Orion Critique of
Salop House by Martin Nichols

Dear Martin

Congratulations on being selected for a professional crtique by your writing peers at YouWriteOn. I really enjoyed reading your sample pages of SALOP HOUSE and was impressed by the confidence of your writing. While I don’t think the material so far needs a great deal of reworking as it is already in good shape, 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:
From these early pages, and as your synopsis indicates, the structure will be quite linear, plot-wise. Obviously the opening paragraph acts a prelude to the ending, and is an effective device to hook the reader and compell them to read on to discover what led to the present events that sees Sheldrick in court in relation to a murder. The reader instantly wants to know who was murdered, who murdered them, and why. So enigmatic is this opening paragraph that it even hints at the possibility that Sheldrick himself is the one charged with murder, and it is only further in that the reader will discover that this is not the case.

Your synopsis also indicates that there will be sub-plots to the main narrative, which involves Sheldrick’s growing affections for Leonora. This romantic narrative strand will provide relief from the murder story and should also reveal another side of Sheldrick to the reader.

Plot:
Given that we are told in the very first paragraph that Sheldrick will eventually end up in court over a murder case, after a fairly dramatic opening, the narrative then quickly slips into the ordinary and commonplace. Of course you want to set-up the narrative, and introduce both the characters and setting, but more importantly you need to maintain the reader’s interest that you captured at the beginning, and I think that the first chapter needs to be a lot pacier if you are to do that. While the scene where Finnerty and Sheldrick go to the stables with Pursiver was fairly diverting, it added little to the narrative and only served to slow down the pace. You either need to make such sections as this much shorter and snappier or cut them altogether to maintain the pace. It felt like there was quite a lot of superfluous material that could do with trimming or cutting. Every section in the narrative needs to serve a purpose: either, building upon character; depicting the setting, providing context or creating atmosphere; driving the narrative forward; or merely just entertaining the reader. If a section doesn’t achieve at least one of these criteria, you should consider cutting it. As a lot of published writers will tell you, almost as much time goes into editing and cutting down a novel as it does in writing it! In comparison, the second chapter was a lot stronger than its predecessor: it was more engaging, more entertaining and neater in structure.

Your synopsis states that Sheldrick is assigned to investigate the two murders ‘for reasons he doesn’t quite understand’. Does the reason why become apparent later on, as this isn’t detailed in the synopsis? Otherwise if this hanging question isn’t addressed at some point, this may seem like an unlikely plot point to the reader. After all, what does a veterinarian who specialises in horses know about investigating a murder?
A minor point, but something that is worth noting: often in your sections of dialogue, you don’t make clear who is speaking, which can be very confusing for the reader. For example, in the first instance of dialogue, where Finnerty shouts: ‘Hell and Damnation!’ I thought it was Sheldrick who had shouted this as the next line follows ‘My pen...’ This almost makes it sound like the narrator is Finnerty, not Sheldrick (who at this point is still nameless). This is something you need to pay attention to, as I found myself re-reading a lot of the dialogue to make sense of who was saying what. A particularly confusing passage was on page four where Finnerty begins: ‘It’s a fine man of the military life...’ Because you don’t run on his next sentence but place it on a new line, I assumed it was a new character speaking, but didn’t know who. Again, I had to read this twice before I could make sense of it.

Characterisation:

I think this is an area that needs particular attention. While a lot of the secondary characters are very well drawn, I think the depiction of John Sheldrick needs some development. Although he is the protagonist, he seems to adopt the role of observer and it often feels like he is on the sidelines. He needs a stronger narrative presence and needs to be seen to be steering and propelling the narrative. Also, as there is little description of him, it is hard to visualise what he looks like. Was this intentional? As very early on Sheldrick gives a description of Finnerty, but makes no mention of his own physical appearance.

In comparison, Fred is a distinctive and engaging character, and one I warmed to quickly. While I got a sense of his character through his exchanges with others, in contrast, I felt Sheldrick only served to elicit information from others, and provided little information about himself to the reader. And as such, he is a shadowy and quite unknowable figure. We never really get to know what he is thinking or feeling; he just merely comments on what he sees around him.

There were some wonderful phrases, such as the description of Sheldrick’s station in life: ‘not quite a gentleman, not quite trade. It opens doors, but it restricts how far you can walk through them.’ This vividly and succintly conveys that while Sheldrick can move easily in both circles, he will never be fully accepted in either. This is an important point, and one that could be made more of. How does Sheldrick feel about this? Is he accepting of it or does he rebel against it? What are his hopes and his fears? You need to get under the skin of Sheldrick as a character if the reader is to emotionally connect with him.

Critique continues next post

Orion Critique of THE PARENT PRIZE by Clair Humphries


Dear Clair

Congratulations on being selected for a professional crtique by your writing peers at YouWriteOn. I really enjoyed reading your sample pages of THE PARENT PRIZE and was impressed by the confidence of your writing. While I don’t think the material so far needs a great deal of reworking as it is already in very good shape, 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:
From these early pages, and as your synopsis indicates, the structure will be quite linear in terms of plot. I liked how the narrative was structured from different characters’ viewpoints, which I thought gave it a more rounded and multi-faceted structure. Obviously in these early pages, there have only been sections told from the point of view of Amy, Henrietta, Charlie and Hugo. Do you intend to also include passages from the perspectives of Carol, Adam, Henry and Hilary? This would really give an insight into each of the characters and give the strcture more depth and texture.
One device that can be useful in a story like this that is building towards a momentous event is the ‘ticking clock’ device. You need to get the reader on the edge of their seats and unsure of what the outcome will be. They need to feel like time is running out, but despite the odds stacked against the Brooms, to still hold out hope for them. This should really make for a tense and pacy read!

Plot:
The premise of the plot is quite simple – pitting two very different families against each other and watching as the sparks fly! It reminded me a little of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. And in place of an eccentric and reclusive factory owner you have a meddling and ruthless TV producer! The idea that it is all filmed for reality TV is also very topical – subtly commenting on what levels TV companies will go to to get the all-important ratings that they need. Your synopsis states that there will be other families taking part and competing, but it seems the Brooms and the Unwin-Smythes will be the key players. I think introducing other characters into the story will give it more variation and interest. And how much of a narrative presence will the TV staff have? They could offer a different perspective on the unfolding events and provide a behind the scenes insight.
Just a small point, but the moment when Amy does her charity abseil felt a little anti-climactic. There was such a build-up to it, then the description was only two lines long, and as such it seemed to be over in a matter of seconds! Perhaps extend this section so it feels a bit more dramatic?



Characterisation:

I thought it was wise that you opened the story from Amy’s viewpoint, as she is clearly the character who you want the reader to align with. She is a character who seems instantly familiar; a girl that every young female reader could relate to in some way. However, in comparison to Henrietta, I think she needs to be a bit more distinctive for her to be a really strong protagonist and for the reader to want to follow her story through to the end. She needs to be an approachable and likeable character, but there has also got to be some quality that makes her stand out from any other girl her age.
Henrietta is an engaging and entertaining character, but in completely different ways to Amy! She is sly, manipulative and will stop at nothing to get what she wants. But rather than painting her as the villain, the reader can’t help but warm to her. She is funny, knows her own mind, and at the same time, you feel a little sorry for her for having a family like the Unwin-Smythes!

One small gripe – at the beginning of chapter two, it states how Henrietta and Henry are ‘thankfully not identical’ twins. Boy and girl twins cannot be identical. I would suggest cutting this reference, or perhaps altering to the effect that there isn’t much of a family resemblance.

Both Adam and Henry are quite peripheral characters at the moment. This is obviously more Amy and Henrietta’s story, given that they are the ones who entered their parents into the competition. But I think that it is important that their points of views are also revealed to the reader, and of course they offer the potential for more comic elements to be introduced! Adam, unlike his sister, seems to act first, think later, and is a fun-seeker. Henry, also unlike his sister, seems a little unwitting and unaware of what is going on around him. I loved the fact that in almost every scene, he was snacking on something and unknown to him, getting crumbs all over him! It is small details like this which really bring the story to life, and will have the reader chuckling to themselves.
While I thought the characterisation of both Amy and Henrietta was very good, in comparison I felt that the portrayals of the parents needs some further development. It is often quite hard to get the depiction of parents right in stories aimed for younger readers. They often come across as caricatures and even a bit two-dimensional. I liked the fact that within their respective families, the husbands and wives were so different. Carol is a real go-getter and adventure-lover, while husband Charlie is clumsy and a bit lazy. Hugo is ambitious and driven, while his wife Hilary is preoccupied with more superficial endeavours and her only hopes in life are to secure the latest designer bag. Each parent was distinctive and entertaining in their own way. Yet you need to be careful that their characteristics don’t feel over-exaggerated, just because your story has a point to make. While Charlie was endearing in the fact that he very much still has the young boy in him, his daydreams of becoming a superhero, a knight in shining armour or James Bond seemed a little trite, even for a young reader. Perhaps his fantasies could be played down a little so it is more of a case that he likes to imagine that he is driving a fast sports car rather than a black cab, or imagining that the current customer in the back of his cab is really a spy, or some such.

I was also a little dubious about your use of alliterative names. Would parents really call their twin children Henry and Henrietta?! I know obviously a certain amount of suspension of disbelief comes into play, but equally, you don’t want your characters to seem thinly drawn. You also seem to paint your characters in pretty broad brush strokes at times. The Brooms are obviously working class, with the parents a dinner lady and a taxi driver, and they are a close and tight-knit unit that for the most part get along. While the Unwin-Smythes are very affluent, with the head of the family a property developer and the mother a lady of leisure, yet the family are depicted as fractious and out of touch with one another. I think you need to be careful not to be too stereotypical in your characterisation of these two vastly different families. It would be interesting to gradually draw out the similarities between them too.

Setting:
Setting is very much a backdrop in this story, as it should be. You make small references to the Brooms’ cosy but tiny kitchen compared to the Unwin-Smythes palatial-style home. Perhaps there could also be a reference to what Amy’s and Henrietta’s bedrooms are like? Young girls always love to read about other girls’ bedrooms, clothes, hobbies etc, as it is these things that teenagers like to express themselves through. This in no way needs to be a lengthy passage, but just a few small references so the reader can better visualise Amy and Henrietta, and the very different worlds that they inhabit.

Tone:
The tone is quite intimate and playful, which instantly draws the reader in. It is inviting and warm and makes for an easy and enjoyable read. Obviously the tone shifts slightly with each new character perspective, and this again adds interest and variance to your story.

Genre/Market:
This is clearly aimed at female readers, probably of an age range between 9-13 years old. You obviously know your readership and have tailored your story accordingly. I’m not sure how much a story like this would appeal to boys, but this of course will depend on the sections shown from the perspectives of Adam and Henry.

Conclusion:
I hope my notes have been helpful to you. As I have already said, I think the material so far is in very good shape, and with some polishing and developing as you go along, I’m sure you will be able to make this really sparkle. I wish you the best of luck in making that happen, and hope you continue to enjoy writing.

Best wishes

Natalie Braine

Thanks to the reviewer at Orion who reviewed my story.

Regarding your comments: I feel pointless most of the time. But then, I'm not an ending.

Dear Natalie, thank you very much for such a detailed and insightful review. I'm really pleased you enjoyed it and 'got' the humour, which is always a relief! I thought your point about developing the story from different characters' viewpoints was an interesting one, as I've been criticised before (by professionals and non-professionals) for not just sticking to one viewpoint ie. Amy's, throughout. I think different viewpoints is definitely the way to go and I'll be working on that. I also take your point on avoiding caricature when it comes to describing the parents - I do have a tendency to go for the cheap gag on occasion, so perhaps I should rein that in a bit more!

Anyway, I appreciate your valuable feedback and thanks again for taking the time to review this for me,

Clair. www.clairhumphries.com

Many thanks to Natalie of Orion for the mini-review. It's helped me to decide all the work of changing the viewpoint will be worth it. I'll also look again at the title, To Butcher: To Bleed, as overall it does seem to put off more people that it attracts. It's great to have some professional insight; a little guidance, so thanks again, Natalie.