Lacey was extraordinary. Her critique was accompanied by detailed explanations of reasons why I should make each change. She never sugar coated or pulled her punches.
At times I found myself wanting to shout back at her but in the end she was usually accurate. I feel as if I am enrolled in a graduate level writing seminar. The most telling lessons I learned about writing and about my own style, which I seldom questioned, was that I commit two errors, repeatedly--"information dumping" and "point of view."
I tend to be professorial in describing the historical or psychological background for diagnoses, therapies, ethical considerations, and the like. My model is Dan Brown (The Davinci Code, Angels and Demons, a far better writer than I will ever be. Enmeshed in his stories are detailed mathematical, historical, philisophical, and theological background "Information dumps." It is these that endear Brown's novels to me. Lacey would not be so enamoured of him as I. "They slow down the story" she screams at me (in text). "I forget what I have been reading." Her advice is to embed the information in the story,if it is important. If it doesn't add to the story, delete it. Both of these options are difficult. The first for technical the second for emotional reasons. I get attached to what I put in print.
"Point of view" refers to whose perception of events is being presented. I tend to switch without warning or segue. In one scene my villain is involved in an automobile accident and is knocked unconscious. I describe the arrival of ambulance, paramedics, the jaws of life, and trip to the hospital. "How is all of this known? Where were you?" Lacey asks sarcastically, "In a balloon overhead?"
I have no idea how Shrink will be received or whether I will be able to devote all the marketing time needed. Whatever the outcome, Lacey has made this novel immeasurably better than I had done on my own.

No comments:
Post a Comment