In all the excitement about the Riverbend news, I didn’t spend much time with my new manuscript last week. And when I say that I didn’t spend much time, I mean, of course, that I didn’t spend any time. I’m one man. Cut me a break.
Yesterday, on the golf course, Gone to Milford drifted back into my mind, and it came with a solution to a nettlesome problem I’ve been struggling with for two drafts now: how to imbue the story from the start with the appropriate level of foreboding. The story, in total, unwinds some very difficult relationships, but not in a traditional separation-and-reconciliation sort of way. That’s the extent of what I’ll say. If you want to know the rest, read the book when it emerges.
The story starts at the end. What I struggled with was where at the end I should begin. What follows are the original beginning and the one I amended it to earlier today:
UPDATE: Based on initial feedback and my own evolving thoughts, I went back and did some tweaking and came up with a new, expanded beginning.
Which one, if either, makes Does this make you want to read more? Why or why not? Tell me in the comments section.
I’ll be interested to hear the responses.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 10, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Robin Cain
I found the earlier version a better read. In the latter one, I found the story difficult to follow through the dialogue because it didn’t have any set-up, whereas the story in the earlier one grabbed me right away. I could “feel” it with my senses due to your excellent descriptions. The action moves faster in the newer one, but I don’t get a sense of the emotion and foreboding that is intended to be present, if that makes sense. I really like your writing in both – your sentences are really good. I just got more of a sense of the main character’s dread in the earlier one.
Thanks for sharing-
August 10, 2009 at 5:38 pm
craiglancaster
Thank you, Robin. That’s something to think about.
I suspect that the whole manuscript will get at least one more going-over from me, so more changes may be in the offing.
August 10, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Jerre
I liked the first one better. It engaged me with the character and I was willing to wait for the conflict/mystery to develop. I felt rushed into the drama in the second version and, not knowing who anyone was, didn’t care very much.
Are you sticking with first-person?
August 10, 2009 at 6:08 pm
craiglancaster
Thanks, Jerre.
Indeed, the first person is a lock.
August 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm
JW
The second one was written better. I thought the first one was a little disjointed and tougher to follow; the sentence structure did not have the fluidity of the 2nd one. Yet, Robin is right, the first one conveys the foreboding you are looking for.
August 10, 2009 at 6:47 pm
craiglancaster
Thanks, John. Valuable feedback.
I’ve begun to wonder if fusing the two isn’t the better approach. I’ll have to think on it a bit.
August 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Linda Vandiver
The first one is a bit stiff, but the second one gives too much away. I think the idea of some sort of fusing is a good idea.
August 10, 2009 at 11:47 pm
craiglancaster
Thanks, Linda. … I think fusion is the prevailing idea.