I had an interesting letter waiting for me when I got home today, from Fish Publishing regarding my entry of the first 5,000 words of their Unpublished Novel award. It’s obviously a courtesy idea to try and sell their critique service, and I have to say it might have worked – I am tempted…
The spelling and grammar is their’s, not mine:
Interesting synopsis. Ben comes across more vividly than Helen. You do use detail to good effect but the detail starts to slow the action down and become dull. I know you are describing an agonizingly boring time for Ben – it is effective but just a little overdone.I don’t understand the structure. In the beginning the quick intercutting from Helen to Ben creates tension but then is suddenly dropped. Why not take Helen’s story up to her disappearance. Presumably everything is know to the searchers up to this point. (You don’t mention that her companions are also missing). The scene at the waterfall is hard to understand. Then suddenly we are back in one of Ben’s memories of his sister. Then Helen alone. All very choppy. In general the writing is good – and the characters convincing. It is the structure and the way in which you unfold the plot that needs work.
Very promising. Good luck with it.
Aside from the line, which I’m sure should have read: I know you are describing an agonizing time for Ben, I think this is pretty fair and constructive criticism. And there is this perennial thing about the structure: the third person, present tense, filmic style of short, intercutting scenes (which has been a concious decision) has been criticised and loved in equal measure by drowned_books, soulsong and freshfordlass (that’s me mum, though she doesn’t write in it!). It works very well when it works, but it can confuse. It’s a style that I am going to persevere with, but I must watch myself, and I must edit and revise and draft again carefully. More than that, I must give it to people to read, and I must give it to new people to read, and hopefully, when I have the measure of my style, it will work…
Failing that, of course I can attempt to restructure it completely into a more ‘conventional’ read…!!
Yay for conventional! 😉
I’m not entirely sure if that was the kind of answer I was hoping for…
Sorry, what I mean is, “Your pseudo-visual scene-shifting technique is avant-garde and you should stick with it regardless of the continual criticism because you’re a literary genius and your work is sure to forever transform the artform that is the novel.”
*poker face*
I’m sure that comment should have been concluded with a “So there!”
I am listening to the critiques that I get. And there is a recurring theme that my style can cause confusion (part of that I have to say is intentional – I just have to be careful not to confuse my dear readers so much that they say sod it), but there also is the recurring theme that when my style does work it works very well.
What I’m saying is, bearing this last in mind, I feel that I owe it to myself to see if I can finish the novel in the style that it has become and to see if if I can make it work.
I hope this doesn’t make me sound arrogant or un-listening…
Hmmm … I don’t think I’d pay for a critique service from someone who is so careless with their typing. How hard is it to type an exclamation mark?
Am off to bed (it’s an hour later here!), more tomorrow 🙂