by
Kim Van Sickler
The
time feels right to get my human trafficking book out into the marketplace.
After
a year of, “Great story, but too edgy for us,” I’m ready to self-publish. I’ve
polished the manuscript and have a convincing cheerleader in Dr. Jacquelyn
Meshelemiah, a human trafficking educator at The Ohio State University. She encourages
me by insisting that my book captures the essence of human trafficking better
than any fictional account she’s ever read. She wants to make it required
reading for her massive open online course on human trafficking.
So
now what?
I contacted CreateSpace, the
self-pub arm of Amazon for an editorial evaluation. The evaluation took about
two weeks and covers issues like plot, structure, and pacing. Overall I’m left
with plenty of encouraging comments like this one under the subhead: Writing
Style:
The
overall style and tone works for the manuscript, given the plot and genre. The syntax,
diction, and word choice are appropriate. The author has a gift for
incorporating the other four senses (sound, taste, touch, and feel) besides
sight into her prose. This works especially well for the sex and rape scenes.
For instance, on page 103, it states: “Me on top doing all the work while he
lies there like an engorged tick. A tick that oozes fast food and coffee from
his large pores.” The author’s voice remains consistent, since she retains a
young adult, female voice quality throughout the entire book.
However, there are areas
where change is urged. And now I’m faced with deciding whether I am going to
venture down those roads or not. The edit recommends I change the name of the
book because it “sounds too vague and almost happy-sounding”. Instead, I should
reference the darker, more disturbing nature of the story in my title. Even
though I consciously chose an innocuous title. One that conjures unremarkable images
of an outing with girlfriends, a common place for teenagers to escape Mom and
Dad, flirt, and shop. An unremarkable place with pitfalls that every teenager
should be aware of.
So do I want to change the
title to something darker? I’ll have to ponder that.
The suggestion for change I
will really struggle with is the one to nix the three points of view and
proceed with my lesbian trafficking victim as the main character. This isn’t
the first time I’ve been told that feisty Megan is my strongest character. The
evaluator wants the other two victims to become Megan’s back-ups. The reason? “Their
backgrounds and experiences are not different enough to warrant separate
characters”, even though she felt that, “[A]ll the characters give variety and
yet do not confuse the reader”. Again, a trio of victims versus one victim was
a conscious decision of mine. The repetitive nature of the indignities they
suffer underscores the trafficking nature of the crimes against them. They are
cattle. They are a small part of a growing business enterprise: the sale of
human flesh for sexual gratification.
 |
| http://kailadunn.wordpress.com/page/3/ |
Writing from the POVs of the
three victims is supposed to amplify the growing magnitude of the problem. I’m
fairly sure it’s something I don’t want to change, even if the evaluator thinks
writing solely from Megan’s perspective will make the story “more compelling”.
 |
| http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/LibrariesHarmVictims.html |
But the suggestion to amp up
some of my setting descriptions, to make them more “evocative and concise”,
including the “suburban upper-middle class setting from which the girls are
kidnapped”, rings true with me. Settings have always been something I need to
go back and flesh out. I will definitely read through the manuscript again and
do this.
Have you ever felt strongly against
incorporating an agent’s/editor’s suggested changes to your story? What have
you done about it?
The editor of my current novel would like to see an older novel she previously rejected if I take out a scene which is key to my plot. My first reaction was "No way," but when I let my mind view other options, I finally (after months of resistance) came up with something that might work. I don't feel so stubborn about it anymore. It won't be the same story as it was, but I can still make it a damn good story. As for your POV question, you'll have to give that serious thought. You can still tell their stories, but show their reactions through Megan's "been-there" eyes. As for title, I agree with them. You don't have to give away the whole story in the title, but at least let the reader understand the tone of the subject matter. Try adding a word to your "innocuous" title, like Victims at Gullybrook Mall or Predators at Gullybrook Mall. Just a thought. Best of luck with the project!
ReplyDeleteYes, Kathy. You always give me logical, temperate advice!
DeleteGood luck as you ponder this. I haven't been in this situation yet. Maybe discuss it with your critique partners or beta readers who have read the manuscript and can give you some advice. Or try it in the first 1/4 of the story to see how it feels.
ReplyDeleteTry it and I just may like it, huh? Pretty good advice, Natalie.
DeleteI'm impressed with the level of editorial response you received from CreateSpace. That is encouraging to know. "fraid I can't give you much advice on which advice to take and which to say no too. I agree with Natalie that asking your critique partners for their advice might help--particularly if they've read the entire ms. It's amazing to have a professor hungry and waiting for your book. Keep us all posted on what you decide. What a horrific story you want to tell… the meat packaging pic is all too graphic.
ReplyDeleteHi Carol! My human trafficking expert just weighed in today. I also let her read the entire 6ish pages of comments I received from CreateSpace. She believes I should trust the editorial process and revise the ms to the one point of view. She is incredibly encouraging and her opinion carries a great deal of weight with me. My Swagger buddy Kathy also cautions me to listen to the editorial process. I think I'll try the POV rewrite after all. It doesn't mean I have to go with it. But I might end up loving it, and if it can make the book even stronger, then I owe it to the story.
DeleteSometimes I'll meet the editor halfway if it's something I'm not comfortable with changing all the way. Sometimes I'll hold my ground. Most often I'll give it the suggestion a try just to see if it works. In the case of the 3 separate POVs, it's a difficult decision to make. Would it be worth trying it from a single POV, just to see how it reads? The test doesn't have to be polished. Of course, as I said in my comment on the IWSG, it's ultimately up to you. And I do like your reasoning behind keeping the three POVs.
ReplyDeleteYes, Lynda, it is worth a try to see how it flows. This is why it is good to elicit opinions!
ReplyDeleteIf I don't like the suggestion or feel uncomfortable with the changes, I usually meet the editor part-way (how much depends on the change). But all suggestions should be considered seriously. I agree with Lynda - I'd do a few test chapters to see how it'd feel with less POVs (a rough draft) and see how it reads. It's always your book, though. If you don't like it, don't change it.
ReplyDeleteI'm even considering keeping the three POVs but instead of altering them by chapter, maybe progress for a few chapters with one, or tell one girl's experience almost entirely, then switch to the next girl. It's going to have to still tell the trafficking tale and I don't know that I can do that with one POV.
DeleteI just realized that I did a similar POV change in my novel LIKE A RIVER. You know that novel, but you may not remember that I was going to do 3 POV & ended up changing it to 2. I had to rework the details of that other POV into the other 2 parts, using dialogue for parts of it, but it works much better now. I'm glad you got the go-ahead from the professional.
ReplyDeleteLooks like you received sound advice from Kathy and your human trafficking expert. How exciting that the Ohio State professor wants to use your book for her online class! All of your hard work will pay off, and I commend you for telling this frightening story.
ReplyDeleteJulie