By James M. Jackson
For the past few months, I have been editing the
twenty-three stories for Gone Fishin’: Crime Takes a Holiday, The Eighth
Guppy Anthology. These juried crime stories have a lot of variety: a few
historicals, many set outside North America, most involve regular folks, some
have unreliable narrators, first person, third person, sweet tales, and those
of revenge. Something for everyone. The publication date isn’t until February
1, 2025, so you’ll have to wait.
Based on that editing experience, I have three
recommendations for authors before they submit their stories.
1. A Very Good Reason
Before her premature death, Ramona DeFelice Long was my
editor. She insisted that in every story, no matter the length, the Lead must
have a Very Good Reason (VGR) for choosing to leave their ordinary world and
embark on the journey the author plans for them. It doesn’t matter whether you
or I would make the same choice; what matters is that the reader understands
why that Lead in that story made the choice. Without the VGR, the
Lead is not believable, and the story is not credible.
Although it is most critical for the Lead to have a VGR,
they aren’t the only character that needs a VGR. Readers want to understand what
motivates antagonists to hinder the Lead. To a lesser extent, readers also want
to know why friends and allies choose to help rather than walk away.
This concept of needing a VGR should extend to any place in
the novel where a character makes a major decision. Think of a story in which
the villain lurks in the basement and, despite knowing better, the Lead walks
down those stairs. If the Lead knew better, then she must have a VGR to go
against her (and the reader’s) better judgement.
2. Action Ã
Reaction Ã
New Action
The action/reaction/new action sequence is the basic
building block of a good tale. While editing these works, I found two types of situations
where authors didn’t do justice to their stories. The smaller issue, which I am
guilty of in early drafts, is putting the reaction before the action.
Jim’s brain froze
and his tongue pressed against his teeth as Fred showered him with verbal
abuse.
Granted, this example is a short sentence, and it might not
take the reader much effort to link Fred’s abuse to Jim’s physical reaction. But
how much cleaner for the reader is this rewrite (assuming the reader knows the
scene includes only Fred and Jim)?
Fred showered him
with verbal abuse. Jim’s brain froze and this tongue pressed against his teeth.
The next sentence in this scene either continues the action
(Fred raised his arm to strike.) or shows more of Jim’s reaction (His neck
stiffened to prepare for a blow.) or commences a new action (He inhaled deeply
through his nose, turned his back, and walked away.) The continued action
scenario works okay with either phrasing, but the other alternatives sound
clunky with the original line.
Putting action before reaction is the way to go.
The second, more problematic issue occurs when one of the
three components of Action Ã
Reaction Ã
New Action is missing or insufficient. In my experience, the most often
missing/insufficient component is the Reaction.
Sometimes the reaction is missing, and the story moves
directly from action to the new action. That’s okay if there is only one
possible reaction or the author needs the action to be fast and furious. Fred
throws a punch and Jim blocks it. No reason for Jim to react. But what if Fred
tells Jim that if he keeps digging for information where he shouldn’t, Fred’s
associates will kill everyone in Jim’s family, starting with Jim’s
granddaughter? Assuming this is the first time that anyone has threatened Jim
with injury to his family, it’s a BIG increase in the stakes. The reaction
should match the action. Jim should question his next move before making it.
But if Fred told Jim that if he continued running on the
trail, he might stub his toe, unless the story has set Jim up with a toe that
must be amputated if he stubs it again, his reaction should be short.
The size of the reaction should match the import of the
action.
The other issue I see is when the story has action and
reaction and then crickets—nothing happens. What was the purpose of the action
and reaction if nothing happens? What, then, was the purpose of that
action/reaction?
3. Plot Inconsistencies
When we compose a story, it hangs together in our head. The
reader doesn’t have access to your brain, which means the story as written must
make sense. We writers all suffer from the literary equivalent of “butter
blindness.” That’s when you go to the refrigerator to get the butter and can’t
see it—even though it’s front and center on the top shelf.
We forget we left a character trapped behind a locked door
on the second floor and don’t explain how they escape and appear outside in the
next scene. We have an event happen on Tuesday, and two days later it’s the
weekend. The problems are there to see, but we can’t see them. And it’s not our
fault; it’s butter blindness.
The solution is simple: USE BETA READERS and ask them to
look for inconsistencies or things not sufficiently explained. In addition to
plot slips, I ask my readers to also note motivation issues.
Avoiding or correcting these three problems won’t make your
story perfect, but it will delight your editors and allow them to focus on
polishing the story.
* * *
James
M. Jackson authors the Seamus McCree series. Full of mystery and suspense,
these thrillers explore financial crimes, family relationships, and what
happens when they mix. To learn more information about Jim and
his books, check out his website, https://jamesmjackson.com. You
can sign
up for his newsletter (and get to read a free Seamus McCree
short story).