Many thanks, Cherys, that's really encouraging. I can absolutely see how an outside eye could help here. I won't give up hope just yet.

Tiger

Thanks, MF, I do hear what you're saying and I know of plenty of writers who've been in similar positions. It will be hard to let go of this one, if ultimately that's what I have to do, but the upside is that the second (and third) novels I have planned are based around the same characters. That's my key question to the agent - am I right to believe in the series potential here?

Thanks again for commenting so constructively.

Tiger

Sarah,

I agree, this is a terrific opportunity for you. No agent would offer to spend time with a writer they didn't think could succeed. I suspect she wants to see if you're open to advice and willing to work on weaknesses; and if you are, and if you can, may well be willing to represent you. A lot of authors, unfortunately, aren't mature enough to admit they need to improve and, whereas in the past, agents and editors might have done the necessary covering work (which could be immense in some cases) for someone with natural talent, these days resources don't tend to allow it.

There is absolutely no shame, nor character weakness, in showing you're willing to learn. If I was you, I'd tell her just how passionate you are about writing, and how keen you are to improve: a pretty irresistible combination, really. But perhaps what you might need to resist here is simply agreeing to whatever she says in order just to get your book out there; rather than taking fully on board what might help you to improve your writing - which is the key question, after all.

As for advice on what to ask your agent, I'd say that not enough authors are proactive enough in telling their agents what they want from their writing. If you've done your bit - which in this case appears to be showing the agent you're willing to learn and improve - and if she shows signs of taking you on, a good thing you could do is to tell her what you're specifically trying to achieve with your writing. We all know publishing is a commercial enterprise, but it's surprising how many published authors still don't actively consider what that means where their own career is concerned. Be as specific as you can - even down to giving her a figure for the yearly income you want to achieve in five years' time. Provided this is not based on arrogance, but on a commitment to work hard and consistently on your part, such specifics are actually good for an agent - gives her something to work to, rather than just assuming you're okay as long as you get something in print.

I've been freelance editing/coaching for many years now and would say the most common problem I see with new writers is to do with plot/structure. I have a few theories about this but won't expand them all here. Let's just say what while good style, tone, rhythm, even character and dialogue, can probably be developed almost instinctively, partly by osmosis through reading good writers, plot and structure require using a different, more measured, part of the brain. You have to stand back from your own work, really, to coldly consider where it needs to go and why, and what should be cut or rearranged accordingly. Which is counter-instinctive to the flow of the act of writing itself.

It's perhaps possible to get away with writing vivid, memorable, short stories without a great command of structure - sheer instinct for beginning/climax/resolution can do it - but a novel is more complex, and for it to be successful, has to have its constituent parts interlock at some point like a well machined jigsaw puzzle.

Speaking very generally, writers tend to be naturally good at, let's call it, either the right or left brain approach to their work. Righties are good at prose, style, dialogue, etc, but weak on plot; lefties the reverse. However, it isn't just crime novels that require well-structured plots - any novel has to have a consistent and believable structure. Having said that, if I was an agent I'd probably be more inclined to give a rightie a chance - mainly because structure can be learned whereas the ability to write beautifully (as your agent referred to you) probably can't be.

Finally, don't be taken in by what amounts to a kind of self-interested propaganda that often exists amongst writers, which is to not readily admit to faults, should it be taken as a sign of weakness. The fact is, every writer, no matter how naturally gifted, needs help; and some very famous ones receive far more help than they would ever admit.

Terry

Many thanks, Terry, for such a considered and comprehensive response to my post. I do believe that I could deliver on the promise to work extremely hard to improve my plotting/structure - I have the drive, the commitment and the stamina to see this through - and I really want to be given the chance to demonstrate that. At the same time, I feel I probably do need guidance, an expert pair of eyes over my MS, because I fear otherwise I will never get past this stage of struggling with those left-sided brain problems. Hopefully I will get the chance to discuss this with the agent and to convince her of my potential to improve.

Thanks again - I found your comments very very helpful.

Tiger

Interesting thread. I think perhaps a lot of people respond according to their own way of working or experience.

I think that structural/ deep-seated plotting problems are the hardest to solve and I suspect that no matter how much work you put into this novel you won't turn it around completely (if that's what it needs)

See I'm one of those that don't agree with this. I would pull something to bits and put it back together again, add bits in, chop stuff out and basically end up with a radical different animal. But I like to have the raw material under my fingers. But then, I was thinking, this all probably depends on other factors like genre.

But I am wondering what these weak structures are and what the strong structures are. We never discuss this on WW. What would the people on this thread like MF and Ashlinn say was wrong about some of their structures or better about others? Would be fascinated to know.

I've always thought structure was one of my problems, too. I suppose a novel feels 'well structured' when you feel that it's tight. When all the scenes are pulling you towards a certain destination. Maybe if you compare it to painting, it's like line, rather than colour?

Snowbell, I don't think you can define 'structure' any more than you can say 'this is how to write the perfect synopsis', in each case it is tailored to the storyline.

<Added>

oops, crossed with Leila. I should probably change storyline to just 'the story'.

Hi Snowbell, I think you're right, each to their own. This current MS is a radical rewrite of a first attempt but then I was concentrating, in the main, on introducing new characters. I seem to have nailed the characters, but the structure is an issue. As this is a crime novel, I'm up against some of the toughest and cleverest plotters in the business, so maybe that shines a more intense light on plot than, say, a lterary novel would demand? Or maybe that's an over-simplification. I agree that it would be fascinating to see what others consider are the strengths and weaknesses of their structure(s). I suspect one of my problems is having three povs, but it'll be interesting to see what the agent says. I'll report back, if people are interested, after I speak with her next week.

Tiger

I don't think you can define 'structure' any more than you can say 'this is how to write the perfect synopsis'

Didn't ask anyone to define structure - just thought those with problematic structures could talk about what was wrong a bit more concretely.

Tiger, that makes a lot of sense and I imagine it is hard in that genre if this isn't your greatest strength. I can totally see that.

But then are structure and plot the same thing, come to think of it? No, they aren't, are they?

The reason I was asking was because I don't think structure and plot are the same thing. The most anondyne plots can work well if structured well. And slightly plotness novels (in terms of "doing") can work well if structured so that there is drama and tension underneath (which becomes the real plot I suppose), whatever is happening on the surface. Which is why I don't understand the notion that if it hasn't got it from the beginning it isn't something that can be solved. Though I can see it could be harder that way.

Just was interested because the idea that one sets off, write it and it either works or doesn't structurally doesn't make a lot of sense to me because it must be possible to pull things apart and put in other plots or whatever. Maybe it's just that it is a lot of work and takes a long time and some people don't like working that way and prefer planning very rigorously beforehand. But I think you can have rigorous planning during and after (before next draft) also, for that matter.

There was a big debate about all this on the Snow Blog. And I kept thinking it really isn't an either/or situation, is it? Sort of depends how you work.

Good luck Tiger away!

<Added>

Ok - an example of defining structure for N ;) You could have a farce structure but the plot is man runs hotel with wife etc etc etc.

The structure part is the strands and the way they meet and the builds.

Or a sitcom structure where you have a self-contained episode where someone seems to achieve their goal, but really they don't and by the end they either lose it again or it was an illusion or there is a catch why they have to give it up. The plots are completely variable adhering to that structure.

Sapph's book has a structure of an imminent event full of tension, then going back to see how you got there, then returning to that time again and travelling on to the resolution.

etc.

Thanks, Snowbell, this is fascinating stuff, isn't it? I really want to believe it's not beyond repair, this MS. And I also think it speaks to the difference between art and craft - a writer's art may be innate but we still have to learn (and perfect, endlessly) our craft. Painters do this, and musicians, and artists of every other kind. So it's right and proper that writers go through the same process of self-improvement, of learning and applying and refining. That, at least, is how I look at it.

Tiger

Another useful thing I found was Hitchcock. Said you had to chose between the tension before something happens and the actual happening. The first is suspense, the second is horror. And in his opinion was hard to mix the two.

I found that very useful to think about even for writing my comedy! So maybe would be even more helpful in a detective book or thriller.

Yes! I have a book of Hitchock interviewed by Francois Truffaut where he talks about that - showing the bomb under the table vs not showing it. I think there needs to be tension AND horror in crime, but how you pace it and punctuate the narrative is key.

Tiger

I always think of structure in terms of a suit and that's why it's so imperative to get right but so hard to put right once the whole things been sewn up.
You spend hours and thousands having a suit made then you try it on -
If the buttons are the wrong colour you just take em off and change them.
If the trousers are too long you take them up.
If it doesn't fit over the bust this is a bigger job but can still be done with enough skill and patience.
But the structure ... if it just doesn't all fit together as a 'suit', if the lines are all wrong - then you would have to go right back to the very start unpicking the whole outfit.
Sometimes it might be better to just make a new suit.
HB x

That's a great analogy, HB!

Tiger

I agree with Helen, that's exactly the kind of thing I was going to say. I agree with you also, snowbell, that structure and plot are not the same thing but they are often linked. Off the head here, I think structure is the vehicle that the writer uses to convey his meaning and plot is the sequence of events in the story. IF the structure chosen turns out to be the wrong one I think it's extremely hard (if not impossible) to get it right. And even if it could be sorted out with a lot of work then I wonder if that energy would not be better used on a new novel. That's what I meant about playing on your strengths rather than trying to eradicate weaknesses.

plotness novels (in terms of "doing") can work well if structured so that there is drama and tension underneath

One writer I love is John McGahern although his novel are completely plotless but they reflect his idea that life is best lived quietly. He has a very strong structure but his plot is nonexistant. This fits for him but won't for another writer.

As for my own experience with structure, I had a similar experience to tiger (though maybe not quite so positive) 7 agents asked for the full ms and rejected it and I now have a feeling for why. I tried to address their concerns with two massive rewrites but, despite my best efforts, the cracks still showed. I made the decision to abandon it in the end and use the experience to make sure that the structure I chose for the next novel fitted with my personal writing style and message. I don't know if I've succeeded or even if there are other problems elsewhere but I least I don't feel as though I trying to fit a square peg in a round hole (cliche alert!)