Good Writing Is Rewriting

Just write the damned thing. That's what I thought last year when I put aside my fears and decided to write All God's Children. "Just sit down and write the damned thing." I told myself. Well after nearly a year (taking summer and school holidays off) I've come nearly to the end of chapter six. Finally, I thought, I'll get to the big confrontation scene that will show my main character (a private investigator) getting the snot beat out of him by a woman half his size during his family's annual get-together.

Then I started thinking, it's not good. Why has it taken so long to get to this action? Who are all these characters I'm introducing; what's their function in the story? Their reason for being? Then I started re-reading All God's Children. Then I Googled "How to write a mystery." Several websites (now on Favorites) stated that the crime (murder) should be introduced within the first fifty pages--or first three chapters--or else the reader feels cheated. "Good grief!" I thought, "It's chapter six and the victim hasn't been found yet!" You can imagine what I Googled next.

While reading All God's Children I realized there's too much side action; too much talking with his family. That needs to be cut. I also looked at how the investigation is being conducted; my husband asked how the p.i. gets information from the local cops. When I told him what I wrote, it sounded amateurish (I'm not a pro) and muddled (it was.) He suggested I use what was going on in the world to help move the plot and explain why the local cops weren't helping. There was a "DUH!" moment. Why didn't I think of that? I'm trying not to beat myself up too badly for not seeing the obvious. Maybe I didn't see it because I'm too close.

Next came the plot line itself. I wrote a rough outline of chapters 1-7, from the beginning of the investigation and the p.i.'s family/money problems. Yes, I'm keeping that, even though my husband doesn't like the p.i. putting the touch on most of his immediate relatives. I think it helps solidify the family's opinion of him. And it gives him a reason to change. Now, however, I'm stuck. In real life when a p.i. has information that a crime has been committed, they're supposed to go straight to the cops. My p.i. has this information and...something needs to happen. Something needs to prevent him from going to the cops. I'll brainstorm tomorrow. Right now I'm still fighting frustration. Maybe if I relax, I'll think of something.

Speaking of fighting frustration, I stumbled across a website; julessomethingorother.com. The author of a "how to write lucrative mysteries" states that unless a woman has an IQ of 180 like Sue Grafton, she shouldn't write mysteries. In fact, women should only write bodice rippers in the first person. Women, according to the author, just aren't manly enough to write a mystery. What a load of shit. Not only that, but his opinion (I assumed it was a man) was an insult to his mother and a shame to his gender. I wanted to send an email telling him this, but he didn't have a "contact us" link. First, I've read Sue Grafton's Kinsey Millhone series; great work, love the character, you want her to make good. And I've read Barbara Hambly and the Ben January series. Her research of the social structure of the 1800's Louisiana is brilliant. She makes the city and the time period part of the mystery, sometimes helping Ben or hampering his investigation. Last, why does every male p.i. have to be portrayed as a big, dumb brute? Get things done with a gun, their fists or their penis. Screw first and ask questions later, if ever. That doesn't make sense to me. This stereotype is limiting. It takes away their humanity, their vulnerability, their willingness to learn, to forgive, to love. Men need a better representative than Rod Riley.

Anyway, that's my opinion.