I guess I don't really have a question, just a little situation over which I need to vent. I wonder who else around here is in a similar boat and whether there's a clear solution that could get us un-sunk?
My story opens with a woman climbing a cathedral's wall to gain access to the religious leader's office. She intends to kill him. One would think with action opening the story, it would be interesting, but I fear the opening is anything but interesting. I've struggled with this opening for some time and have done three full rewrites of it, but I just can't get a solid grip on what I think is a winner. I've added details for clarity---then cut them for brevity. I've brought in the microscope and focused on the character--and recently pulled way back and used a narrator voice for the opening paragraph.
Why is this so freaking difficult?
Am I over-complicating things for myself by showing the events that start off the whole book (this scene happens two years before the book)? Two main events happen and I'm just not sure I'm getting anything across clearly. The first event is that the woman recently came back to town and the religious leader found out about it and then her son died in a tragic accident. She KNOWS the cleric had something to do with it. The second event is a young man coming to see the cleric (she overhears their conversation) and asks about why his friend died in a heresy trial in another city (one the cleric should have been able to stop). After that conversation plays out (over a couple double-spaced pages, so not too brief but not too detailed), the young man leaves and the woman can't find the cleric again. She received what she thinks is a divine message, and she follows the young man, forging a partnership that is the basis for the rest of the novel.
Now, in my mind, those events aren't fluff, they aren't written elaborately except for a few places where I inserted character voice and feeling, and stepping back, I'd say that was a compelling chain of events. But I can't get it to work. I mean, it doesn't feel as strong as I'd like it to be, and I'm struggling to get in a balance that not only allows readers to understand what the premise of the story is (social reform and the downfall of a corrupt cleric), but also not bog down the tale with erroneous detail and explaining.
Are any of you scribes really good at openings? I need some help. This first chapter is split into three parts. The first, I mentioned above. The second scene is 20 months later when the woman is in a different place in life. She's hired a chemist and his mercenary brother to concoct a sort of truth serum that will get the cleric to confess his crimes, and she's asked the mercenary to take a message to a priestess in hopes that with the priestess' help, they'll be able to spring her former lover and partner from years past, from prison. The third scene is another POV, a young girl who is in a sticky situation out in the countryside. Of the three scenes, readers have connected best with the last one and I can't for the life of me understand how a little romantic interlude and getting yelled at by her father is more compelling than the spy games and seriousness of the first two. Any advice? TO me, the more compelling scenes are causing confusion for readers, btu they're by far the more critical to understand. The third scene is simply an introduction to a character who will be a major POV throughout the novel, who has a front-row seat when the plot unfolds.
My story opens with a woman climbing a cathedral's wall to gain access to the religious leader's office. She intends to kill him. One would think with action opening the story, it would be interesting, but I fear the opening is anything but interesting. I've struggled with this opening for some time and have done three full rewrites of it, but I just can't get a solid grip on what I think is a winner. I've added details for clarity---then cut them for brevity. I've brought in the microscope and focused on the character--and recently pulled way back and used a narrator voice for the opening paragraph.
Why is this so freaking difficult?
Am I over-complicating things for myself by showing the events that start off the whole book (this scene happens two years before the book)? Two main events happen and I'm just not sure I'm getting anything across clearly. The first event is that the woman recently came back to town and the religious leader found out about it and then her son died in a tragic accident. She KNOWS the cleric had something to do with it. The second event is a young man coming to see the cleric (she overhears their conversation) and asks about why his friend died in a heresy trial in another city (one the cleric should have been able to stop). After that conversation plays out (over a couple double-spaced pages, so not too brief but not too detailed), the young man leaves and the woman can't find the cleric again. She received what she thinks is a divine message, and she follows the young man, forging a partnership that is the basis for the rest of the novel.
Now, in my mind, those events aren't fluff, they aren't written elaborately except for a few places where I inserted character voice and feeling, and stepping back, I'd say that was a compelling chain of events. But I can't get it to work. I mean, it doesn't feel as strong as I'd like it to be, and I'm struggling to get in a balance that not only allows readers to understand what the premise of the story is (social reform and the downfall of a corrupt cleric), but also not bog down the tale with erroneous detail and explaining.
Are any of you scribes really good at openings? I need some help. This first chapter is split into three parts. The first, I mentioned above. The second scene is 20 months later when the woman is in a different place in life. She's hired a chemist and his mercenary brother to concoct a sort of truth serum that will get the cleric to confess his crimes, and she's asked the mercenary to take a message to a priestess in hopes that with the priestess' help, they'll be able to spring her former lover and partner from years past, from prison. The third scene is another POV, a young girl who is in a sticky situation out in the countryside. Of the three scenes, readers have connected best with the last one and I can't for the life of me understand how a little romantic interlude and getting yelled at by her father is more compelling than the spy games and seriousness of the first two. Any advice? TO me, the more compelling scenes are causing confusion for readers, btu they're by far the more critical to understand. The third scene is simply an introduction to a character who will be a major POV throughout the novel, who has a front-row seat when the plot unfolds.