I think I broke the book
Tuesday, April 29th, 2025 11:22 amI've been slogging along on Apocollapse, and I finally got to a scene I was looking forward to, that I've been using as a carrot to get me to write some tedious stuff I didn't want to do. And I started writing the carrot scene, and it landed way harder than I expected it to, emotionally. Like, I don't see how these two characters, who are supposed to be friends, could ever come back from it.
I think I broke the book.
Obviously the choice is either tone down the emotion (which would be a fairly simple edit, just take out the references to Chicago and the MC's family), or else lean into it and spend a lot more time and page-real-estate on them dealing with it than I intended or have room for. Well, or let it land like the bomb it is and stop the book there, the emotional equivalent of rocks-fall-everybody-dies. Which is appealing to the author, because the book's at That Point in my process, but not really an option.
Of course the correct answer is almost never to tone down the emotion. So after a long discussion with the housemate over pie, I am leaning into it. Part of that will involve an assumption the housemate kept making which is not only unfounded in the text but explicitly countered in the text, but the fact that she kept making it, and I can reasonably expect a lot of other readers to make it, is something I can use. Having my MC make that assumption too, and having Other Character have to correct him, gives them something to talk about that is more objective-philosophy and less intensely-personal-trauma. Which at least gets them talking again.
None of this makes it easy, of course. And it's still going to take more time and real-estate than I have to spare, and on some level I am fundamentally annoyed that my nice philosophical-discussion carrot-scene has turned into another Hard Part. (Most of the other philosophy discussions have been fun and relatively easy to write.) But at least it gives me a way to keep going and not drop the book right there.
I'm sure eventually I'll come to view that as a good thing. ;-)
I think I broke the book.
Obviously the choice is either tone down the emotion (which would be a fairly simple edit, just take out the references to Chicago and the MC's family), or else lean into it and spend a lot more time and page-real-estate on them dealing with it than I intended or have room for. Well, or let it land like the bomb it is and stop the book there, the emotional equivalent of rocks-fall-everybody-dies. Which is appealing to the author, because the book's at That Point in my process, but not really an option.
Of course the correct answer is almost never to tone down the emotion. So after a long discussion with the housemate over pie, I am leaning into it. Part of that will involve an assumption the housemate kept making which is not only unfounded in the text but explicitly countered in the text, but the fact that she kept making it, and I can reasonably expect a lot of other readers to make it, is something I can use. Having my MC make that assumption too, and having Other Character have to correct him, gives them something to talk about that is more objective-philosophy and less intensely-personal-trauma. Which at least gets them talking again.
None of this makes it easy, of course. And it's still going to take more time and real-estate than I have to spare, and on some level I am fundamentally annoyed that my nice philosophical-discussion carrot-scene has turned into another Hard Part. (Most of the other philosophy discussions have been fun and relatively easy to write.) But at least it gives me a way to keep going and not drop the book right there.
I'm sure eventually I'll come to view that as a good thing. ;-)