Support for Indie Authors discussion
Writers Workshop
>
Seeking Intro Feedback for Vampire Sequel
Mod
Examples:
"Vampires. She knew this for sure, because she had seen them walking on either sides of 19th Avenue and then when she drove through Golden Gate Park." could be tighter as: "Vampires. She knew for sure, because she saw them walking on either sides of 19th Avenue and when she drove through Golden Gate Park."
"She had considered driving straight to Edrea’s home, but she realized that wasn’t a good idea either." could be: "She considered driving straight to Edrea’s home, but realized that wasn’t a good idea either."
"No. It did all happen. She did find her missing sister." could be: "No. It all happened. She found her missing sister."
Great suggestions, Dwayne. Yes, I’ll definitely smooth out filler words before editing. You’re not the first to identify that in my writing. Thank you!
Mod
And sometimes it hard to identify it in our own writing.
I've been following this and I agree. I think we all have this issue to deal with. As a creative writing instructor friend of mine told me, good writing is all about "cut, cut, cut!"
Yep! That was Stephen King’s advice in his book on writing, too!
Interesting. My friend also recommended that book so now I’ll have to check it out. Thanks!
I enjoyed reading it, though I’m actually not finished reading it.
Needs tightening and a to be more tightly into her viewpoint to eliminate that huge info-dump of backstory. • Rena’s fingers tightened around the steering wheel while she waited for traffic to ease up.
Third line in and I’m confused. It’s heavy fog, and the traffic, therefore, is slow. I get that. But why should it get better? If she’s leaving the city there’s no wait for toll, and the fog isn’t going to change. So…why are her fingers tightening on the wheel when she’s crawling along? Basically, you're showing effect before cause.
Yes, having read on, I know the accident caused the slowdown, but as I read about the slowdown it I don’t. And it doesn't help that you clarify, becauseyou can’t retroactively eliminate confusion. Always best to show cause, then effect.
• There was an accident ahead on the bridge, giving space for only one car to pass at a time.
So the fog is irrelevant to the flow of traffic? Then, why mention it? And why do I, as I read the opening, care what’s causing the slowdown? In heavy fog, and darkness, Rena can’t see it. And if I’m in her POV, how can I know what she doesn’t? If the cause matters to the plot, have her hear about it on the radio. If not, drop it because it interjects you into the story—a POV break.
• She nervously searched the dark street for any sign of the two men that appeared to be following her.
Dark street? Wait… Here’s where that heavy fog becomes a problem. She just saw the bridge in heavy fog, so she has to be less than a block away, and in crawling traffic. At this point the reader knows only that she’s in a moving vehicle, so anyone “following her,” would have to be in a car. Yes, you know they have magical abilities, but the reader doesn’t, so this opening makes no sense to a reader who has only what the words suggest to them. And since you can’t make a second first impression, here’s where you’ll lose a lot of readers.
I’d suggest rethinking this opening, because the reader has no context, and the metrics seem confused.
• She knew this for sure, because she had seen them walking on either sides of 19th Avenue and then when she drove through Golden Gate Park.
This reads far too much like a report. Shouldn’t we be in the car with her? Why open the story to talk about what happened before the scene opens? If the men matter enough to mention them, start the story with her noticing them. Info dumps of history, like this—especially when the reader lacks context—tend to be a strong reader turn-off.
• She had considered driving straight to Edrea’s home,
If the reader doesn’t know who Edrea is, and why the protagonist is going to her home, this is meaningless. Readers hate having to memorize things that they will have to know later. To them, it’s an info-dump of backstory—a history lesson they have to study before they can decide if they want to commit to reading the story. And that hardly ever goes over well with a reader.
Suppose you’d started this story with her a few blocks from the Golden Gate Bridge, grumbling that had she started out twenty minutes earlier she would probablty be across the bridge and nearing Edrea’s home—and certainly, not being stalked by a couple of damn vampires.
Do that and—depending on how you present her attitude via the wording of her complaint—without you having to lecture the reader as yourself, they know where she is, going on, and something of her personality. And, they know that something interesting is about to happen. In other words, you address the three issues a reader needs for context, open the scene in her viewpoint, and hook the reader, which negates any reason for this info-dump.
Or, as James H. Schmitz observed: “Don’t inflict the reader with irrelevant background material—get on with the story.”
Sorry my news isn’t better.
Thank you for the elaborate summary, Jay! First, I did mention in my post that the reader has already been introduced to Edrea in previous chapters. This is the second protagonist’s opening chapter in the sequel. I will take into consideration and mind everything you mentioned before the final draft.
Jay, I'll try to comment on the rest of your thoughts throughout the day. "Always best to show cause, then effect." I don't believe this statement is always true. In writing, I don't think there's a set rule on what makes a scene more mysterious or interesting. Sometimes showing a character's behavior or reaction to something that has already occured is all the information needed and comes across more suspenseful than showing cause first. I explained that she had seen two vampires following her and it's already known in the story that vampires run at superhuman speeds. I paint the mood I want with the chilly fogy night, and show her nervousness with her body language and behavior while she anxiously waits in traffic, searching the street for the same two men. In this case, I like showing the effect before cause, but I do not always write that way. That is just the effect I wanted for her opening scene.
I will still take into mind how you felt about it though. Different points of view are always helpful.
Jay, at this point, I’m more concerned about how to include the backstory to this character without overdoing it. I can smooth out the rest of the writing in the final draft. For example, I want the reader to remember what she went through in the first book, without blasting the reader with too much information. My question is if the information about the backstory is enough to understand what’s going on?
Jay, are you saying the scene is too confusing and that takes away from the backstory?
Leah wrote: "Hi, Y’all. I’m 10 chapters deep in my sequel. The sample below is the first chapter in one of the protagonist’s storylines (Rena), which is interconnected but separate from the main protagonist’s P..."Does the information provided give enough insight to understand what’s going on? I’ve never written a sequel. I want to show enough backstory that’s tied to the first book without overdoing it. Any suggestions so far?
Yes, it does, very much so let the reader know what is going on.
As far as suggestions, after the first paragraph, you could try adding a present action, such as, Traffic started moving. Fog had condensed on the windshield. Rena turned on the wipers. (something, something). And then pick up the second paragraph backstory again. Just to break it up. She can even walk up the steps when she arrives and as she is waiting for the door to open, she can think of (backstory). Or not, that works, too!
M. L., thank you for the suggestions. Yes, I’ll smooth out the writing and show more than tell during the final draft. I’m glad the story came across. I’ll just have to cut fillers so it doesn’t feel so wordy and a dump of backstory.
Because this is an intensely psychological scene, I would suggest adding more sensory input... how does the fog feel on her skin? How does it smell? Would cramps of pain creep through her fingers as she gripped the wheel? Might she be gasping short breaths as she looks around (a way to reveal nervousness)?
Leah, it looks like a very interesting story. I look forward to your publication.
Leah, I'm quite a rookie when it comes to blurbs and recaps and stuff, but something struck me as I read that. Why is the MC so worried about the two vampires, but the "vampire war" just takes a mere sentence? I mean, I would be damn worried about the war, with sister probably involved as well, but here it reads as a tiny detail.
(Side note: I have the opposite problem... My writing reads as if I am running at 100mph. I usually need to slow down and ADD words!)
Haru, thanks for your thoughts! Rena has been through quite the ordeal in Book One, so she isn’t as easily fazed by the vampire war. But in Book One, and similarity in Two, she’s more concerned with being part of her sister’s world than being caught in the middle of the war. Coincidentally, both sisters are simultaneously connected to each other and the vampire war, as they both share a gift of sight that both puts them in danger and protects them at the same time (as the gift makes them desirable to powerful immortals). I tried to portray the importance of their gift and how it exposes them to the vampire world in the blurb, without overdoing it. That’s the hard part, but it’s probably easier having your problem and having to add more information than having to cut so much out and restructure haha.
Hmm, I see. I guess it depends on how imminent each danger is, and what lenses do each character see it through.
True. And I meant to say ‘opening of the chapter’ not “blurb.”
I thought it was the opening chapter, not blurb. (Had me looking for a 'blurb' for a minute.) Post 22 has interesting elements to build a blurb around for the next book.
In writing, I don't think there's a set rule on what makes a scene more mysterious or interesting. Sometimes showing a character's behavior or reaction to something that has already occured is all the information needed and comes across more suspenseful than showing cause first.Here’s where we disagree, because you’re thinking of “showing” in terms of describing an action, or a visual. It’s not, because another term for “show,” in writing fiction would be viewpoint. Readers aren’t seeking to be told what happens by the storyteller. That’s informative, yes, but informing the reader is author-centric and fact-based. The aurthor is educating the reader, which pretty much defines the approach to writing nonfiction. That’s presented from the viewpoint of the external narrator, be that the author or the author pretending to be the protagonist who once lived the events being talked about.
The problem with that approach is that it’s inherently dispassionate. We know what happens, or, via info-dump, what once happened. But it’s in overview, and people don’t live in overview. So for the reader it’s a history-book approach, with no uncertainty because they're with the storyteller, not the one living the story, so the events being described are immutable. And how many people read history books or reports for entertainment?
There’s a second problem with that approach, which is that your focus is on the plot events and flow, and will tend to mention and place things for dramatic purpose without asking the protagonist (or any other character) for their reaction, based on their perception of events, through the lens of their own biases and preconceptions.
For example, in the opening of the first story in this series, you mention that because of the weather conditions, droplets are forming on an iron ring and running down it to drop off. It’s a pretty reference, but in life, no one would stare at a piece of metal for long enough to watch multiple drops form, gather, run, and fall. They would note it as an indication of the conditions and then look away. No one would want to stare at dew forming if there was something more interesting going on. And given that it's a story, shouldn't the events be more interesting that watching dew form?
But, because you were in the viewpoint of telling the story to the reader, instead of having them looking through your protagonist’s eyes, with the needs and desires of the protagonist of primary importance, your focus was on the making the telling, itself, interesting, and you lost sight of the protagonist’s “now.”
But if we tell the story from within the protagonist’s viewpoint, their moment of “now,” as against your own; if we make the reader know what has the protagonist’s attention, and what it means to them; if we make the reader know the options the protagonist takes into account as they plan their action, we have calibrated the reader’s viewpoint to that of the protagonist. That matters a great deal, because if the reader knows why the protagonist acts, or intends to, they will want to know how it comes out, and thus have an emotional interest in reading on. You don’t get that interest with a list of events, interspersed by authorial interjections to explain them. And being within the protagonists viewpoint, we will always know what motivates the protagonist to act.
Take the line, “Merry smiled when she saw Jason come through the curtain.” Most hopeful writers will see nothing wrong. But a reader will, because it’s a break in viewpoint. Merry can’t smile till she sees the man, because she has nothing to smile about. Only the author, someone not either on the scene or in the story, can react to her smile before it happens.
It’s a small thing, but as Debra Dixon points out in her, GMC: Goal Motivation & Conflict, each time we do something like that, we push a tiny splinter into the reader’s finger. And those splinters add up. As Sol Stein observed, “Readers don’t notice point-of-view errors. They simply sense that the writing is bad.”
I want with the chilly fogy night, and show her nervousness with her body language and behavior.
But that’s my point, you don’t show her tension because the antecedent to that line is the bridge and the fog. Never forget that unlike you, the reader has damn little committed to memory, and no access to your intent. You may have your reader’s attention for only a few minutes on the train on the way to the office, or at lunch. They may not have had time to read over the weekend. So you cannot assume they will remember the details as you do. Simply showing her clenching the wheel, after “finally” seeing the bridge in heavy fog has no pull to what happened before (and in any case, in heavy fog, to see the bridge you have to be damn near on it—though she could see a glow directly ahead that must be the bridge and be a block or so away).
But suppose you’d had her clench her wheel after thinking about the ones following her and hoping she's lost them? Then, it would show a direct reaction to a specific thing. Basically, every time you have the urge to tell the reader something, as the narrator, give her reason to notice it, instead. That way, it matters to her, which means it matters to us. Viewpoint matters a great deal, because how a given person perceives a situation determines how they will react. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to link to my own work, but my article on WordPress, called, What in the hell is POV? Shows how many people can view the same scene, yet each perceive something very different because they're viewpoint is different.
I’m more concerned about how to include the backstory to this character without overdoing it.
That’s easy: don’t. It’s unneeded. When you encounter a new situation there’s always backstory. But you don’t think about anything other than what the situation demands, And so it should be for her, if she’s to seem real. Ask yourself why she politely shuts up and stops doing anything every time you step in and talk to the audience. Shouldn’t she be asking who the hell you are, and what you’re doing in the car with her? If she doesn’t, how can she seem real?
In our lives, from the moment we wake to the instant of sleep, we live an unbroken chain of cause and effect, motivation and response. How can she live in overview and seem even remotely real? The trick is to give her a natural, immediate, and pressing need to think about the things you want the reader to know. Then, it will matter to both her and the reader. But if you step on stage with an info-dump you do two critical things: First, you still the scene-clock, killing all momentum the scene may have generated. And next, you clearly tell the reader, “This isn’t real, it’s only a story."
But…make the reader know what matters to the protagonist, and why; make them care, and worry, instead. Then, if someone grabs your protagonist the reader will, literally flinch. And when you’re reading, and that happens—when you react as the protagonist, don’t you love that? A reader who is saying, “Oh…my…god… What in the hell do we do now?” is a happy reader. One reading a report on what happened? Not so much.
For more on making motivation/response work for you, Randy Ingermanson’s article, titled, Writing the Perfect Scene, is a great condensation of a section of Dwight Swain’s, Techniques of the Selling Writer, the best book I’ve found to date on the techniques of fiction. It’s well worth reading (as is the book it's condensed from). It’s an older book, one that talks about your typewriter, and, like so many men of his time,e assumed that serious writers were men. But if you can get past that, the men was a genius.
I hope this clarifies.
Jay, I stare at dew dropping whenever I can. 😉
Thank you for all your elaborate thoughts, once again though, Jay. I will check out the articles and sources you mentioned. It appears you read about writing quite a bit. Did you teach?
Jay, just to finish my thought on dew dropping lol: Studying the human condition is something I’ve done since I was a small child, and then scholarly in my adult life. I have learned that when some people face a traumatic event, or especially when they’ve come to a moment they’ve lost hope and have internally made an ultimate decision, they tend to stand back for long moments and reflect. Sometimes this reflection entails completely phasing out the world and focusing on something, fixating on something they find beautiful that takes their thoughts away from the internal hardship. Perhaps this isn’t true for every personality, situation or hardship, but even in reality, people tend to fixate on objects or, in my character’s case, an act of nature, to swallow her thoughts, bring a flicker of beauty to a moment of darkness.
Mod
Yeah. That long, ultra-long, critique I guess you'd call it, has no inner life. Which to me equals boring.
That’s the thing about writing. I’ve had people both love and hate it when I make my characters like real people.
Mod
And that's going to happen no matter what you do. Some will love your work, some will not.
It appears you read about writing quite a bit. As with any other profession, we master the craft, the specialized knowledge, and the tricks of the trade, or be in the position of trying to reinvent the wheel. People have been studying, refining, and playing around with writing fiction with centuries. Not taking advantage of that would seem not to be the best way to achieve success. As Wilson Mizner said, “If you steal from one author it’s plagiarism; if you steal from many it’s research.”
But in the end, and joking aside, isn’t learning from those who have been successful how we master any profession? As Mark Twain put it: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Jay, just to finish my thought on dew dropping lol: Studying the human condition is something I’ve done since I was a small child, and then scholarly in my adult life.
But your protagonist—our avatar—studies it before we learn what motivates her to want to do so.
Given her state of mind, and her concerns, she’d probably be surprised to find it wet when she touched it, because in her moment of “now” she’s focused on internals, not externals. She might notice the moment when a droplet combines with another, and forms a tear that falls from the ring, and relate that to herself. But the fact that she doesn’t react in any way says that the narrator is talking to the reader, about things the protagonist is ignoring. How can that seem real?
My point is that given that she’s agonizing over memories, traumatic events, and an uncertain future, she may well lose track of time. But the only one actively focused on the water droplets is the storyteller. And the storyteller isn’t on the scene, or in the story.
Yes, I know the narrator is pretending to be the one who experienced the events, but the narrator lives at a different time from when the events took place. Can she appear on stage alongside her previous self, making editorial comments on things the protagonist is ignoring without killing the sense of living the story in real-time?
Given her state of mind, and her concerns, she’d probably be surprised to find it wet when she touched it, because in her moment of “now” she’s focused on internals, not externals. She might notice the moment when a droplet combines with another, and forms a tear that falls from the ring, and relate that to herself..She wasn't surprised to find it wet when she touched it, because that's not the mental state she was in. It was the beauty of the dew drops that took her to another place, where she was clearly comforted by it. She is a person who finds beauty even in darkness. That's who she is. That's what I wanted to convey with her surroundings. Not everyone can relate to that, and that's okay. I still like to be true to the character, and I feel that's who she is and that scene fits her.
But in the end, and joking aside, isn’t learning from those who have been successful how we master any professionOf course, and for the most part that's how I've learned to write and continue to learn, as there's so much to learn. But I also do own my own style, something that feels true to me, and unique. Some people love it. Some aren't crazy about it. I have found that the audience my book attracts and those who like or love it are between the ages of 35 and 65 and enjoy my "realistic and poetic style" of writing.
For the most part, I continue to better my writing by studying from successful writers as well, like you said. For example, I keep every suggestion you've given me in mind, and read one of the articles you mentioned called "Writing the Perfect Scene," as I find it helpful.
Mod
Dwayne, I actually made that same point earlier. This is why I get so confused, personally. I’ve learned from some amazing old English writers, and yet, many new-age writers go by a completely different set of rules. Some of the rules cross decades, but many have evolved.
For example, I’ve had a reader refer to my book as “superbly written,” while another said it seemed it was written like “English as a second language.” Lol. I think everyone is touched by a story differently, and same goes for the style of writing they prefer. I’ve read books that were successful and traditionally published which I felt were very poorly written lol.
Mod
This is why I don't read books teaching how to write, anymore. I used to. I read a good many. You can really only learn so much from them. I find I learn a great deal more by reading great works of literature. I find that most of my literary heroes do things that directly contradict what modern books on writing have to teach. The notion that we must always be in the protagonists head is a fairly new concept. Thomas Hardy didn't write that way, nor did Dickens, Twain or a good deal of the classic authors. The notion that the writer must remain off the stage is strange to me. Vonnegut loved to take center stage and chew it up. So did Douglas Adams. This is not to say books on how to write are useless. They often contain some great advice. Most can only take you so far, though. They teach how to write a mechanical story, but they lack instruction on how to add heart and soul, how to make it art. This is what the true masters of writing knew and its not something you can teach. Its something we can only strive for on our own.
Seriously though, you’ve described exactly what I wanted to say.
I know this isn't about the sequel, but the comments about not not reading books teaching you how to write got to me. I agree that too many will only confuse you. I've been keeping mine to a few classics like The 'Elements of Style,' 'On Writing by Stephen King, and the 'Plot and Structure'. I've also read the Snowflake Method and Story Genius. I look at them as being like college classes, you take what you need from them and then do it your way. Every writer needs to develop their own style and you can't please everyone. In fact you don't want to please everyone. The idea is to write to that one person who will love your story and not worry about the rest.Leah, I love that you learned from the masters. I still love the stories like those of Dickens, Verne, Hemingway, Michener, Twain, Alcott. As Stephen King said, you need to read to write. He also said, you need to develop your own style. As James Scott Bell said, you need to connect on an emotional level with your readers. To do that we need to tap into our own emotional memories. If we do that, we can create on infinite variety of living characters who readers will relate to in your books. Like life, writing is an ongoing journey of learning and doing, failure and success. So do what you feel is best. If it doesn't work, try something different.
B.A., I have that book On Writing by Stephen King. I need to re-read it. I thought it was great. I have another I need to start, too. And I agree entirely. We take what we need from the writing books, and discover our own style at the same time. No matter how great you write, there will be readers who both love or hate it, including scholars on the subject, as there are so many different styles and writing eras that people are drawn to.
She wasn't surprised to find it wet when she touched it, because that's not the mental state she was in.But there’s not a word on her mental state being one that leads to watching dew grow on a metal ring, or the situation that led to her deciding to go there before you present droplets forming, rolling, and diving. She's upset and says she has no heartbeat. For someone like that, I kind of think being dead (or undead) would be of a lot more importance that watching dew form. But that aside…you know what her mind-state is as you read the line. She knows what her reasons are for being there. And it was your intent that the reader understand her motivation. But you provided no context as we entered the scene, so the one you wrote this for, the reader, has only what the words suggest to them based on their background. And since you can’t retroactively remove confusion...
Pretty is nice in its place, but when I’m heading into a potential combat situation, as you say she is, I tend to focus on being prepared for what’s about to come. Your mileage may differ, of course.
But forget that, because my point, going back to the opening you posted, is that had you asked the protagonist what she was focused on in that moment, why, and her reaction to it—both by the gate and in that car by the bridge—you would have seen the scene less as an external storyteller and more in her viewpoint. And fair-is-fair. It is her story, after all. And it’s our protagonist's viewpoint that matters to a reader because it’s real enough to her to react to, while fog and patterns in dew are what attract the cinematographer's attention. But making the reader care about what matters to her is what makes the scene real to a reader. They care about what the protagonist is focused on. Dew and bridges? Not so much
Jay, one thing is very clear. There won’t be dew and foggy bridges in your stories where you want to convey acceptance or suspense, but there will in mine. We feel differently about how we convey depth and feelings (how we paint the environment and in hand the inner world of our characters) in our scenes. Thank you for your insights and time. Even if I don’t agree with all you’ve said, I will keep your thoughts in mind. You’re clearly a very intelligent man who has a deep passion for writing. That’s wonderful, and I appreciate the time you’ve put into helping me.
For those of you wondering about the second scene Jay and I are discussing, it's the opening scene in Book One. I pasted it below.The somber air thickened with tears of morning dew while the fog bled out of the soil. It seemed the earth wept for me, perhaps because I couldn’t weep for myself. Inside me there was an absence of feeling, an absence of warmth. Not even a heartbeat. I was frigid like the perpetual night, except I didn’t feel the chill. There was only the hunger that burned from the emptiness in my stomach to the core of my chest.
I stood at the gates of The Décret, but for some reason I was hesitant. I stared at the round, iron handle that hung from the latch. On its surface, drops of moisture formed, rolled down the metal, and dove into the mist. Behind the gates was where certain death awaited; that’s what I had chosen. And yet, my body wouldn’t move.
Surely, the idea of death didn’t stop me. I had already suffered worse—the un-death, what immortals call revamping. It had scalded through my veins and ravaged every inch of my skin for what felt like an eternity of pain. When I awoke, I found myself lying in a pool of discolored fluid that had saturated the sheets. Upon rising, I felt a sensation of weightlessness, as if my body hovered over my feet.
Jay, one thing is very clear. There won’t be dew and foggy bridges in your stories where you want to convey acceptance or suspense, but there will in mine.It's not a matter of what you or I like. It's what the reader needs. And the reader, before anything else, needs context, because without that, they're meaningless words on the page. If I have a character say, "You know Sam, this reminds me of that time in Mexico, with Charlie. That rooster was probably never the same after that," all you can do is shrug, and assume that at some time in the future, I may, or may not clarify. So it means nothing, as read. And how entertaining is that?
Making it worse, suppose I follow it with Sam reaching for a gun as he snarls, "You dirty bastard!"
The protagonist knows why Sam reacted that way. And so does Sam. But the reader? Not so much.
But...had I placed myself into the protagonist's viewpoint, he made that statement for a reason. And had I presented it as him thinking: Time to push him, I think, and see what happens, it doesn't matter what happened to that rooster. What does, is that I, the reader, know the protagonist's intent for the line, and will be focused on Sam's response, not the chicken's adventure. And I will care what happens next because I've been made to want to know. A hook, in other words. Motive hooks. Dewdrops, not so much.
And of equal importance, as I write, I'm now more focused on my protagonist's needs and intent, as that character is, than describing what could be seen if the reader was on the scene.
Everyone has their own approach to writing, of course. And of course ours will differ. But our medium imposes some severe restrictions, serial presentation being one of them. If the time to read about someone acting exceeds what it takes to do it in life, or the film version, the story crawls.
Logic, too, plays a part. As a scout leader I've spent a lot of time outdoors. I've seen dew form on many things. But I've never seen drops "form, roll, and dive" while I watched. And since story takes place in real-time, not overview, we can't be in the viewpoint of the protagonist when you talk about that. Instead, we're in the viewpoint of the storyteller—telling, when you could be showing what matters to the protagonist, who'd standing in front of that gate deciding if she should go in or turn away.
And in the scene on the bridge, as a reader, I cannot help but insert my own real-world experience when you mention heavy fog, I remembered the times when I was hard pressed to see the white line in the center of the road, the taillights of the car in front of me, and when my own headlights put up a wall of blinding light. I've been in a Frisco fog, walking, and I could hardly make out the buildings across the street. So mention of heavy fog places me on the bridge, not on a street with a sidewalk. Is that a matter of writing style or logic?
But that aside, as Jack Bickham observed, “To describe something in detail, you have to stop the action. But without the action, the description has no meaning.”
My point is that it's not a matter of writing style. The structure of a scene is the structure of a scene. And there are three issues that a reader needs addressed on entering a scene that provide the context they need. That's writing 101, and is taught early in any class on commercial fiction writing.
No one says we have to take that into account...other than the reader, of course.
Seriously, I don't want to turn this into an argument, or dispute the fact that you write well. You can, of course, write in any way you care to, and ignore everything I say. And I don't want to upset you, so I'll bow out, here.
I do, though, suggest you spend a bit of time with Dwight Swain, to hear what he has to say. I swear by his, Techniques of the Selling Writer. But his audio boil-down of his all day lectures on writing, and character development into two one hour lectures, are brilliant, accessible, fun, and, cheap. Under the name, Dwight Swain, Master Writing Teacher, they cost about $6 on Amazon, and take up only two hours of your time. But given that it's two hours spent with a master, someone who used to fill auditoriums when he went on tour, it's a real bargain. You'll even learn why he made his students think about killing someone with a doorknob.
Note: The Décret is a vampire clan based in France. The Shevet is a vampire clan based in Israel. Both clans have already been introduced in previous chapters. Uri is Rena's immortal uncle, who has also already been introduced. Same goes for Edrea and Alexio, but as this is Rena's first chapter in the sequel, I wanted to write in brief flashbacks.
Sample:
The Golden Gate was finally in view through the heavy San Francisco Bay fog. Rena’s fingers tightened around the steering wheel while she waited for traffic to ease up. There was an accident ahead on the bridge, giving space for only one car to pass at a time. She nervously searched the dark street for any sign of the two men that appeared to be following her. Vampires. She knew this for sure, because she had seen them walking on either sides of 19th Avenue and then when she drove through Golden Gate Park. That was only ten minutes apart, but a five-mile distance. Not even a bus could have made it past her. There had been little traffic on 19th at this time of night. It was almost eleven o’clock. She also caught one of the peculiar men in black looking right at her. Her skin had crawled since then.
She had considered driving straight to Edrea’s home, but she realized that wasn’t a good idea either. She wasn’t supposed to know about vampires to begin with. She had promised her immortal uncle and sister she would pretend nothing had happened last year--pretend she was never kidnapped by sadistic vampires that wanted to kill her, make her a vampire, and use her for her inherited mind abilities that would magically activate when she was turned. Uri promised Shevet vampires would be shadowing her and her family, but she hadn’t seen anyone. Maybe they were good at keeping hidden, but she wasn’t sure about anything anymore. She even began to wonder if any of this had truly happened at all. Could she just be going crazy?
No. It did all happen. She did find her missing sister. Edrea was murdered and turned into a creature of the night that preyed on human blood. The human monster the Décret sent to end her had raped her first. The thought made Rena tremble in her seat, tears stinging her eyes. She couldn’t have imagined all that. She had the burn scars to prove it on her legs and arms, the ones caused by the fire pit when a Décret vampire held her over the flames and dropped her in. Alexio had saved her, threw her out of the way, and in doing so gave his life to the same flames. The man her sister had fallen in love with.
There was a vampire world out there, a vampire war, and somehow she knew it wasn’t over yet.