bookkeeping
Nov. 8th, 2004 09:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennyTotal on "The Mare's Nest" thus far: 5500 words
Comments: The worst thing about writing a murder mystery (for me) is that you have to sit down and figure out whodunit and how and why beforehand. My general methodology of plot is to throw some ideas together and see what happens as I go. Like the Flannery O'Connor character, standing in her pigpen waiting for a revelation from the sky. Mostly, it works (which is the advantage of being the author, rather than the character, since I've rather peculiarly put myself in the place of the dea ex caeli providing the revelation as well as the woman waiting for it, and I'm getting out of these parentheses now, while I still have my limbs and sanity intact), although sometimes I come a fearful cropper. But it is not a viable technique for writing a mystery. I've tried it. So when I realized this thing wanted to be a mystery, I knew I was in trouble.
I've got the victim and the method. I know who my red herrings are and why they would want the victim dead. I even know, in a general sort of way, the real murderer's motivation. But who they are? Not a freaking clue.
I'm quite enjoying writing it though, which is something.
Other work accomplished:![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
matociquala's keeping track of our progress on A Companion to Wolves. I'm just going to say here how much she rocks and how utterly I adore working with her.
N.b., I'll be at Fiddler's Green this weekend, so if you will be, too, please stop byelisem's table in the Dealer's Room and say hello.
Comments: The worst thing about writing a murder mystery (for me) is that you have to sit down and figure out whodunit and how and why beforehand. My general methodology of plot is to throw some ideas together and see what happens as I go. Like the Flannery O'Connor character, standing in her pigpen waiting for a revelation from the sky. Mostly, it works (which is the advantage of being the author, rather than the character, since I've rather peculiarly put myself in the place of the dea ex caeli providing the revelation as well as the woman waiting for it, and I'm getting out of these parentheses now, while I still have my limbs and sanity intact), although sometimes I come a fearful cropper. But it is not a viable technique for writing a mystery. I've tried it. So when I realized this thing wanted to be a mystery, I knew I was in trouble.
I've got the victim and the method. I know who my red herrings are and why they would want the victim dead. I even know, in a general sort of way, the real murderer's motivation. But who they are? Not a freaking clue.
I'm quite enjoying writing it though, which is something.
Other work accomplished:
matociquala's keeping track of our progress on A Companion to Wolves. I'm just going to say here how much she rocks and how utterly I adore working with her.N.b., I'll be at Fiddler's Green this weekend, so if you will be, too, please stop by
elisem's table in the Dealer's Room and say hello.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 06:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 07:20 am (UTC)I'm glad to know it works like that for somebody. Now I don't feel like such a complete loon for assuming it would.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 07:55 am (UTC)Well, I didn't. Though I suspect your way is better, it's not essential; you can thrash your way through to knowing who, why and how as you write. Of course I didn't sell the thing in the end, but I don't think was to do with the way I wrote it.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 08:10 am (UTC)