The writing process part three - phew

A short update: I have been brave and I have been pleased with my bravery. I've thrown out the over-writing and put in some explanations and I'm very pleased to report that Fleance and Rachel and Rosie are doing fine.

Thank God!

The writing process - painful part two

I have been a teacher for over twenty years. I love being a teacher. But, I am used to strict deadlines ("junior reports to form teachers by 9am on the 5th", "NCEA results loaded into ClassRoom Manager no later than the 17th" - kinda stuff).

So, I have a deadline: manuscript to publishers on or before the 1st of March. Oh, and 120,000 words.

The problem is, I'm writing to a word count and deadline even though I know that a lot of what I'm writing is cringingly over-written because I dread deleting a word because it will reduce my word count.

Today, I read the first 45,000 words of Bloodlines. It's trucking along with some really good bits but my-oh-my- my some of what I've written is puke.

I needed to find his voice. Fleance that is so I picked up Banquo's Son and flicked it open. I just began to read.

Sigh.

Thank goodness for that boy. The message to me? Shut up Tania and just tell the story. In other words, I have felt the burden of trying to write a sequel so that I've anxiously written a stuff which actually is overwritten. There’s great intelligence in there but, please, author, go away.

Note to self: day after Boxing day - cut the crap. Get the boy into battle; deal with the rebels; deal with the abductors; deal with the love problem. Don't worry about whether they sat in a carriage or a wagon at this stage - just that they were moving!

I am a novice when it comes to writing historical fiction (despite the many hours I have spent researching this period) So, I will (as my hubby exhorts) tells the bloddy story and then come back and fill in the historical details. I agree with him that the story is timeless so let’s get the boy dealing with his issues…

The writing process

Actually, there isn't a set formula. One has to work it out on ones own. Before Banquo's Son, I'd never written: a historical fiction, more than 60,000 per book, a series.

So, here I am. Writing book two in the Banquo's Son trilogy and, unlike the lovely Diana Gabaldon, I don't have three years but three months to go from 42,000 words to 120,000.

As I said in my previous post, each of the key players is about to head into some pretty crappy stuff so I have taken stock and decided to go back to the beginning and do some serious editing. This will enable me to send the first third to my editor, agent and the babes for their response.

I've spent today doing a lot of work for the trilogy and no writing. Finding out such things as the rise of the plow and the three year cycle of agriculture and the attitude of the church and the movement of peoples around Britain and Europe. I don't know why we keep thinking these guys were backward (well, you may not have but I kinda did). They were amazing in their water mills and weaving and technology and community spirit and organisation of the people and education.

Okay, no flush toilets and not very good medicial understanding but, hey, my friend who had his leg amputated on Tuesday still suffered misdiagnosis on Thursday when, eventually, it was discovered he had collapsed lower lungs. Even in this advanced time, medical people get it wrong. It is not an exact science. Therefore, I give myself permission to give Rachel special understanding of the way the body works. Perhaps she is a healer (in the biblical sense). I can live with that.

I will endeavour, in the next few weeks, to upload some snippets from Book Two.

Bloodlines: setting the story straight

I've finished Echo in the Bone and loved it (and spent too many small hours reading it) and did notice that there was a lot of padding from past history and story - to remind us(?) or to fill in time. Anyway, I was left wanting more cos there is always more but, for Bloodlines, I'm not doing what I call a JK or a Diana.

I want my story to tell a story and be complete in itself. Bloodlines should satisfy you without you having to know the before but if you want more I can give you more.

History is a tenacious beast and open to interpretation. So, if I don't satisfy your particular fetish about 11th Century goings on, I'm sorry. But, I'd be mighty pleased if you flew to Dunedin so that we could chew the fat a while *grin*

I am writing a story about the power of hearts which strive to do the right thing and, at the same time, try to avoid the pain of life. 11th C or 21st C - duh - it's pretty much the same thing.

My problem is satisfying the purists who want history to be as it and those who wonder about how they think it might in the current way we look at history.

My argument is: Be kind. Embrace difference. Do not be so quick to judge something you may not understand.