Tag Archives: writing

A to Z Blogging Challenge, Arthurian Legend

N is for Names, or the Identity Crisis in Arthurian Legend

, , , , , , , 1 Comment

“The Lady of Shalott” by William Holman Hunt

According to some legends, the Celts believed that to know a person’s true name was to hold power over them. Some tribes even named their children one thing and then gave them another, permanent name when they reached adulthood. That’s why in many myths, a hero doesn’t learn his true name until he is armed by a goddess-like woman. In some versions of Arthurian legend, Guinevere asks Lancelot his name, but he is unable to tell her (because he doesn’t know) until after he completes a quest.

Why am I mentioning this?

  1. You’ll do great if it ever comes up at trivia night.
  2. There are lots of names in Arthurian legend.

Depending on the author and/or translation you read, the same Arthurian character could go by many different names. I’ve only included a few common ones here, but thought you might find it interesting to see who is who:

What’s My Name Again?
(Keep in mind that depending on the author, those listed below as the same character, might in fact be separate characters.)

  1. Guinevere/Gwenhwyfar (Welsh)/Gvenhvyuar (Welsh)/Ganhumara (from Geoffry of Monmouth) – There are about a million more. If you want to see all of them, check out this site. Some legends say there were two or three Guineveres.
  2. Morgan/Morgause/Morganna/Morgaine/Morgan Le Fey/Morgane – Traditionally Arthur’s half sister, she’s also sometimes called Anna.
  3. Galahad/Gwalchavad (Welsh)/Galeas/Galath – Son of Lancelot, he is one of three who find the Holy Grail.
  4. Perceval/Percival/Peredur (Welsh) – Knight who sees the Grail and also meets the Fisher King.
  5. Igraine/Iggraine/Eigyr (Welsh)/Igerne (French)/Ygerne (French)/Ygrayne/Arnive – Arthur’s mother.
  6. Isolde/Iseult/Iseo/Yseult/Isode/Isoude/Esyllt/Isotta – There are three Isoldes, 1) a princess from Ireland who marries Mark even though she’s in love with Tristan, 2) the Irish Isolde’s mother, and 3) a princess from Brittany who marries Tristan after he’s banished from Britain.
  7. Tristan/Drustanus/Drystan/Tristran/Tristram – One of Arthur’s knights, he loved Isolde.
  8. Gawain/Gwalchmei/Gawan/Gawaine/Gwaine/Gavan/Gavin/Walewein/Waweyn – Knight and Arthur’s nephew.

Are you confused yet? I know I am!

Do you think names have special power or significance? What does your name mean? Do you use a special spelling? Can you think of any other Arthurian characters that you’ve seen with different spellings of their names? Which ones do you prefer?

A to Z Blogging Challenge, Everything else, Writing process

J is for Jargon in the Writing and Publishing World

, , , 1 Comment

Or, I could have called this post, “seriously, just speak English!” Like every other industry, the book world is full of strange terms few on the outside can understand without a little research. So here’s a list of five (hey, it was 10, I spared you half) common jargon words in the writerly world. Happy translating!

  1. ARC – When written in all caps, ARC stands for Advance Reading Copy. This is a copy of a book that is almost, but not quite ready to be published. It’s often typeset and has the cover art like the final product, but may not have gone through final proofing. These are typically sent out to critics, bloggers, bookstores and given away to fans to create buzz for a book before its official release. These sometimes take over for what used to be called Galley Copies, black and white versions of the book with no art, used in the proofreading process. (When written as “arc” the word refers to the progression of a plot or character throughout a book.)
  2. Character driven vs. plot driven – A character driven story is one in which the characters and their personal journeys (often focused on the  emotional aspect) take precedence over the plot, which is formed by how the characters interact. A plot driven story is one where the plot is the main importance and the characters follow the plot. Most writers are naturally one or the other, but I hear its possible to be good at both. (In case you’re wondering, I’ve been told my writing is character driven.)
  3. Genre – The category your book falls into. Think of the sections of a bookstore: mystery, romance, general fiction, suspense, western, young adult. But in the publishing world it gets more complicated. For example, the general fiction section of a bookstore includes lots of other genres such as women’s fiction (chick lit), historical fiction and classics. Historical fiction has its own subgenres like historical fantasy, time slip (time travel), historical romance, historical mystery and alternate history. And yes, every genre is that complicated. (There are hard-boiled mysteries, cozy mysteries, etc.)
  4. Query letter – This is a letter you write to an agent you’d like to represent you. It’s a lot like a cover letter when you’re applying for a job. You tell the agent what kind of book you’re trying to sell, give them (I hate him/her, so I’m using them) a short one or two paragraph summary of what the book is about (think of it like the copy on the back of the book), and then tell them why you chose them and why they should give you a chance. Usually most agents ask for a synopsis (see below) and/or anywhere from five to 50 pages of your book along with the letter. But not all. Your letter has to be sharp because you can (and will be) rejected just based on it,  unseen. Interestingly, I’ve read that query letters as a first round of selection aren’t the same the world over. In America, they are a must, but I’ve read that in Britain and other parts of the world, they really just serve as an introduction and that agents put more emphasis on the synopsis and sample when making a decision. If anyone can confirm or refute that, please do. I’m interested in learning more.
  5. Synopsis – A synopsis is a two to three page summary of your novel, including the ending. (Yes, you have to give away the ending. I know, I was shocked, too.) Agents and publishers use them when trying to decide whether or not to represent a work, especially if they get bored with your manuscript. Writing a synposis is painful, but necessary. Your goal is to boil your 80,000+ word book down to its basic elements (no subplots) to show what the book is all about. I’ve read they get easier with practice, but I’m not so sure about that.

One that I would love to have someone answer for me: what the heck is literary fiction? No matter how many articles and definitions I read, I still don’t understand what it is. My guess is that if I don’t know what it is, it’s not what I’m writing!

What about you? What writing terms have you heard that you’d like defined? What terms drive your crazy? Do you have ideas for other “J” themed posts?

A to Z Blogging Challenge, About the Author, Everything else

G is for Giveaways & Getting to Know You; H is for Happy Blogiversary

, , , , , 11 Comments

Saturday, June 16, is the first anniversary of Through the Mists of Time. I have presents to give away, but more on that later (see end of post). I can’t believe a year has passed already! Thank you to everyone who continues to come around week after week and listen to me babble. Your support means more than I can say. Hopefully by this time next year I’ll be able to announce an agent and a publishing contract.

I’ve been wanting to get to know my readers for quite some time now and what better time than the one year blogiversary? Please tell me a little about yourself in the comments. You can answer any of the questions below or maybe tell me about where you live, how you found Through the Mists of Time, what keeps you coming back, what you like about Arthurian legend. What are your hobbies? Are you a writer, a reader, a history buff or something else? What topics do you want to hear about on this blog? The better I know you, the more I can tailor posts to your likes.

And because it’s only fair, I’ll answer some questions, too. Here’s a little Q&A – yes, I’m interviewing myself. Hey, it’s not any weirder than 99% of the other things that go on in my head. (These questions come from the New York Times Book Review column “By the Book.”)

What book is on your night stand now?

Insurgent by Veronica Roth, Angelology by Danielle Trussoni, Arthur’s Britain by Leslie Alcock and Imagine by Jonah Lehrer. And in my car’s CD player is the audio book Hard Bitten by Chloe Neill.

What was the last truly great book you read?

People of the Book by Geraldine Brooks. She’s an amazing writer with a rare gift to be able to truly transport you in time (through 500 years in this book) and space (several different countries). I learned a lot about recent and Medieval history while reading it and its a truly fascinating tale, based on the true story of a mysterious codex – which I didn’t know when I read it.

Do you consider yourself a fiction or a nonfiction person? What’s your favorite literary genre?

Both. Nonfiction: history and religion, some biographies. Fiction: historical fiction, fantasy (especially urban fantasy), YA (dystopian and paranormal), general fiction, cozy and regular mysteries (Sue Grafton is as hard-boiled as I get), and intellectual thrillers. As a general rule, I stay away from chick-lit and anything marketed as woman’s fiction.

What were your favorite books as a child?

I remember my mom reading a lot of Bearnstien Bears books to me as a child. Francine Pascal’s Sweet Valley Twins and Sweet Valley High books were the books of my pre-teen and teen years. C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia series shaped my love of fantasy and I still remember reading The Westing Game by Ellen Raskin in 6th grade. I won’t go into the books we had to read in school that permanently traumatized me (I’m looking at you, Where the Red Fern Grows).

If you could meet any writer, dead or alive, who would it be? 

Christopher Marlowe. I think I had a thing for him in a past life. I’d also love to know if there’s any truth to the conspiracy theory that he didn’t really die in a bar fight and that he was actually Shakespeare. I doubt it, but I like the idea.

—-

**GIVEAWAY DETAILS
I’m giving away a copy of The Art and Craft of Writing Historical Fiction by James Alexander Thom and the Mutefish CD On Draught. (Remember them from my Ireland travelogue? No, it’s not my CD. This one is still in the shrink wrap.) If you’re interested in either gift, let me know in the comments and I’ll pick names out of a hat (please include your email address so I can contact you). Because I’ve combined two posts, I’m keeping this one up for a week, so you have until June 20 to comment and qualify to win.

Even if you don’t want the gifts, please say hi and tell me a little about yourself. I look forward to getting to know you!

A to Z Blogging Challenge, Guinevere

F is for Fearsome Heroines

, , , , 8 Comments

Recently, CBS Sunday Morning did a piece on how today’s heroines aren’t afraid to kick a little ass. Well, that’s not how they phrased it, but you get the point. Gone are the days of damsels in distress and princesses who sit on their perfect rear ends waiting to be rescued.

Maybe it started with She-ra. I’d like to think so. Buffy definitely helped. But if you look at the shelves of your local bookstore or turn on the television, its clear women are coming into their own as heroines. From the katana wielding main character of Chloe Neill’s Chicagoland vampire series to Snow on Once Upon a Time, wallflowers need not apply. (Sorry Bella Swan, Katniss Everdeen proved you’re irrelevant.)

In talking about the new big screen versions of Snow White, CBS Sunday Morning notes, “Like every storybook heroine these days, she FIGHTS.” And they mean that literally – swords and all. Today’s heroines rescue themselves. Now that doesn’t mean they don’t need love or want someone to share the fight with, but like most modern women, they’re not waiting around for a man to complete them. They grab life with both hands and make of it what they desire.

That’s fine by me. That just means my heroine’s time has come. For reasons I can’t reveal until you read the book, my Guinevere can fight as well as any man, and she does. That’s one of the things that makes her different from the traditional portrayal of the character. She is not only physically strong, but smart and not afraid to express herself. (Although one could argue that was typical for a Celtic woman.) My Guinevere is in every way Arthur’s equal, a woman trained to sit beside her King on the throne or stand beside him as they lead their troops into battle. In many time periods – even a hundred years later – that would be anachronistic, but we’re fortunate that the Celts raised fearsome women. (Boudicca, Cartimandua, Maeve and Scathach are just a few examples from history and legend.)

Actress Aly Michalka at a Renfaire. She is the inspiration for a Saxon (sans bow and arrow) you’ll meet in book 2.

It’s time for strong female characters to serve as role models for young (and not so young) women. Even my female characters who don’t wield a sword know how to fight with their brains and their tongues. Morgan will best you in any verbal war and Isolde will out-strategize you before you know what hit you. That’s not to say my books are fueled on feminism. There are several female characters who fill more traditional roles (Elaine, Camille), but they are certainly more balanced with ones who will stand up for themselves than tradition usually dictates.

I know I’m not the first to infuse a little girl power into my books, and I hope I won’t be the last. I’m just proud to contribute to the growing trend of weapon-weilding heroines. IWA girls, this is for you!

What do you think of the new wave of strong heroines? Ladies, who do you most identify with in fiction today? What traditionally passive female roles would you like to see rewritten? And what other “F” topics do you suggest for future posts? (Clean ones, mind you.)

Arthurian Legend, Books

Arthurian Legend: Historical Fiction or Fantasy?

, , , , 17 Comments

When I first started to seriously consider getting my work published, I posted to an online message board asking whether agents/publishers consider Arthurian legend historical fiction or fantasy. I received only one reply (rather snarky), “Oh that stuff gets passed off as historical fiction all the time.”

That was when I realized not everyone thinks Arthurian legend is a serious topic (or sub-genre, if you will) for historical fiction. Where it should be classified really depends on your definition of “historical.” If by that word you mean something firmly grounded in evidence and fact (especially written), then you won’t ever be able to accept Arthurian legend as historical. But if you accept a looser definition that includes anything that takes place in another time period and attempts to recreate the history, culture, politics, religion, etc. of that time, then you open yourself up to including Arthurian legend.

I’m happy to say that the Historical Novel Society (HNS) counts it as historical fiction. As stated in their Guide to King Arthur:

From the point of view of historical fiction, the Arthur mythos has always pin-pointed the fault-line between history and story. The historians pull in the direction of a realistic, Celtic post-Roman world. Their Arthur is without magic, without high-Catholic symbolism, and without chivalry. The fantasy authors pull the other way, setting the stories in a time outside time, often depicting a battle between Christian ‘magic’ and pagan ‘magic’, plundering the myths for narrative and atmosphere. Literary authors tend to stand one foot in both camps, enchanted by the magic realism and epic poetry at the heart of the stories, but wanting to give emotional consistency and humanity (usually historical humanity) to the protagonists.”

Personally, I believe that Arthurian legend can be either historical fiction or fantasy, depending on if the author chooses to ground his/her story in history. As I’ve said before, there is very little historical evidence for Dark Ages Britain and King Arthur. Really all we know for sure is that the tribes of Britain fought against each other after Rome left their shores in 410 AD. They united (presumably under a single leader) to face the Saxons in battle at a place traditionally known as Mount Badon, somewhere around the year 500 AD (some argue as much as 30 years earlier or later on the date). They roundly defeated the Saxons, who then left them alone for decades. Their leader is traditionally called Arthur, which may be a title or a name. Around him grew the stories we know as Arthurian legend (see parts 1, 2, and 3 of my series on the evolution of Arthurian legend to learn more).

Because we have so few reliable records, those of us interested in Arthur and Celtic Britain must rely heavily on myth and tradition. This opens up a lot of room for interpretation and invention. (Hence, the “fiction” part of “historical fiction.”) But it can also lead into the realms of fantasy when we make up things to fill in the historical gaps, especially if those things involve the supernatural. But does magic always mean fantasy? Again, the answer depends on your point of view. The Celts certainly had a belief in magic. And there are people in our world today who will swear psychic abilities, the manipulation of energy and Otherworldly beings are very real, while others say they are pure make-believe or wishful thinking.

In short, until the day someone can definitively prove one way or the other that Arthur did or did not exist and we find records of his culture, there will be the possibility for both historical accuracy and fantasy in fiction that deals with him and his world.

And my books? I never thought I’d say this, but according to the HNS definition, I think I fall in the literary category. My Arthur and Guinevere live in post-Roman Britain (approximately 491-530 AD) and I’ve tried very hard to make the culture/politics true to the time period, but I also couldn’t imagine an Arthurian world without magic. Because of the tensions of the time, I carry on the fantasy tradition of emphasizing the clash between pagan and Christian, but not only in theology, also in politics and power.

Do you think Arthurian legend can be considered historical fiction? Or would you define it as fantasy? Why? Does how it’s classified or shelved at a bookstore even matter to you as a reader?

Writing process

The Author Platform or “What Is It You Do, Again?”

, , , , , 3 Comments

It takes more than just writing a great book to get published nowadays.

If you’ve ever explored what else goes into it, you’ve probably heard of the dreaded “author platform.” It’s really just a way of answering the questions, “What is it that you do?” or “Why I should care about anything you say?” Your platform is how you get yourself out there and try to cultivate an audience well before your book hits the shelves. And there’s a lot of contradictory advice on how to do it.

“Talk about your expertise.”

“Be human – show people you have a life.”

“People don’t care about your personal life.”

Sometimes it makes me feel like I’m following a crazy director whose next command/advice will be, “Show me spirit fingers!” (Please tell me you’ve seen Bring It On.)

There are as many ways to build a platform as there are writers, but in this digital age, chances are social media will play a big part in it. I’m by no means an expert, but I am slowly learning as I continue to blog and tweet as a writer. Here are a few conclusions I’ve come to about building a platform/brand/name for yourself:

Not everyone is going to like you. Shocking, I know. For a perfectionist like me, this is tough to swallow. Sometimes when I notice my Twitter number is down or I don’t have as many blog hits as I’d like, I wonder what I said to make people leave or why they aren’t visiting. Then I realize that one tweet or blog post may have made them think they were getting one thing, when reality is really another. Or maybe their timeline was just getting too full. I’m learning to not take it personally. And there will always be people who either flat out don’t like you or are contrary just because they can be.

Being yourself is important. I’m not a writing machine and neither are you. I think it’s important to show that you have a life outside of your writing. I don’t know about you, but I love it when a writer I follow gives me a little glimpse into their real life. I don’t do it much here (other than by recommending books and the occasional manifesto), but I do tweet about my favorite TV shows and bands, in addition to writerly stuff. If you don’t like it, you can always scroll through it, but for me it’s a way to be relatable.

Speaking tours aren’t the only way to show off your expertise. Right now I don’t have a schedule that allows for teaching online courses or going on speaking tours (I hate public speaking anyway), so I’m using my blog to share what I’ve learned while researching. Hence, you get to learn all about the Celts and Arthurian legend. I’m also hoping that will help me find other people who love this stuff and might want to read my books. If you follow me on Twitter, you’ll see I try to retweet blog posts and other articles on writing that I find valuable. Pay it forward, as the saying goes.

Write about your passion and it will show. For me, that’s Arthurian legend (thank God, or I’d really be in trouble), writing, reading and history. That’s why you also see “non-educational” posts from me: book reviews/recommendations, essays, etc. I also love my cats and to cook, but I don’t think anyone would care about that. But then again, I am trying to expand my blogging horizons. Anyone have any suggestions about other things you think I should write about?

Readers, do you think I’m on the right track? What else would you like to see in this blog? Writers, what’s made your platform successful? What advice helps you? What common “words of wisdom” do you disagree with? I’d like to learn from your experiences, so please let me know in the comments.

Everything else, Writing process

Midnight in Paris: A Movie for Writers

, , , , , , 4 Comments

Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris is a movie all writers should see. No matter what you write, you’ll find something to appreciate in this film. But what surprised me the most when I saw it last weekend was how much it moved me as a historical fiction writer.

I don’t intend this to be a review, so I’ll just touch on the high points of the plot, as they apply to this post. The movie is about Gil (played by Owen Wilson), a successful Hollywood screenwriter turned aspiring novelist who regrets never living and writing literature in Paris. On a trip there with his fiance and her family, he finds that every night at midnight he can travel back in time to the 1920s, a time he yearns for as an ideal age. After various adventures with the literary and artistic elite of the time, including his idols F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, Cole Porter, Picasso and many others, Gil realizes that everyone finds the present boring and longs for another time.

I’ll admit, I’m a little jealous of Gil being able to have his work reviewed by one of his historical idols (who wouldn’t be?!) And real-life quotes like Hemingway’s “No subject is terrible if the story is true, if the prose is clean and honest, and if it affirms courage and grace under pressure,” and “If you’re a writer, declare yourself the best writer,” make the movie relatable on a personal level.

But what makes it truly great is a strong theme of living in the past. Anyone who writes historical fiction can no doubt relate to this exchange:

One of the two over-the-top antagonists (I wish Allen had been a little more trusting of his audience and more subtle in their characterization) has one of the most poignant lines in the film, “Nostalgia is denial – denial of the painful present… the name for this denial is golden age thinking – the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one ones living in – it’s a flaw in the romantic imagination of those people who find it difficult to cope with the present.”

Is he right? Yes and no. I agree that yearning for the past is a way of dealing with a difficult present (if we didn’t have difficulties, what would we write about?), but I don’t think it’s a flaw. For some of us, it’s just the way our brains work. If wasn’t, there would be no historians and no record (romantic or otherwise) of what came before. I disagree that nostalgia is denial. It’s recognition that something in the past resonates with us more than the present. We can find ways of mining our love of the past to improve our present by incorporating the values or ways of life we feel our society has lost or is losing, or at the very least, capture them in our writing for future generations.

Historical fiction serves a great purpose. It not only entertains and provides a means of escape, it educates about a bygone time in relatable ways history textbooks never can. Until time travel becomes more than fantasy, it’s the closest thing we’ve got.  We’re fortunate that history gives us such a rich tableau from which to draw in our writing.

By far my favorite scene is this one (I wish I could find a video clip for you):

Adriana: Let’s never go back to the ’20s!
Gil: What are you talking about?
Adriana: We should stay here. It’s the start of La Belle Époque! It’s the greatest, most beautiful era Paris has ever known.
Gil: Yeah, but about the ’20s, and the Charleston, and the Fitzgeralds, and the Hemingways? I mean, I love those guys.
Adriana: But it’s the present. It’s dull.
Gil: Dull? It’s not my present. I’m from 2010.
Adriana: What do you mean?
Gil: I dropped in on you the same way we’re dropping in on the 1890s.
Adriana: You did?
Gil: I was trying to escape my present the same way you’re trying to escape yours, to a golden age.
Adriana: Surely you don’t think the ’20s are a golden age!
Gil: Well, yeah. To me they are.
Adriana: But I’m from the ’20s, and I’m telling you the golden age is La Belle Époque.
Gil: And look at these guys. I mean, to them, their golden age was the Renaissance. You know, they’d trade Belle Époque to be painting alongside Titian and Michelangelo. And those guys probably imagined life was a lot better when Kublai Khan was around.
Adriana:  What are you talking about?
Gil: Adriana, if you stay here, and this becomes your present, then, pretty soon, you’ll start imagining another time was really your, you know, was really the golden time. That’s what the present is. That it’s a little unsatisfying, because life’s a little unsatisfying.

The key point here? No one is ever satisfied with the time in which they live. It’s possible to view the past through rose-colored glasses, but the present is seen with painful clarity. That’s exactly why historical fiction has a market. Everyone has a different point in time that is their escape.  Like Gil says about living in the past, if you read (or write) too much of one time period, you get comfortable with it and it gets boring, so you move on to another, seeking to fill a void created by the present. But for historical fiction writers, the past is the present, and that’s what sets us apart from other writers.

So what do you think? Have you seen Midnight in Paris? Did you like it? Can you relate to what I’ve said or do you think I’m totally crazy? Do you think living in the past is pointless or do you see some value in it?

Writing process

Love/Hate: Ramblings About Research & Editing

, , , , 3 Comments

So I was going to write another educational post this week, when the new issue of Writer’s Digest showed up in my mailbox. It contains an article on research by Charles J. Shields, and, like research itself, I’m finding I have a love/hate relationship with it.

Didn’t You Learn That in School?
When I first saw the headline “Research Like a Pro: New Techniques,” I thought, “It’s pretty sad that we have to explain to writers how to research.” I don’t know if I was just lucky that as an English major, and again to get my master’s in public relations, I had to write lengthy, well-researched thesis papers. That’s when I learned about research databases (although this article introduced me to several I hadn’t heard about), interlibrary loans (a godsend!) and the importance of getting to know subject matter experts. I’m not a historian – yet (getting my Ph.D. is in my 10-15 year plan) – but these experiences have given me a solid understanding of research.

But then again, I went to school primarily before the Internet took over. For my undergraduate thesis, we weren’t allowed to use online resources at all. Maybe that’s why I’m still more fond and trusting of information I find in books, as opposed to on the Internet. The article in question focuses mainly on online research, which is nice, but I’m old-fashioned. In general, books have to pass quality standards to be published; anything can be put on the Web. I’m not saying I don’t use online research, but I mainly keep it for minor fact checking or on the spot information. It was a lifesaver when I was writing the battle of Mount Badon. I can’t tell you how many times I used Google Maps to look at Little Solisbury Hill or how many sites I visited to learn about Anglo Saxon warfare in the late 5th century (which my books were oddly silent about). I do like Google Books, but that’s really just a searchable database of books, so I’m not really going too far out on a limb with that site. 

Oh Wait, Maybe I Was Wrong
The more I thought about it, I realized it’s actually wonderful that we’re teaching people how to research. In an age when the Web runs our lives, Shields’ article has some great tips on how to contact experts and how to use virtual tours to get to know places you can’t actually visit. He also made some great points about “folding in your research,” so that your readers can’t tell what you had to look up or what your sources were.

I can say from personal experience that there’s nothing more annoying to a reader than to be enjoying a book and what the author writes about starts looking really familiar and then all of a sudden, you know what book they used. The whole point of research is to make it look effortless, like you knew that information all along. In my opinion, that happens when you really internalize your subject and begin to live it. If you can get lost in it, your characters, and hence your readers, will too.

Editing: Blessing or Bane?
The other aspect of writing I have a love/hate relationship with is editing. I’m working my way through what I hope is my second to last round of edits before I query again. Sometimes, I’d rather poke my eye out than make a suggested change and other times I change one tiny thing and the whole story is suddenly a million times better.

The other day it hit me: editing is a beautiful process. It’s like getting multiple second chances. It’s very freeing to realize you don’t have to get everything right the first time around. Stories evolve as we write them, so it’s nearly impossible to get everything in the right order or shown the right way in your first few drafts. Editing allows you to not only change things that aren’t working, but foreshadow things you didn’t even know were going to happen when you originally wrote the lead up to them. If you’ll forgive the comparison, it gives you an almost god-like power, because you can go back and redo things until they turn out to where the plot appears seemless. If only reality worked that way. Wouldn’t it be great if we could edit our own lives? Oh wait, that lack of control is one reason we write – to be able to control the lives of our characters.

So, talk to me. How do you do your research? Are you an online junkie or a bookworm or a little of both? Does editing make you rejoice or just cringe?

Writing process

On Historical Fiction Writing

, , , 6 Comments

"Looking Back Through Time" by adrians_art

Over the weekend, I took a break from editing book 1 to work on a short story that’s been haunting me since 2007. It’s totally different from everything else I’ve ever written (read: it takes place in modern times and is a little gritty). I don’t know if I’ll ever do anything with it, but I thought it would be a nice change of pace. And it was.

But what surprised me most is that it gave me a whole new appreciation for historical fiction (HF). HF and fantasy are all I’ve ever tried to write because, well, apparently I enjoy other time periods and worlds more than this one (I blame it on one too many past lives). In one weekend, I wrote more words than I usually do in twice that time, all because I was writing about my own time period. What did this teach me?

  1. It takes patience to write HF – You would think after 10+ years of research I would realize that, but I guess I’m a little slow. Until I wrote about my own time period, I didn’t realize how much of my time writing HF is taken up by second guessing word origin (i.e. time period and place), looking at maps to confirm geography, or fussing over some other detail to get things just right. These details are what make HF pop, but you don’t have to think about them as much when writing modern fiction – they just come because you have a natural frame of reference. It’s one thing to transport readers within their familiar world, but to take them somewhere else in time is completely different.
  2. Good HF looks deceptively easy – Why? A good HF writer (like any professional) makes it look effortless. But in reality, HF writers voluntarily become experts in their chosen time and place. That’s not something everyone (outside of historians and archeologists) can say. And why do we do it? Well, insanity is one possibility, but mostly it’s a labor of love.
  3. I wouldn’t want to do anything else – Yes, I can write modern fiction faster. But, there’s something about being able to bring the past to life that makes HF special and makes me want to keep doing it. (I have plans beyond Guinevere and Isolde, I’m just not ready to talk about them yet.) There’s something special about resurrecting lost voices or rescuing those on the brink of being forgotten. After all, we all want to think we’ll be remembered; perhaps helping others secure their place in history will somehow assure ours.

What do you think? If you write or read HF, what draws you to it?