My Flash Editing workshop at Writer's Weekend

As usual, subjective differences were rampant in my Flash Editing workshop at the Writer's Weekend conference in June. That's to be expected, and there's always something to learn.

I had four samples to work with -- the writers emailed me their first chapters before the workshop. I read through the chapters, then printed out the first three pages of each for the workshop, and did some line editing and critiquing in advance of the session.

The samples were a Regency Romance (a "sequel" to Pride and Prejudice) and three from sf/fantasy realms.

In the workshop, I passed out a packet of the samples to the attendees, which included the writers, although I kept the samples anonymous, even removing titles.

I had the attendees read the first sample, making notes as they read. When finished, I said, "You're an agent. It's four in the afternoon, you've plowed through 20 disappointing samples already, and you have another 8 to go and four phone calls to return. Your head aches, you're tired. Does this sample get a rejection, or do you ask for more?"

For all the samples, some would ask for more, some would reject. Richard, a generous fellow, would send for samples of all of them. He would never make it as an agent because his lifespan would not accommodate all the reading he would have to do.

The exercise makes it real just how tough an agent has to be on the samples crossing his desk. I'll tell you that I would have rejected all four, although I might have been tempted to write an encouraging note on a couple. None were ready for the real game, in my view, though all showed considerable promise.

In none of the cases was the rejection caused by quality of the writing. All the narratives were skillfully written from a grammatical point of view, although all suffered from overwriting to some extent. No, the trouble was with the storytelling. As one writer once described it, "throat clearing." Front-loaded backstory and exposition. Sludge through which to trudge.

I led the group through critiquing a sample, discussing craft points as we went along. It was a lively group, and participation was good. How our subjective points of view affected our decisions whether to reject material or request more was illustrated by Christine's take on one sample.

The opening three pages introduced a woman of apparently high station and her shepherd on a fantasy world. Christine opted to ask for more material because of another novel she loves (can't remember the name) that also featured a shepherd and a mistress, and was a great story of their relationship.

Well, as far as I could tell, the only time that shepherd appeared was in that first chapter. A "spear carrier" kind of character, there to fill an action need, and then never again seen. So Christine would have been extremely disappointed if she'd requested the material.

To be fair, we worked only with 3 pages, and perhaps an agent would have had the option to read more of the sample rather than decided to reject or request at that point. But many agents limit submissions to 5 pages, so the test wasn't that much less than reality.

The Regency Romance borrowed interest heavily from Pride and Prejudice by featuring Darcy, but there wasn't much story told in the first pages. Rather, there was a confusing (for me and others) introduction of 13 characters in those three pages, done altogether with telling rather than a scene of any sort. Yes, it was emulating the Victorian style, but I felt that bringing modern storytelling virtues to that tonality was needed. Most of the workshop members agreed.

Yep, storytelling was the issue. Briefly, here's what I recall about the  other samples:

One story opened with an apprentice monk in an abbey on a magical world. The first three pages were about being awakened by the monk in whose cell he (or she, wasn't clear) was sleeping. The narrative was in first person, and I found the narrator to be likeable and interesting. It was a true scene, and something was happening. However, nothing of potential consequence was hinted at in those first three pages. The narrative dealt with nicely done tidbits of exposition with an exchange of "dialogue" between the sleeping monk (talking in his sleep) and the apprentice. But, as for a raising a story question compelling enough to make me want to read on, it wasn't there for me.

The story previously mentioned with the shepherd and the lady was very well written, and also opened with a strong-seeming scene: a sheep lay poisoned by a plant and had to be put out of its misery. Good visualization, good dialogue -- but too much exposition. The writer had done a wonderful job of world building, and knew everything there was on the planet -- and then went on to include it in the narrative. A half of one page, maybe 150 words, dealt with exposition about the breed of sheep that was dying, its wool, and the effects of the poisonous plant.

If that exposition was needed later, that's okay, but it could have been done in 15 or 20 words. And I had a feeling that it wouldn't be needed later because, after 9 pages, the lady we were so carefully introduced to was brutally murdered. When I told the workshop class this, the news was not well received. Readers expect to see more of the first character they see -- that's a reality, and your narrative should deal with that expectation. The point: if you're going to introduce and then kill a primary-seeming character in your opening chapter, do it quickly.

Story four was mystical in nature, with lovely writing. It, too, started with a scene that might have included some jeopardy -- but it was mostly talk. Talk that filled the reader in on expository stuff that the writer felt we needed to know. First mistake. The writer had a terrific action opening about 5 pages in, and could/should have started there, filling the expository bits as needed. I gave him my notes after the session, and he expressed delight with all the input he had gotten from the workshop and its members.

I've since heard from some of the writers who submitted samples that I didn't get to chat with at the workshop.

Jessica: "Your feedback, and that of the other workshoppers, really opened my eyes to a lot of things I hadn't seen, and that my crit group (which has seen two drafts of this already) hadn't noticed either. That night, after my last workshop, I went back to the room and started rewriting to bring the conflict in the first chapter to the surface."

Wendy: "The conference was excellent, and Flash Editing was the best part of it for me. I got a ton of helpful insights and ideas! I'm currently planning out the next rewrite, including a plunge straight into the action in the opening chapter."

Other workshoppers came up afterwards and expressed their enthusiasm and thanks for what I (and we) had done. It was as before -- a lot of learning and thought about storytelling happened whether it was their writing or not. It was fun, too. I love talking about writing.

I'm doing the Flash Editing workshop at the October  Write on the Sound conference in Edmonds, Washington. If you're attending and want your sample considered, send it to me with "WOTS sample" in the subject line. My time is more limited at this conference, so I won't be able to do as many edits.

For what it's worth.

Ray

Free edit in exchange for posting permission. You send a sample that you have questions about and of which you'd like an edit. I won't post it without your permission.

ARCHIVES .

© 2006 Ray Rhamey

Comments

[Todd]

Sorry I missed the workshop Ray. I'll make sure to attend the one in October.

[Jennifer]

If I were closer I'd attend. I always find that the most challenging part of writing for me are those opening pages.

I tend to do what you explained in the example above. I've worked on fixing that. One reason why I tried opening my novel with dialogue this go around.

Nice article. An interesting read.