Activity

How does Chris Fabry show what the story is about so thoroughly right from the start? How can we learn from this?

I second what Taylor and Caseybold have already said about this, but in addition, what I guess is the inciting event–Dickie’s phonecall and Matt’s decision to return to Dogwood–comes, what, about halfway through Chapter 1? And through that we get truckloads of info about Matt, Jesse, Dickie, and their past. The phone call sets up the antagonism between Matt and his parents and between Matt and Earl Turley, and Matt’s goal of convincing Jesse not to marry Earl. Basically, all the core story elements are out in the open by the end of Chapter 1. I haven’t read many stories that take that approach. Personally, I’m liking knowing the main spine of the story from the first pages. It makes me feel like all the following events are purposeful and will come together to drive home a strong climax. But I can also see why some writers wait longer for their inciting events. For one thing, Matt basically tells us that this story is going to end with him stopping Jesse’s wedding and the two of them ending up together. There might be a major twist, but if not…talk about seeing the ending from a mile off. That would be seeing the ending from about 30 miles off. Starting the book about two steps away from the climax (at least that’s how it felt to me) also makes it challenging to keep subsequent events interesting and tense enough…we’ve got a main villain. We’ve got a main goal. So how long do we have to wait for the final battle? I think this kind of opening can be really powerful as long as we keep the cons in mind.

Is Chris Fabry showing or telling? How explicit should authors be in indicating the psychological makeup of their characters and what drives, consumes, and motivates them? Do suffer more from being “on the nose” or leaving readers in the dark as to what core obsession drives your characters and the logic behind their actions and emotions?

Again I agree with Taylor and Caseybold that there’s a lot of telling. But that serves to create a unique and consistent character voice, and Chris Fabry also uses a lot of sensory details or really specific observations (Dickie wasn’t just singing a song, he was singing Jackson 5’s ABC, for example.) For me, those things kept the telling from feeling flat or detached. Reading still felt like an experience, and if an author can create that by telling, I’m ok with it. When it comes to deeper levels of telling/showing, I think understanding the character’s motivations and personality is so important that readers shouldn’t be left wondering about them. I’d rather read a book with clear, compelling character motivations that were a little too obvious than a book with fuzzy character motivations but great showing technique. Obviously, a good balance between the two would be ideal. Personally? I’m much more likely to leave readers in the dark. XD I tend to focus too much on external actions and not clarify the internal reasons for those actions.

Do you do a good job at getting right to the point of what your story is about, or does it take you several chapters to flesh out what’s at stake in the character’s soul?

Like I alluded to above, I tend to focus on external actions at the internal world’s expense. I tend to get right to the point in terms of starting the plot, but as far as exposing the character’s soul goes, I might not get very deep until the midpoint or the third plot point. I think that’s a weakness I need to work on. I liked how Chris Fabry opened up Matt’s inner world BY changing his external world rather than bogging down several introductory chapters with Matt’s psychology before bringing in conflict and action.