Feedback on a new story
Skoob_ym
Teacher
Thinking of making a sequel to Bell, Book, and Bullets, and breaking out the roles of Jake and Bryly, so that it is less of an ensemble story and more about this particular crime-solving pair. So far, I've only gotten an opening, and I'm still thinking of a plot for the story.
But while the plot stews in my mind, here's a teaser:
_________________________________ snip _____________________
Chapter One
“But one piece remains, and I shall have it on the morrow.” The inspector turned about the Vicar’s rose garden, his finger pointing to the air. The assembled villagers stared expectantly, awaiting his next word. “Those were his last words, and it is now clear to me what they mean.”
“The postal chess match,” breathed the Grandmaster. “He would checkmate when he posted his next move!”
“The rhubarb pie,” gasped the Cook.“ ‘E meant to ‘ave the last slice for ‘is breakfast, ‘e did!”
Bryly Jacobs put down the book. She turned to her husband, beside her on the couch. He sensed that she was looking at him, and lowered volume four of Matthew Henry’s Commentary.
“Have you ever heard of the debate between Dorothy Sayers and Raymond Chandler?”
“Something of a literary duel, as I recall,” said Jake.
“Well, it started with Chandler. He wrote an essay for Atlantic magazine, and he ripped one of her books. He said that murder in mysteries should happen for a real reason, and not merely to provide the detective with a corpse.”
“And it shouldn’t be done with curare or tropical fish. Though I’m not sure Sayers ever killed anyone with a tropical fish.”
“I suppose we could ask those detectives if they’ve ever seen a case where someone was killed with a tropical fish.”
“I’m not even sure how that might work.”
“I suppose that if you shot one out of a cannon, maybe… But that wasn’t my point. Sayers responded, you know.”
“A preface of one of her works. I used to have the book, I think.”
“You might still. There are boxes and boxes of them in storage.”
“But that wasn’t your point,” he said, hoping that she didn’t divert into a request that he reduce the size of his library.
“She argued that the vicar’s rose garden was an appropriate place for a murder to take place, so that it would remove it from reality. Insulation, so to speak.”
“And Chandler argued that murder belongs on the mean streets, where it really happens.”
“So that’s the question,” said Bryly.
“Sorry,” said Jake. “Which question?”
“Should writers – thinking here of Christian writers, like Sayers – should they write stories with real people who commit real sins – Chandler’s kinds of books – or should they write books in the Vicar’s rose garden? Like Lord Peter Wimsey, or like Chesterton’s books.”
“I’ve always enjoyed Father Brown,” said Jake. “But Chesterton does make it sound like only murders that happen in remote English villages are likely to be solved.”
“Not so much solved, but absolved.”
They sat in silence for a moment, each in their own thoughts but sharing the idea.
“I suppose it depends on why it was written,” said Jake. “You can only really judge if something served its purpose when you know what its purpose was in the first place.”
“Good answer,” she said, closing her book. She got up and put it back into the bookcase.
“You’re not going to finish that?”
“Well it’s obvious what happened,” she said. “The letter said that the killer threw a shoe at the victim. Clearly, the blacksmith did it, but by accident. In the last chapter, the inspector will discover that the pony has a chipped hoof.”
“You should have been a detective.”
“My skills are limited to fiction. I don’t have to figure out the crime; I just have to figure out the writer. There’s a slice of cheesecake left. Want to split it?”
Jake thought for a moment. It was great cheesecake, but he couldn’t justify the calories. “No, help yourself,” he said with a sigh, as he turned back to the commentary.
But while the plot stews in my mind, here's a teaser:
_________________________________ snip _____________________
Chapter One
“But one piece remains, and I shall have it on the morrow.” The inspector turned about the Vicar’s rose garden, his finger pointing to the air. The assembled villagers stared expectantly, awaiting his next word. “Those were his last words, and it is now clear to me what they mean.”
“The postal chess match,” breathed the Grandmaster. “He would checkmate when he posted his next move!”
“The rhubarb pie,” gasped the Cook.“ ‘E meant to ‘ave the last slice for ‘is breakfast, ‘e did!”
Bryly Jacobs put down the book. She turned to her husband, beside her on the couch. He sensed that she was looking at him, and lowered volume four of Matthew Henry’s Commentary.
“Have you ever heard of the debate between Dorothy Sayers and Raymond Chandler?”
“Something of a literary duel, as I recall,” said Jake.
“Well, it started with Chandler. He wrote an essay for Atlantic magazine, and he ripped one of her books. He said that murder in mysteries should happen for a real reason, and not merely to provide the detective with a corpse.”
“And it shouldn’t be done with curare or tropical fish. Though I’m not sure Sayers ever killed anyone with a tropical fish.”
“I suppose we could ask those detectives if they’ve ever seen a case where someone was killed with a tropical fish.”
“I’m not even sure how that might work.”
“I suppose that if you shot one out of a cannon, maybe… But that wasn’t my point. Sayers responded, you know.”
“A preface of one of her works. I used to have the book, I think.”
“You might still. There are boxes and boxes of them in storage.”
“But that wasn’t your point,” he said, hoping that she didn’t divert into a request that he reduce the size of his library.
“She argued that the vicar’s rose garden was an appropriate place for a murder to take place, so that it would remove it from reality. Insulation, so to speak.”
“And Chandler argued that murder belongs on the mean streets, where it really happens.”
“So that’s the question,” said Bryly.
“Sorry,” said Jake. “Which question?”
“Should writers – thinking here of Christian writers, like Sayers – should they write stories with real people who commit real sins – Chandler’s kinds of books – or should they write books in the Vicar’s rose garden? Like Lord Peter Wimsey, or like Chesterton’s books.”
“I’ve always enjoyed Father Brown,” said Jake. “But Chesterton does make it sound like only murders that happen in remote English villages are likely to be solved.”
“Not so much solved, but absolved.”
They sat in silence for a moment, each in their own thoughts but sharing the idea.
“I suppose it depends on why it was written,” said Jake. “You can only really judge if something served its purpose when you know what its purpose was in the first place.”
“Good answer,” she said, closing her book. She got up and put it back into the bookcase.
“You’re not going to finish that?”
“Well it’s obvious what happened,” she said. “The letter said that the killer threw a shoe at the victim. Clearly, the blacksmith did it, but by accident. In the last chapter, the inspector will discover that the pony has a chipped hoof.”
“You should have been a detective.”
“My skills are limited to fiction. I don’t have to figure out the crime; I just have to figure out the writer. There’s a slice of cheesecake left. Want to split it?”
Jake thought for a moment. It was great cheesecake, but he couldn’t justify the calories. “No, help yourself,” he said with a sigh, as he turned back to the commentary.
1
Comments
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
Very often the story is developing in my head when nowhere near anything to write it on. (Daydreaming some may call that, but so what? I have not run anyone over, yet!) And currently there's also other stories creating themselves in my mind. Two right now, and I am about to start on one of them.
It's as if the stories take on a life of their own and create themselves. Anyone else find that?
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
The problem is that I have to have a destination. This one, being a "Pastor Jake," will need to have a spiritual context. I know that not all of my readers are "down with that" but I'll do my best to keep it moving.
I am thinking that, following a sermon on Matthew 5:21-26ff., a mystery arrives in the prayer box: A prayer request seems to contain a confession of murder. At about this time, a prominent parishioner goes missing, leading to the conclusion that he has met with foul play.
Pastor Jake is bound by penitent privilege, but his wife Bryly, who as a LMFT and LCSW is under a different set of canons, feels that the "penitent" may pose a danger to himself or others, and reports the matter to the police.
Jake is bound to search out the missing man, and to uncover the truth. I have a solution in mind, and it might hinge on the phrases, "Murder needn't provide a corpse at all" and "Hatred kills as surely as poison."
Think that's enough for a plot, or do I need another thread to interweave? What think ye?
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
Indeed. The modernish idea of even killing off 'heroes' who have been in a story for a long time is strange to me. I get attached to them, they seem like friends. I am sure some writers are closet psychopaths.
The problem is that I have to have a destination. This one, being a "Pastor Jake," will need to have a spiritual context. I know that not all of my readers are "down with that" but I'll do my best to keep it moving.
It's not unusual, as this one example shows >> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5kypmr
I am thinking that, following a sermon on Matthew 5:21-26ff., a mystery arrives in the prayer box: A prayer request seems to contain a confession of murder. At about this time, a prominent parishioner goes missing, leading to the conclusion that he has met with foul play.
Pastor Jake is bound by penitent privilege, but his wife Bryly, who as a LMFT and LCSW is under a different set of canons,
Is a what?
feels that the "penitent" may pose a danger to himself or others, and reports the matter to the police.
Jake is bound to search out the missing man, and to uncover the truth. I have a solution in mind, and it might hinge on the phrases, "Murder needn't provide a corpse at all" and "Hatred kills as surely as poison."
Think that's enough for a plot, or do I need another thread to interweave? What think ye?
Red herrings can work well.
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
LCSW = Licensed Clinical Social Worker, a license she has acquired since Bell, Book, and Bullets.
She is also certified as a Crisis Intervention Specialist, but hasn't been doing as much of that lately. One typically assigns licensed clinicians to oversee unlicensed interns.
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
(so, why is the guy in the top left being shocked by a trebuchet?)
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
LCSW = Licensed Clinical Social Worker, a license she has acquired since Bell, Book, and Bullets.
She is also certified as a Crisis Intervention Specialist, but hasn't been doing as much of that lately. One typically assigns licensed clinicians to oversee unlicensed interns.
Ah, okay. It's common practice to begin mention of such things like so >> Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT) then continue with the latter, then people will know what it means.
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
Skoob how much of the first book do you explain in the sequel? When writing my sequel to "Stolen", I think I told the reader so much about the characters in the first volume who were reappearing in the second in the series. I guess I felt that I couldn't presume that they had read the initial book. It's even harder with the third in the series and I have temporarily abandoned it. (I'm still working on revisions)
Many writers do not always assume that people have read part 1 (or whatever) of a series, so in each part they have short 'reminders' throughout the story, which is handy for me when I buy a book from a second-hand shop to then discover it's part three of a series!
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
On the other hand, I will not revisit the adventures she had in B, B, and B, unless it is mentioned in passing: "Remember that killer who tried to blow you up in that garage?"
You don't have to retell the entire backstory. Suggestion, implication, and vague allusions are your friends. For example, an anti-tank cannon used in B, B, and B will be destroyed (or so it appears) by the authorities in another (unrelated) book that I'm working on. I'm not going to go back and say that it was used to shoot at a hotel, an old adobe house, and an SUV, all in hopes of killing a governor and stopping a bullet train project.
Instead it's mentioned as "That cannon you guys captured last year." The reader can go back and guess that it's mentioned in B, B, and B, or they can take my word for it, or they can go fish. Vague allusion.
Minimal backstory -- the bare minimum to keep the reader from saying, "What?"
Imagine a reader who is smart, has read your prior books, and knows most of the things you know. Write for that reader. You can also assume a reader who doesn't get anything and doesn't know anything, and whose last reading effort was an Archie and Veronica comic. But those readers don't read books anyway.
My Tuppence.
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
One might use it as a textbook for stand-alones in a series. Note: The millenium trilogy is not appropriate for all ages. contains nudity, sexual situations, violence, more violence, violent sexual situations, and lots of journalism.
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
Since you asked:
The Church of Rome and the Church of Canterbury both have confessionals. If someone were to confess to murder and show repentance, the clergy of either stripe are forbidden to reveal it to anyone for any reason. The American courts have upheld this as Penitent Privilege, the broadest of the three types of privilege. No priest may be compelled to tell what has been confessed to him.
If someone were to state, in a confessional, that he or she intended to commit murder, the priest would still be bound, and the priest's sole recourse would be to withhold absolution. The priest might take action to prevent the crime -- telling the prospective victim to lock all the doors, or sending the penitent to China as penance -- but could never explain why.
In my own faith, the Church of Nashville, we have a doctrine called "The individual priesthood of the believer." That is, each person makes his or her own confession to God, and receives absolution directly from God. The clergy is merely a facilitator of that exchange. Still, a clergyman may not be compelled under American law to reveal anything said in the furtherance of the spiritual improvement of a soul. If a protestant clergyman were to tell the penitent before counseling that if he intends to hurt himself or others, that the clergyman cannot maintain silence, then the clergyman could justifiably say, "X intends to kill Y."
By contrast, Doctor-client privilege, while strongly protected, does not permit withholding of an imminent threat. For example, the Tarasoff case, cited above.
Weakest of the three is spousal privilege. In spousal privilege, a spouse cannot testify to "marital conversation" which includes intimate actions, but can and must testify to overt criminal acts which are not part of the "marital conversation." Conversation, here, is used very loosely, you understand.
I am not a lawyer, solicitor, or barrister. This is not advice.
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
And regarding the use of acronyms, I have a prejudice against parenthetical explanations---i.e., "Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT)"---since that smacks too much of speaking directly to the reader. I think a better course would be to mention the full title when it first appears and then latter refer to it by its acronym.
Do not assume that any phrase---especially one associated with some sort of specialty, such a medical or military term---is common knowledge. Neither would I recommend requiring your readers to turn away from your story to Google unfamiliar terms.
Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
Since you asked:
The Church of Rome and the Church of Canterbury both have confessionals.
Do you mean Canterbury Cathedral? It's the seat of the Church of England, who don't have confessionals.
Well, anyway, in further reply to the rest of your posting, in theory the priest should not know who is in the confession box, so it would be hard to turn anyone in. One would hope that he tells the person to hand themselves over to the cops as penitance. Saying 10 hail Mary's just don't cut it.
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
A point I also made.
And regarding the use of acronyms, I have a prejudice against parenthetical explanations---i.e., "Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT)"---since that smacks too much of speaking directly to the reader. I think a better course would be to mention the full title when it first appears and then latter refer to it by its acronym.
Hopefully, one would only have to mention it once, if at all. But copy and paste is great for repetitive things
Do not assume that any phrase---especially one associated with some sort of specialty, such a medical or military term---is common knowledge.
Indeed. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/words-acronyms_n_6147354?ec_carp=4294998966987399240&guccounter=1
Neither would I recommend requiring your readers to turn away from your story to Google unfamiliar terms.
Indeed (part 2.)
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/kevinlomas
But yes, we should let the reader in on the technical terms, but I would argue, without directly explaining them if possible. In BB&B, now that I think about it, the first explanation of LMFT is through what Bryly does (performing psychotherapy) and under whom she works (a psychologist). I don't believe that, as presented in the book, it jars the reader and sends them to google. At least, no reader has said so.
One reader did ask if LMFT should have been LSMFT (Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco), but that was tongue in cheek.
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
"Church of Canterbury" was a poetic way of saying CoE. "Church of Nashville" is a poetic way of saying SBC. &c.
My Books:
https://voidwheretaxed.wixsite.com/rockandfirepress/about
Skoob you mentioned that you belong to the Church of Nashville which is evangelical. So are Pastor Jake and Bryly evangelicals too? This could become a series like GK Chesterton’s Father Brown books. They were extremely popular. Good Luck with your sequel.