READY, STEADY, DIG! by Rosalind Winter

Dear Rosalind

Congratulations on being selected for a professional critique by your writing peers at YouWriteOn. I enjoyed reading your sample pages of READY, STEADY, DIG! and was impressed by the confidence of your writing. While these early pages contain some promising material, I think further work is needed and what I hope these editorial notes will provide you with is some useful pointers as to how you can hone and develop the existing chapters, and what to pay attention to as the novel progresses.

Structure:

These early pages feel very unstructured. It seems that you haven’t given proper consideration to what shape and direction your narrative will take, and this can really affect the pace and plotting of your novel. Structure is often overlooked but it is the backbone of any story, and if you have a weak structure, it shows.

I did like how the narrative was structured with each chapter from a different character’s viewpoint. This adds texture and depth to your narrative. But I found that chapter two added very little to the narrative in terms of character development or plot progression. It is important to assess whether each segment is not only entertaining the reader, but also enhancing the narrative in some way. Ideally, each chapter should contain some element of drama and progress the narrative in some form. It doesn’t feel like there is a clear story arc and, as such, there is no real narrative drive or sense of momentum. The story feels very directionless and meandering. You need it to be tight, concise and all the while pushing the story forwards.

Plot:

The opening is intriguing and vividly drawn. The reader is not quite sure what is going on and so is compelled to read on to find out. However, given that there is a lot of reported action so early on, as the narrator summarises what has happened over a four-hundred-year stretch, it very much feels like the reader is being confronted with a lot of information rather than allowing them to immerse themselves in this fictional world. You need to pull the reader into your story and if you confront them with too much information, you risk distancing them.

While a lot of the plot was very strong, in parts, the narrative felt unnecessarily drawn out. For example, the list of the various different gods: ‘god of the threshold, god of the entrance, goddess of the hinges, god of the door-leaves’ and so on. This became quite tedious to read and would benefit hugely from being more concise. By overstating a point, you often risk diluting its impact. This device of listing also felt quite childish. This is an element that needs serious consideration, and which I will go into more detail about in the section about genre and market. The novel seems to veer between being aimed at quite young children, given that it feels very much like a didactic story, and trying to appeal to a older audience, and this never quite works as it seems to flounder unsurely between the two. For example, the line: ‘And suddenly you see that he isn’t a tiny man at all: he is a huge man, big as the hills, tall as the heavens, and the browny-green is laves and grass and earth and stone...’ seems very simplistic in nature and not at all sophisticated enough for a teenage readership.

Another concern was that the narrative and dialogue felt very stilted and old-fashioned in parts. Whilst the Loci are ancient beings, you still want them to feel real and relatable to your reader. They felt very two-dimensional and almost like they were played for laughs, such as Petro exclaiming: ‘Jupiter’s cafetiere!’, ‘Juno’s electric garlic press!’ and ‘Jupiter’s apple-corer’. This felt over-played and became a little wearing. Rather than portraying Petro as quirky and offbeat, he merely comes across as simple. And even the Genius Loci stating ‘fresh air and sunshine wouldn’t do you a mite of harm’ and the dog and Lares stating of rabbits: ‘little furry beggars’ and ‘noisy little beggars’ seems very out-dated. Dialogue such as this makes the characters sound very old-fashioned and it is this use of vocabulary that I think might alienate young readers.

A more minor quibble: I found it strange that Vera didn’t seem more surprised to see Petro, given that she’s never seen a creature like him before. The first thing she says to him is: ‘Oh good, I’m glad that’s what you’re here for. What exactly are you going to do to help?’. This felt a little unrealistic and very matter of fact, and not how a teenager would react in a situation like that.

From your synopsis, it is clear that the story will end happily, with the ‘good’ characters being rewarded, while the ‘bad’ characters get their just desserts. But for a young adult novel, this seems a bit too tidy and pat, and is more in keeping for a story aimed at a much younger readership.

Characterisation:

The dialogue and character interactions at times felt very stiff and stilted, rather than flowing naturally, and this could potentially pull the reader out of the story, rather than immersing them in it. As I have already mentioned, the dialogue’s primary purpose seems to be to reveal background information to the reader, but I think this may work better if it’s incorporated into the prose rather than dialogue, as it feels very clunky in parts. You are revealing very little about your characters, instead just focusing on shoehorning the context of the story into the forefront of the narrative.

Vera very much feels like a character seen through the eyes of an adult, rather than one that will really leap off the page and resonate with young readers. She’s almost like an Enid Blyton character – very polite and matter of fact, and also quite immature in terms of her age. She seemed unlike any teenager that I know!

On a minor note: Petro states that Lares: ‘guard the Family and the Household, for ever and ever, or until we turn to stone’. But I thought Lares were already made of stone? I also found it unclear as to what was the difference between a Lar and a Genius Loci was. I think this needs to be addressed earlier on.



Continues next post

THE RISE AND FALL OF GER MAYES by Ruby Barnes

Dear Ruby

Congratulations on being selected for a professional critique by your writing peers at YouWriteOn. I enjoyed reading your sample pages of THE RISE AND FALL OF GER MAYES and was impressed by the confidence of your writing. While these early pages contain some promising material, I think further work is needed and what I hope these editorial notes will provide you with is some useful pointers as to how you can hone and develop the existing chapters, and what to pay attention to as the novel progresses.

Structure:

It is hard to comment upon the structure of the novel from these early chapters alone, as the synopsis (quite rightly) only elaborates on the plot, rather than the shape of structure the narrative will take. As I will comment upon in more detail in my notes on plot, I think the structure would benefit from streamlining the narrative. It needs to feel tight and to the point. I thought the mix of chapters – in terms of narrative focus and time frame – worked well. I also liked the flashbacks to Gerard’s childhood. They revealed more about his character, were extremely entertaining, and also gave more texture and variance to the narrative structure. I thought the ending of chapter one was very strong – sharp, laconic, and makes the reader want to read on. This is a technique to consider incorporating for all chapter endings as a device to hook the reader and keep the pages turning.

Plot:

After quite an intense prologue and an intriguing first chapter, the second chapter seems rather uneventful and every-day. Nothing much is revealed about the characters, and the plot isn’t particularly furthered in any way. It feels like a blow-by-blow account of the evening, rather than simmering it down to the interesting morsels. Such sentences as: ‘Despite the discussion, the starter is rapidly consumed. Jo disappears to finalise the main course while I collect up the plates’ read as unnecessary padding. I would suggest cutting this chapter down considerably. For a crime thriller, even if it is one that has a more humorous leaning, you need to maintain a sense of pace and narrative drive, and for the drama to dwindle and the pace to lag so early on may distance your readers. In the second chapter, it seems painfully obvious that the dinner talk scenario is a means to discuss the bishop’s sermon on charity and, more widely, each of the characters’ own thoughts on this issue. This conversational tangent feels shoehorned in rather than seamlessly interwoven into the main fabric of the narrative. However, the line: ‘I think it’s totally irresponsible to give them money, just so that they can get another fix or a can of cheap lager. More wine anyone?’ did make me laugh out loud, and subtly highlighted how hypocritical people can be, especially the middle-classes who like to sit around at dinner parties discussing such topical issues, yet very often have no real experience of what they are talking about.

A few minor quibbles concerning plot and consistency: I found it strange that Aunt Mary would say to her niece’s husband: ‘But you’re Scottish dear, aren’t you?’ Surely she would know this? I was also a little confused why Gerard was surprised that the homeless man was dead after he swung at his skull with a metal bar with all his might. What had been his intention?! There are a few instances of unnecessary repetition. Such as when Gerard reveals that Tom last long-term relationship was five years ago when his partner passed away. And just a couple of pages later, he again states ‘He hasn’t taken a partner since Richie passed away’. Be sure not to state the obvious to the reader, but allow them to make the connections themselves, and in that way they will feel like they are actively participating in the reading experience, rather than having it all spelt out to them.

It is hard to comment upon the rest of the plot from your synopsis alone. What I would advise is that the new plot development that sees Gerard pitted against a criminal gang doesn’t seem farcical or unbelievable. I was quite surprised, given that you have labelled this as a comedy crime-thriller, that Tom dies, and it seems like there is little or no redemption for Gerard. This seems very dark and not really in keeping with the tone set by the earlier chapters. There needs to be lightness alongside the darkness.

Characterisation:

Apart from Gerard, I found a lot of the characters very thinly drawn. Jo is too perfect – the ideal housewife who is great at cooking and seems largely unconcerned about her husband’s wandering eye, and always charitable to those in need. To be honest, I found it hard to visualise just why they had ended up together. While of course many marriages become stale and routine, we need a sense of what initially attracted them to each other. After all, they are currently trying for a child, but Gerard’s thoughts on this aren’t really explored, and this could potentially be very revelatory. Does he even want to be a father? Or is he just doing it to appease Jo, or because this is the socially acceptable thing to do after marriage. Tom is the homosexual best friend with a tragic background of death and addiction but who seems too prim and proper for this to really seem realistic. Again, I found Gerard and Tom’s friendship rather unlikely. Tom’s sole purpose seems to be to keep Gerard in check and almost act as his conscience. But he needs to be a rounded character in his own right, especially as your synopsis indicates that he will become a key player as the story progresses. Similarly, Renee comes across as a bit of a cliché: a man-eater with no morals given that she is hitting on her friend’s husband in front of her. Gerard touches upon her motives briefly later on, but I think this needs to be explored more. And I wondered why their encountered was briefly reported to the reader, rather than played out for the reader to witness? Again, this could reveal a lot more about both of their characters. Likewise, Aunt Mary is stereotypically nutty but well-meaning relative and never deviates from her restricted narrative purpose. Of all the characters in these early pages, she felt particularly two-dimensional. At times the characters just felt like mouthpieces for varying views so you could get across different sides of the argument concerning charity. None of them leapt off the page or felt remotely life-like. This is something you really need to work on in your re-writes. If your reader cannot connect and emotionally engage with your characters, they will never fully invest in your story.

While your characterisation is one of your weakest elements of the narrative, there are some really great moments contained within, such as Gerard discussing in internal monologue about the beginnings of his affair with Renee.

Continues next post

Professional mini critique for The Grower by Robbie Smith

Congratulations on being well-rated by your peers at YouWriteOn. I really enjoyed reading the opening three chapters of THE GROWER. When a novel has interlinking storylines told from different character viewpoints, this can help with the overall pace and narrative drive of the story. It can also be a stylistic technique that ensures the reader never gets bored of one storyline as it’s constantly switching between strands, making the reader wonder how these disparate threads will converge. But equally, with separate narrative strands, there is always the risk that one or more will be weaker than the others, and the reader will find it tempting to skim over these sections. From these opening pages, I felt Tony and Malcolm’s section was the weakest. The dialogue felt laboured and forced and it didn’t really pull the reader into the story. In comparison, Rupert and Mary’s strands were much more compelling.


Professional mini critique for Pastels at Dawn by Celia Micklefield

Congratulations on being well-rated by your peers at YouWriteOn. I enjoyed reading your short story, PASTELS AT DAWN. It is a simple story with a strong overriding moral. While the constraints of the short story form can be restrictive in terms of how much you can explore in your narrative, be sure that the drama doesn’t feel like it’s reported, but instead allow it to play out. I think because a lot of the material was reported rather than portrayed for the reader to experience first-hand, you risk distancing them from the story and in turn they won’t fully engage with the narrative. I also felt that there could be more vivid descriptions of the characters, the setting and the atmosphere, as at times I found this quite hard to envisage from the minimal descriptions. Of course you need to be succinct and concise, but you want to be able to give the reader a real flavour of the world you wish to immerse them in.

Many thanks to Natalie for reviewing Pastels at Dawn.
Celia 'A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction' Virginia Woolf

Thank you very much for all your feedback and we will pass this on to Natalie.

Best wishes,

Ted