I'm reading Uprising by Margaret Peterson Haddix, Simon and Schuster, 2007. I'm working on the first draft of a historical novel and was interested in seeing how she handled her topic. She has done what many writers, including me, find difficult to do: She sprinkles the back story like she is seasoning a dish. She enhances the plot. She does not smother it.
The story is about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. It starts as one of the main characters, a young Italian girl, arrives in New York City via Ellis Island. Now, had I been writing a book on this topic, I would have been tempted to start in the miserable village in Italy, or at least have one good scene in Ellis Island...a marvelous description opportunity...but she mentions the Island perhaps three times...and no more. On she goes to the plot. She weaves into descriptive scenes both action and emotion. Characters are defined by their action and their speech. No looking in store windows or mirrors to adjust their hair. We are aware of their shabby clothes and their foreign language, but action is primary on every page.
It's been a good lesson in restraint.
Monday, May 4, 2009
To Season, Not to Smother
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A good lesson for everyone, not just writers of historical fiction. Love your analogy to seasoning. Just a taste of back story, not a whole mouthful.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Linda. No matter what genre, it's all about the story.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Linda. I also like the way Richard Peck put it at a conference: Don't warm up on your readers.
ReplyDeleteAnother great comment about keeping the story moving was made by Elmore Leonard - "I try to leave out the parts people skip."
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to learn from screenwriters that it's all about the action.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Linda! I love the seasoning analogy - it's perfect.
ReplyDeleteHi Melinda,
ReplyDeleteJust found this blog! Thanks so much for that post! I'm also an aspiring writer currently working on a middle-grade historical novel. Now I'm eager to read Uprising and learn more about "seasoning" a novel.
Regarding "Uprising," the end left me wanting a little more emotionin the surviving characters. The writer, in a rush to prove her point (the striving and suffering of women who achieved the right to vote and the right to organize) almost forced the didactic material into the last chapter. If I had been she, I would have done the same thing. I mean, after all that good research, why not? The desire to "teach" is a heavy burden for writers of historic fiction. Question: is it better to follow up with a epilogue and leave the characters out of it? How much didacticism can kids tolerate these days?
ReplyDelete