Tag Archives: Info dumping

Finished the Draft. Now What?

Posted on by

Finished the Draft. Now What?
Terry Odell

marked up manuscript printed in 2 columns

Since my last post, I reached “the end” of the current manuscript. Yippee! Of course, now the real “fun” begins. Editing. Previously, I’ve talked about how I attempt to fool my brain with printing the manuscript in columns and in a different font. You can find that post here. That’s what I’ll be doing for the next several weeks before sending it off to my editor.

One thing I’m super happy about is that I found a title. I know some authors can’t start writing without one. For me, it’s usually the last thing I come up with. I can think of only two exceptions. What’s In A Name? got its title when I was forced to fill out an entry sheet for a RWA chapter contest. There was this big, blank line that said “Title.” The title was almost a placeholder, but I realized that it actually fit the story. Subconscious at work? Maybe. Probably.

The other one was Starting Over which is exactly what I was doing. It wasn’t so much a name of the manuscript, but rather the name I gave the folder in my computer where I would be saving drafts, chapters, notes, etc. The title worked, for the book, too, as it turned out.

When rights reverted, indie publishing still wasn’t a thing, so I approached another publisher. They accepted it, but didn’t want the same title, so it became Nowhere to Hide, which I kept when rights from that publisher reverted to me.

What was I talking about? Right. The new book and its title. It’s part of my Mapleton Mystery series, and the pattern for titles throughout has been a two-word title, the first word being “Deadly.” You’d think coming up with one word would be easy. Ha! Not for me.

Since I had finished the draft, I had some idea of a theme (I don’t think of those when I start, either). It came to me. Deadly Ambitions. It worked, my writing buddy liked it, and my editor liked it.

That puts me one step closer to publication.

But first, I have to whip this draft into shape.

We talk about first pages a lot here at TKZ. They’re important. Very important. It’s been months since I’ve written my first chapter, and there were changes as there always are when I’m starting a new book. Am I starting in the wrong place? Am I info dumping? Will it entice new readers to keep going? (The current wip is the 9th novel, and the 12th work in my Mapleton mystery series.) I write them so they can be read as stand alones, but there’s always the temptation to make sure new readers don’t feel confused when I introduce recurring characters. I know that bugs the heck out of me, which is the main reason I prefer to start with book one in a series. JSB is always saying readers will wait for answers, but how long?

My Mapleton books are small town police procedurals. Sort of. I’ve had reviewers comment that there’s a “cozy feel” to them. But they definitely do not fit the rules/guidelines/expectations of a cozy.

When I’m reading, I like seeing the off-the-job side of my protagonist. Through the series, Gordon has dated, become engaged, married, and is now at the “newlywed phase is starting to wear off” point. Angie, his girlfriend-fiancé-wife has been with him in some capacity since book one.

My dilemma, as is frequently the case, is how much page time she gets, along with how much page time Daily Bread, the diner she runs, gets. Are readers going to want to skim those scenes to get back to the Cop Stuff and Chief Stuff Gordon has to deal with? In the current book, she’s playing a significant role and is personally involved in one of Gordon’s cases. (No spoilers.) She’s part of the opening scene, but is it too much? Not enough? I’ll pose that question to you, TKZers.

These were the opening paragraphs in my first draft.

Gordon Hepler, Mapleton, Colorado’s Chief of Police, moseyed over to Jerry Illingsworth, newly elected mayor of the city. This was Jerry’s night, and it was in full swing. The event room at the Community Center was filled with his supporters, all enjoying the food and drink.

Angie, his wife, was in charge of the food, and she’d done a great job, deviating from the usual fare at Daily Bread. Jerry had requested something more upscale, and she’d been happy to comply, especially since her restaurant was closed for remodeling. The extra work provided much needed income.

Gordon snagged a shrimp-topped canape—Angie’s term. Gordon called them nibbles—from a passing server. The group around Jerry wandered off, and Gordon moved in to congratulate the new mayor.

“Would it be inappropriate for me to say It’s about time?” Jerry gave a quiet laugh. “Three recounts before Nelson Manning accepted—reluctantly is too kind a word—defeat.”

When I started my edits, I thought I’d devoted too much ‘dumping’ of who Angie was and her role, so I tightened it to this. (Only the second paragraph was changed.)

Gordon Hepler, Mapleton, Colorado’s Chief of Police, moseyed over to Jerry Illingsworth, newly elected mayor of the city. This was Jerry’s night, and it was in full swing. The event room at the Community Center was filled with his supporters, all enjoying the food and drink.

Gordon snagged a shrimp-topped canape—his wife Angie’s term—from a passing server. She was the chef, so she would know. Gordon called them nibbles. The group around Jerry wandered off, and Gordon moved in to congratulate the new mayor.

“Would it be inappropriate for me to say It’s about time?” Jerry gave a quiet laugh. “Three recounts before Nelson Manning accepted—reluctantly is too kind a word—defeat.”

What’s your take? Too much? Too little?

~~~~~

woman pouring a smoked Manhattan into a glassOh, and for those of you who are interested in my images from our anniversary getaway last month, you can find them here.

New! Find me at Substack with Writings and Wanderings

Danger Abroad

When breaking family ties is the only option.

Madison Westfield has information that could short-circuit her politician father’s campaign for governor. But he’s family. Although he was a father more in word than deed, she changes her identity and leaves the country rather than blow the whistle.

Blackthorne, Inc. taps Security and Investigations staffer, Logan Bolt, to track down Madison Westfield. When he finds her in the Faroe Islands, her story doesn’t match the one her father told Blackthorne. The investigation assignment quickly switches to personal protection for Madison.

Soon, they’re involved with a drug ring and a kidnapping attempt. Will working together put them in more danger? Can a budding relationship survive the dangers they encounter?

Available now.

Like bang for your buck? I have a new Triple-D Ranch bundle. All four novels for one low price. One stop shopping here.

Terry Odell is an award-winning author of Mystery and Romantic Suspense, although she prefers to think of them all as “Mysteries with Relationships.”

A Balancing Act

Posted on by

A Balancing Act
Terry Odell

Image by JL G from Pixabay

I’m about 14K into my next novel, the tenth offering in my Mapleton Mystery series. Unlike my other series, which fall under the romantic suspense umbrella, my Mapletons are a true series, not a set of connected books. Although my romantic suspense series feature recurring characters, the protagonists are different in each. In Mapleton, my police chief, Gordon Hepler (who got his name when a postal clerk where I did a lot of mailing begged to be included. Neither of us had any idea he’d be a series protagonist) is the POV character in almost every story.

While I face the same issues with all series, the Mapleton books are more challenging. Why? The dreaded backstory conundrum. The setting, with a few detours, is the small town of Mapleton. The books progress in time from one to the next, so I’m continually balancing content that will offer enough explanation for new readers while not boring returning ones. By book ten, a LOT of things have transpired, and while my characters have a good idea of what’s gone before, readers might not.

Stopping to info dump bores new readers and can insult those ‘in the know.’ However, the occasional Easter egg makes a welcome reward. Overexplaining things or detailed character descriptions will have returning readers skimming. The further into the series I get, the sketchier descriptions become. John Sanford once said he includes a short paragraph with the highlights of Lucas Davenport in each novel—tall, lean, dark hair, facial scar, clothes horse—and that’s about it.

What kind of information has accumulated over the series? To name a few:

Gordon had Central Serous Retinopathy in an early book, takes blood pressure meds, and has to limit his caffeine intake. While this was a major plot thread in Deadly Puzzles, there’s no need to give readers the entire history in each book. But he’s a cop and he’s drinking decaf? Will readers wonder?

Angie has grown from character of interest to girlfriend to lover to wife throughout the series. They were newlyweds in Deadly Fun but now, they’re settling into the marriage. Angie runs the local diner, had a side business of catering with another character prominent in several books. There’s her cook who appears regularly and the rest of the staff of the diner who appear from time to time.

There are the other officers on the police force, and their number has increased. There are the dispatchers and Gordon’s admin, all of whom play their own parts in the stories. And we can’t forget Buster, the department’s part-time K-9 who shows up in this new book. Is that enough, or do I need to show that when he’s not doing police work, he lives with Officer Solomon? Should I mention his wife and kids?

Mapleton has had several mayors, each a thorn in Gordon’s side, and they’ve been dispatched in one way or another. Now, there’s an interim mayor and friction on the town council. There’s a newspaper reporter who often crosses a line Gordon thinks she shouldn’t when she writes her articles for the local paper.

The list goes on. And on.

You can see that trying to fit all this in would make a book far longer—and more tedious—than it needs to be. When a recurring character shows up, it’s tempting to lay in more background and description than is necessary. (Side note: since I write in Deep POV, I’m not going to intrude with my own descriptions. Those of you writing from a more distant POV might not have as much trouble.) I have to remind myself to save bits and pieces of description as well as other background information until there seems to be a logical place to do so. If Gordon’s admin has been with him since his first day on the job, he’s not going to be thinking of what she looks like every time he sees her. Now, if it seems important that readers “see” her, then maybe she’s wearing something unlike her normal office attire, or she’s changed her hairstyle. That way, Gordon’s doing the describing, not me. Or he might ask her about her family to follow up on a thread from another book.

My approach tends to be to include first, cut later. I think about having a series bible, and then think I’d probably want to include even more since I’d have everything laid out for me.

When someone asked Michael Connelly how he handles keeping readers up to speed, he said he thought about it early on and decided to take the “The other books are out there. Let them find out for themselves” approach.

JD Robb (based on her books, not asking her) throws in plenty of references to things gone before and after over 50 books in the In Death series, a lot has happened, and the cast of characters has grown tremendously. Given the state of my memory, I often wish there were footnotes for whichever book the various cases or situations she mentions. Not explanations, not backstory, not info dumping, but I’d know which book to take another look at.

What about you? How do you handle information in an ongoing series? Your preferences as a reader?

In case anyone wants to see my interview for the Speed City Sisters in Crime, you can watch the replay.

Now Available: Cruising Undercover

It’s supposed to be a simple assignment aboard a luxury yacht, but soon, he’s in over his head.

Terry Odell is an award-winning author of Mystery and Romantic Suspense, although she prefers to think of them all as “Mysteries with Relationships.”

Enough Already

Posted on by

Enough Already
Terry Odell

info dumpingI talked about repetition in my last post. Today, another peeve along similar lines, triggered by the same author that bugged me enough to write that previous post. I understand (and agree) that sometimes telling is more efficient than showing. But how much? While I can understand an author’s  desire to make sure the reader understands background, I’m not fond of his technique, which is to step in as the author and provide details that don’t seem worth stopping forward motion.

Michael Connelly feeds in background, but it never pulls me out of the story. This author, also writing a police procedural, isn’t pulling it off as well.

The two cops in the story—typical detective tropes: old, fat, donut eating guy just counting down to retirement, and the young, attractive female, recently promoted to detective—answer a call to a home where a neighbor says she saw blood. The cops take a look, and the newbie says, “Exigent circumstances?” Now, both cops know what this means, but the author decides to spend a paragraph explaining it. If the author wants to show the reader, why not have one of the cops explain it to the neighbor who wants to know why they’re not rushing right in?

Then there’s stopping the story for reflection. Two cops looking into a possible murder scene. Is this the time for one of them to reflect on what her siblings dressed up as on Halloween? And do we need to know the ages of those siblings? Is it important? Maybe. Is it important now? I don’t think so. Skimming right along.

Given the possible victims have connections to the movie industry, one of the witnesses mentions a possible suspect who’s a grip. She very nicely explains that a grip “moves lights and carries stuff on movie sets.”

That’s fine. Makes sense for her to explain it to the cops, but then the author takes us on another trip down memory lane while the rookie cop reflects on a family member who was also a grip, and how he was related, how often he visited, and what he brought them for Christmas. I’d call this a “stay in the phone booth with the gorilla” moment.

Details about what kind of magnets are holding up what kind of artwork on the fridge don’t move the story forward. The fact that there’s blood spatter on one of those pieces of art does.

In an attempt to give the readers information, the author has a scene between the rookie detective and the head of the Crime Scene Unit. It’s clear the author has researched the subject and wants to make sure readers know it, but how many readers care that the techs test stains they think are blood with tetramethylbenzidine? Just “We ran a test to confirm they’re blood” would probably work for 90% of readers. And do I want to know that they used HemDirect to tell if the blood was animal or human? Again, a simple “We determined the blood was human” would probably be sufficient. And this type of conversation went on and on for the entire chapter. We see the rookie detective using her knowledge, but her thoughts seem to be on the page as a way to explain—or over-explain—things for the reader. Or, worse, showcase the author’s research. Research should be like pepper. You don’t want to overwhelm the dish.

I’m also bothered by a lot of the roadmap descriptions. I don’t really care what street a sheriff’s station is on, or that the street runs alongside the southern edge of the 101 freeway. I’m direction-challenged, so telling me a hotel is seventy miles north of Los Angeles (even through I grew up there) doesn’t add anything. It makes me stop and try to imagine a map, thus pulling me out of the story. Unless you’re familiar with the city, seeing the turn-by-turn route a character takes won’t add anything to the story. Going into detail about how long it would take to get from point A to point B in varying traffic conditions, unless there’s a plot-related reason is just another speed bump. Even the Hubster, who has a much higher tolerance level for things that bother me, complained about the overdone roadmap scenes.

Where do you draw the line between description and info dumping?  Genre matters, of course, but in commercial fiction, especially mysteries, thrillers, and action-adventure, too much might be as bad as too little.

Terry Odell is an award-winning author of Mystery and Romantic Suspense, although she prefers to think of them all as “Mysteries with Relationships.” Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

Deadly Options

Are Gordon’s Days in Mapleton Numbered?

Deadly Options, a Mapleton Mystery/Pine Hills Police crossover.