A Few Notes About The F

Ok So I have agreed against my own advice and my own beliefs, to help my wife with her writing project. My concerns have been that it's very much her project based on her own imaginative idea; she has a clear idea about how she wants it to look when its completed, and, like her I have absolutely no experience in writing fiction for children. That said it hasn't been all about her waiting for me to say yes. Where we are now is very different from where we were several months ago. She has already commissioned an author to write out an outline and devise basic characters - and to that extent, the story is complete. That is to say there is a beginning and an end with a semblance of a plot and some roughly drawn characters built around the original idea behind it and the motivational factor that has driven it.  But that's it. Currently it is no-where near good enough to bother a publish for more than a few minutes at best. So here are my reasons for thinking this and a few notes that might form the basis of how I'm going to have to re-write it.

The plot idea is sound enough if a little trite and tested: grandparents go back in time through a secret well that stirs under a carpet in the old peoples club they attend. They have chosen a period during WW2 where on arrival they are able to relive their experiences. Nothing is mentioned about other periods - the story focuses not on time travel generally only on time travel specific to this story's purpose.  As a plot device it's OK because it allows the children to accidentally or by design join their grandparents in that time zone which allows the story to be told. 

Questtion 1, why do the grandparents even want to go back in the first place? Or does this not matter? Possible solutions would be that it makes them feel young again. Shakes off all the aches pains, woes and worries of old age. Great, that's probably motivation enough for them. 

Question 2. whose story is this? We have five main protagonists in the children it seems. One has to be dominant and sufficiently idiosyncratic to capture the minds of the readers. She or he has to be either likable and earn our sympathy, or a complete cad whose going to get his or her comeuppance. Others might have different traits, characteristics and idiosyncratic ways all of which might be subsidiary to main character. Think Rodney's defining characteristics in F and H,naivety, gullibility, innocence and a wariness and weariness of his brother Del compared to Del's defining characteristics which really  make the show, chancer, wide boy, problem maker, problem solver, an ultimate failure with but with armfuls of pathos and bathos. Dell is the show, Rodney a support act. 

Question 3.  Point of view. Could it be done better in the first person? Or is the sense of omniscience better suited to the children's story format. Can we have access to one child or characters thoughts? If we are then we are establishing a story told using the third person subjective. The real question at the moment is - which one exists already?  I need to try and work it out. It appears to be omniscient - a kind of god like all knowing narrator is looking at the action as if he has just peeked under a stone and found all this going on and is telling someone else about it. 

Question 4. What striving is  in evidence to make this story original in the telling. Language used, humour employed and poetic cadences that might appeal. 

Question 5.  The characters need to be distinct. All need to be different from each other, and novel in their own way. There is only one Alice (In Wonderland). If I tried to write another Alice story I would have to write pages about her character as she is (as in all classic literature) complex, flawed, specific and many other things in order that she might seem real. 

Question 6. Is humour going to be a strong element? If so you need to bust your guts to be funny. How to do this?  One way is to invent characters that will help.  Make them haughty, egotistical, foolish, odd, moody, anything at all - but make them something rather than outlined, empty stock or poorly constructed.characters who don't breathe, fart, swear, get pissed off, say stupid things etc:  make them work for you. Have e a think about those kids.  the one in charge is BOSSY/ORGANISED/IN CHARGE but also needs ENCOURAGEMENT and is more vulnerable than appearances suggest.  The Quiet one has great ideas but is loathe to mention them. Is artistic and a great problem solver - but weak physically. The Clever one isn't as quiet as clever as he thinks though has a mind full of facts/tales/information/ideas that make him an excellent story teller.  One of those intelligent idiots perhaps. Others have too much energy and enthusiasm - or too little. (they could change to form surprises).  Characters - they need to be consistent. They have to act and speak in character. Some change is good and often change is applauded - vital.  But only within the context of the story. People can learn - but fundamentally characters have to remain in character. If one of the five is smart - they aren't going to say stupid things. If one is bossy, they aren't all of a sudden going to become reserved and unsure. Not unless that's the purpose of the story. Watch the characters for consistency. Handle change carefully - a new strength/overcoming weakness  is always a good way to go. 

Language. Find the appropriate language style and stick with it. Unless the plot demands it - in which case fine - begin as you mean to go on. 

Pace.  Keep things moving and happening.  Action is always good. Stop occasionally if appropriate - but start again sooner rather than later. Turn a paragraph of description into a tweet sized observation.

The characters have to be specific and well drawn they have to breathe.  To this end we have the school marmish Olivia, The smarty sceptic William, the excitable, day dreaming Sam, the charismatic though slightly dim Ben, the bookish Scarlet. But round them more fully. Find out which one has the bloody stick. I'm thinking Sam for the win here.