The writers group: Blending facts and secondary detail
The first critique session last Saturday of the Electric City Writers gave each of the four members attending a chance to read three pages of material aloud. That was a fortunate number for me because that is the length of my opening chapter. (Point to remember: Each writer is doing his or her work in manuscript form, which means 12-point type, usually in New Times Roman, double spaces between each line. This is done so those doing critiques or a literary agent can make notations on a printed page.) I will address only the impact of critiques on my opening chapter.
I am a journalist, so I write in a style that accents facts over description. The first part of my opening chapter is a bit of historical record regarding one particular city. (I won't get into specifics because I don't want to give away my story line. Such revelation will be saved for literary agents and fellow members of the writers group.) I worry a bit that such an opening makes this read like a work of non-fiction, which is not the case, but I must unveil historical record to set up the rest of the scene.
I then go into more particulars of the people involved in this scenario. I introduce three characters, place them in a setting, and begin to flesh out their attributes. Again, I stick to facts with little detailed description. I must admit that I had more small details into earlier versions of this chapter, but I removed them as I revised this section numerous times. (A note to my early-draft beta readers: The current opening is much different from what I gave you. It is much deeper, in large part because of this history lesson, which is vital to understanding the setting. You'll see when I get this published.)
I read my pages aloud to the group, and I detected flaws even as I read. That is another good habit to develop, to read your work out loud. It gives a new view to your work. Anyway, after I was finished, it was time for my fellow writers to give feedback. There were good in pointing out gaps I hadn't detected. One even suggested that my chapter took place in a prison, which is not a notion I ever considered as a possibility. That is one of the dangers about working on a novel for a long time. It becomes like a familiar friend, and we overlook the little glitches. It took my fellow writers to see those and suggest alterations.
The main advice was that I needed to give the type of details that would provide a richer understanding of people and place. In short, I was too journalistic. Those atmospheric writers I talked about (those who accent lots of detail) saw that flaw immediately. They told me they wanted to know the smells, the atmosphere, color of eyes and hair, the feel of skin against skin, etc. And here's the most important part of the exercise and the need for such a writers group: I went back and changed things. No, this isn't now a poetic offering. It's still journalism, but with more texture and humanity. I thank my fellow writers for their contributions.
We will meet again this Saturday, and there will be another short section to read aloud. We will share our views, and I trust there will be so much critical judgment passed around among us that we might even become better authors. After all, that's the point of all this.
I am a journalist, so I write in a style that accents facts over description. The first part of my opening chapter is a bit of historical record regarding one particular city. (I won't get into specifics because I don't want to give away my story line. Such revelation will be saved for literary agents and fellow members of the writers group.) I worry a bit that such an opening makes this read like a work of non-fiction, which is not the case, but I must unveil historical record to set up the rest of the scene.
I then go into more particulars of the people involved in this scenario. I introduce three characters, place them in a setting, and begin to flesh out their attributes. Again, I stick to facts with little detailed description. I must admit that I had more small details into earlier versions of this chapter, but I removed them as I revised this section numerous times. (A note to my early-draft beta readers: The current opening is much different from what I gave you. It is much deeper, in large part because of this history lesson, which is vital to understanding the setting. You'll see when I get this published.)
I read my pages aloud to the group, and I detected flaws even as I read. That is another good habit to develop, to read your work out loud. It gives a new view to your work. Anyway, after I was finished, it was time for my fellow writers to give feedback. There were good in pointing out gaps I hadn't detected. One even suggested that my chapter took place in a prison, which is not a notion I ever considered as a possibility. That is one of the dangers about working on a novel for a long time. It becomes like a familiar friend, and we overlook the little glitches. It took my fellow writers to see those and suggest alterations.
The main advice was that I needed to give the type of details that would provide a richer understanding of people and place. In short, I was too journalistic. Those atmospheric writers I talked about (those who accent lots of detail) saw that flaw immediately. They told me they wanted to know the smells, the atmosphere, color of eyes and hair, the feel of skin against skin, etc. And here's the most important part of the exercise and the need for such a writers group: I went back and changed things. No, this isn't now a poetic offering. It's still journalism, but with more texture and humanity. I thank my fellow writers for their contributions.
We will meet again this Saturday, and there will be another short section to read aloud. We will share our views, and I trust there will be so much critical judgment passed around among us that we might even become better authors. After all, that's the point of all this.
Comments
Post a Comment