Am I Trying to Write Two Books Instead of One?

By Elaine L. Orr

I've been working on New Lease on Death (13th Jolie Gentil cozy) for several months, sometimes going full speed ahead, other times pausing for a week or more. Yes, I am busy. Who isn't?

When I'm not moving fast or feel stuck, I look at the intersection of plot and subplots and which character is doing what in each. Because the book has two points of view (sleuth Jolie Gentil and a former town resident who left under a cloud years ago), I've been careful to define each character's role carefully.  The usual who-does-what-to-whom and why, plus outlined details about the clues that lead to solving the murder.

I've been wondering if I'm stalling for...what? Time? I set the schedule. Today I went back to basics while sitting quietly (a.k.a. away from my computer) and wrote about the inciting incident. Then I insisted (to myself) that there were two inciting incidents.

Ah, a clue. Maybe I'm working slowly because I'm trying to write two plots instead of a plot with strong subplots.

Below is the working description of New Lease on Death.

Jolie always has her hands full appraising houses, running the food pantry, and enjoying her family. Enter Buck Brock — an annoying landlord who likes to skimp on amenities and wants Jolie to lowball appraisals on properties he’s buying. He makes Lester look like a mild-mannered uncle.

She and Scoobie also decide to let a troubled Iraq War vet back into their lives, and Jolie finds him work cleaning units for Buck. Or will Josh’s presence end up helping her family — especially Scoobie?

Jolie’s in the Java Jolt Coffee Shop when Buck’s weekend tenant (a friend of Jolie’s sister) collapses. No one expects her to die so quickly. It’s hard to identify suspects, but Josh pops up on the police radar. Or could some evil person have put poison in a Java Jolt product just to cause trouble?

Jolie, Scoobie, and friends are pondering this when an annoyed Buck asks Jolie to meet him at a house she just appraised. She’s peeved, but he’s a steady client. What she finds in the foyer does not encourage tourist traffic in Ocean Alley.

As a mom of four-year-old twins, Jolie doesn’t jump into crime solving casually. But figuring out two murders may be a leap she has to take.

Except it doesn't include my main subplot. I think this is going to be a week of rethinking. It's either two books or one that needs to mesh better.

                                                                *     *     *     *     *

To learn more about Elaine L. Orr, visit her website or sign up for her newsletter.

The Eyes that Give Descriptions in a Book

 I've had a number of discussion with people about how much to describe a character's appearance, a room  they walk into, or scenery viewed from a car. Using an omniscient narrator gives an author the leeway to describe a room down to the coasters on a coffee table. 

But what if you write in first person or close third person? I subscribe to the belief that all information has to be provided through the eyes of the person narrating the story. The "I" individual in first person stories. In close third person, such as the Harry Potter stories, everything (except occasional chapters he's not in) is through his filter. 

A first-person book may offer information from the character's point of view -- even long paragraphs. Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone provides in depth background on a neighborhood, criminal, or crime -- but it's always something Kinsey knows or is learning.

Sometimes it may seem hard to tell a reader about a setting if the point-of-view character has been there previously. They wouldn't walk into a good friend's home and recite (to him or herself) the layout, style of furniture, or color of the walls.

However, there are ways to tell a reader what they need to see without doing a full stop as the character tells herself what she already knows. To use the friend's house (we'll call her Chloe), the sleuth could admire how Chloe manages to put so much antique furniture in a small living room without blocking access to the second-floor stairway. The reader learns  the house is small and has a second floor. Knowing Chloe values antiques may be something that goes with other characteristics she exhibits. (Or tells the reader something else, such as the kind of stores she burglarizes.)

I go to a lot of conferences and short classes about writing. I've learned pearls of wisdom from John Gilstrap, Leigh Michaels, William Kent Krueger, and Julie Hyzy, to name a few. These authors write very different kinds of books, but they impart knowledge well and offer good discussions on point of view. 

First person works well for traditional or cozy mysteries, when the reader is solving the crime with the sleuth. Third person (especially multiple points of view) is almost essential for thrillers. It's the best way to learn what the bad guy (a.k.a. the antagonist) is up to. Even then, a writer has to be "forever conscious of camera placement" -- John Gilstrap's way of saying don't stray out of the point-of-view character's vision.

Authors have their preferences. As long as they, their readers, and at least some reviewers like them, books sell. In the Harry Clifton novels, Jeffrey Archer announces each POV change by putting the character's name and a time period on a separate page. 

Contemporary romance novels usually have two POVs, since the focus is on a couple's relationship. The more racy Regency romances may have several, often associated with different subplots and clearly delineated. 

One method that will make me close a book is shifting points of view in the same scene or even paragraph. Authors may see this as more appropriate now that we've watched movies for...more than a century. The camera takes in everyone's view, including the audience's. I find constant POV shifts to be a lazy way to tell a story.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a guest blog post for Dru's Book Musings. I took a scene from Final Operation, one of the Logland Series books, which are generally from Police Chief Elizabeth Friedman's point of view. Then I rewrote the scene from the medical examiner's POV -- which is never expressed in the book. What a difference! I'm going to do it more often.

                                                            *             *            *            *

To learn more about Elaine, go to www.elaineorr.com or subscribe to her newsletter.

What Don't I Get about Unreliable Narrators?

I picked up an author I hadn't read for a while and was halfway through the book (a thriller with your everyday serial killer) when I realized the characters were holding out on me. That's the polite way of saying the author cheated.

When I am in a character's head (their point of view), I expect to know what they know. Not what their favorite uncle gave them for their last birthday, but anything that relates to the story. Sure, a character doesn't spell out what s/he will do in advance -- that would be dull. But to get three-quarters of the way through a book before you find out the killer's motive is totally different than presented? Not presented by a reporter or neighbor -- told by the killer. Argh!

Writers approach their craft in so many ways, but the so-called unreliable narrator makes no sense to me. I read Mary Stewart's The Ivy Tree when I was twelve or thirteen.

Every time my mom read a book I picked it up when she was done. In that story, a young woman shows up in a British town and spends the entire book denying she is someone who vanished years ago. At the end of the book, you find out she was in fact the long-gone woman. It was her point of view!

I told my mother I thought it was the dumbest book I'd ever read. Her response? "I meant to tell you not to bother." It was years before either of us trusted another Mary Stewart book.

Any comments from readers or writers about why they think this technique has become acceptable? Did it take hold with Gone Girl? I'm still furious about devoting time to that book. I like a mystery that's truly a puzzle to solve, not a 'surprise' ending because a character holds out on me.

I wish publishers would decide it's a genre, then I'd know in advance to avoid such books.What do you think? Have I turned into a fuddy duddy?
                                                         *     *     *     *     *
To learn more about Elaine's writing, visit www.elaineorr.com.