My current project is rewriting a Mellingham mystery from
Chief Joe Silva's point of view. I first wrote the novel as an extension of a
short story centered around a day spent sailing along the coast. I liked the idea of the discovery of the attempted murder so much
that I decided to turn the story into a novel, making the intended victim the
sleuth. This went along well, I thought, until my editor rejected the novel.
(Another editor is reading the short story.)
For several months I felt stuck with a novel whose basic
story I loved but whose lead character didn't seem to rise to the necessary
heights. Something was lacking. At the same time I came to be interested in
writing more about Joe's family. Readers like hearing about Joe's birth family,
and I thought it was time to write more about the blended family he created
when he married Gwen, who came with two young children, Jennie and Philip. I'd
already written about Jennie in Last Call
for Justice, and I thought now it was time for Philip to make an
appearance. I decided to rewrite the rejected novel with the focus on Joe with his family in a supportive role.
When I taught writing courses, years ago, I used a variety
of exercises to make various points. One point I liked to get across is that
each story depends on who is telling it, or, in my case, who is the protagonist
leading the investigation, however informal or formal that may be. I assigned
students the task of writing the first few paragraphs of a story from the point
of view of each character in the story, to find out whose story it was.
Students were almost always surprised to find that the story differed according
to who became the main character. I'm learning this lesson again. The story of
a woman who drowns while out sailing told from the point of view of the
surviving sister is a very different story from the one told by Joe Silva in
his role as chief of police of Mellingham.
As I recast each scene, expanding some and eliminating
others, and add more, I can see where I went wrong with the creation of the
protagonist in the first version. Annie Beckwith, given a name I thought would
lead to a great career as an amateur sleuth, seemed stunted and edgy. Under the
astute gaze of the chief of police, however, she is emerging as a woman
grappling with the loss of a dearly loved sister and her sister's husband, and
learning things about her sister's life that she'd never known and never would
have guessed.
Here I imagine the reader is thinking, "Ah, dark
secrets are uncovered." Well, the reader is partly correct. Not all
secrets are dark. But any secret can change the one who discovers it, and faces
the challenge of abandoning old assumptions for new truths.
When I began the rewrite, I wasn't sure it would be worth
the effort, but I felt compelled to see it through. I love the Joe
Silva/Mellingham series, and willingly block out stories to write when I have
the time. But now that I'm deep into this story, I am once again hooked. I
think about Joe and his little family, Gwen and Jennie and Philip, and the life
they have created for themselves in the small town on the water. In this
installment Joe teaches Philip to sail, and Philip turns out to be the son the townspeople
of Mellingham might expect for their beloved Chief Silva.
Good idea. Maybe I need to consider this for my current WIP. It might un-stick me.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised at how much new material is showing up, changing the story for the better. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see a story from a different character's pov. I'm glad it's working for you.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Maris. It's definitely been worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteHi, Susan,
ReplyDeleteI think it was a clever idea to try writing a rejected story from another point of view. It may lead to a much stronger book. Another consideration is to provide multiple viewpoints which often works well in mystery fiction. Just a thought.
Hi, Susan,
ReplyDeleteI think it was a clever idea to try writing a rejected story from another point of view. It may lead to a much stronger book. Another consideration is to provide multiple viewpoints which often works well in mystery fiction. Just a thought.
Our minds run on similar tracks, Jacquie. I decided to keep an occasional scene from the perspective of the original protagonist, a young woman whose sister dies. She can uncover and comment on things that are outside the realm of the chief of police. It seems to be working. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteGlad you figured out the problem
ReplyDeleteI'm stuck in one of my books and think I may need to abandon part of the story line and go in a different direction.
Morgan, what you're going through has to be one of the most frustrating parts of writing. We invest so much in our characters and their stories that it is painful to abandon them. Good luck with the new direction. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteThis reads to me like truth and fiction crossing paths but not. I was seeing an LISWC ; a counselor and her family name is DaSilva and to have happened on seeing/reading this blog and the name joe silva and how I connect it is most horrible. My mind is not capable of handling such things; and so they say truth is stranger than fiction; as writers know of what they mean exactly and no if and buts about it. It is a mystery that I don't relate to anyone other than the names seeming familiar but not at all. I am sorry.
ReplyDeleteUsually characters' voices are so strong in my head that it's hard for me to imagine other perspectives. Of course, I've gotten tagged for too many points of view in some of my work. Feh. I've always liked third person omniscient.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to choose one voice over others, but I want to see it through to see how one character leads a story. Yes, third person omniscient gives a writer a lot of freedom, but I also find it challenging and sometimes confusing. Thanks for commenting, Anne.
ReplyDelete