Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Changing Horses in Midstream

Today I passed page 200 in editing my current work-in-progress, and as I did so another method of murder occurred to me, along with a different murderer. This may seem a little late to be coming up with two crucial factors in a murder mystery, but instead of blotting them out of my consciousness, I stopped what I was doing and thought about it.

Like many other writers, I consider myself a pantser with a few caveats. I begin with an image of a character doing something. This is not quite a scene but close to it. I know who he or she is, mostly what they’re doing but not the implications and consequences. Who the person is in relation to the victim (or even if he or she is the victim) and the murderer isn’t yet clear. As I think about the image and how it grows in my imagination, the general outline of a story becomes clear.

I like to have the murder weapon or process be true to the setting and the characters. I don’t want to see a quiet, steely librarian suddenly whip out a gun, though that might make for a fun story. Nor do I expect longshoremen to use poison, or anything that could be considered genteel. So I was thinking up a method of murder that fit the setting, a farm in a part of rural America. I was satisfied with what I developed (and won’t mention it here because I plan to use it in another story).

And here is where the moment of inspiration comes in. It occurred to me that I had a much more appropriate method of murder that I had overlooked—perhaps because it was so obvious to someone like me (and no, I can’t say what that means). And then I thought about the admonition not to change horses in midstream. The method I’d been using made sense, it worked, and I was already in editing. But the new one made a lot more sense, implicated a lot of other innocent people, and was still true to the characters and setting. Plus it required a minimum of rewriting. I had to remove one short chapter, fewer than a thousand words, and the replacement chapter all but wrote itself.

I can’t say with one hundred percent certainty that I’ve solved every problem in switching murder methods, but I like the feel of the story I’ve produced, and I like seeing some minor characters become more interesting to the reader.


This isn’t the first time I’ve done this—changing a character in some important way in the middle of the story, combined two characters, changed locations, changed characteristics of a character—but this is perhaps the most significant one. I’m all for rules that guide the writer, ensuring a tighter, deeper, more compelling story. But I’m also all for breaking those rules when something better comes along.

18 comments:

  1. NOW you have me intrigued... oh wicked woman!

    How long might we have to wait for this to be published, would love to review it, pretty please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for offering to review, Abbey. My agent is showing around the first in the proposed series, and the one I'm talking about is the second. I have my fingers crossed that something happens soon. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

      Delete
  2. Sounds wonderful, Susan. I can't wait to see what you came up with.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, Ruth. I'm hoping to get good news from Paula. Thanks for commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Isn't it amazing when something pops up out of the blue like that? I love it when that happens to me!
    Good luck and God's blessings
    PamT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I focused on the practical aspects, but it is a treat when it happens. Cheers me up no end. Thanks for commenting, Pam.

      Delete
  5. When the author surprises herself, the reader is bound to be in for a treat. I hope you receive good news soon on your series.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Catherine. As you know, it's a long slow process. I've got my fingers crossed.

      Delete
  6. I'm a firm believer that your subconscious knows more than you do. I think you had to write the first method of death to get to the second one. Your subconscious needed time to figure it all out. Sounds great. Good luck to you! - Stephen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Stephen. I agree completely. I rely on my subconscious to solve problems in the ms (and in life), and I've learned to be patient and let it work. Thanks for adding that.

      Delete
  7. Hi Susan,

    This sounds perfectly fine to me. You are immersed in the novel and have put meat on the bones. Now you've had a deeper insight and can improve the work. It pays to be flexible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jacquie. Yes, it definitely pays to be flexible. I like that metaphor "meat on the bones." I'm definitely constructing.

      Delete
  8. Susan, you're a true pantser when you can do what you did. It's happened to me a cuppla times, and I loved it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks, Earl. There are always those moments when I think, Do I know what I'm doing? I try to ignore those questions and just keep going.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Susan, I believe you have to do what feels right for you and your readers, no matter the added work involved. Follow your instinct. I was near the end of my book when I realized who the real killer was and what I had to do. I was right.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're absolutely right, Carole. If I ignored the late discoveries, I think it would show in the quality of the book. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. Thanks for commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What an interesting post, Susan. I usually don't know who the murder is until near the ending, so don't remember ever changing that. I have changed the method a time or two, though. I love to read about how other writerly minds work. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I never seem to know everything when I begin writing, so I'm amazed at writers who know where they're going. Thanks for commenting.

    ReplyDelete