Who's to Judge

Writing fiction is like writing history. Perhaps that's why I like it. I like history. Always have.

There is a strong sense of reality in good fiction. Something about it makes the story believable, and it's that believability which makes the story appealing to others. Believability is how readers submerge themselves into a story and escape from reality.

Some people write about factual events and make them read like fantasy. No one believes it - despite it being true. Others can spill out blatant lies and convince the world they're true.

When I read what I've written I search for the believability in the story. Do I believe this character would do this? Would they say this? This is one way I lose scenes. Even while writing I try to keep characters in character. I have a goal to reach in a scene, but sometimes - because of what other characters are saying and doing - the current character of my focus can no longer remain in character if they do or say what I want. So I lose the scene. This is not bad because it maintains the level of believability.

I've read stories - and even watched films - where characters the actions and words of characters seems stilted and contrived. There was no real reason for this character to say what they said or do what they did. This makes their speech and actions jarring, and I am taken out of the story while I reflect on it. I believe these are cases in which the writer was so intent on having something said or done they failed to keep their characters in character. Even professionals have been known to do it. But they get paid for it. [smiles]

I think this is why some (some?) of my stories get long. As a firm believer in the "everyone is capable of everything" theory (providing the correct sequence of events occurs) I will sometimes seek out the right formation of dominoes, so that when they fall they produce the action, words, I seek. Most of the time it really wasn't worth the effort, though, and I find myself chopping the scene up like a weed hedge.

Editing is hard. Why? Because it is never finished. At some point we just stop. But we don't stop because there is nothing left to change. We stop because we stop. We're finished. Not the editing.

I once had a conversation with a retired editor. He told me of a case in which a woman had sent him a manuscript he kind of liked, but didn't think ready for publication. So he rejected it. But he did something he normally never did: he sent her a note explaining why. She rewrote her manuscript and resubmitted it to him. She had taken the life out of it. This time she got the standard form rejection. I'm not sure of the point of that story, other than to say that we writers get so hyped up about being published we tend to overreact.

I've read several comments and postings from authors/writers who hold that early works should be put in a drawer and forgotten forever. Work on something new. I'm not inclined to give - or listen to - this advice. Only the author of a work is fit to declare it done forever. I imagine every person who reads can find at least one story on the best-seller list they abhor. We only know what we like. What we believe will sell. The truth is, we don't know what's good unless we've written it ourselves. And even then we're never really quite sure. Are we?