|
NOVEL BEGINNINGS FIRST CHAPTER COMPETITION
RESULTS & ADJUDICATOR’S REPORT
FIRST
Annie Mc Dowall - Charity Begins With Murder
SECOND
Milethia Thomas - Wallace's Brat
THIRD
Karen Browning - A Heat of the Moment Thing
HIGHLY COMMENDED
Anna Joyce Scott - The Epicurean Affair
Brian Lux - Dove to Eagle
Norman Samuda-Smith - Inner City Blues
Keith Willey - Dreamweaver
Natalie Hood - Dreamdealer
OTHER SHORTLISTED ENTRIES
Clive Makin - Connected Obsessions
Lucille Grant - Tears and Rain
Neil Gillespie - Stark Naked
Erika Szostak - Villa Dolore
Gerald Eisman - The Family Balsinger
Glen Batchelor - With Death
Robert Butroyd - Murder on Strawberry Island
Kathy Scott - Ballet Dreams
Janet Stock - The Oddity
Michael Jason Richardson - Otherworld
V Teasdale - Just One Shot
Anna Steegmann - The Father Lode
L.A. Robbins - Bamboo Scaffolds in the Sky
John McAllister - Barlow
D. Goddard - The Dawn of Tammuz
ADJUDICATOR’S REPORT – by Jo Derrick
It wasn’t an easy task reading 25 synopses and first chapters. However, it was an enjoyable process in the end, made more so by those entries which showed promise and could well end up on the shelves of Waterstone’s.
There was a wide range of theme and genre. I tried not to let my personal preferences for a particular one creep in, but I think this becomes inevitable. Can one be truly objective when judging a writing competition?
What was I looking for in Novel Beginnings? The first thing I always look for when judging any writing competition, whether fiction or non-fiction, is the quality of the writing. Is it arresting enough to arouse the reader’s interest and emotions? In the case of fiction, does it take us into the writer’s world? Is that world absorbing? Does the writer have a distinctive voice? Does the writer use detail to create lifelikeness? Does the writer use expressions which give pleasure to the person who invents them and to the reader who encounters them? Does the writer employ simile, metaphor and visual detail that is fresh? Does the writer show rather than tell?
I have to say most of the entries I read in this competition fell at this first hurdle, even those which made the shortlist. I encountered just one memorable simile in all 25, and that was in the winning entry. Many entries fell into the ‘tell’ rather than ‘show’ trap, with no conscious attempt to evoke the experience in the reader.
So what else was I looking for? A clear, concise synopsis with thumbnail character sketches, an indication of the writer’s style, clarity of purpose. What I didn’t want were generalisations, clichés, too many characters, muddled and convoluted plot. Generally the synopsis should summarise all the main events of the novel in a way that the publisher can make an evaluation of how the novel is going to develop. They're looking for things like enough plot, but not too much to sustain 100,000 words (or whatever the length is), consistency of style and subject matter (e.g. if it starts out as techno thriller it doesn't become a romance later), that there are clearly defined main characters who are active throughout the novel, that there aren't any gaps in time or plot, or unexplained stuff, that the through line is plausible and logical, that there's generally enough action and not too much introspection and generalisation. Does it fit in with what they publish and does the style of writing fit the content? Phew! A lot to think about there!
The synopsis of the winning story, Charity Begins with Murder, was very clear and concise. It reflected the writer’s style, although I felt it had too many characters. The synopsis of Wallace’s Brat contained good thumbnail character sketches and mentioned the sub-plot, which nearly all the other entries neglected to do. I liked the synopsis of third prize winner, A Heat Of The Moment Thing, because it was pacy and well-structured, if a little clichéd. Again it gave a good indication of the writer’s style.
As a rule I don’t take a great deal of notice of the titles of stories or novels. Even when I’ve enjoyed a published novel and find the story unforgettable, I’m pushed to remember the title sometimes. The title is of no great importance to me. However, I know titles mean more to publishers and booksellers, so it’s worth thinking up a good one. Few of the titles of the shortlisted entries stood out for me. I felt that Wallace’s Brat was a particularly poor one and should be changed to Maggie’s Grove, which is much more in keeping with a historical saga such as this. Most of the titles were banal and instantly forgettable.
And the first chapters? I was looking for a first paragraph which hooked me and drew me into the story. I wanted to be transported into the world the writer had created. I wanted a sense of place. I wanted arresting characters; good authentic dialogue; atmosphere; use of the five senses; narrative tension, that page-turning quality which would make me sad that there wasn’t more to come once the chapter had ended; that hunger that made me want to read on and distract me from my everyday life. A tall order!
Charity Begins With Murder stood out for me as a clear winner the first time I read it. It has humour, a clear and concise contemporary style, good descriptions and sense of place. The plot is interesting and unusual. I was particularly impressed by the author’s use of language and attention to detail. For example, ‘the industrial buildings anonymous, like gangsters hiding their faces behind shades’, and ‘It was hot, and her skin was shiny. Square rimmed glasses slipped down her nose. She was painfully thin, as if she worried too much and forgot to eat.’ The characters are very well delineated as we are party to their mannerisms and the finer details of their appearance. This author clearly has a talent for writing crisp, authentic dialogue and her prose style is laced with subtle humour and wry observations. The chapter ended in just the right place, making me eager to read more. I’m sure if this entry, with a few tweaks and provided the rest of the novel was of a similar standard, were submitted to a publisher or agent then it would stand a very good chance of being published.
In the same way the second prize winner, Wallace’s Brat, stayed in my mind after I’d read it, and I found myself thinking about the story while going about my every day life. This kind of resonance is what every fiction writer should be aiming for! The plot has depth and substance. The first chapter evoked the 13th century setting very well and the dialogue was in keeping. The author made use of all five senses to enrich the reader’s experience. There was narrative tension ensuring the reader’s interest was sustained throughout and there was a satisfying cliffhanger chapter ending. If anything I’d like to have seen these ‘past’ scenes alternating with ‘present’ so we get more of a flavour of the whole novel and see the modern day characters (Indira, Anna and Miss Wade) in action.
I’m not a great fan of the chick-lit genre, but A Heat of The Moment Thing was a good example of its kind. I liked the humour and the economical prose style. The narrative had a nice flow to it and the style I found very readable. The author takes us into her lead character’s world, creating believable dialogue and character interaction. I initially put this in second place, but on subsequent readings I found my attention wandering in the middle section where the pace falls off significantly, so I relegated this entry to third place. The plot was also rather weak and clichéd. Another good cliffhanger chapter ending, though!
Of the other entries, I liked Dreamdealer because of its poignancy and the author’s ability to get into the head of the teenage lead character, Joe. There was some good attention to detail and a great sense of place. An imaginative and unusual plot.
Dreamweaver had a clear and concise synopsis. The first chapter contained some nice descriptions and good use of senses. This had a complex plot, which would be a challenging one to pull off successfully. The pace was a little too leisurely, I thought, and it wasn’t always easy to follow the narrative, which was rather confusing in places.
Inner-City Blues has potential. This author really needs to work on writing technique to create a more concise, clear style. I found the writing a little overblown in places. The dialogue is particularly difficult to read. While it’s reasonable to use a small amount of dialect to give a flavour of the characters’ culture and language, too much is hard work for the reader and ruins the narrative flow. The author does a very good job of transporting the reader into Pete’s world. The synopsis presented good thumbnail character sketches and the plot appeared to be well thought out.
The author of The Epicurean Affair (I disliked this title so much!) used language to good effect and the narrative was pacy enough to sustain interest. There was some good attention to detail. However, the synopsis doesn’t serve its purpose, is badly laid out and rather muddled. There is no need for a chapter by chapter précis when writing a synopsis. I found the plot to be somewhat predictable and rather banal. The ending seemed contrived.
I liked the plot of Dove To Eagle but wondered if there was enough here to sustain a full-length novel. There didn’t appear to be a sub-plot. I felt it would have benefited from a little more character detail. This was a strong synopsis; clear, concise and I liked the little explanation of where the idea came from at the end.
All in all this has been a memorable judging experience, and I wish all those who entered all the best in their future writing careers!
SHORTLISTERS REPORT
As usual, the first part of the shortlisting process involves discarding obvious rule breakers. The main culprits were those that failed to supply an outline. This was quite surprising as it was such a vital part of the competition process. It had the potential to score a lot of marks so not including one more or less shot the author in the foot. Without some idea of what the novel was about and where it was leading, our shortlisters were unable to do much with these entries.
Lack of titles was another omission that lost some authors points. Our judge may not have much regard for titles and it is true that publishers often change them on acceptance, but this contest stipulated a title so those that didn’t comply, lost marks. In all cases this was enough to ensure they didn’t make the short list.
Apart from one entry that included 3 chapters instead of the single chapter we asked for, there were no other transgressions. Our judge selected a Chick-Lit entry as the third prize winner. We had an enormous amount of these, probably due to the popularity of the genre on the best seller list. Unfortunately, there was little difference between the vast majority of them. Most attempted humour, which usually failed and we continually met the same characters masquerading under different names in successive manuscripts. If you are going to write for a very popular genre like this, you need to come up with something different, jumping on the band wagon seldom works in the commercial publishing world!
The same comments hold true for the fantasy entries. Most simply were not believable enough and lacked the necessary depth and verisimilitude the reader needs to suspend belief.
Finally, there were a few entries that were obviously submitted by very inexperienced writers as there had been little attempt at editing out errors. This was a shame as a couple of these had very intriguing plots and if properly written, could well have gone forward to the next stage.
|
|
