1. How much should you put in your first chapter? I am writing an alternative Civil War fiction where Jackson survives the Battle of Chancellorsville. In the chapter I have Jackson survive, a description of the Army of Northern Virginia, the terrain in Virginia in which the two armies are struggling and how they arrived in their present circumstances, and finally a brief history of Jackson.
2. How much history should you add?
At first, I tried to write it for the Civil War buff who did not have to have things explained to him. But, I had two friends (non Civil War Buffs) who read the first two chapters and said that because there is no history, they can't understand what is going on. So, I added history. Now, I had another friend (a historian) say that the history is "rote". That a Civil War Buff would be bored and not continue not because it was not well written but because he already knows these things. The history is not long and I really did not think it was "rote." (My seven drafts were rote but by time I got to the 10th, I thought it pretty darn good)
3. I was told I needed to infuse my knowledge, findings, and interpretations into the book. What the person suggested was that I step out of the narrative and add my insights. But, am I not doing that by changing history and having the narrative continue? Everything that happens after the 18th North Carolina misses is based on my knowledge, findings (lots of research went into the story) and intepretations.
Can't I have the characters do that for me. Speak my findings and interpretations?
I have read many, many books and I do not mind if a book takes two or thee chapters to get going. But mine does not do that... by page three Jackson is not wounded and the Battle of Chancellorsville changes too.
Thank you for answering these questions. I value your input. You are published and this is really my first serious attempts at writing. I have done plays for a local theater and one musical as well, but this is a book that I want to write.
So, maybe the first couple of chapters are the hardest to write.
If I were you I would leave any explanations of any kind out of your first chapter.
I am looking at this as if I were an agent, and an agent has hundreds of mss.'s to read in a years time and has to decide which ones she can sell.After all that's how an agent makes a living.
Your first chapter should be all direct scenes --- direct, pungent, sensual deszcription. Otherwise you will lose your reader (agent).
Did you ever have a friend that said something like 'Oh you can't believe what happened! It was so unfair!' and then proceeds to go into long, long explanations leading up to whatever happened and all you want them to do is just tell you what happened!
So start with the atmosphere of the day, the tattered banners of the 18th North Carolina, the sound of the creek, the sound of Jackson's horse, then the rifleman sighting down his barrel, then the shot, and then the BIG surprise that he misses Jackson entirely.
When you convey information through dialogue, it is called exposition. Exposition is not good. Try to never convey information through dialogue. If you do, consense it into narrative summary.
Chapter 2 then could start with some descrption of the position of the armies.
I know this is a long answere but you have worked very hard on your novel and I am sure it deserves every chance at success.
To avoid any amateurish mistakes, order Making Shapely Fiction by Jerome Stern --- it will explain things like 'tags' and 'narrative summary' etc. It is one of the best books I have ever read on writing and it's funny.
You want your mss. to appear professional and experienced when you send it to an agent.
Hope that helps. How are you over there?
"I was told I needed to infuse my knowledge, findings, and interpretations into the book. What the person suggested was that I step out of the narrative and add my insights. But, am I not doing that by changing history and having the narrative continue? Everything that happens after the 18th North Carolina misses is based on my knowledge, findings (lots of research went into the story) and intepretations.
Can't I have the characters do that for me. Speak my findings and interpretations? "
That's how you should do it. Don't tell them what you know. Show it. Use your insights to make your characters come to life. I have previously mentioned the Clunking One, Harry Turtledove, who invented alternative history. Read a bit of his civil war writings, and if you aren't screaming at the written page, "not like that, you idiot! Stonewall Jackson would never have said anything like that!", check to see if you're still breathing. He's a great starting point, because while he's an expert historian, he's a horrible, horrible writer. That's why I read him.
You have a decision to make, my friend. Are you trying to write a novel for mass consumption, or a novel for a fairly narrow audience of historians? It's up to you, but I would put in enough historical content to keep the average layman up to speed with the significance of events as they unfold. The method you use to reveal this information is important too...but more about this in a moment.
3. I was told I needed to infuse my knowledge, findings, and interpretations into the book. What the person suggested was that I step out of the narrative and add my insights...Can't I have the characters do that for me. Speak my findings and interpretations?
That's your method right there. Honestly, there's very little in ANY story more boring than page-long paragraphs of narrated exposition, and the less of it you can get away with, the better.
No doubt you've already read Michael Shaara's Killer Angels. Shaara is masterful at delivering absolute REAMS of genuine history through the mechanism of putting you in each general's head as the story moves forward until, by the middle of the book, you understand why Pickett's charge was inevitable as the rising of the sun. Shaara uses a sort of stream-of-consciousness style to show the reader the internal struggle of Longstreet as he wrestles with two facts: One, he must give the order to attack the Union center head-on in the morning, over half a mile of bare upward slope, and two, that attack will not only fail, but will cost them the battle and quite possibly the entire war.
You can see how this approach translated to the movie Gods and Generals in the case of union Colonel John Buford, played by Sam Elliott, when he stands up and speaks Shaara's lines out loud:
"Meade will come in slowly, cautiously, new to command... And then, after Lee's army is entrenched behind nice fat rocks, Meade will attack finally, if he can coordinate the army. He'll attack right up that rocky slope, and up that gorgeous field of fire. And we will charge valiantly, and be butchered valiantly. And afterwards men in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chests and say what a brave charge it was. Devin, I've led a soldier's life, and I've never seen anything as brutally clear as this."
That's a case of novel exposition carried straight on through to the silver screen...by putting in the dialog. When you put in exposition, put a lot of it in this way. Also,do it just enough to make it make sense. Don't show off your extensive knowledge just to show off.
And there's another point to make: If it doesn't contribute to the story, cut it out. Be brutal. The essence of the story is the story, the interaction of characters and the struggle and/or journey of the protagonist. That's what keeps peoples' attention...they want to know what happens next.
[Cue Forrest Gump voice:] And that's all I've got to say about that.