Yesterday’s post was written some weeks ago and scheduled to appear on Christmas day. In the meantime, I’ve been concentrating on my second novel. It’s been an interesting journey. The first one has taught me much about plotting and writing something of around 70-80,000 words. Currently I am churning out around 3-4,000 a day. So I’m making progress. What is interesting is how it has developed. It was a slow start back at the beginning of 2017. Things paused about March due to Leggy wanting some short stories for the Easter Anthology, so that took precedence along with some personal stuff that just got in the way. Also, I needed to do some serious research into the period as this story is set against the backdrop of the 1745 Jacobite uprising. I’ve had to not only look up the action itself, but clothing, uniforms, weapons, money and so on.
But there’s also the matter of plotting. When I set out, I had a vague idea and a couple of protagonists. Since then as the story has taken shape the plot has firmed up and the characters taken on a life of their own. One managed to get himself killed early on, which wasn’t in the original plan, but fitted the way the plot was shaping up, so I went with it. And that’s really how I write. I am much like Louis L’Amour who, when asked why he spent so much time at his writing desk, explained that he wanted to see how things turned out.
I do not start with a detailed plot, nor, most of the time, with fully formed characters. Morning Cloud was an exception to this. Ewan McLeod and Fiona Ross were vague outlines when I started “Rebellion”, now they have taken shape. Likewise the twists and turns of the plot. The more I learn about Prince Charles’ campaign, the more that the underlying plot forms and it is going to end rather differently to my original plan – no, not Culloden, but the political espionage story that I am telling.
I wonder sometimes when reading a complex thriller just how the author has worked out the plot strands. Do they plan it all in detail first then write the narrative over it? Do they write out of sequence, much as a film is put together? Or do they do as I have found best – start writing and see how it all pans out? When an idea that fits later on in the story occurs to me I’ll write it out and save it into another file to paste in when I get there. I’ve got a couple of such files sitting on my hard drive waiting for me to catch up with them.
I am hoping to have “Rebellion” in Leggy’s catalogue sometime early in 2018…
Looking forward to this one 🙂
So am I. It’s developing nicely and I’ve matured as a writer.
BTW, do your characters keep going off and doing their own thing?
I also have something historical in the works. It’ll be another short story, so my research is likely to be far less detailed than yours. My problem is dialogue.
Whilst idling in the library last week, i stumbled upon a small book which might help – “writing dialogue – jean sanders”. Haven’t read it yet, what with Christmas ( and the Anthology 🙂 1st one I’ve had to buy, and well worth it. Sorry; digression). There were several similar titles, including “writing historical fiction- Emma Darwin”. Maybe that will answer some of your questions.
I tend to write dialogue as I speak. I can’t say I’ve had a great problem with it. One critic suggested that I tend to put too much in. She may have a point…
I tend to do a book outline to arrange the basic plot into some sort of coherent sequence. Imagine a Victorian novel which lists “Chapter 1 – in which the heroine meets an interesting character and learns that her uncle did not die of the plague in Hong Kong but made a fortune.
Chapter 2 – in which the nature of the uncles business is described and his Chinese family …”
Etc. etc. and so forth.
That way, when I think of something or discover some detail, I can glance at the outline and know that it would fit into chapter 5 (or whatever). Keep it loose enough not to restrict you but coherent enough to give the skeleton to the story. Let the characters develop as they occur to you and see where it goes. But for me, I need a believable scenario to begin with and enough knowledge of the way things work to take it seriously.
Bernard Cornwell clearly knows nothing about archery (the way he describes the method of drawing a longbow in his book Azincourt, for example) undermines the whole thing …
Still, everyone has their own methods and I daresay the stuff I write is tedious in the extreme.
I studied Dickens for English Lit at A level. I don’t think I could fall into that particular trap. In this instance, the bald layout already exists – we know how this one ends. I am overlaying a political thriller, so am using the campaign as it happened to map my own actions. What has happened, however, is that my original plot has become a little more complex.
My approach to things happening later that might not entirely fit with what I’ve written earlier is to go back and rewrite the earlier passages. I also do this to salt it with subtle clues and misdirection – I find it is easier to do it that way than try to do it ahead. Hopefully, I still win the game despite having given the reader all the information necessary to work out the puzzle.
I’ve not read Azincourt, but as an archer, I would pick up inaccuracies. In my case, I have two historical experts to call upon – one who specialises in clothing and fashion, the other, weapons, so hopefully, there will be no such gaffes in my writing.
1745? You might look into the Ayr Company who fought for King George. They were a very interesting lot drawn from the local Incorporations. I believe my forebear fleshers (butchers and slaughtermen) were among them.