Stories must have tension and suspense, even outside the suspense genres.
(from The Orphan’s Song by Lauren Kate)
I’ve read quite a bit of “literary” fiction. One issue that pops up again and again is the prose. It’s usually gorgeous prose–things that would make a poet proud–but nothing happens. I’d wade through long paragraphs of description, musings, etc., and the story would stand still. Completely still. No tension, no suspense, no anything beyond beautiful prose. But simply because you’re not writing in the suspense genre doesn’t mean you don’t have suspense and tension in the story.
It’s got to be there. Otherwise there’s no reason to keep reading.
Kate does a terrific job of writing gorgeous prose and moving her story ahead. There’s always tension, even in her descriptions of Venice. It’s not the same type of suspense that drives a mystery forward, but it’s still there. Check out her novel and see what I mean.
Writing historical fiction? Do your research.
(from Watchers of the Dead by Simon Beaufort)
It’s obvious that Beaufort’s done his research on the Victorian time period. We get a sense of the general attitudes toward “outsiders” (such as the cannibals housed in the museum as a “living exhibition”) and criminals (such as the delusional would-be assassin of Queen Victoria), the competition between the newspapers, and various political events taking place in London and elsewhere. He has actual historical persons as characters, too.
And though the book takes place in Great Britain, Beaufort gives us tantalizing glimpses of other cultures of the time period. Both Alec and his friend/museum worker Roth are somewhat familiar with various African tribal cultures from time they spent on that continent.
All of this takes a huge amount of research before the writing of the book. As a historical mystery novelist, Chris Nickson, told me on Twitter–this is my paraphrase–better to do it before writing the novel than to realize, too late, that a key plot point could not have happened during that time period.
Find the right point of view for your story.
(from American Red by David Marlett)
Have a large cast of characters? Writing a sprawling, multi-generational with multiple geographic areas and settings? Try an omniscient point of view.
Gulp. Writing omniscient point of view scares me. I’ve never tried to write a novel from an omniscient POV, or even a short story (not that I write a lot of those.) The few times I’ve done “writing exercises” from this point of view, I keep inserting some persona-as-narrator into the story and not maintaining an objective bird’s eye view. So I’m not the best person to give advice on the subject. But none of my books delve into a huge story like Marlett’s American Red.
Here, it works because this POV gives Marlett the range and freedom to dip into various characters’ heads (10+) so we develop sympathy (or not) for them, while still being able to show the big picture of where these characters’ actions fit in the overall story.
It allows him to tell us that so-and-so didn’t know such-and-such was happening, or vice versa.
With it, he can write a beautiful prologue opening that sets up the two opposing groups (miners and owners) and pits the groups against each other. A similar setup with two limited point of view characters, on the other hand, might be jarring.
He can write an equally beautiful epilogue accounting for the main characters after the story ends. A more limited POV would force the narrator/character to explain how she/he knew all these details about other characters.
In other words, this point of view works well for the historical story he’s telling.
If you decide to go with this point of view, bravo. I haven’t read very many recent novels that aren’t either first person or limited third person point of view. (Classic novels, yes.) My advice? Seek out knowledgeable beta readers who have experience with this POV, either writing or reading it.
Talk to me! What do you think?