Writing chronologically your thing, or being bold with back-insertions?

I understand that movies are shot out of sequence, perhaps not all, but definitely some. I have no idea why this happens, other than obvious things. Outside shooting would require the right weather; the actor needs to lose weight within the film (Cast Away's ending was shot at the beginning - it was easier for Tom Hanks to get really thin before the start of production, then take time off to bulk up for the early scenes); the director's preference; and other reasons beyond my knowledge.

It must be one of the greatest challenges of movie acting (other than the boring time sitting around between takes) with things so disjointed and each day's shooting unrelated to that of the day before. I really admire film editors, too, who give us the final product.

In Belle's blog recently, she expressed her dislike of writing out of sequence, the disjointedness of it. I'd never considered my feelings on it, but I've always done it. Long after I've completed chapters, an idea will pop up that simply has to be expressed in Chapter 2, or an event in Chapter 20 needs a reference to it in Chapter 10. In fact, I write about a quarter of the book, I'm guessing, out of sequence. I've inserted great chunks of dialogue into beginning sections, because I suddenly want to introduce some new event now, in this later piece of writing, and it needs an earlier clue. I imagine that all mystery writers must do this.

In a way, it's the opposite of revision, where we must remove irrelevant passages (despite how damned good they are). Just as I take out brilliantly conceived paragraphs, or even whole pages, I also need to insert things.

I'm surprised that writers would have a different take on this; I assumed everyone worked the way I do. I guess it could be perceived as scattered thinking, but life is scattered, when you think about it. We go along day-to-day, and things from our past unexpectedly come rushing in at us; events long-gone now intrude; memories temporarily blot out our present; a casual conversation reveals an unknown snippet of history that totally changes our view of someone or something. So it is with my writing.

In fact, during the writing process - not the "ass applied to the seat" work, but the internal writing, while I'm doing housework, walking, whatever - I am rarely thinking about the future content, other than the basic plot outline. I'm analyzing what's happened previously. Did he really say that in the right tone? Would she have done this willingly? Should she have spoken to him first, before acting on it?

Whatever method we use, it makes no difference to the final outcome, as long as we're enjoying the writing process - all of it. I don't like to hear that people are agonizing over their work. Of course it's brain-taxing, and often emotionally-draining, but it should always be a joy. It's temporarily painful to remove some of your brilliant words during revision, but I believe there should be nothing but love involved in adding to the original work. No tortured writer here.


A rather chicken-pecking word count yesterday - just 1600 words. They resented being put on the page, but are thankfully satisfying to read. It happens sometimes, doesn't it? The little writing muse tells us to back off a bit, take it easy. But I prefer Tally-ho! writing, the Boadicea approach. I have a feeling it will be back this weekend.

No changes to my stats this week. Still 9 Pending, 1 Partial, 1 Full, 10 No Response, 12 Rejections, for a total of 33 queries for Hafan Deg, my orphan in agent-land.

Have a good weekend, and - if you're lucky enough to have him in your life - show Dad you love him.

 

Sending Out Those Queries

You should all know by now that I've been querying agents for Hafan Deg. Already I've discovered some pitfalls. I don't know if it's a problem with my computer, or what.

Some agents are happy to have a one-page query with a short pitch. This is easy, although you long to include more. Others want extracts included. One page is easy, but ten pages? I tried to do this for one agent who wanted a full synopsis plus ten pages. By the way, the stipulation with ALL agents is that these extras are included in the body of the email, never as an attachment. Well, wouldn't you know it? That one time I tried this with all the extra pages, it bounced back with some technical reference that the email was too long. That can't be right, can it? I will persevere, of course. I hate giving up on anything that's half-tried.

Another odd thing happened. One agent, according to the comments on Query Tracker, is noted for having a full mailbox. I checked the website, and it clearly said it was accepting submissions, so off went my query. It bounced back with "Mailbox Full". Oh, well, I thought, I'll try again later. The very next morning I received a form rejection from them. So they HAD received it. How strange is that?

Needless to say, this was my first rejection. As all that agency saw was my brief "pitch", I'm not concerned; it's foolhardy to expect to knock the socks off everyone who sees it. No doubt this will become a regular thing.

I find it intriguing that my Geo-tracking-whatsit indicates a bunch of New York sites looking at my blog. Most of my queries have gone to New York. Is it possible? Could it be? Are some of them checking me out?

I'm not only using Query Tracker, by the way, although I must say it's a very convenient site. I've googled, checked book acknowledgements, and read lots of blogs. I've become so fond of some of those blogging agents, however, that I'm shy about approaching them now. I mean I've made comments there! Will they see my query and think that was the only reason I commented - just to get my name in front of them? So I haven't queried one of them yet. Me and my big mouth...

Basically, I don't mind this work. It IS work, though. I'd much rather be working on Strachan's Attic.

Oh, has anyone taken a look at the summary of that yet? I wondered if it had grabbed you in any way. I'd like to hear from you if it did, one way or the other.