In Today’s Journal
* Conversation with a Writer
Conversation with a Writer
A very good fiction writer and mentoring student emailed me recently to send me a story she’d written a few years ago. She wanted to know what I thought of it. After I responded, she asked a series of questions about that particular story.
I thought some of you might benefit from reading that overall conversation. Today I’ll give you the actual back-and-forth conversation, then finish it tomorrow with general advice and an example.
First, to put the rest into context, here’s my email to her after I read her story:
Good initial description in the opening. After that, the story was confusing. I suspect some of the story information that was in your head didn’t make it onto the page.
For starters the flood of names delivered in and immediately after the opening was confusing. Other major points that were confusing included these:
1. Why was [Character Name] notable or famous (or infamous) in the first place (hence, the gaggle of reporters)? I kept reading and waiting to find out why he was ‘known’ but that was never revealed.
2. That [Character Wife and Mother] said the doctor was going to do the autopsy in the bedroom of the home leapt out at me and shattered any suspension of disbelief because it was absolutely wrong.
- First, only the government decides whether an autopsy is usually deemed necessary and/or required only when a death occurs under suspicious and usually violent circumstances, like in a homicide investigation.
- Second, an autopsy requires an in-depth examination of the body. (During an autopsy, the top of the skull is removed and the brain taken out for examination. Also, various long incisions are made [at least shoulders to sternum in a “V”, then sternum to pelvis] on the trunk. Then the body cavity is opened so the organs can be removed and tested.
- Third, all of that is done in a controlled environment on a recessed, stainless steel table to drain blood and other liquids.
3. Now, the above stuff about autopsies is detailed information that wouldn’t have to be included in the story. I explained it only because if you’d thought of it you wouldn’t have had [Character Wife and Mother] say the autopsy would be done in the bedroom.
4. In most places, and certainly in a place as large as LA, the Coroner is an elected official who is not necessarily medically trained and is also not usually the Medical Examiner. The ME conducts the autopsy and examines the body; the Coroner only determines cause of death, whether foul play was involved or not, etc. S/he does that in part by reading the ME’s report.
5. Because the bevy of reporters had seen the hearse, as a reader I had a sense that the hearse was parked at the house (an extremely strange occurrence) waiting to receive the body. (That would usually be an ambulance or other conveyance like the ME’s van.) Yet later [Character Son] drove in his own car to intercept the hearse, etc. His purpose in doing that wasn’t clear.
6. And of course we never saw the body transferred to the hearse or anything like that. (Part of the story that didn’t make it onto the page.)
These are only a few of several thoughts.
Again, I think the main problem (other than the erroneous facts re the Coroner, the autopsy, etc.) was that you didn’t take the time to write down everything you were seeing in your mind’s eye.
Okay, that’s my initial email to the writer. And bear in mind, she wrote this story a few years ago. Her writing and storytelling today is excellent.
The rest of this post is comprised of her questions for me and then my responses back to her. I’ve pared her questions down to their essential core:
Writer: I didn’t think about doing more research on the autopsy thing.
Me: For stuff like that, I just pop online for a few seconds to a few minutes to do spot research, then go right back into the story. It’s as easy as asking “what goes on during an autopsy?” or “who conducts autopsies?” or “what’s the difference between a medical examiner and a coroner?” etc.
Writer: I think I thought those little details wouldn’t stand out to the average reader.
Me: My best advice is never try to prejudge (critical mind) what the reader will want or will like or any of that. You’re a writer, not a critic. Put everything in (let the story run) and let the reader decide the value. Your job is to write the story. Any judgement is up to the reader.
Writer: I don’t even remember when I wrote this (…) but it’s good to learn from.
Me: I disagree about it being good to learn from. Better to learn from new work so you keep moving forward, advancing the craft. Then apply what you learn to the next new story.
Writer: I seem to remember writing [this story] in a bit of a rush.
Me: That’s perfectly fine. When you cycle back, just read what you’ve written and allow the characters to add anything you missed about the scene or setting or characters.
Writer: I was intrigued by the idea of someone’s cause of death being covered up.
Me: I understand, but there has to be a reason for the coverup. No reason ever became evident in the story.
Writer: Do you think it’s worth rewriting? I seem to recall you not being in favor of that. I do find the general concept still fascinating.
Me: I never encourage rewriting, not ever. If the idea or concept still intrigues you, recast instead.
- To “rewrite” is to read through consciously and add to what’s already there. (Rewriting is strictly a function of the conscious, critical mind.)
- To “recast” is to start with a clean, blank page and only the original idea or concept.
- You can even recast a story several times if you want, and publish every new iteration. DWS wrote several versions of a story about a jukebox because he never thought the story was quite right. But he published all of them.
Writer: I mentioned to you [that I wanted] to put together a short story collection.
Me: Right. So just do it.
Writer: I thought about making [the collection] themed (probably along the lines of “Friendship,” but then, that does seem to narrow things down quite a bit.
Me: Actually “friendship” is actually a pretty broad term. It covers anything from an acquaintance to ‘normal friends’ to brothers of another mother. It covers male/female, male/male, and female/female friendships all the way from ‘just friends’ to passionate lovers.
Stop thinking (again, conscious critical mind) about anything and just do it. Besides, all collections are “themed” even when the writer doesn’t realize it.
If you want to gather a group of stories that have to do with friendship, do it, but don’t announce it as a particular “theme.” Maybe just subtitle the collection “stories about friendship” or something, then publish it. In the final analysis, the “theme” of anything is for the reader/critic to decide.
Writer: I’m not 100% sure I have enough really quality friendship stories to warrant a themed collection. I feel like I’d want to ask you about them first.
Me, frowning: First, who are you to decide whether your stories are “really quality” or not? That’s the reader’s job.
And second, why in the world would you want to ask me about them? My opinion is still only one opinion. (Much more on this tomorrow.)
Okay, I’ll be back tomorrow with the rest. That part will be all me.