In Re "WE MUST AN ANGUISH PAY"...
First, my apologies to the readers of the first edition of this book. True, it remained a bit too mysterious and left you a bit too befuddled. Thus, this revision…for that and a few other reasons.
Yes, in order to create a better mystery, some mysteries have to be removed. Resolved. Undone. Some readers, to begin with, were troubled by the fact that certain elements one would expect brought to a grand sort of closure by some point never were. Closed.
Or that certain characters, introduced with some drama and at great length suddenly went POOF. Those particular factors have not changed. Let me clarify, then:
The first book in this series (and the four-book cycle is one story, remember) now newly titled BUT TELL IT SLANT (how clever) serves as a general introduction not only to the main character and most of the main characters but to the background for the entire story. This second book, then, builds off that background, attempting not to repeat too much of what was in the first book (hopefully!) while beginning to spin the actual story that progresses through these next three books (the third, now published, THEN THE LIST IS DONE, and the fourth, any year now, A RIDDLE AT THE LAST...).
So, these new elements that do not seem to find closure here will find closure later…these characters introduced will reappear later…maybe. Maybe not. Ah. Mystery.
At the same time, however, many other stories are being told.
Try to imagine it this way: If you go to a movie (and I hope you do, often, or at least watch as many as possible at home) during the average movie span of 90-120 minutes, you are being told between two and four stories. This is being captured on less than the equivalent of 30-40 pages of script (if you simply count the actual dialog and description, leaving out all the white space and hobby-gobby necessary to make a movie).
Your average novel runs 250-600 pages. Do the math. Yes, more detail, etc., but one does end up telling more than three or four stories between two covers if one is doing the job correctly.
For example, in WE MUST AN ANGUISH PAY, there are five major stories (all related, of course) and a plethora of minor stories told that support the major stories or, in some fashion develop the overarching storyline that carries over into the next two books (or reference back to the previous one). This would not necessarily be the case in a “standalone” novel where you still might have a structure with multiple storylines, however. You would not require these “backwards and forwards” references. Nor would they tax the reader, become, as some find them, confusing (so sorry).
As I see it, they should not be confusing. But then, I’ve written the damn thing. How would I know?
In our case, while Frank Gould is becoming more and more actively convinced about what Terry Blankenship told him during his tete-a-tete in book one, he’s also going about doing his job, being a snoop and a cook and a slightly neurotic nudge. Finding animals and errant spouses and lost whatevers. Until…well, we haven’t gotten past book two yet, have we? So, you’ll see.
But this is something that some readers have also found, let’s say, disturbing. “Get on with it!” they say. Well, again, from my perspective, I am doing just that. If the reader is impatient for the story to progress any faster, I can only suggest that they do something I have already suggested: go watch a movie.
Some other writers will write at a faster pace. I do not. Not usually. My readers have to be prepared to read. If this isn’t for you, I would ask that you at least give it a shot.
Those who have taken the time find it rewarding. Not all do. Not everyone likes chocolate, either. Some are even allergic. Not my call. Obviously, the bestseller list does not await.
Shame on me for lacking such ambitions. Horror of horrors. And I who have a cat to feed no less. Please don't tell her. She's so sensitive.
Yes, in order to create a better mystery, some mysteries have to be removed. Resolved. Undone. Some readers, to begin with, were troubled by the fact that certain elements one would expect brought to a grand sort of closure by some point never were. Closed.
Or that certain characters, introduced with some drama and at great length suddenly went POOF. Those particular factors have not changed. Let me clarify, then:
The first book in this series (and the four-book cycle is one story, remember) now newly titled BUT TELL IT SLANT (how clever) serves as a general introduction not only to the main character and most of the main characters but to the background for the entire story. This second book, then, builds off that background, attempting not to repeat too much of what was in the first book (hopefully!) while beginning to spin the actual story that progresses through these next three books (the third, now published, THEN THE LIST IS DONE, and the fourth, any year now, A RIDDLE AT THE LAST...).
So, these new elements that do not seem to find closure here will find closure later…these characters introduced will reappear later…maybe. Maybe not. Ah. Mystery.
At the same time, however, many other stories are being told.
Try to imagine it this way: If you go to a movie (and I hope you do, often, or at least watch as many as possible at home) during the average movie span of 90-120 minutes, you are being told between two and four stories. This is being captured on less than the equivalent of 30-40 pages of script (if you simply count the actual dialog and description, leaving out all the white space and hobby-gobby necessary to make a movie).
Your average novel runs 250-600 pages. Do the math. Yes, more detail, etc., but one does end up telling more than three or four stories between two covers if one is doing the job correctly.
For example, in WE MUST AN ANGUISH PAY, there are five major stories (all related, of course) and a plethora of minor stories told that support the major stories or, in some fashion develop the overarching storyline that carries over into the next two books (or reference back to the previous one). This would not necessarily be the case in a “standalone” novel where you still might have a structure with multiple storylines, however. You would not require these “backwards and forwards” references. Nor would they tax the reader, become, as some find them, confusing (so sorry).
As I see it, they should not be confusing. But then, I’ve written the damn thing. How would I know?
In our case, while Frank Gould is becoming more and more actively convinced about what Terry Blankenship told him during his tete-a-tete in book one, he’s also going about doing his job, being a snoop and a cook and a slightly neurotic nudge. Finding animals and errant spouses and lost whatevers. Until…well, we haven’t gotten past book two yet, have we? So, you’ll see.
But this is something that some readers have also found, let’s say, disturbing. “Get on with it!” they say. Well, again, from my perspective, I am doing just that. If the reader is impatient for the story to progress any faster, I can only suggest that they do something I have already suggested: go watch a movie.
Some other writers will write at a faster pace. I do not. Not usually. My readers have to be prepared to read. If this isn’t for you, I would ask that you at least give it a shot.
Those who have taken the time find it rewarding. Not all do. Not everyone likes chocolate, either. Some are even allergic. Not my call. Obviously, the bestseller list does not await.
Shame on me for lacking such ambitions. Horror of horrors. And I who have a cat to feed no less. Please don't tell her. She's so sensitive.
No comments have been added yet.
