HROG #3: The Process & Learnings of Writing My Debut Novel.
I wrote “Hope Runners of Gridlock” for three primary reasons:
I enjoy novel cities.
I wanted to explore metamodernism and optimistic nihilism in character arcs.
I wanted to learn to write a novel.
I wrote a companion guide that expands on these topics that you can read alongside the Gumroad bundle.
This blog series details and expands the sections in the companion guide, and is comprised of three articles:
The Process & Learnings of Writing My Debut Novel. [this article]
NOTE: These posts contain *SPOILERS*. If you want to read the novel, find links here.
https://blog.simondlr.com/posts/hope-runners-of-gridlock
The Process & Learnings of Writing My Debut Novel.
I’m lucky to enjoy a broad range of creative endeavours. I’ve run the gamut: from making art, music, games, software, to acting, and writing. A line that runs through all of them is the ability to tell a story. So, writing a novel is one such tool: something I wanted to do, to learn to tell a different story. I documented the process to share what I learned.
I’ve structured this article into the following sections.
Drafts: How each draft came about, what changed, and what I had to accomplish at each step until publishing.
Tools Used: Information on the software I used.
Struggles & Mistakes: Things I struggled with and things I would have to work on, into the future.
Short Reviews of Books On Writing: I read several books on writing and want to share my opinions of them.
Writing?
Before I delve further: I want to set the context for people who might consider writing a novel. I believe, like any creative endeavour, that it is a muscle. I’ve always enjoyed writing (and reading), and thus I would consider that before I decided to write a novel, I had a decent writer’s muscle. One of my favourite tasks in school was writing essays/stories, and the largest piece of writing I’ve done was a master’s thesis. I’ve blogged for more than a decade. Going from being a non-writer to writing a novel would be as difficult as deciding to run a marathon when you have only done 5km before. Going from frequent blogging to writing a novel is more equivalent to switching from trail running to long-distance road running. It’s still running, but requires a different approach.
PS. All these early drafts are available in the bundle on Gumroad as well if you are interested in reading and seeing the quality of them.
1.1 Draft 1: June 2019 - December 2019
After the seed had sprouted in July 2018, I started writing in earnest on June 2019.
It took me about 6 months to write the first draft, ending with a total of 53,452 words. The slower writing in the middle came from travelling through South Africa and Japan. I did, however, aim to keep writing, if only a sentence or two a day, to keep the ‘muscles’ warm. For example, on some days, I would be content to just write out a few sentences or a paragraph. The large drop in October 2019 came from separating out ideation or other scribbles/junk in the manuscript to a separate document.
I wrote 59% of the days between June 5 - December 1.
On days I wrote, the average words were 504 per day.
Highest writing day was 3277 words (the climax of the novel).
The lowest amount (besides zero) was 15 words that day.
1.2 Outlining to Draft 1
I didn’t outline/plot too much beforehand, because I wasn’t entirely sure what style I preferred: plotting vs pantsing. Plotters trying to outline the story beforehand and then fill in the details. Pantsers (“fly by the seat of your pants”), take it as it comes, let the story tell itself to the author. During the whole process of writing, I felt that I prefer to start with broad plotting, and then having the pantsing not only fill in the details, but also reveal new, and interesting things I hadn’t considered. And then, continue to iterate. A problem that plotters encounter is that they try to put round pegs in square holes and thus sometimes taking agency from their characters. They have to end up somewhere, and the author needs to figure out how to make it happen. In some sense, it’s like a puzzle, but great care needs to be taken such that it feels right. One way I ensured this felt right was to give my characters choices towards the destination. Make it impactful. Don’t have them be taken along for the ride.
A good example of how pantsing informed the plot was when in an earlier draft [draft 2], I had Klara go to Mother Mech to get her to let Flora win the final trial. I hadn’t planned for it, but felt it became much more compelling if they were actually sisters that hid their relationship from the world. That was an improvisation and that then informed the plot. Which, when I wrote draft 3, it defragmented to include that relationship more clearly.
Another example is Argent’s character. Much of her, and her relationship with Armin and Flora came from improvisation.
Right, so: what was outlined before I started writing? For starters, the three main characters: Flora, Palma, and Esper were called Flower, Candle, and Alain. Esper’s name actually comes from the fact that one of the earliest outlines had Esper become the Hope Runner (that quickly changed). Espero == Hope in ‘Esperanto’, which is what I used to play around with character naming. Milo’s name was originally Pero, which came from the splitting of the Esperanto word, signifying Esper’s counterpart and desire in the novel. I changed the name because I felt that “Pero” was too close to the Spanish for (masculine) dog: “perro”, and didn’t want to accidentally signify that Milo/Pero was seen as a dog.
Perhaps the biggest change from the outline to draft 1 was the introduction of Armin’s return. Initially, there was no Hope Runner that returned. It was a stronger driver, that the reader would know that the ‘outside world’ actually did exist. It also paved the way to improve Argent’s character.
In the outline, the Emmers had a hidden secret, but it was fuel that they stockpiled. Esper would try to let the world know about it, by essentially fooling Flora into discovering it. By manipulating the gridlock outside the city, Flora would see it when she ran. There would be only one Hope Runner (because Armin didn’t return). There was a planned arc where Flora would return to notify the city, but the citizens wouldn’t trust her. She would be thrown in jail, and strikingly Esper would be there too. And Palma had to rescue them. It’s all vague, but that was ‘directions’ I had in mind when I planned parts of the outline. It was like a distant mountain. I knew where I wanted to go, but didn’t exactly know what I would discover along the way.
Almost all characters, except for Flora, Palma, and Esper were poorly formed, or not formed at all. I pantsed it as I went along. Notably, there was a draft 0.5 that had an additional character in the hacking group. Saga and Osto were siblings, and Rulo was a friend. There was a distinct moment where I wrote a conversation that was exposition about the systems in the city, and felt: “Hey, Osto hasn’t spoken in a while. He should say something.” It’s then that I realised that the characters had little or no agency here, and it fell flat. Choosing which characters to talk to tell something is *bad*. So, I took a few steps back and tried to flesh out the supporting cast a bit more. This led to merging Rulo and Osto into one character. I had actually considered merging Rulo and Saga even into one character, but their sibling bickering is a key theme in Esper’s descent. Also, I liked Rulo and Saga too much as separate characters.
1.3 Screenplays
The writing style I tried to adopt for most of the novel, until after draft 2, was a film-style screenplay, where the writing perspective is like a camera in a scene (also named “third-person objective”). As author, I’m only there to tell you what I see. This is an extreme example of the writing dictum: “show, don’t tell”. Showing tries to be objective, only revealing what is seen at surface-level. Telling means you go into a character's head and reveal things that can’t be readily seen. An example of show vs tell.
Tell: “Flora was angry.”
Show: “Flora’s hands clenched as blood rushed through veins in her neck to face.”
Generally, “show” is recommended because it’s more detailed and interesting. Over time, however, I felt that ultimately: the novel as a medium precisely allows us to get into the heads of our characters and get the subjective perspectives. More on this in the draft 3 section.
Thus: draft 1 finished as a good structure to work on improving and rewriting the novel. I had a story, as barebones as it was, and I could sense the overall feel of it. Ultimately, it just felt great that I could actually go from some beginning to some end. There was a story here, whether it was good or not, it existed!
1.4 Draft 2: BETA reader draft. December 2019 - March 2020
Still maintaining the same writing style (camera-in-scene), I rewrote about 75% of draft 1 to draft 2. The word count increased to 62,493.
The flat parts were holidays. It did become a bit harder to write short pieces per day because I had to be more meticulous and encapsulate more in my head at a time. Draft 1 is just downloading onto digital paper as much as you can.
I wrote 50.57% of the days from 16 December 2019 - 11 March 2020.
On the days I wrote, I wrote 1420 per day (higher pace given that some of it was merely rewriting existing texts).
The highest writing day was 4957 words (again, revising the climax).
Lowest writing day was 16 words.
1.5 Consequences
When I look at draft 1 today, it’s almost entirely a shell or a long 50,000 word plot outline. Some of the original writing from draft 1 did make it into the final version of the novel, but it’s almost entirely bad/unreadable to me now. It feels inconsequential, and rapidly flips from scene to scene. It feels like it ends before it really even started. That’s I guess what the first draft is really about. Getting from start to *some* finish.
So, heading into draft 2, the biggest changes were just making it all feel more consequential, adding in more affectation, feeling, and meaning. I gave characters stronger personalities, and tried to ensure that readers would care about them.
Examples of things that were cut or changed:
Cut Flora’s bus training and added in a VR simulator. It’s just entirely unbelievable that she would be able to learn so quickly, and compete, all from learning in a makeshift seat in a bus. I know parts of this novel is like a fever dream, but this was just absurd.
Condensed the hacking sub-plot. Made it less complicated, and changed it to being purely about random numbers. (I spent a lot of time on this, more than I think was necessary).
Removed some fever dream sequences. While it adds to aesthetics, it was difficult
managing this with the desire/goal that parts of the city actually had to make sense. There was a scene in draft 1 where Rulo and Saga went to see Mother Mech for the first time, going through a hallway too small to turn around in. I wanted it to feel like Mother Mech was faaaar, deep into the recesses of the city. Funny. Weird. But doesn’t fit.
Shifted some timelines around. When things happen can change the impact of it.
1.6 Beta Readers
After finishing the second draft, I felt it was in a good enough position to get it out to first beta readers. Thank you particularly to Olivier Milla, Constantin Kostenko, Fred Lutz, & Bronwyn Williams that provided valuable feedback.
Broadly, I wanted to determine whether the overall structure/plot made sense, and get as much feedback as I can. Admittedly, having come from the software industry, having read and implemented books like ‘Lean Startup’ or ‘The Mom Test’, I had no clue how to evaluate feedback. Praise might happen merely to be kind or polite, or feedback might be meaningful, but not actionable. Thus, when I asked beta readers to read it, I asked for feedback specifically related to just how people felt.
--
What made you keep reading? What was awesome?
What was boring?
What was confusing?
What did it make you feel?
--
In my quest to research how best to make use of BETA readers, I discovered the ABC framework, which I unfortunately can’t find now again to source. It asks questions that try as best as possible to avoid incorporating the ego in the feedback. Awesome, Boring, Confusing.
Implicitly, I also checked how many started, but did not finish. I still don’t think there’s good ways to measure feedback like this, especially on a creative work such as a novel. The sample size is small, the BETA readers might not actually be your audience, and thirdly, some of them might not even be equipped to give proper feedback. In simpler terms: even the act of asking for feedback could skew it away from being meaningful. Thus: the beta reader process at this stage, for me, was to see if there’s any glaring issues or problems.
Luckily, a handful of willing readers gave it a go, read the book, and gave very meaningful feedback.
Notably, the feedback that was shared most amongst the readers was that: it’s too fast-paced, and too objective. It needs more subjective internalizations and more narrative sections. The parts that stood out was exactly when I didn’t shy away from adding narrative prose (the ‘Sonder’ chapter in draft 2). Some excerpts of feedback:
“Throughout the book I felt like I was thrown around like a rag doll. The episode structure with short sub-chapters felt like flash bangs with dry transitions from place to place. It felt like the intensity of the narrative was always "on" and always extreme. It felt exhausting. What do people see, feel?”
“I missed the rich narrative. You clearly have the ability to describe the liveliness and vivid color. But the repetitive and intense dialog took priority. With short sub-chapters (and the revealing sub-chapter headings) this felt like a whiplash read versus an immersive experience.”
“It feels fast - this is generally a very good thing. That said, you might consider slowing it down (I've read a lot of your blog and it has a slower feel - which you achieve by layering and adding multiple examples and multiple angles to your subject matter which you might want to tap into a bit more to add some depth alongside the pace). I would like it to feel a bit less objective and more subjective.”
“Explain to me what the people see, hear, and what their mood is. The places where you do it are brilliant.”
This was really useful feedback, and after letting the book marinate a bit, I knew what I had to.
1.7 Draft 3: April 2020 - August 2020
Taking the BETA reader feedback along with my own introspection, I went back to rewrite draft 3. The word count increased to 75,536. For the flat section in the middle, I was busy recoding https://thisartworkisalwaysonsale.com/ [an actual COST/Harberger tax artwork on Ethereum]. There was a bug I wanted to fix. It took way longer than thought it would. That being said, it helped, because that extended period away from the book allowed me to rethink some sections of the novel. The second flat line was due to a hardware fault on my laptop, and thus it went in for repairs.
Average writing per day (on days I wrote) was 2288. It was higher again due to re-using old, existing texts.
Interestingly this edit had several days where I took away more words than I added. Largest day of removing words was -2147. Don’t precisely recall what scene I cut here.
The most consequential changes were:
moving from ‘camera-in-the-scene’ writing to three point-of-view (POV) characters with deeper narrative sections, more internalizations, and more personality.
improved Flora’s arc.
changing pivotal moments into more defined character choices.
changed names.
1.8 Point-of-View (POV)
As I mentioned earlier, I want to talk about point-of-view, which drastically changed from draft 2 to draft 3. Admittedly, this was my biggest, “obvious” mistake. ‘Third-person objective’ isn’t a wrong way to write, it just wasn’t for me. I would probably advise other writers to not start with ‘third-person objective’ either. You don’t get access to internalizations. Again, this isn’t the end of the world, it’s just much more difficult. What writing also provides is the ability to move into the minds of characters, much more readily than other mediums. Thus, I moved to rewriting the novel in third-person limited POV. It is the most popular form of fiction writing (for good reason).
I had tried to steer away from this POV in order to learn how to not hide behind the crutches of ‘telling’ vs ‘showing’. It was a mistake, losing access to descriptive narratives of internalizations, affectations, and mood. I gave myself thus a new heuristic to work from: when I want to tell something, I embellish it with a show. Here’s an example.
“Flora’s breath became shallow. She was afraid.” Show what’s happening and then you tell.
1.9 Which POV?
Following this new setup, I made another mistake. I went into the heads of too many characters, and even sometimes head-hopped within scenes. A head-hop is when you switch your POV within scenes. A good example of this, if you’ve read it, is Dune. It’s when the reader has access to multiple internalizations in a scene. I’m not a fan of it, but again, it's a personal choice. Particularly, as a debut novel writer, it just seemed easier to stick to one POV character per scene (which is also usually recommended by other authors). Thus, I mapped out the POV scenes in the novel, and discovered that 80%+ was Flora, Esper, and Palma. They are, after all, the three original characters. As the famous writing dictum goes: “Kill your darlings”, and so I cut out a few POV scenes involving Rulo, Saga, and Klara. The scenes either followed Esper, Palma, or Flora, OR the scene was cut, OR the scene was told by character.
For example: Palma is now present during the Mother Mech meeting. The original meeting, where it was just Rulo and Saga, was cut. The cave scene at the end was originally just Rulo and Saga. Now, Flora was there. Klara’s request to Mother Mech to ensure that Flora wins had been collapsed into a scene where Klara helps Palma. Esper also gets jailed, which ends up improving his character arc, because he is amongst families.
Two chapters were cut, including one where Rulo tried to get back into his mech, and failing. And, a chapter, where Saga moves into her new apartment. This was condensed and moved to: Rulo describing it to Flora, and Saga describing it to Esper. It’s shorter, works better, and is more condensed.
1.10 Buffing Flora’s Arc: On Choices and Answers
When I initially started writing, Flora’s arc, to me, symbolised the difficulty in dealing with the pull of questions. The eventual acceptance of them would signal the end of the novel, even though questions were still outstanding. Tangential, is Flora’s deeper struggle of not having a choice. She wanted answers, but what she needed was a choice. She was thrown along in the novel, not really having choices. Whilst it served the story arc, it still felt inconsequential. She is the protagonist and even with draft 2, it felt that Esper’s arc felt more compelling and consequential. Thus, a big change was to put Flora more in control over her direction despite setbacks and doubts.
She chooses to do stunts before she is ready. She researches her opponents. She sets up a meeting with Sonny to understand him. She decides to train with Argent before trusting her. She decides to remove the stabiliser. Many of her choices in the past and now, causes things to derail: leveraging her mother’s money, or choosing to engage with Sonny, but that’s who she is. She has a strong desire for answers. Her, choosing herself, is part of the acceptance process. In order to have a choice, she had to let go of her questions. It is then that she chooses to run on her own terms.
1.11 Choices and Timelines
Generally, trying to increase the agency of characters was a big theme of draft 3: make pivotal moments more impactful, by presenting it as clearer trade-offs. Perhaps my favourite one is where Palma’s parents not just inform him that his friends were jailed, but it, being presented as a choice to Palma. It cements his character struggle by making a clear choice NOT to help. In many ways, small changes in timelines also end up being more impactful.
I moved Milo’s reunion with Esper to the time when Esper finally gives into providing the truth about the limiter to Mason. It’s a final relief for Esper, to get a ‘brother’.
At some point in writing it (I think it was between draft 1 and draft 2), Flora revealed her bracelet to Argent at the Hope Runner’s Office. It felt more impactful that she did it only after she gained Argent’s trust, later in the novel.
Modera’s bracelet. This bracelet moved around the novel too, along with Modera’s status after the final trial. Initially not in a coma, she gives it to Flora before the final Hope Run. For a while, I considered the possibility of having Modera die, to increase the impactfulness of the final climax: a stark what-might-have-been if the characters had resolved their problems before it came to the climax. However, the biggest blocker for me on this, is that it was difficult to make it believable, and yet stick with the original goal of Flora becoming a Hope Runner. She would be so wracked with grief, and I didn’t know how to write that. A simpler solution was to put Modera in a coma: one that also gave Flora the opportunity to deal with her problems of not having the ability to leave questions unanswered. The bracelet was then given to her BEFORE the final trial, only to be shifted Flora discovering it when she cleaned the bus. The latter proved to only be more believable (Modera wanting to give it to her if she won), but also, it increased the impact of Flora’s decision to go ahead with the Hope Run.
The hacks, and testimonies. This moved around a lot. A primary purpose of the hack chapters was to help provide exposition for the power struggle between the Trunks and the Emmers. Weaving the testimonies along with the hacking exposition was compelling, but it was more impactful, depending on where it was. Klara’s testimony was moved to a later stage, after the big family dinner, to emphasise how important it was for her to get this right. Seeing the other citizen’s testimonies also builds anticipation for her report.
1.12 Argent’s Shift
As Flora and Argent’s relationship developed over the course of writing, I imagined how wonderful it would be if they were on the team to run into the desert. A budding, romantic relationship along with running for hope would be a good story to potentially explore in the future. However, when I changed to let Flora lose in the final trial, making it more believable because 1) she didn’t train as much due to her doubts, and 2) not being aided by the stabiliser, I also had a new choice to make. If Flora is still be a Hope Runner, one of the *other* winners would have to get hurt during the final attack. Would it thus be: Sitelo, Cassidy, or Argent?
Ultimately, it felt the most impactful, given Flora and Argent’s relationship that Argent would present her with the opportunity to take her place. It’s sad, but it’s a better story for this novel. It also gave Argent the ability to reconcile and tackle her own problems and desires.
1.13 Edit to Final. August 2020 - October 2020.
In August, I sent the book to my editor. This, in itself, was a unique, and difficult process. Mostly, because, I had never hired an editor and had no idea how I could trust them. For this process, I sent the first chapter to several freelance copy editors I found on Reedsy. Given their changes and feedback, along with what they offered, I found a clear ‘leader’ among them. I still don’t know how to evaluate a great editor, except through comparing sample edits. An editor, ultimately isn’t there to write your great novel, they are there to see what you don’t see, and help fix parts of it. It also depends what editor you need: developmental or line/copy. Developmental editors would likely add more creative input, suggesting plot or character changes. I didn’t opt for a developmental editor.
At the end of the day, my worry about how an editor might influence my work was an overestimated fear. My editor did a good job guiding me through the process (knowing I’m a debut author), and gave really great feedback. While she was editing, I wanted to make two of my own changes.
This is NOT what you should do if you ask an editor to a line/copy edit. I’m chalking it up to learning, and that in the future, I have to at least wait a few weeks before having what I believe to be the final, final version of the novel. At that point, the editor makes sure to catch any hiccups in sentence structure and word usage, and that’s it. Not anything related to plot/structural changes. My own changes after the editing process were: changing Mason and his violence and reshuffling the last scenes.
On top of that, the editor made some developmental comments (even though she didn’t have to), and I decided to rethink parts of the novel. These changes included the addition of the ‘anomaly’ as an actual, visible wall/bubble in the world, and more exposition on how the world works. I realised a key reason that this wasn’t as good as it could be, is that Klara’s testimony was supposed to be a part of the exposition, but this was moved to the middle of the novel. Originally, it was *much* earlier. It’s hard sometimes to keep track of what I know, and what the reader knows.
1.14 Mason’s Violence
Although there’s some questionable people in the novel, Mason’s negative side was decidedly evil. Actual, violent child abuse. As the book marinated, and I introspected on the stories I want to tell, I decided to tone this down. It made me uncomfortable. It also made it more believable that Esper would consider joining Mason.
1.15 Reshuffling Final Scenes
I wanted to ensure that Flora’s final decision to run and leave her mother behind was strong. One such change was to shuffle Klara’s funeral to being before Flora’s choice. This meant that one of the reasons Flora would want to run, is to fulfil her mother’s wish of telling the truth. Part of this reshuffle also meant that I had to write a new section of ‘goodbyes’. I didn’t mind this, particularly because it gave me the opportunity to add a scene back that kept happening and not happening: Flora and Argent, kissing. It also allowed me to have time pass between Flora and her mother in the hospital, and Flora saying goodbye to her.
1.16 The Anomaly + More Exposition
Up to this point, the exposition for the gridlock was that: people wanted to return even though the storm came through the city. It didn’t feel like the best it could be. The addition of the anomaly, an actual, strange bubble around the city gave the concept the last puzzle piece. It truly felt that, even though the anomaly was sci-fi and unexplained, it was believable. People, wanting to turn back from this strange event, and those who were still afraid that the storms would come. In addition, I added more exposition on how the gridlock worked, a lot earlier in the novel. Which helps set the world-building. If the reader doesn’t fully understand this, most of the rest of the novel doesn’t fall into place, and thus it was important to get it right.
1.17 Better Chapters [vs Scenes]
During this time, I also read Jack M. Bickham’s “Scene And Structure”. It helped me understand the difference between scenes and chapters. The fundamental building block of a story is the scene. Chapters are arbitrary, and only really serve as tools to create space or hooks. You can, for example, end and start a chapter in the middle of the scene. I basically wrote the novel as a scene-per-chapter, which did not allow me to properly play with hooks and space. Thus, I tweaked the chapters a bit: splitting some at different points, and combining others. I also tried to emphasise to the reader why the scene is there in the first place, by stating clear goals at the outset of a scene. This helped with pacing.
1.18 Proofreading
It’s interesting. I gave the novel to my twin, Niel, and a good friend, Fred, to proofread. Despite doing my own editing (using ProWritingAid), using an editor, doing my own proofread, there were still tidbits that fell through. I’m pretty sure there would still be mistakes in the final novel. I can’t imagine the effort in ensuring everything fits together and has no mistakes with a manuscript double the size of what I wrote. It takes me a whole day to proofread the novel. It definitely helps me understand what goes into creating epics!
2 Tools and Software To Write/Publish
I wrote most of the novel in a formatted Google Doc. From there, I transposed it to a tool called Vellum.
Vellum is great because it has several styles and automatically typesets the novel (as you can see above). Once done, it can generate it into various e-book formats. The “Press” version also handily creates a properly formatted PDF for paperback printing. I could merely upload the manuscripts as-is to Amazon (e-book + print-to-order) and it turned out fine.
The most difficult battle with format (a tale as old as computing) was getting .mobi files for Kindle to display to cover if you sideload it (eg, for Gumroad version). It’s a bit of a hack, but I found a web service called BookFunnel that properly creates these .mobi versions from epub. Regardless, it’s still an issue on some Kindles. If you send the novel through the “send to kindle” email, it still won’t show the cover. Annoying.
As for the cover/wrap. For the paperback version, Amazon provided a simple interface to create a wrap for it. It has various options and I just went for the simplest version, really. I went for the smaller paperback format (I like smaller books, personally). The print-to-order worked better than I thought it would. There is an artefact where sometimes the black line from the back of the wrap appears on the cover (as you can see below), but what you get is worth it, imho. Great service.
For self-editing, I tried using ProWritingAid to help find common errors. I took each chapter, pasted into the web browser and ran checks with the software. The most notable and useful feature was the assessment on how many “glue words” there were. Sometimes we can say quite a lot about not much at all. The previous is quite “glue-y” because it uses superfluous words. Less glue reads easier. At this moment, I subscribe to the belief that writing with subtlety and failing at it is worse than just writing clearly with a potential loss of nuance. It harkens back to an exercise that a director of a play I was in, taught me. Once during rehearsal she implored us to act in extremes. Kiss as deep as you can. Shout as loud as you can. It was an exercise to come out of our shells, but it was also a useful lesson in how to tell a story. The audience has to interpret what’s going on, so you are more likely to succeed by making it unapologetically clear vs trying to be nuanced. As Ken Liu wrote: “Every act of communication is a miracle of translation.”
Writing with clear subtlety and nuance is something I have to properly learn. So, I err on the side of just being more clear and direct. Probably good advice for a lot of things in life: from business to relationships.
3 Struggles & Mistakes
During writing, I struggled with certain things, and made mistakes that I will avoid the next time around. I want to detail some of it here.
3.1 Understanding Point-Of-View (POV).
One might consume and enjoy a medium for years, like reading, but never truly know/understand the tools involved in making it work. Once you start, without doing any real learning, you tend to emulate based on what *feels* right. When I started writing, I just let it flow, without fully understanding the tools available. It’s part of the learning experience. One thing though, that probably cost me most of my time, is not fully understanding the various ways to frame point-of-view in a novel. I knew the broad categorizations, but didn’t give much thought when I breached norms. It’s like suddenly using the back of a hammer to cut into wood. It will work, and not *wrong*, but there’s better tools available.
When I got confused, I would read online what’s recommended and then go read some of my favourite books with a new lens. It helped, but even then, some of my favourite books didn’t follow recommendations. For example, as I’m reading Dune, Frank Herbert adopts liberal use of head-hopping, something that’s often not recommended.
Regardless of style, I know what kind of POV I was good at, and what POV helps me. I only discovered that much later, which if I wrote the same kind of novel again, could easily shave 2-4 months off the writing time.
3.2 Finding words.
Oh boy. This is perhaps the struggle of every budding writer. I can feel, hear, and see the scene in my mind, but I’m having trouble describing it to my own liking. Especially when I end up re-using words. This you can only improve on by 1) reading more, 2) writing more, and 3) using tools to suggest different words. My friend and proofreader, Fred, critiqued my use of mixed metaphors, and that’s a legitimate gripe, but sometimes mixing those together and overlapping them does indeed create what I feel. Whether that’s awkward or not, it’s up to me to keep improving it, but also retain the brush strokes on the canvas that makes me, me.
I will just have to keep reading and writing. To reiterate Ken Liu: “Every act of communication is a miracle of translation.” Every word matters and finding the ones that slot into the feeling is a never-ending act of translation.
3.3 Doing Too Much.
Sometimes you can hear when a band consists of new musicians: all of them want to play their instruments all the time. Sometimes in creative works, it’s what you leave out and don’t focus on that makes it compelling. I tackled a host of themes, ideas, arcs, and multiple characters into 280+ pages. It’s a lot, and the one thing I fear is that I inadvertently attempted to do, too much. It’s not that it’s undoable, but it’s harder, and one is more inclined to neglect parts of it, or make mistakes. Going forward, I will try to remind myself to do better with less.
4 Reading on Writing
Because I had not written a novel before, I did read a lot about writing. Here’s some reviews of the books I read.
4.1 On Writing by Stephen King.
This was a really great read from a prolific writer, because he not only shares tips on how to write, but he also shares his own journey. Part biography of his early career, and part tools and tips, it’s very useful. Perhaps, the most meaningful advice here is that it’s actually quite simple. To write well, you have to read a lot, and write a lot. Can’t shortcut that.
4.2 Damn Fine Story by Chuck Wendig.
A super cozy read on why we write and tell stories. “Storytelling is an act of interrupting the status quo.” It’s very, very readable.
4.3 Anatomy Of Story by John Truby.
Incredibly in-depth and half of the book is examples. Perhaps the one book of all that I had read on writing that deserves a re-read. It focuses a lot on character design. A key theme that I took away is the difference between a character’s want and need. To me, that forms the basis of a good, three-dimensional character. They are driven by their desire and goal, without being aware of what they need. In other words: a three-dimensional has a clear goal and motivation for it, but is unaware about a character flaw.
To give simplified examples in my novel:
Flora -> Wants answers. Needs a choice.
Esper -> Wants control. Need family.
Palma -> Wants to help. Needs to help himself.
Rulo -> Wants to keep his relationship with his sister. Needs to let go.
Saga -> Wants freedom. Need to accept mistakes.
Modera -> Wants to support her daughter. Needs the truth.
Argent -> Wants to run away from her past. Needs to accept Armin’s death.
Klara -> Wants power and to be a saviour. Need to take their own medicine
Mason -> Wants power and to be a saviour. Need to take their own medicine.
Tenu -> Wants his family to be together and safe. Needs to gather courage and face conflict.
4.4 Scene & Structure by Jack M. Bickham
The cornerstone of storytelling is the scene, and this book delves deep into the structure of them. Great lessons, especially on ensuring that ambiguity doesn’t exist. It helps that readers understand why the scene is there. It also helps the author understand why they are writing that scene. Perhaps the most important book on writing I read that helps an author understand pacing. Scenes should exist for a reason, and should keep pulling the reader forward through the story.
4.5 Plot & Structure: Techniques and Exercises for Crafting a Plot That Grips Readers from Start to Finish by James Scott Bell.
Great read, especially as it relates to thinking about plot: how to start, how to raise stakes, how to write beginnings, middles, and endings, etc. There are good metaphors throughout. My favourite was the concept of the door: something a character goes through to keep going. At most points during storytelling, ask yourself (as a writer): why don’t my character just quit? Instead, they keep going through new doors that close behind them. I like this metaphor, because it’s reminiscent of a quote from Stuart Kaufmann: “The adjacent possible is a kind of shadow future, hovering on the edges of the present state of things, a map of all the ways in which the present can reinvent itself.” Steven Johnson in his book on innovation (Where Good Ideas Come From: A Natural History of Innovation), speaks about the adjacent possible using metaphors of rooms and doors.
“Think of it as a house that magically expands with each door you open. You begin in a room with four doors, each leading to a new room that you haven’t visited yet. Those four rooms are the adjacent possible. But once you open one of those doors and stroll into that room, three new doors appear, each leading to a brand-new room that you couldn’t have reached from your original starting point. Keep opening new doors and eventually you’ll have built a palace.”
A story thus, is a series of doors that characters head through, to explore the adjacent possible, the change in status quo, to eventually form the seemingly inevitable narrative of a palace.
4.6 Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr., E.B. White.
This was a prominent recommendation that includes several staples of what’s considered, ‘good writing’. Kick the adverbs. Omit needless verbs. Active over passive. Positive vs Negative words, and so forth. Considered a bible of writing, and understandably so.
5 Conclusion
Writing a novel is a strange experience. Like the world and characters you invent, it is its own adventure. I’ve found myself in quite a few novel experiences.
You spend too much time on something that doesn’t matter. For example, I spent days pondering the finer details of a system I eventually threw away. Some conversations took days to write. It felt like coding, spending days on a bug. Or like music, spending days to get just the right kick drum.
On some days, it’s wonderfully productive. I’ve spent a day extruding 5000 words onto digital paper.
You second guess yourself in new ways. I’ve found myself in a bookstore trying to see in what order writers put their dialogue tags. Was it “Joe said” or “said Joe” (subject-verb-object vs object-verb-subject)? Turns out, the latter was more consistent amongst British authors. Who knew?
You learn to write, everywhere. I’ve wrestled with the plot and characters, writing in all manner of locations: from hotels in Japan, to home in South Africa (during a pandemic lockdown).
You experience emotions that are both kind of absurd, but also wonderful. It’s weird to cry, cheer, feel butterflies in your stomach, and celebrate your characters. It’s just you in your own world.
As with most things in life, I leave this novel richer, happier, and also a bit sadder. I will miss the time I roamed through the cars of Gridlock with all of them. Like, Flora, it’s part of the acceptance of undertaking a journey: trying to find the horizon that’s forever receding. At some point, you have to let go, and let the story run on its own in the minds and hearts of others. A sunset is only beautiful because it ends.
Then again. It’s just a story. . .
Thanks for reading!
