High school introduced us to the essay, book reports, and creative writing.  When I grew up letter writing was popular.  It hasn=t changed as I see the next generation E-mailing and text messaging, although I have grave concern for what is happening to the English language.  E-slang and shortcut words, something girls are particularly creative at, and so common on video screens, will eventually find their way into mainstream English and books.  Such is the dynamic nature of language.....

None of us would deny that as the years passed, we became better and our writing settled into a style that emulated our very being.  Then one day, starting with a blank page, we began a writing that continued for 80,000 words.  Thus was born our first novel.  Because we are so emotionally attached to it, we think this work belongs on a Best seller list.  My first novel went through years of revision as I kept learning how to write.  Finally when I felt I had it right, I started a second, then a third.   My suggestion is;  write at least two novels, preferably three, and see if your passion holds and how your writing improves. My guess is, you will always love your first work, but find that it belongs in a drawer.

Perhaps the most common beginning writer's problem is telling rather than showing your reader the action. "Show, don't tell," is one of the basic rules of writing. Telling arises from the use, or rather, over-use of the verbs associated with 'to be.' By using is, are, was, were, and so on, you place the action at some distance from your reader. This use of passive voice could be written: He was angry. By changing eliminating the verb was, and replacing it with an action verb, the sentence then becomes active. For example: A vein stuck out in the man's neck while he shook uncontrollably.

This is the basic difference between an active sentence and a passive one. The first places you in the midst of the action. It is active all around you. The second pacifies you, simply letting you know what happened. A sentence is passive when its subject, in this case 'he,' is acted upon, 'was angry.' Changing this to an active sentence requires the subject, 'vein,' to do the action. It 'stuck out.'

If I find myself writing a sentence with a 'to be' verb, I'll try to rewrite it as an active sentence. It almost always sounds sharper and more interesting that way. By using verbs of action one can engage the reader and bring them into the scene. Now there are times when a change of pace is required. Using 'to be' verbs will slow things down and have a dampening effect on the action

If you do nothing else other than changing 'was' and 'were' to action verbs in your writing, you would go far to showing and not telling.

 

Clive Cussler in our opinion is the master of the prologue. He uses it to relate an event upon which his novel is based. Vixen 09 is a perfect example. Major Vylander is forced to make an emergency landing on a snow-covered, alpine meadow in the Rocky Mountains. After the plane rolls to a stop there is a sharp cracking noise, followed by blackness. Later in the book, cargo salvaged from the plane hidden for years on the bottom of a lake, creates the drama that Cussler is so noted for. Too often authors will use a prologue to tell some back story, or a flashback that could easily have been incorporated into the opening chapter. In my opinion, prologue material should not be discernable until the story is well developed. To do otherwise ruins the suspense.

Clive Cussler grew on us slowly. I think the first book we read was about a ship frozen in an iceberg. By the timeVixen 03 came out two books later, we were hooked on the man who would become the Grand Master of the American Action Adventure novel. I’d like to mention something that happened to Cussler that I don’t see much of today. Not everyone will agree, but in our opinion Cussler’s first two or three books weren’t all that great, yet publishers were willing to keep printing his stories. We consider Vixen 03 his first good book and from there they only got better.

Pyramid Books released his first novel, The Mediterranean Caper in 1973. Although not a block buster, it had enough promise that Don Meade and Company signed him for Iceberg two years later. Raise the Titanic, released in 1976, was a product of Viking Press, as was Vixen 03. Bantam did Night Probe, then in 1984, nine years after his first novel, Simon & Schuster became his publisher and still are to this day. We have moved away from the time when publishers would carry an author with promise through a few books, allowing him time to mature and gain an audience.

Money and shareholders now drive the industry and everyone is looking for the next Harry Potter or Da Vinci Code. Eight out of ten books published will not pay off their advances. Many of these authors find this a dead end. I’m not saying this didn’t happen years ago, but in today’s market one should be aware of the risks. My advice, if you’re writing solely to be published or for fame and money, don’t quit your day job. Write from the heart. Write for your friends. Write for self-fulfilment. Passion is a much greater motivator than money.

Today, with Kyle Mills’ permission, I’m going to start a series incorporating material he gave at a workshop in Jackson Hole in 2005.  Kyle started off by stating that the most important thing is character, not plot, even in a thriller. “80% of fan letters wanting to know what Mark Beamon’s doing (Mills’ main character).  Not about my next plot.”  He went on to explain that people are not so much interested in explosions, as how explosions affect the people in his book.  It’s easy to get bogged down with plot and forget about character. When it comes to the protagonist, create a character that is likeable and bordering on the heroic.  Avoid making your hero perfect.  This makes him boring.Kyle tells us, “There is a real balancing act here.  Super cocky really obnoxious guys.  Or they’re super emotionless.  They’ve got bullets flying around everywhere and they don’t sweat, don’t get scared, don’t consider their own mortality.....

“They can throw knives, fly helicopters, pick up supermodels, and bench 400 lbs at the same time.  Not saying they can’t be larger than life, they probably should be.  But think depth and humanity.”

There is a need for the writer to understand his character.  This is different from outlining him or her, which many writers do.  Understanding why they do or want things is related to emotion.  Emotions drive characters.  “You need to understand your character.  Where did this superhuman super spy go to high school?  What was his relationship with his parents like.  That will never make it into the book, [but are traits] you need to know.”

Either allow, or make your characters change.  Think about James Bond.  He’s just James Bond always is, always will be.  His views don’t change or mellow with age.  “Think about incorporating this,” Kyle says.  “It gives the book a whole other layer of thrust and the reader a whole other reason to turn the pages.”

The same principles apply to your antagonist as the protagonist. Mind you, they should come across as the bad guy. In the end, the read should want them to get what is owing them.

However, according to Kyle Mills, they can easily come off as caricatures. He cited the example of his antagonist in Rising Phoenix. He was a, "Cold hearted SOB. No cracks in his faççade. Same guy page 1 and 400." Having such a consistency throughout the novel and the reader never knowing why, leads to the character becoming predictable, something to be avoided in a thriller.

"The thing to remember," Kyle said, "is that every bad guy is the hero of his own autobiography." What I took from that was, there is some humanity in your antagonist. Everyone, bad guys included, feel they are justified by some cause, social, or political. Try to get to those feelings and make the reader feel them. If you engage your reader with the inner self of the antagonist, and portray him a evil from within, rounding out his personality, then in the end when the protagonist shoots him dead, it is much more satisfying.

Kyle Mills identified a major pitfall of new authors- too many characters. If you want your story to move along and carry the reader with you, limit the number of individuals. Can the reader keep them straight? Robert Ludlum had a bad habit of giving everybody in his thrillers a full paragraph of description. Both my wife and I found ourselves reading over many of these. Who cares what the cleaning lady had a mole on her left chin.

Many minor characters need not have a name. Bring them in to set time and place. Introduce your major people into the story early. Put some thought into their names. Kyle mentions that we should avoid using similar names, or even names starting with the same letter. Use easy to remember names. Kyle chose ‘Mark’ for his main character.

Fit your character to the name. In my first novel, Falklands Deadline, I named the heroine ‘Britinni.’ This was before Britiney Spears arrived on the scene. We just felt that the personality of her character was diminished by any association with the rock star. It took weeks to find a new name. She became ‘Vannesa,’ and it took a number of readings through the manuscript to feel comfortable with her new name. Hindsight tells us it was a good choice.

In thriller writing, you sometimes have to give up a little realism to enable your characters to set a fast pace through the story. Let them wear a few more hats than normal. It is a classic thriller device and people let you get away with it.

Create a few good characters, both protagonists and antagonists, give them a strong group of support people, throw in a few non-descript types to make the scene, and you have all you need to set your novel on the path to a successful read.

Kyle Mills' books

Essentially you’re a character-actor. You become the actor through whose point of view everything happens. In essence, this person is writing the book. If, like me, you don’t outline, then the character will lead you through the story as seen from his point of view. Kyle outlines, but still follows his character. Thrillers work best if you are strict with his/her POV. Everything must be seen from his perspective. “You shouldn’t have to think about what he’s going to say or do.” Kyle Mills said. “He should just do it.” You may be surprised by what he does at times, but it will be through his eyes.

Editors and agents at the Jackson Hole Writers Conference tell me continually that this is the most common error in writing they see. And it turns them off. So the rule of thumb is- One POV per chapter. All rules are made to be broken and you can, as long as you know the rule and why you are breaking it. If you move to a different time or place within the same POV, make a break and have the printer insert a glyph. When necessary, I change points of view in chapters by the same means. I want my reader to know that I’m looking at the world through a different character.

Kyle’s advice, “Avoid the author omniscient at all cost.” (The view of a dispassionate narrator. This is different from exposition.) “It really makes your writing flat, and makes it confusing.” When editing, or re-writing, the only person’s thinking you can read, write, or, hear, is from inside the head of one individual. If you get into someone else’s thinking, you’ve slipped out of POV.

Plots are really hard to get a handle on.  Because we have so many genres, it is hard to be definitive about how plots should evolve in each story, but here are a few points Kyle Mills made at his workshop.

Plots can become unruly things to handle.  “They easily become overly complex.   You end up with twists and turns, ups and down, and a hundred and fifty characters and subplots.”

It’s easy for the reader to become mired down in all of this and eventually give up on the story.  An aid in avoiding this is to have some linear quality to the book, every chapter advancing it toward the ending, thus allowing the reader to continually build on what has gone before.  So evaluate everything you do.  Kyle told us to ask these questions. “Does it advance you toward the end?  Is it fluff?  Does it have a purpose?”

Honest answers will lead to an evaluation of everything, and cutting un-necessary material will tighten up the plot, making it easier for your reader to follow.  “Plot twists and investigative dead ends are like a powerful drug,” Kyle said, “They are really effective in the right dose, but easy to OD on.”

Pacing a thriller is the key to sustaining momentum in your readers. Things move in a thriller. Action is the essence of the read. Move the story along. Now if you’re starting to see a regular rhythm to my opening, you spotted bad pacing. Notice though how the preceding sentence broke the cadence because it was a longer sentence and had a different content. That’s pacing. (Short sentence again)

Kyle Mills stressed that “It is important to grab them (the reader) right up front.” Think of any James Bond movie. First scene- fast and furious, then the hero is placed in a much slower scene while we catch our breath. The secret here is that this opening “piece of action,” should focus on “the plot point.” In other words, don’t have action for the sake of action. Additionally, Kyle suggests this opening action should “involve a major personal issue with the character.” Remember what he stated in my opening blog? “People are not so much interested in explosions, as how explosions affect the people.”

Center the action on the character, “not a long unbroken description of a dead guy.” In one of my first thrillers that sits in a drawer, I opened with a funeral. Dumb, dumb, dumb. How much action is there at a funeral. After my wife got through editing it, I placed the funeral as a three line dialogue about four or five chapters in. Next time we’ll discuss dialogue and its relationship to pacing.

Avoid regularity. Bring in the unexpected by the skilful use of your plot. Get your reader’s heart thumping, then bring him down. Not too far. Change the pacing with content, then get him running again. Short chapters are a great way for beginning writers to learn this. Rule of thumb, when your writing seems to be falling into a pattern, or flat-lining, look seriously at what came before, and what you are going to place after. It should be unpredictable. Above all, Kyle’s advice, “Move it along.”

Tim Sandlin told me, “Dialogue should move your story along.” That is a basic I find ignored by many writers. I don't know how many times I've skipped through dialogue because it was just talk. In writing, talk is not dialogue, yet dialogue must be how people talk.
My wife tells me to listen in on people's conversations to learn how they talk. I've done that. Heard some interesting stuff too. Here is and example out of Altar and Throne of a one sided telephone call. We've all heard these.

Cindy looked at Abe. He knew what she was thinking. “Give me the phone.” He dialed out. “Harry, Abe Williston here. You busy..?
“Good. Can you do a wedding on short notice..?
“No, not mine...
“Later today? Good....
“Pete and Anna Redsky...”
Abe rolled his eyes. “Ojibway. Married two years already...
“They want to comply with the nation’s laws, Harry...
“Okay. I’ll see they have it. Four o’clock, your office...
“Right, bye.”

Notice the quotes? If the same person is speaking in the next paragraph, there are no closing quotes. There are before 'Abe rolled his eyes,' as this is not Abe's speech.
Next is a sample of one person speaking while another thinks.

“This a social visit, Gary?”
Leaning back in his chair, he swivelled to his left, then back. “No, it isn’t. Your letter came across my desk yesterday.”
“Will you print it?”
“Of course not. We’re not about to put those sort of allegations in our paper.”
“They’re not allegations.”
“Whether they are or not is a moot point, but that’s not the reason I asked you in.”
Diana knew in a flash what was coming next. The Kirkland’s owned a front pew in the church. It was expensive. Her family had inquired of it once. Gary was also well placed in several church auxiliary organizations. Obviously the letter wasn’t sitting well with him. Well, she’d see just how much he valued free speech.
“This sort of thing,” he said picking up the letter, “can upset a lot of people.”
“You don’t think I’m upset?”
“I’m talking influential people.”
“Your advertisers.”
“The church. Father LaFrenier takes this personal.”
“So he should.”
Gary ignored the barb. “The mayor takes it personal.”
Third row pew, Diana thought.
“The Chief of Police takes it personal.”
Second row, right side.
“The Children’s Aid Society takes it personal, and so do the medical people. You create a lot of enemies writing this stuff.”
“Every bit of that is true.”
“Even if it is, you don’t print it in the newspaper,” his voice filling the room.
“So, you won’t print it.”
“Absolutely not.”

Here I used Diana's thinking to reveal the reason for Gary's prejudice. My third, and last example is of quick conversation.
“Good. I think it’s about time you learned how to divide.” Michael gave her his attention as she began to explain division. “Two times two is...”
“Four,” he said.
“Correct. So how many two’s are there in four?”
“Two.”
“How’d you figure that out?”
“I know two times two is four.”
“Okay. How many two’s in six?”
“Three.”
“How many three’s in six?”
“Two.”
“There, you’re doing division.”
“I am?”
“Yes.”

Dialogue- It's the lifeblood of your story.

Pacing

In pacing a thriller, “You’re going to want to move it right along,” Kyle says.  Your plot has a lot to do with this.  “Grab them up front,” he adds.  Analyze movies and TV shows.  The video people do an excellent job of this.  How many shows have you started watching just because of the opening.  Books are no different.  Through the printed page, attach your reader to the main character early.

There will be times when you are building anticipation, then a few pages of intense action.  Knowing how and when to vary this I believe is done a lot by feel.  What I mean here is that if you feel the story dragging a little then pick up the pace, or up the stakes.  Fast action should last only long enough to get the adrenalin running, not wipe your read out.  Kyle warned in his presentation that, “it is easy to OD on this.”

A re-occurring them in Kyle’s talk was move the action along.  Move the plot along.  Keep it moving.  Now there are times when it’s necessary to engage the characters in dialogue.  This is also an excellent way to move things along.  Michael Chrichton is a good example of this.  Move your characters around as they speak.  It’s a good way to break up continuous lines of conversation.  I often have someone pouring a drink, but do it in stages, and space it throughout the dialogue.  Finally, never underestimate the value of conflict in pacing.  Something that starts off controlled, can spin out of control.  This helps pace your story.

Remember the reader.  Don’t lose him, or out run him.  Pacing is all important to keep him with the story.