It's probably the natural let-down of finishing a ms, but I'm in a bit of a funk and feeling discouraged about the whole process. I read a new-to-me author whose voice has certain similarities to my own, only he Kicks. My. Ass. Especially WRT description, at which I am lousy. And in my state of funk, my reaction to this wasn't, "Look how good I might be once I've written a couple dozen books," but, "I'm NEVER going to figure out how to do this right."

And now I've got CPs questioning character motivations and reacting to certain situations almost the opposite way than I'd intended. Obviously that's my fault, but there's still this part of me that's all, "Dammit, it was perfectly clear in my head. Can't you just hate Anna's evil first husband and take it for granted he was in the wrong because you like Anna?" Of course I have to find a way to clarify my intent on the page. But knowing that just puts me in a greater funk about my talents, because it WAS clear in my head, and I can't figure out what got lost in translation on the way to the page. And I don't know how I'm going to make my ms SHORTER when I have to explain all these things that aren't coming through right in the first draft.

---

Susan, I have no answers to most of that. I wish I did, but it isn't where I live. I do wonder, though, about the whole "accept X as evil" deal. Because how many people really are? If he had no redeeming characteristics, then you're putting your protagonist in a deep dark hole, because why was she stupid enough to marry him in the first place? If he had nothing going for him except good looks and snake oil, you've hamstrung her.

Besides, a reader is rarely going to simply "accept" on that level. What did you show them? The Sebastian I remember from the first book wasn't evil; he was spoiled and opportunistic and male in a very bad way. Maybe that's where you lost it in translation?

I don't know. I haven't read your second one. But that might be part of it,

Also, evil is very easy to do and, as a result, readers with any sophistication tend to snort at it and dismiss it, unless the writer shows it.

Sorry this is rambly. Kitten in lap sucking hand.

---

What did you show them? The Sebastian I remember from the first book wasn't evil; he was spoiled and opportunistic and male in a very bad way. Maybe that's where you lost it in translation?

Well, he's gotten worse--add misogyny and an epic ability to justify his own flaws and blame them upon others. But he's not meant to be Pure Evil, so I've got CPs saying, "But I felt sorry for him at this point," or, "I can understand why he acted this way, especially if Anna acted the same way she's acting around Jack." And I'm all, "Nooo! Anna good! Anna heroine! Anna normal! Sebastian mysogynistic asshole! You're suppose to HATE him!"

---

But that makes him one-dimensional. Was there something you showed between the first and second book, to make him get that much worse?

Put it this way. If your readerr only has the second one to go on, and you're portraying him as a complete asshole with nothing to recommend him, then you've got a problem. Because Anna is very definitely a sympathetic character. Yet she married him.

So, if you've done a good job with Anna, the reader is going to blink, and say okay, there had to have been SOME reason she hooked up with him in the first place. And they're going to look for sympathetic bits of him to relate to Anna.

---

I read a new-to-me author whose voice has certain similarities to my own, only he Kicks. My. Ass. Especially WRT description, at which I am lousy.

Speaking as a reader, most description (even passages by authors who excel at it) puts me to sleep. Write like you write, and forget how he writes.

As for Sebastian, I haven't read much of your WiP, but you did have me Beta the section where Anna and Jack met. Sebastian appeared in that section. I didn't like him.

---

But that makes him one-dimensional.

Well, the thing is, I don't think I've made him one-dimensional. And that seems to be the problem. My CPs are looking at every hint of sympathetic behavior or every attitude that seems horrible from our 2005 perspective but would be normal for 1811 and saying, "But does it really make sense that Anna would be THAT bitter, or that Jack would be feeling such a pure hatred that he's almost wishing Sebastian were still alive so he could kill him himself?"

---

Speaking as a reader, most description (even passages by authors who excel at it) puts me to sleep. Write like you write, and forget how he writes.

Trust me, this description isn't boring. There isn't a lot of it, but what there is, is wonderful. In a case where I've been to the region he's describing, I'm all, "OMG! Yes! That's exactly what it's like!" And when I set his set-piece battle scene next to mine, it just makes me want to cry for the pathetic, bloodless inadequacy of what I'd meant to be a gripping, horrific passage.

---

What Deb said.

You've got to make readers understand why Anna married him, even if he was as misogynistic and selfish as you want him to be, and you've got to make it a compelling reason, because you still want her to be intelligent and sympathetic.

Also, what Cindy said.

Really long passages of description, no matter how well written, make me skim. Love Laura Kinsale, for instance -- skimmed half of the descriptions of Jervaulx Castle because I just didn't care as much as she did what it looked like. Don't compare. Write what matters to you, and make sure you do that to the best of your ability.

---

Really long passages of description, no matter how well written, make me skim.

That's the thing. These aren't long at all. They're just good. Telling details that bring the story to sensory life.

---

What everyone else said about description. I always appreciate someone who can write a brief metaphor that paints the picture in a couple of sentences so I get a clear pic of the setting or the dress, or the feeling, so I can move onto the story quickly. Otherwise I just feel like someone was cheating with page fillers. It's sort of the same reason I'm suspicious of hotdogs, except with hotdogs, you can't separate out the soylent green from the beef.

Maybe marrying Sebastian is one of Anna's flaws. Maybe he was kind to animals, small children, and the invalids in the local consumption hospice as well as being a misogynist. Maybe young Anna thought the good things negated the bad and Learned an Important Lesson. It doesn't take away from Anna's heroism, makes her more likeable, if she made a crappy (yet common) mistake a lot of women make by marrying a jerk.

I'm probably talking out of my ass since I haven't read it, but if Anna is so likeable, and clearly our heroine, wouldn't it be enough to tell the reader that Sebastian was a mistake she regrets? Since they already she her character as "good" then it automatically puts him in the "bad" column.

Am I totally talking out of my ass?

---