest of your life than pro football (because of the casualty rate). So "the rest of his life" suggested to me that you're saying he couldn't make it in the pros and figured that out early and thought he should prepare for something else? Think through what you mean there, because what you mean isn't clear, and you want it clear.
he changed his program from under water basket weaving to the MBA program, and started a successful business in computer consulting.

This gives that humorous cast to the sentence (basket-weaving). Comedy often has longer sentences. Just pointing that out-- length itself often adds to humor.

Now I teach in a university, and there are several points I'd query right here. Again, other English-speaking countries will have their own terminology (term vs. semester, form vs. grade), so use the terms used in the country of your characters and/or country of your publisher. Anyway, here's what I would flag for a query:
he changed his program
In the US, that would be "his major".

from under water basket weaving
I think this is probably where the humor is. Universities don't actually grant degrees in that. :) Athletes do, however, often major in Phys Ed or Communications, because these majors are supposed to be easy (they aren't actually, in my experience).

Also again, this is dependent in part on the country, but "underwater" is one word in the US, and "basket-weaving" would be hyphenated. The longer the compound term has been in the language, the more likely it will be a single word.

to the MBA program,
The MBA program is a graduate program (also notice you repeated "program," which wouldn't be a problem if you have "major" to start), and the vast, vast majority of those on athletic scholarships are undergraduates. (Vinnie Testeverde, I remember, actually graduated in three years and did play his final year while taking graduate courses, but that is beyond unusual.) So is he an undergraduate (just say "business program" then-- same department, just for undergraduates)?

and started a successful business in computer consulting.
When? When he was still in college? If it's when he got OUT that he started a consulting firm, say, "Later he started" or "After graduation, he started". I think maybe you're trying to cover too much time in a sentence.

Also, while of course, a business major could start a computer consulting business, that's more an "IT" or "CS" vocation. Business majors who know a lot about computers tend to move to IT, where the job prospects are better.

I'm sure this is just a paragraph of quick background on him, but it's easy to get it right and shut up nitpickers like me. :)

Most important for me would be to get the football scholarship thing right. If he stops playing football, he'd lose his scholarship, so you might make that clearer, what he actually does. Of course, this probably isn't a major aspect of the story, so you might not to get too elaborate-- but make sure what you have is accurate. It's hard, also, with comedy, because absolute accuracy might get in the way of funniness. Always a tradeoff-- see what you can do to accomplish both! Easier said than done. :)
Alicia

Kindle ad

I was really, really considering asking for a Kindle (e-reader) for Xmas. Then in the advertisement for said Kindle, I discovered a dangling modifier:

Just over a third of an inch in profile, you'll find Kindle DX fits perfectly in your hands.

The horror, the horror.

Maybe by Christmas, I'll be over this.

You probably think I'm joking.
Alicia

Marie edits

Marie-

“You didn’t even come to his funeral,” I whispered, my voice breaking as I remembered, “I needed you there Tommy, I needed you.”
“Don’t you make me feel guilty Hunter,” Tommy muttered, “I can’t take any more guilt.” I flinched away from the harshness in his voice. His glinting eyes, which had been as soft as gray velvet a moment ago, transformed so fast that it made it me uneasy.

This is first-person, and we haven't had many of those!

“You didn’t even come to his funeral,” I whispered, my voice breaking as I remembered, “I needed you there Tommy, I needed you.”

Let's work on the punctuation first. I have to get past that in order to see anything else. :)
“You didn’t even come to his funeral,” I whispered, my voice breaking as I remembered,

Correctly punctuating dialogue is very important as a sign to the editor or agent that you pay attention to details. So let's get that right. First, you have two sentences of dialogue that you're connecting with a quote tag. Now the quote tag goes with one or the other sentence, not both. As long as they're in the same paragraph, the reader will know that they are both spoken by the same person, the one identified in the quote tag. So think of the first speech unit and the quote tag as a sentence, with a period at the end, not a comma. (You'd use a comma if the second part of speech was the end of the first speech sentence, like: "You'd use a comma," she said, "if the second part was a continuation of the sentence.")
So:
“You didn’t even come to his funeral,” I whispered, my voice breaking as I remembered. “I needed you there Tommy, I needed you.”

Also, "Tommy" is set off, before and after, with commas:
“I needed you there, Tommy, I needed you.”

Parentheticals like a name are set off before and after with commas.

Okay. Now that I have the punctuation fixed, I can read. :) Really, it's a curse. But it's an EDITOR'S curse. If you want the editor to be able to read the words and sentences and paragraphs and pages, you have to have the punctuation right. And when you stop getting it right, the editor might stop reading. So fix it ALL THE WAY THROUGH. Do not give the editor a moment to think, "You know, she didn't take the time to fix the punctuation. She thinks I've got more time than she does. She's wrong. Form rejection."

“You didn’t even come to his funeral,” I whispered, my voice breaking as I remembered. “I needed you there, Tommy, I needed you.”

The only problem I have NOW is "as I remembered". As I remembered what? I do know what you mean-- as I remembered that Tommy didn't come to the funeral. But think about adding as I remembered ... what? His absence? That rainy day and the muddy gravesite? Put it in, and then take it out if it doesn't work.
“I needed you there, Tommy, I needed you.”

I kind of felt like you needed some amplification there at the end: I really needed you?

“Don’t you make me feel guilty Hunter,” Tommy muttered, “I can’t take any more guilt.” I flinched away from the harshness in his voice. His glinting eyes, which had been as soft as gray velvet a moment ago, transformed so fast that it made it me uneasy.

"Hunter". Parenthetical (direct address name). Comma. Please. This is one of those automatic commas-- no discretion at all. You really, really, really can do this. When you are using a name in a direct address (addressing the owner of the name), set the name off with commas. Really. You can do this. Incorporate this simple rule, and never, ever violate it again. It won't hurt you at all. Really.

And again, if you are interrupting speech with a quote tag, go back and check. If both parts are full sentences, the quote tag is followed by a period. So-- and you actually don't have to send me chocolate for this, but remember, if you're that grateful, I like the expensive stuff--
“Don’t you make me feel guilty, Hunter,” Tommy muttered. “I can’t take any more guilt.”

Your dialogue is good. Your punctuation should be impeccable so that the editor can see the goodness of your dialogue.

“Don’t you make me feel guilty, Hunter,” Tommy muttered. “I can’t take any more guilt.” I flinched away from the harshness in his voice. His glinting eyes, which had been as soft as gray velvet a moment ago, transformed so fast that it made it me uneasy.

Now when do I go for short paragraphs? Dialogue. All the dialogue, action, whatever of one speaker should be in one paragraph. BREAK the paragraph when that's done. So the "I flinched" should be in a new paragraph. It's about "I", not Tommy:

“Don’t you make me feel guilty, Hunter,” Tommy muttered. “I can’t take any more guilt.”

I flinched away from the harshness in his voice. His glinting eyes, which had been as soft as gray velvet a moment ago, transformed so fast that it made it me uneasy.

Much better. Last cavil-- what's "it"? It made it me uneasy? First IT isn't clear, because "it" can't refer to "eyes" (plural), and probably not "velvet," so ... I know, I know. You mean that "it" is the "transformation." But "transformation" isn't in the sentence. "Transformed" is. You might be thinking, "But the reader will understand." Yeah, maybe. And the editor will understand this: "I'm going to have to fix that. That isn't one of those easy fixes. What if there are lots of 'its' in this book? What if half of them don't have the right antecedent? My head is already starting to hurt."

Here's what I suggest. YOU fix that, and spare the editor the trouble. (Oh, and proof-- that second 'it' is a typo.)

transformed so fast I was uneasy.
? You can do better than I did, I'm sure. It's late and my brain is slow. But you can do it. Just be conscious -- in revision, not in drafting-- of every word.
Alicia

Jordan edits

Jordan said:
set up: Molly's priest was murdered at the church three weeks ago. Father O'Leary, the new priest (*wink*wink* if you remember log line #1), has just arrived and Molly is showing him from the church to the rectory. (Side note: Originally from Dublin, Molly immigrated to Chicago with her family five years ago.)

The four sentences:
How must the buildings that were so familiar she hardly noticed them look to Father O'Leary? Three years ago, she compared the Gothic chapel, its stone facade flanked by blazing maples in a carpet of lawn, to her parents' church in city center. At the time, St. Adelaide seemed a suburban oasis; three weeks ago she was disabused of that notion.

"I'm sure it'll get to feelin' like home soon enough," she murmured.
---

How must the buildings that were so familiar she hardly noticed them look to Father O'Leary?

The construction was hard for me to follow. What's your sentence kernel-- buildings look to Father O'Leary? See how far the subject is separated from the predicate? When you want to simplify, go for the verbs and clauses. Right away, I'd identify the "she hardly noticed them" as the confusion-- it's a clause in the middle of the main clause? How to simplify? Reduce a clause to a phrase? Try:
How must the buildings that were so familiar to her look to Father O'Leary?
You could also get rid of "that were"--
How must the buildings so familiar to her look to Father O'Leary?

I still don't immediately understand what you mean, but the construction isn't as tongue-twisting.
Three years ago, she compared the Gothic chapel, its stone facade flanked by blazing maples in a carpet of lawn, to her parents' church in city center.
Do we need to know anything three years ago? I'm confused about what you want me to understand here. You've set up that this church looks familiar to her, but she's wondering what Fr. O will think of it. That's very much set in the now. Why go back three years to a different situation? How about let her show the church now to him or look over it now? I'm not sure what you're accomplishing going back three years, AND bringing in another church-- I can't get any sense of this church or what Fr. O is supposed to be seeing or how the church will look to him. As far as topic sentences go, this one ("How" sentence) doesn't seem to match the paragraph.

I would suggest trying out a sentence or two set in the NOW, with her and Fr. O looking at the church. What does she draw his attention to? What does she want him to notice and not notice?

At the time, St. Adelaide seemed a suburban oasis; three weeks ago she was disabused of that notion.

I'm assuming St A's is the church they're in right now and not the one in the city center? (We always called the Chicago city center the Loop or Downtown... but then of course, she's from Dublin, and maybe they refer to the center as the city center. :) Anyway, see the problem with introducing this other city church-- it confuses. Two churches. Which is St. A's? Yes, you probably have already mentioned St. A's as the church Right Now, but this got a little scattered... esp. when you bring in "three weeks ago". That's the third separate time period in a paragraph. What do you NEED? You are probably meaning to contrast the St. Adelaide of pre-murder and the St. Adelaide of the post-murder. That's actually complicated enough without bringing in the distant past.

I like the idea of the murder changing her sense of the place-- but don't make your reader work so hard to figure out what you're getting at. Try writing it plainly first, to make sure you're getting it across, then embellish. But really, I think you're trying to do too much for one paragraph. This might not have bothered me in two paragraphs or three, if you took your time and really explored what was happening Right Now in p. 1, then the distant past in p.2, and the disabusing in p. 3. If that's too attenuated, see what's important to keep and make sure everything is clear.

"I'm sure it'll get to feelin' like home soon enough," she murmured.

Now is she saying this to herself or to Fr. O? If it's to Fr. O, see, that's why you need him more in the paragraph, looking around at the church, nodding as she points something out. We don't have any sense that it doesn't feel at home to him, because the paragraph has all been about her. Consider at least having her see him glance around before she murmurs, and add "to him", because you can murmur to yourself too. Try something like:

She saw his curious glance at (something). "I'm sure it'll get to feelin' like home soon enough," she murmured to him.

Be thinking of a paragraph as a unit of meaning. The meaning should extend from the first sentence somehow, and everything in the paragraph should contribute to something. It's sometimes hard to make everything unified-- but if you like both parts, just consider two paragraphs. If it's worth stating (the question about Fr. O), it's worth developing or exemplifying or showing. And if her memory of before is worth exploring, it might be better in a "past" paragraph of its own.

I know I'm always saying, "Take it slow." But don't try to compress too much.

I love Chicago settings, and mysteries centered on a Catholic parish? Yum. (Memories of a Catholic girlhood, not that I ever would dare to -- even now-- imagine the murder of a priest or nun!!!!! I was easily intimidated.)

Alicia

Kathleen edits

Kathleen-
Thanks for asking us to do this! You've almost got to mine on both lists! Here's mine again, slightly re-worked: (No, it's not an opening, though it is in my first scene. She's just watched a dragon materialize over a man who is lying in the street.)

Gianna pulled her cloak around herself more tightly and rubbed her eyes. Casualties were nothing new in Jarentho, but dragons that seemed to shimmer in the cold winter air were another matter completely. They no longer existed, except in fairy tales she could barely remember. True, this one's scales glistened with iridescent colors, just as those in the stories, but that didn't mean anything. Besides, people were walking through its body as though it didn't exist.

I like dragons.

Gianna pulled her cloak around herself more tightly and rubbed her eyes.

Don't work too hard to have her move. The pulling the cloak around her probably adds nothing (it's not an action connected to what just happened), and serves only to hide the actual meaningful action of her rubbing her eyes (expressing disbelief at what she just saw). Also, those actions are kind of in conflict. Act the motions out! Sounds dumb, but really, if you act those motions out, you'd get that they shouldn't be in the same sentence. If you gather your cloak around you, your hands are on the cloak and aren't immediately available to rub your eyes. Yes, you could take your hands off your cloak and apply them to your eyes, but really, if gathering the cloak doesn't add anything, why have it in there? Not all sentences have to be longer. Try this:
Gianna rubbed her eyes.

Now if you want the pulling the cloak around her to show that it's cold, that's good-- but not here. Here she has just seen a dead body and a dragon. If she's feeling the cold, she's probably not paying enough attention to the main event.

Watch out for relatively meaningless motions. If he's pushing his hand through his hair or she's smoothing her skirt and -- be honest here-- your only real purpose here is to use an action as a quote tag or as a "stutter" to break up the description or introspection, well, see if you can find an action that is more relevant to the moment we're in.

Casualties were nothing new in Jarentho, but dragons that seemed to shimmer in the cold winter air were another matter completely.
Good info here, but maybe too much for one sentence-- the info is getting lost. What I'd suggest is starting with two sentences and then combine them if that's better. A couple thoughts-- you're working with a "sight" motif here-- she saw the dragon, she rubs at her eyes, she sees it shimmer. So make the casualties a "sight" too. I'd suggest getting more visual there, but also more detailed. "Casualties" is a military term and deliberately distancing-- you use "casualty" to hide the reality of death and injury. You don't really need to distance here, do you? So think about a more vivid word, like "bodies". And elaborate. Remember, I'm saying to try a full sentence. Bodies were not an uncommon sight on Jarentho streets? Go with the sight motif-- don't lose your unifier.

... but dragons that seemed to shimmer in the cold winter air were another matter completely.
"seemed to shimmer"-- come on. Shimmering is a visual phenomenon. If it "seemed to shimmer," it shimmered. Watch the wimp out words.

They no longer existed, except in fairy tales she could barely remember.
"Dragons" is a keyword, and a come-on word-- don't feel you can't repeat it. You should repeat it here. That "she could barely remember"-- well, it feels sort of shoved in there. Whether she remembers them or not, she knows dragons are only in fairy tales. You got the important part in here-- that they did once exist. :)

Dragons no longer existed, except in fairy tales.
If you want to tell more about the fairy tales, good-- but modify fairy tales, like "fairy tales she'd heard as a child" or "fairy tales that frightened (place name) children." Or "fairy tales from the very dawn of history."

True, this one's scales glistened with iridescent colors, just as those in the stories, but that didn't mean anything. Besides, people were walking through its body as though it didn't exist.

Is it still there? I thought it had vanished and she was remembering. Don't know why I thought that. You might have (first line) she rubs her eyes, but it's still there.

True, this one's scales glistened with iridescent colors, just as those in the stories, but that didn't mean anything.
Well, actually, THAT doesn't mean anything. What do you mean? What does it mean or not mean?
The "just as" phrase is a bit clunky. Maybe try an adjective before "iridescent"? glistened with the same iridescent colors?
I'd suggest just going with the people walking through it. What you probably mean is that she's the only one who sees it, and besides, it's not solid, right?
So maybe--
True, this one's scales glistened with the same iridescent colors, but people were walking through its body as though it didn't exist.

I never like "people", but passers-by is clunkier. :) Pedestrians?

Now if the dragon is hovering over the body, are people also walking through the body? Are they just stepping over it? Is it just the dragon that can't be seen, or the body too?

Alicia