The Truth About Celia

So, today, instead of writing, I discussed openings. First, you learn it as a hook. JJA talks about it that way. "didn't Grab me." And that's a fine way to learn it. But eventually you have to get more subtle than that. And I was thinking about it recently, and decided it's more of a seducing. A strip tease, even. Hooks are all 'off with the clothes, into the bed.' Which can work, if you continue at that speed. But the problem is too many stories start like that, and then switch to like, half speed. Sudden bursts of modesty don't work. If the story's got a more sedate speed, as most do, it's more of a strip tease. And this can still fail. Because while you're telling the story, you've still got to be working those buttons.

For me, it works out to something *else* we were talking about, what we decided to call inpositioning. It's the opposite of exposition. My openings are all artful dropping of story details. Very carefully placed, for very specific reasons. Let me look for an example to show what I'm saying.

( Listening )

See? I don't know if that's the best example--it's a little too blatant, I think, but it's the use of the little details. they all work on their own there, but ideally you have to wonder if there's a reason they're all together--wooden floor, silk and brass rug, the shoes he's got nearby vs her barefeet, the spirits she can hear but he can't.

Make sense?

There's another big problem. Betraying the reader's trust. This, I think, is where the hatred of such things as dreams and flashbacks comes from. This is why I hate the stories that start and describe--in detail--every article in the whole damn room and then say, "but sarah was blind, so she saw none of this." Because as a reader, you trust that the author is telling you the truth. And then *boom* it's all a lie. This isn't something that no one can do. But it's something that it's *way* too easy to do badly, as many many slush piles can attest to. I can almost figure out how to do the whole room thing and have it work. But I know I have the chops to do it, and that people would trust the skill in it to not let them down when it turned out to be false. And now I want to use that as my opening for Blinding. It's pretty close as it is.

( Blinding )

I'm being urged to go back to the 'January was blinded" opening, but I'm not sure now. I think the reason I've been resisting it is that I knew it was a hook, not a seduction. Who cares that these people are going blind? The only thing I had going for me was that they are all named for months, which confused people and made them keep reading.

You know, it would help if I stopped having epiphanies about things that I've always known how to do, even if I didn't know why.

It would also be nice if these came around at, say, 2 in the afternoon, instead of 2 at night. :)

Incidentally, it occurs to me that the best details for sucking a reader in may be the physical responses to stimuli. because I *know* when I write that my character tightens her legs to stay on Van, you'll tighten those muscles unconsciously. I think that's why parts of things that I write that have strong tactile sections are the most popular with people. I mean, I really think the face thing is overdone with Paul and Toby in Blinding. but people really like it. and hi think it's because they can follow it so exactly. which blows to hell most of my writing patterns. But then again, I don't think it's always necessary to be that detailed. I wonder if that's part of what makes people like Firing.
that it's a very physical story--very tactile, very auditory. so each of the little details that you know and agree with pop up every time the story itself may flag. One of the teachers at Clarion just *loved* the scene with the guy pinning the flower on her dress.

that may be tonight's epiphany: that I need to pay much more attention to my details.
THat I simply *don't* put enough in a general passage to keep people in the story. I wonder if I should revise goddess for practice with that then. because I think a lot of my comments on that one were lack of grounding details. And maybe, if I make the narrator more reliable and solid, she'll stick better in their minds, and they'll keep up with the timeline better.

I know I write my stories too short in rough drafts. Blinding should be a novella. Goddess maybe should be 3-4K instead of 2-3K. One of the most popular complaints at Clarion was, "why isn't that in this story?" and "it makes a lot more sense when you tell me that." WHen I go back through, if I really work at it, I end up adding a lot. And cutting a lot as well, taking out all the deadwood and grafting in better stuff. I get my pacing wrong, and end up over emphasizing things that should be cut completely, and breezing over things that are actually important to the story.

Well, that, combined with the PNH interview discussions I've had today, and the discussion Hannah and I had on the difference between wanting to make it as a writer, and being serious about writing, has pretty much worn me out. Plus, it's 3:30, so my mom would kick my butt if she knew I was up.

Someone remind me tomorrow to call the people who need calling. I'm tired of washing dishes by hand.