Three recommendations to improve your stories

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 à Reaction à 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 à Reaction à 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).