Hi again. Been a couple years. Sorry I was busy. I need advice please! (see bolded text for the tl;dr version) So I entered Gollancz' open submission a while back and sent them the first five pages of my novel FOR WANT OF A WORLD, now on it's second major revision. Here's what they wrote back (my first rejection; a handwritten note!) ***** Dear Theodore, Thanks for sending us FOR WANT OF A WORLD, and we're sorry it took so long to respond. Your submission made it to the third round. Unfortunately, we didn't think it quite what we're looking for. You write well though so don't give up! Rat was an interesting character, the scenes were well-constructed, and the story has potential. Where it stumbled a little was in the lack of interior observation. It read like a cinematic transcript, describing everything but lacking the insight into what's going on that is the particular power of writing. If you focus on adding this observational element to your writing, I think you definitely have a lot of potential. Best of Luck! ***** I'm ready to revise again and if anyone has any advice on this subject, (or has an idea what they are talking about ha ha) the help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I'm tentatively assuming that the objection is to a lack of internal thoughts and... OK, I'm going to throw in one of the samples that I wrote for another thread, and then take out all the internal thought/motivation. With the internal thought/motivation: Raining. Of course it had to be raining, on the one day that the car was being serviced. Joe leaned on the post of the bus-stop sign, as if it could provide shelter. And why wasn't there shelter? He'd seen those little glass-walled things in other cities; why not this city? What, the locals weren't worth the money? Probably somebody hadn't filled out the grant application, that was it. He snatched his phone out of his pocket and made a note: "Complain to City re bus shelters." Rain ran over the phone as he did so. Probably going to ruin it. That would be the city's fault, too. "Excuse me, sir?" "What?" Joe turned to glare at--glare down at--the face of the little woman standing next to him. Little woman in a rain coat and a rain hat, little woman looking contented and dry and bleeping friendly. He hated her, just looking at her little contented face and its curls of hair, dry hair, probably warm hair, under the hat. Stupid woman. Didn't she know that she should be angry about bus shelters? "What do you want? I'm waiting for a bus here." Minus the internal thought/motivation: It was raining, and Joe's car was being serviced. Joe leaned on the post of the bus-stop sign. He snatched his phone out of his pocket and made a note: "Complain to City re bus shelters." Rain ran over the phone as he did so. "Excuse me, sir?" "What?" Joe turned to glare at the face of the little woman standing next to him. She wore a rain coat and a rain hat, and looked contented and dry. He continued, "What do you want? I'm waiting for a bus here." Of course, I could be guessing wrong. And, of course, this isn't what the "minus" scene would look like if I did choose to write it that way--I just stripped stuff out without doing a rewrite to account for its absence. My goal is just to show what I'm seeing as the internal thought/motivation.
TD, good to see you. Looking back at my comments regarding one of your in-workshop chapters from For Want of A World, it seems that I may have been spot on (sorry, I had to). I'm sure you've revised your chapters numerous times since then, but what it sounds like to me, a fellow aspiring novelist, is that they felt like you were missing the regular stuff--tension, POV, and cohesion. A cinematic transcript gives you all the exterior details, but it's "interior observations" that highlight tension, demonstrate character motivation, contribute to tone, and depict your world and events from a unique perspective. Do they literally mean showing the character's thoughts and reactions? I hope not only. But by showing how your character reacts, or, more subtly, giving us exterior details through a character based lens--an easy example would be having your MC, who for the sake of this example is a lecher, walk into a nursery and observe almost nothing but breasts (to be specific, that's what you would focus on writing about in that particular scene)--you should be able to give them more "interior observation." I certainly think this is the true power of writing. It's not quite plot. It's not quite characterization. It's shining a literary spotlight on certain things, highlighting them to create a literary world out of the physical world (character, plot, events) that you are actually telling the story about. It's dependent on many things, not just character, which is why no one can really tell you how to do it--that falls in the hands of the author. The good news is the physical world you want to write about already exists on paper, in the form of your current draft. Now it's about illuminating appropriate parts of that world so as to captivate the reader.
Oh, YES. That rejection put the issue in pretty concrete terms. What they mean is you're showing us what's going on, but not giving enough insight into why. I like what they said about insight being 'the particular power of writing.' When you're making a movie, all you've got are visuals and audials to work with—setting, action and the ability of actors to interpret what their inner insights might be. But when you're writing a novel, all you've got are words. And these words give you the power to not only recreate setting and action, but the power to let us know what the characters' inner insights, thoughts and feelings actually are. The fact that you got so far in the submission process means you can't be doing too badly at all. And a handwritten note with suggestions? I'd call that a big win. Or rather a 'second prize' win. There is a certain type of reader who likes just watching what characters do and listening to what they say and then interpreting for themselves what it all means. But I feel you can force readers to do too much of that, and that ploy won't appeal to folks who like a more immersive experience. It's a fine line between spoon-feeding a reader, and leaving too much to chance. Perhaps get more strongly into your POV character, and instead of letting his actions and words speak for him, throw in some of his inner thinking as well. He's not necessarily going to say exactly what he means, or let his actions reveal everything about him. And there is degree as well. He might smile, but be thinking, —oh, shit, no! He might laugh at a joke, but say to himself, It's not all THAT funny, why am I laughing? If somebody says something outrageous in his presence, he might stand there with a straight face, revealing nothing. If that's the case, and if he's a POV character, you can let us know that he's really upset by what was just said, but realises if he says anything, he'll get punched in the snout. Or if he sees his best friend keeping a straight face in similar circumstances, he might be wondering when is Jake going to crack? Any second now... With a POV character, you have access to his inner feelings. Reveal them and use them. Don't just imply them—or at least not all the time.
This was something I used to struggle with a lot (and perhaps still have issues with). If you're writing from a character's point of view, it's important not just to relay their sight, hearing, dialogue, etc, but also what goes on in their head. At least the important stuff. Like 1-9 says above, everything in the narration while you're writing in a character's POV is from their worldview. Someone who likes children might see kids and think "Two little angels walked by, hand in hand, probably no older than 4." Someone like me who can't stand kids might think "Two offspring waddled, unattended, into the way of a poor woman pushing a shopping cart. If she hadn't stopped in time and hit them, it would be her fault of course. Not the negligent parents." Aside from that, be sure to capture your POV character's reactions to dramatic things that happen. Otherwise, they might not seem as dramatic. For example: *sudden explosion* *characters break into running from explosion* *dialogue about explosion* If that was the entire scene, it might seem incredibly dry and transcript-like. However: *explosion* *wtf-esque internal reaction from pov character, followed by the aformentioned running* *dialgoue about explosion* *internal worry about whether someone was hurt by explosion* The above could make for a far more thrilling and personal scene.
Wow, thanks everyone for the great advice! I see what they meant more clearly now. In practical terms: I need to immerse myself more in the character's POV when I write, rather than simply telling the story from an observer's perspective. I need to let the character's thoughts and feelings flavor the scenes.
Precisely. And it sounds as if that won't be hard to do. From the reaction you got, you're almost there. Very good luck. I imagine you could recontact Gollanz once you've made the changes, and ask for them to look again. They've given you a lot of encouragement via a personal, handwritten letter AND a concrete suggestion for improvement. This would let them know that you a) listen to what your readers tell you and b) are able to make improvements, as directed. I'm sure you're just the kind of writer they'd be glad to take on board.
