I seem to have it in my head that we have a couple of writers who are happiest - and generally sensational - with dialogue and exposition, but nervous of dealing with action.

I like action. I like dialogue and exposition, too, but I like action, I like the illumination that even a simple break between spoken words - "He turned to regard her, one finger tapping the table, in a rhythm she recognised but couldn't name" - can bring to everyone concerned. It's so very telling, by way of being so very showing. And it's such fun to play with.

In my case, you're not wrong. I thought it was more of case of difficulty in describing physicality, but since you said "writers" plural...it's a writer thing, not a crip thing.

erika, definitely a writer thing. Because physicality is only one tiny, possible aspect of action.

So,

"I looked at her, and saw a small gold ring around each iris. What in hell? Had those always been there? I'd never noticed them before."

This is an action sequence. The physicality involved is no more complex than looking at another character. But both characters are illuminated for the reader, one physically, one mentally/emotionally.

It's a pity I suck as a teacher, unless thinking about a specific question at any given time.

I had an epiphany about one of my undecided points in Anna's plot last night, oddly enough while thinking about bad romance novel cliches that I try to avoid. Basically, Anna is about an officer's widow and considerable heiress who falls in love with a sergeant of classic English yeoman stock, the second son of an innkeeper. I knew I wanted to separate them for a time after they begin their affair, but was having trouble coming up with a way to do it without compromising them as sympathetic characters. So I thought, "At least I know it won't be the machinations of Anna or Jack's Mortal Enemy. Where do all these Mortal Enemies come from, anyway? 90% of the time they don't even have a halfway plausible motive. I certainly can't think of any reason anyone would swear vengeance upon my characters."

And then I thought, "Wait a minute. Anna doesn't need a Mortal Enemy to have someone interfering in her life. She's a widow. She's rich. As long as she stays with the army and puts off returning to England so she can be near Jack, she's surrounded by single men of her own class, many of whom badly need money. All it takes is an officer of Jack's regiment, badly in debt, finding out about the two of them and telling Anna he'll ruin Jack's prospects, or, if I want to be really twisted, that he'll make sure Jack gets killed in the next battle, unless she marries him. Anna wouldn't give in to the blackmail, but she'd be worried enough to decide to go back to England immediately. Presto. Instant separation, until Jack is discharged after losing an arm storming the breach at Badajoz!"

I love it when a plot comes together. Now all I have to do is figure out how they're going to ultimately handle the fact that she has all this money and he has all this pride and self-sufficiency.

Now all I have to do is figure out how they're going to ultimately handle the fact that she has all this money and he has all this pride and self-sufficiency.

Dude, Dr Phil? (I can't stand that man...)

Deb, can I ask why you stopped writing for 10 years?

Heh. If it weren't for Letterman, I wouldn't even know Dr. Phil existed, so I don't even get the reference, really.

Good for you.

He annoyeth me mightily. I would like to smiteth him with a brick. Lo!

Susan, excellent points. I tend to agree - no nemesis is needed.

Erin, several reasons, as follows:

1. I ran into the Big Buzzsaw of Comglomerated Publishing, in which the most powerful editor in tthe industry at that time asked me if I could "stick a few rapes" in the novel I was working on. Because "our demographic audience likes rapes - you know, guys, 14-22."

2. My agent at the time was totally worthless.

3. My editor at Pan in London left to go be head of a femminist press in Australia, and left me with a male editor, who was so fucking befuddled by "And Then Put Out the Light" that he tried marketing it as science fiction.

Feh.

OK, got my second positive rejection letter from an agent today (well, insofar as a rejection letter can ever be positive). This is from an agent I met at conference who requested people send her first chapters only. Here are the relevant bits:

I really enjoyed reading the partial of Lucy and Mr. Wright. Unfortunately I found the pacing a bit slow and wasn't convinced about the first person narrative, so I am going to have to (reluctantly) pass.

I really had fun reading Lucy and Mr. Wright. It's well-written and witty, which I really adore. All in all, it was a pleasure to read. Thank you.

I wish that we had found a fit. Regardless, I wish you the best in finding an agent who is passionate about your work.

OK. As I said, a positive rejection letter. I've heard from two agents now, and so far neither has said anything that would remotely make me think I don't have "it" and should quit writing--rather the reverse, in fact. But, I now have a second opinion agreeing that I might just have a pacing problem, and (thankfully) more specific information on just what it is. I'm a bit worried that she picked up on a pacing problem just on the first chapter, though, because I thought I'd polished it to death and gotten rid of anything remotely extraneous.

"Wasn't convinced about the first person narrative," is, IMO, maddeningly vague. I've come up with three possible interpretations:

1. It's a technique issue. She doesn't think I handle first person well, and/or that my POV character is plausible in the role. I really don't think this is it, largely because if I'm any judge of my own skills, I'm a very strong first person writer. However, who says I'm a good judge of my skills? Few people are.

2. She doesn't think this specific story works well told from only one POV. If so, it's a judgment call, and I disagree.

3. She thinks it'll be difficult to sell a first person romance, no matter the quality, because they're currently out of fashion--the preferred style is third limited alternating between the hero and heroine's POV. If so, I should probably try a few more agents/editors, but focus most of my energy on my new book (which is third person limited with alternating POVs). Maybe in a few years the style will change and Lucy will be marketable, or I'll become an established writer with enough cred to sell a first person romance.

All that said, and given that she was so complimentary in general, do you think it would be acceptable of me to write her back, ask for some clarification on what she meant about the first person issue (I wouldn't go into a lot of detail--I'd just ask if it was a technique she felt I'd yet to master or a marketing issue), mention that I'm working on a second novel in third person with a more action-oriented plot, and ask if I could submit it for her consideration when it's finished if I'm still unagented then?

Susan, I'd actually ping her, thank her for the valuable input, and ask her if she'd please clarify her feeling about the first person narrative?

Because I tend to agree with you - you have a good strong first-person voice, and I do think it works in the story.

In re the pacing, I also agree - that's two agents who feel there's a pacing issue, and they both mentioned it unprompted, so there's a consensus. In re stripping out the extraneous? That may not have anything to do with the pacing issue as they perceived it. I haven't seen the rewrite, remember - only the first chapter. Hard to tell from just that.