Inside Out (an extract)

by Lorraine Mace



critique: Martyn Bedford



* * * * *



Introduction



It’s clear from your writing CV that you have some experience and success already, writing for children, and it goes without saying that your uploaded sample has gone down well with your fellow writers at YouWriteOn for you to have “won” this professional appraisal. So it’s worth holding on to those positives when considering some of the issues this critique addresses. I should also like to preface this appraisal by stressing that my specialised field, as a writing practitioner and as a critic, is fiction for adults. I have read quite a bit of teenage fiction over the past year or two, and have tackled one or two critiques of teenage novels for YouWriteOn. I’ve also read a fair bit of fiction for younger children to my eight-year-old daughter. But, I don’t profess to be an expert on writing for children. Again, it is worth bearing this in mind when you reflect on my comments on your novel-in-progress. What I do know is that the children’s fiction market is highly competitive at the moment and your novel will really need to stand out if it is to stand a chance of mainstream publication. My feeling, from the opening chapters and synopsis, is that you have a very strong and original storyline in place already, and one that would appeal to any agent or editor. I’m not sure, though, that the quality of the storytelling and characterization is quite there yet, in terms of doing the idea full justice.



Appraisal



1. Structure/organisation & Point of View (PoV)

The thread of the storyline in these opening chapters is there (Michael being dared/coerced into breaking into Robert’s house, in fear of his step-brother Sean and because he wants to be in their gang . . . being caught by Robert, and befriending him, wanting to help him overcome his agoraphobia . . . the conflict this brings about at home, with his mother and step-father, and especially with Sean.) As a premiss for the novel as a whole, and in terms of drawing the reader in to the dynamics of the opening events, this is highly promising. You get the story up and running, introduce the main players, and involve us in what will happen next. All well and good. However, I’m not convinced that you organise the telling of the story to its best advantage, particularly in terms of PoV. For example, in Chapter 1 we are tight inside Michael’s narrative viewpoint as he breaks into Robert’s house and this is, generally, a well-managed action scene, edged with tension and drama. But the switch to Robert’s PoV, mid-scene, dissipates much of that tension and disorientates the reader (this reader, at least) at a point when we were embedded in Michael’s PoV. I would suggest sticking to Michael’s perspective throughout this opening chapter

Then, in Chapter 2, the drama of Michael getting caught by Robert is dissipated by splitting this scene either side of the exchange outside between Sean and the rest of the gang in itself, another switch of narrative viewpoint of course. My inclination would be to keep the getting-caught scene undivided, and more radically, perhaps, move it to the end of chapter 1 to run on from the Michael-breaking-in scene (where it properly belongs, I would argue.) I would keep Robert’s PoV out of it, at this stage, and avoid Sean’s PoV here and, indeed, altogether. Which leads me to my overriding concern, with regard to use of narrative viewpoint: for this story to be told most effectively and simply, and for the reader’s focus and interest to rest where it most needs to, I would strongly urge you to restrict the point-of-view narrators to two Michael, and Robert and to separate out their “turns” as narrative PoV in alternating chapters. Not within the same chapter, or the same scene, as you do here. Looking through the synopsis, it should be perfectly feasible to narrate all the things you need to via these two narrators. Keep Sean (and anyone else) out of the narrative viewpoint, I would say. Let us see him and the other secondary characters through Michael’s and Robert’s eyes.



2. Characterization.

For this novel to succeed, we need to be drawn right into Michael’s and Robert’s stories, and into their characters. I’m not sure we are, yet, although I’ll qualify that by saying this extract only includes the first four chapters, so it’s premature to make a definitive judgement on the question of their characterization. The dynamics between them are in place, so it’s not a question of plotting or situation. But there are points where I feel you could develop and deepen them without slowing the pace of the unfolding events. At present, they feel somewhat formulaic: the basically nice but misunderstood kid meets the basically nice but misunderstood old chap. Some sharpening of their characterization will follow, I believe, from restructuring the PoV, as outlined above, so that we are much more consistently and tightly focused inside Michael’s and Robert’s alternating viewpoints. But there are some specific points to look at as well, in these four chapters.

For instance, I feel that Michael is to quickly and easily reassured by Robert’s twinkling eyes when he is caught in the house. He’s gone from being terrified of this supposed vampire-like old man with some horrible, contagious disease, to deciding he’s okay really. I would spin this out longer than you do leave Michael, and us, unsure for a bit longer about just how “safe” this old boy is, and leave a residue of fear and suspicion for a while even after Michael and he have made their first tentative connection. Another example: when we are in Robert’s PoV in Chapter 3, why doesn’t he reflect on the fact that Michael has got into trouble with his stepfather? He surely would do? He took a shine to the boy and then, because the boy was in his house, the boy got a severe telling off. Robert, though, doesn’t give this a moment’s thought in Chapter 3, following on from the doorstep scene. Another example: in Chapter 4, Michael’s mum and stepfather, all too abruptly and easily, go from being furious and disbelieving to being pleased and supportive. Within this episode, too, there is a missed opportunity to deepen and develop Michael’s feelings towards the two adults, in relation to their treatment of him.

In general, I like the fact that Michael is a decisive and pro-active protagonist, prepared to take risks and get himself into trouble for something important to him, and I like the embryonic friendship you’ve set up between him and Robert, in relation to Michael’s interest in agoraphobia and his wartime experiences. But I do feel you could “inhabit” his thought-processes (and those of Robert) more fully and successfully when we are in their point-of-view. This doesn’t need to hamper the progression of the plot; indeed, it should enhance our emotional involvement in what happens to the characters.



Finally, a couple of picky line-by-line things.

There is a bit of clumsy, expositional dialogue in Chapter 1. I would suggest cutting the line “My dad says they’re gonna send more soldiers into Iraq” and rejig the following line to: “No, not Iraq, the old war.’ A more subtle way of getting the misunderstanding across, I feel.

Then, in Chapter 2, we are in Michael’s third-person limited PoV, so it wouldn’t be possible for him to observe his own flame-coloured hair and freckled nose.



Synopsis



As outlined, the story sounds terrific a real winner, in potential. Individually and in combination, Michael and Robert’s storylines are full of human drama and pathos, and I can imagine the reader becoming deeply involved in their “quests” (Michael’s, to help Robert and to free himself from Sean’s tyranny; Robert’s, to tackle his agoraphobia and to save Michael). Taking a close look at the plotting, as summarised in the synopsis, I can’t see any obvious potential problems or pitfalls, although I would say that one of the challenges will be to finesse the evolution of Sean’s character so that we believe in his transition, in his relationship with Michael, from antagonism and bullying to contrition and acceptance. And you’ll need to take care at the end not to make it all a bit too sweet and neat, where everyone turns out to be nice and everyone gets along with one another after all. Even in a novel for children in the target age range, it doesn’t have to be simplistically and uniformly happy-ever-after at the end.



Conclusion



In general, then, I would say that the idea, plot, character dynamics and inter-relationships for this novel are well conceived and rich in fictional potential. My concern, as I stated early on in the appraisal, is that you need to focus on telling the story to its best advantage in particularl, streamlining and reorganising the point-of-view narration and deepening and developing the two main characters, Michael and Robert.

Martyn Bedford