UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
http://www.writers-online.co.uk NOVEMBER 2019^39It’s an interesting piece of writing, not least in its willingness to experiment with
narrative form and description. There are some nice touches and some quite complex
storytelling techniques. I always admire the impulse to innovate and seek distinctive
forms of expression.
However, it can be like controlling an eight-horse chariot. There’s a lot to keep in
mind and power must be served by control. Many of my observations here are small
but critical improvements that make the difference between success and failure.
Sure, you can go inside characters’ heads, but you don’t need italics to do it. Nor, for
that matter, do you need to use ‘she thought’. Plus, narrating the genuine inner voice
of a mind with its disjointed or colloquial register requires the controlling hand of
assured punctuation.
Consistency of tone is important, too. A non-grammatical sentence can be a
powerful thing, but it just looks wrong and out of place if used without discernible
reason or contrary to the sentences around it. I’ve noted a tendency in this extract to
prize stylistic fireworks over focus on, and engagement with, the scene or characters.
The reader will quickly lose interest if the narrative doesn’t come alive and if things
don’t happen, especially at the start.
What happens in these 300 words? People are sitting in a church and bells are
ringing. It’s evocative, but how long do we wait before something happens?15
Italics again as per 13.16
‘Always’ and ‘until’ contradict
each other. More seriously,
there’s a danger of lapsing into a telling
form of narrative in which the characters
are revealed only through the author’s
comments. This makes them less real.
‘Heart stealing’ is a cliché, unless William
had literally stolen her heart in some
manner of vampiric rite... in which case I
have no complaint.17
The summarising tone threatens
to become mildly irritating. It’s as
if the people in the church are immobile
in ‘freeze-frame’ as the author’s voiceover
informs us of the context. No doubt it’s
important information, but it means nothing
without some flesh and pulse. The scene
risks becoming sterile: an artful showcase of
description, but without involving the reader
in a fictional world. And call me cynical, but
when I read the phrase ‘an important part
of her had died’ I can’t help wondering. Her
pancreas? Her eyelids?18
Again, there’s no need for the double
space. The sentence itself seems
overlong for its function. Why not write,
‘uncomfortably shifted his large body.’ We’ve
already been told about the rock-hard pews.In summary
19
Another non-grammatical sentence
like 7 and 12. I’m not sure why
it’s not in the same paragraph as the
previous sentence because it continues
the description. Take care not to begin
successive sentences with subordinate clauses
(‘Sitting... Shaking...’). It can begin to look
like a tic.20
Italics not necessary as in 10.
Again, the rules of punctuation
are required to fine-tune the description:
‘scruffy, oily-handed.’21
Why is this sentence in italics?
It looks as if Dr Howard is in a
dialogue with the author. The adverb ‘sadly’
is enough to subtly hint that this could be
Howard’s thought, so omit the italics.22
Comma after Cartland. What
precedes it is a subordinate time
clause. Commas are customarily used to
separate initial subordinate clauses from the
following main clause (but not the other
way round: ‘It had been a joyful peal the
last time the bells had rung...’).23
Not sure why there are commas
in this sentence. They are not
necessary and complicate the flow. It’s
true that a non-defining relative clause
uses commas to denote that the extra
information is not essential to meaning, but
if this is the case, why mention it?24
Italics again. And we’re missing
something between ‘that’ and ‘skinny’.25
Why the comma after ‘battered’?
An Oxford comma?‘hard-old’ is entirely convincing. It could
even cause confusion. It would work
better as two separate adjectives. Indeed,
the repeating ‘K’ of ‘black oak’ very nicely
suggests the unyielding hardness of the
wood. The commas around ‘Cartland
family’ seem unnecessary. Worse, they
complicate a phrase that needs to flow in
order to realise its full descriptive gusto.
12
Another hard-boiled, grammar-
flouting sentence. Such twitches
in tone cause us to ask who is telling
(and who is in control of ) the story.
We should be more concerned with the
scene being described than with who is
describing it.
13
Much as I respect the jazz stylings
of this narrative, it’s important to
have a rock-solid grasp of craft to pull it off.
A semi-colon doesn’t work here. Nor would
a colon. A comma might work, but I’d
suggest using nothing and instead italicising
the relevant phrases separated by ellipses.
Rules tend to blur when you go ‘off-menu’
with adventurous style, but the rules of
punctuation must remain the same if we’re
to find sense in what we read.
14
If the story is being told in simple
present tense, this should be past
simple: ‘...had suddenly become’.
- If you would like to submit an extract
of your work in progress, send it by
email, with synopsis and a brief biog,
to: [email protected]
CLICK HERE
To read James McCreet’s
suggested rewrite
of this extract