What to Describe

Writing advise abounds on how to appropriately describe a character, object, or setting, so how do I go about it?

1) Describe first what the character would notice first. For example, gender, skin color, hair color, and physical build comes before the faint scar over the eye or the eye color (which the character might never be close enough or have any reason to notice). Also, a foreigner might first notice skin color while a native might never consciously notice it.

A long physical description can slow down the story, however, and a police-report description is usually not needed. So, how do I choose what description to include?

2) Base the description length on how important the person, object, or setting is.

3) Describe what is unique.

For example, if I'm describing a spear, I really don't have to say much. Most readers already know what a spear is and can imagine it based purely on the word "spear." If the spear is important, though, I might describe something unique about it: a scrap of blue cloth tied just below the iron head.

Don't just give information but use the description to tell the reader something about the character. Which sentence gives a more unique and interesting description of this minor character?

The sight of a short, plump woman wearing a dress and a hat distracted Randy from what his friend was saying.

or

The sight of a short woman wearing a tall hat topped with an ostrich plume distracted Randy from what his friend was saying.

I'm guessing you agree the second description is more interesting.

4) Be specific.

Instead of saying "the woman handed him a drink" be specific and say, "The waitress handed him a tall glass of water." Using specific nouns instead of general ones allows the reader create a vivid image in his head and reveals more about the characters.

So my advice is to keep focused on what your description is supposed to accomplish rather than coming up with long police-report descriptions.

A Deeper Problem

The other day, someone in my writer's workshop made the comment that he liked to write his short stories in present tense because they gave the story a sense of urgency the story lacked in past tense.

(For those who do know, this means he wrote the story like "He runs to the car door and yanks it open. 'Get out," he shouts at the driver" instead of the more traditional "He ran to the car door and yanked it open. "Get out," he shouted at the driver.")

Except, his story still lacked tension (which he obviously sensed) and changing to present tense didn't fix that. What he really needed to do was fix the story by adding tension, not try to artificially increase tension by telling the story in present tense.

I've heard a lot of writers say that they write in first person (i.e. "I went to the store") rather than third person (i.e. "She went to the store") because it allows the reader to get inside the character's head in a way that third person doesn't allow. Except, that's not true. Both styles can allow the reader deeply into the character's viewpoint.

For example:

Mandy was going to be late for the party, and Shelly would never forgive her. She looked down the dark, creepy alley knowing that it was the only route that would get her there in time. She hesitantly stepped into the alley. Something rattled further in. She jumped backward and smacked into something tall and firm.

versus

I was going to be late for the party, and Shelly would never forgive me. I looked down the dark, creepy alley knowing that it was the only route that would get me there in time. I hesitantly stepped into the alley. Something rattled further in. I jumped backward and smacked into something tall and firm.


If you just like writing in present tense or first person, that's fine. However, if you write that way in hopes of fixing a problem with your manuscript, let me warn you that the problem probably still exists. Look deeper and fix the problem instead of just trying to hide it.

Motivation

I am reading a book where the author doesn't take full advantage of showing what's going on in the main character's head and so some of his actions seem abrupt and out-of-character. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Sarah stomped up to Rebekah, who was smiling and holding another book clutched against her chest. Sarah scowled and threw the current book Rebekah had loaned her to the ground. "This book was horrible. I swear, I'll never read another book by that author. In fact, you couldn't pay me enough to read another one!"

Rebekah said hesitantly, "Oh, I'm sorry. I brought the next book in the series with me, but I guess you don't want it."

Sarah felt a surge of anger. "Of course I want it. The book's right here, so of course I'll read it."

You're left wondering why Sarah suddenly changed her mind and why she's reacting so strongly. Or, if you're like me, you're feeling a little wary of Sarah and wondering if she's insane. ;)

I expect the author knows a perfectly sensible reason why her main character acted the way she did but forgot to let the readers into his head so we also know. Here's an example of how adding motivation can help make an about-face scene like this make sense:

Sarah stomped up to Rebekah, who was smiling and holding another book clutched against her chest. Sarah scowled. She'd rather liked the book Rebekah had just loaned her, but she didn't like how her friend was getting into the habit of forcing books on her and she wasn't going to allow it to happen again.

She threw her book to the ground. "This book was horrible. I swear, I'll never read another book by that author. In fact, you couldn't pay me enough to read another one!"

Rebekah said hesitantly, "Oh, I'm sorry. I brought the next book in the series with me, but I guess you don't want it."

Sarah felt a surge of anger at Rebekah for picking this moment to finally bring a book she did want to read. "Of course I want it. The book's right here, so of course I'll read it."

Sarah's still not a very nice character, but at least we understand why she's acting the way she is. So, authors, be careful not to throw an unexpected emotional reaction at the reader. Make sure to get into the character's head and explain why they felt that way so the emotional reaction makes sense.

Think of the Reader

In The Writer magazine, August 1989 issue, Piers Anthony wrote:

The writer must know his readers...their hearts and dreams.

Debbie's thoughts:
By tapping into those desires and dreams, the writer can capture the reader's interest: his desire to see justice done, his longing to feel he can control of life in some small way even when it seems out of control, etc. The more the characters struggle with problems that everyone struggles with, the more the reader can relate to the problems and will read on to see how the hero deals with them.

Likewise, the most effective horror stories tap into the things we all fear: the unknown, loss of control, etc.

Avoiding "as you know" Explanations

In The Writer magazine, December 1989 issue, Jeffrey Sweet wrote an article on "An Object Lesson for Playwrights." In it, he writes:

You can often dramatize what is going on between your characters through the way they negotiate over an object.

He gives an example of a man stopping a boy as he goes out the door. The man demands to know what the boy has in his hand, finds out it's a key, wants to know where the boy is going, and then demands the boy give him the key or he'll ground him for another week. From the example, it's obvious the man is the boy's strict father, the key is to the family car, and the boy is currently grounded and is resentful about it. All of this was conveyed by how the two characters interacted around the key instead of by the author explaining the situation to the reader.

Keeping the Reader

In The Writer magazine, December 1989 issue, Phyllis A. Whitney wrote an article on "Let's Do It Over." In it, she writes:

If your characters feel nothing strongly, neither will your reader....The more your characters stand to lose or gain, and the more they care, the more powerful the effect on the reader.

She suggests starting the story with the heroine in a conflict that she cares deeply about and that she must take some action in or do something about. And make the conflict something the reader can care about.

Next, check your suspense level. She asks, "Is everything too out-in-the-open, too obvious or predictable?" If so, then the reader is less likely to continue reading. Add some mystery to the story.

Ending the Story

In The Writer magazine, October 1990 issue, Karleen Bradford wrote an article on "Do You Want to Write for Children?" In it, she writes about wrapping up the story.

The main character's problem is solved (and always by the character himself--no intervening hand of fate, no helpful adult stepping in, no discovery that it was all a dream).

[I would add that the main character doesn't always have to be the main person to solve the problem but he does have to add the critical element to the solution. For example, a child doesn't have to personally drive the sword through the evil warlord's heart as long as he somehow plays the critical part in making that action possible.]

She goes on to say that perhaps the main character only learns how to cope with the problem.

In any case...your reader must feel, "Yes, of course, that's the only way it could possibly have ended" and even if it came as a total surprise, your reader must be satisfied [and feel positive about the ending even if it isn't a happy one].

Wisdom Found in Fiction Books

I just finished reading Auralia's Colors by Jeffrey Overstreet. I liked this bit:

A single male and a woman married to a possessive husband have sneaked away from their work detail (their punishment for thieving). He asks her to run away with him. The man says softly,

"You can't deny you heart anymore."

She playfully pounded on his shoulder with her fist. "But my heart's a mess, and yours is reckless. If we're true to ourselves, we're in trouble. That's what promises are for, like the promise [my husband] made me." She looked into the shadows of the trees. "They give you something to bind yourself to, so you don't get carried off on a whim."

...only to regret it when you come back to your senses.

Travel Speeds

I'm trying to collect this information in one place so it's easy for me to find. I thought I'd put it on my blog so others can also use it.

Conestoga Wagons were drawn by 4 to 8 horses and transported loads up to 7 metric tons. They averaged 15 miles a day (usually over dirt roads).

Wagon Trains averaged 12 to 16 miles a day.

Two-wheeled loaded carts pulled by two horses could travel at 5 miles per hour if the horses were switched with fresh ones once or twice each day. If the same horses were used all day every day, the wagon could travel at 4 miles per hour.

A lone traveler on foot carrying very little can walk at about 3 or 4 miles per hour. How long he can keep it up depends on his endurance. A marathon runner can do 8 miles per hour but likely couldn't keep that up day after day.

A very fit person trained for travelling over mountain trails or through the desert can, with a heavy pack (containing food and supplies), at best do about 20 miles in one day. Without a pack, he can make about 30 miles if he hikes fast all day. An experienced hiker not trying for a record does about 2 to 3 miles per hour.

A messenger pigeon can travel 30 miles per hour normally and 60 miles per hour in a burst.

Foot soldiers averaged a pace of 3 miles per hour. The soldiers could do this carrying fairly heavy loads (their equipment and some rations). Rain and muddy roads could cut this travel rate in half (to about 1.5 miles per hour). Forced marches usually meant marching longer (which left the soldiers exhausted at the end) rather than faster.

An army has to take time each day to break camp, load tents and such into wagons, and then set up camp at the end of the march--all of which cuts into how far they can travel in a day. The larger the army, the slower it moved. The Romans, who built temporary forts every night, often travelled only 10 to 12 miles a day even when travelling along their stone roads. Smaller armies that made less-fortified camps might be able to do 16 to 22 miles a day, but that was considered a hard pace.

The cavalry could travel faster, but they generally kept to the pace of the foot soldiers or were sent ahead to the next camp site since they had to graze their horses on good grass for about 5 hours every day. The Roman cavalry, when on its own, could do 40 miles a day.

A less-organized army might average 8 miles per day for the infantry and 12 miles per day for the cavalry.

An average horse bearing an average rider with minimal equipment along a road or good, fairly flat trail can travel 3 to 4 miles per hour at a walk, 8 to 10 miles per hour at a trot, 10 to 17 miles per hour at a canter, and up to 30 miles per hour at a gallop. A horse can not keep up a canter or gallop for more than a few miles, though. Exceptional thoroughbreds can go over 40 miles per hour for a mile. Quarter horses can reach up to 50 miles per hour for a quarter of a mile. Rough terrain would slow all these rates.

How far a horse and rider could travel in a day depends on the time of year, weather, terrain, condition of the roads, load carried (rider and equipment), and condition of the horse. A fit riding horse ridden by a fantasy warrior might cover 50 to 60 miles in a day, but 30 miles would be more average. A fantasy farm boy riding an old plow horse would go even slower than that.

An endurance horse bearing a light rider with very minimal equipment can travel 100 miles in a day on a trail over rough terrain. The horse would need several short breaks (15 to 30 minutes) to rest during the ride and couldn't repeat the performance the next day. The horse mainly travels at a trot, with some walking (up hills) and some cantering (on flat areas). Keep in mind that these horses are highly fit horses specially trained for these distances. They are well-fed, healthy, and have plenty of water available. Take away any of these factors, and the horse can't travel as far.

The Pony Express was made up of smaller horses and ponies who carried 165 pounds (including rider, mail, and supplies/equipment). Ponies were changed for fresh ones every 10 to 15 miles, and riders were changed for fresh ones every 75–100 miles. The horses traveled at about 10 miles per hour, and the mail was moved an average of 250 miles in a 24-hour day. The trail was mostly one of dirt.

Riding camels can travel over 100 miles in a day. Racing camels travel an average of 20 miles per hour during 6-miles races. A camel can travel 60 miles a day across the desert carrying up to 400 pounds. Camels can carry as much as 600 pounds if loaded properly.

Writing Historicals

I picked up a batch of old magazines at a library sale. In The Writer magazine, March 1990, Rosalyn Alsobrook wrote an article on "When You Write a Historical Romance." Her advice is excellent for writing any sort of historical. To quote a small part:

Not only must the setting and the time period...be portrayed accurately, it has to be made an actual part of the story. The conflicts in your story should develop from true events or known customs of the time and place...

and

[Your characters] must be a product of their time....Their personalities and mannerisms must mesh with...the historical era...

She also points out that the historical elements should be accurate and interesting, but only included as backdrop or as a catalyst in the conflict.

For example, I read a historical novel where the author paused to explain the meaning of a tavern's name when that information wasn't needed to understand the story. Worse, that information was given in the middle of a "life-in-danger" scene and it totally drained away the tension.

Finally, she points out that heavy dialect can be very difficult for a reader to work through and will slow your story's pace.

Insert a word here and a phrase there to give the reader...the characteristic speech patterns...

And that's enough to get the idea across.

Writing Tidbits #10

Creating Tension

Since, in the majority of books, the hero(ine) of the book does win in the end against all odds, how can the author make the reader worry the hero(ine) might not succeed?

The most common tactic is to have the hero try to solve the problem and fail, then try something else to solve the problem and fail, and finally try a last solution and succeed.

Here are some other examples of how to do it. (While I'm generally using fantasy set-ups as examples, the underlying principles can be used in other genre.)

1) Hero Todd loses a sword match against his friend Nate. Later, Nate fights against Villain Harod. Harod defeats/kills Nate. Todd vows to kill Harod in revenge, but he wonders how he can since Nate (who was a better fighter) failed.

As in, have A lose against B in getting the girl, solving the mystery, winning the fight. Have B lose against C in the same sort of activity. Finally, pit A against C, let A have a few doubts about his ability to win, and the reader will feel uncertain, too. The solution may be that A uses a different method to fight than B did (as in, using his brains instead of a sword or listening to the girl's dreams instead of buying expensive gifts).

2) This is based on a book I recently read. Each of the main characters are given a cryptic, personalized prophesy of what to avoid doing (like "don't kill a crow"). If they do this action, they will die within a few hours. One by one, these characters accidently do the very thing they were warned against--usually because they didn't realize the danger until the action was already taken--and each dies. Our hero is then given his death-prophecy. Will he recognize the danger in time to avoid his fate?

Here we have several people failing at the same task our hero is given. He may succeed at anything he puts his hand to, but this side danger might easily kill him before his main objective is complete.

3) Our hero can succeed alone against any odds, but he has to protect someone he cares about and/or is important to his ultimate success. This character is usually a child, though in the past it was often 'the helpless female.' The tension comes with the question "can the hero keep this other character alive?"

4) Again, our hero can protect himself just fine, but he needs the help of several other characters to ultimately win the day. (The characters may bring specialized knowledge or skills or they may be leaders of troops that are needed or whatever.) We don't doubt the hero can win his fight, but his bad temper alienates the others he needs or someone is trying (and maybe succeeding) in killing these other characters or they aren't convinced that there is a danger or that the hero's scheme is the right one. Now you have tension.

Writing Tidbits #9

Show the Action!

Watch out for the talking-head syndrome. In some books, the characters sit around planning future actions (battles, research, discoveries, etc.), then the next scene occurs after the fact and has those people (or others) standing around talking about how that action went. Don't wimp out: show the action happening instead of giving the reader a news report about it! It's a lot more interesting.

Sometimes "news reports" are necessary, but beware. A book with too many of these talking-head scenes may have the illusion of things happening, but nothing actually does.

Writing Tidbit #8

Tension & Pacing

If someone or something is threatening your point-of-view character's life, don't spend time describing her surroundings in great detail. First, it will drastically decrease the tension and slow the pacing when it needs to be fast. Second, a threatened person doesn't pay attention to their surroundings (except for people who may help, for escape routes, or for potential weapons) because their attention is on the danger and how to deal with that danger.

Also, use short or shorter sentences to help increase the feeling of tension. Longer sentences take longer for the reader to process, so they slow the pace and dilute the feeling of danger.

Writing Tidbit #7

Intuition

If you get the sneaking feeling that a scene doesn't work, the pace is dragging, a point-of-view character won't be interesting enough to keep the reader's attention, etc.: sorry, but you're right.

Enlist the help of your first readers to diagnose the problem since they can give you a fresh view of the work. Don't try to prop the scene or character up, but look for the underlying problem and fix that. (I know, easier said than done.)

If the character is boring, then maybe you're using the wrong character as your point-of-view character or her actions are too predictable. If the pace is too slow, then maybe some of the information or description needs to be cut or moved to a new place. If the scene doesn't work, maybe it's because nothing really changes, no new questions are raised, or it lacks tension. Or maybe it's something else. Take courage and keep digging...

Writing Tidbits #6

Dialogue
Keep an eye out for unnatural sounding dialogue. This often occurs when two characters are talking over information primarily to inform the reader of that information. It also happens when the author is attempting to hide information from the reader that the characters know and are referring to in their dialogue. Have someone read over the dialogue to make sure it sounds natural.

On your final draft, read the whole story out loud. This will help you find too-long, awkward, and unnatural-sounding sentences.

Writing Tidbits #5

Withholding Information

If the point-of-view character knows something, then you must tell the reader that information when the character is thinking about it. Withholding "obvious" information only irritates the reader.

For example, I read a book were a point-of-view character is upset by "the green object"...and she knows what it is. Later, she actually handles it, yet she still thinks of it as "the green object." Near the end, we finally find out it is a green bikini bottom. The mystery would only have increased, not decreased, by giving this information from the start. I would even say that the reader should have known why the bikini bottom troubled her (since she would know). If this spoiled the tension of the story, then she shouldn't have been used as a point-of-view character.

The artificial withholding of information only weakens a tale. If you feel the need to do it, then something foundational isn't working in the story and the artificial withholding of information won't fix it.

Writing Tidbits #4

Tension

Several elements must be present in a story to effectively create tension:

First, something needs to be restricted: the character's knowledge (e.g. who is the killer, where my stalker, what made that sound in the brush, etc.), the amount of time to complete a task (e.g. this task has always taken me ten minutes, but now I only have 4 minutes!), freedom of movement (e.g. the killer is on this island, but there is no way off!), etc.

Second, a character needs to be realistically worried. If the characters aren't concerned or the concerns don't seem valid, then the reader will see no need to worry for them. If a character isn't concerned and the danger does hit, then, at the very least, the reader will think the character a fool for knowing there was danger and not taking any precautions.

The reader will probably be angry at the author if she implies that the reader doesn't need to worry and then kills a character they care about off.

Third, the reader needs to care about what happens to the character. If the reader doesn't like the character, then they might actually feel pleasure rather than fear when the character is in danger.

Tension also needs to build over several sentences, if not longer. If the twig snaps in one sentence and the deer dashes past in the next, then the reader barely has time to register he should be concerned by the time he realizes there was no real danger. The further ahead of time you can foreshadow danger and steadily build the worry, the greater the payoff when the danger does happen. Don't spend a lot of time foreshadowing a danger that isn't real, though.


For example, a woman gets in a car with a male friend, apologizes for the wet umbrella, and comments on the bad storm. There is dialogue between the two, some of it establishing that the man thinks the woman rather timid. Then the car skids a bit on a turn. The woman suggests putting the trip off, but the driver is confident of his car and his driving ability and wants to get this trip done. An argument happens about something else, and perhaps woman is so frightened of the storm that she swears never to let the driver take her anywhere again. Then they come to an old wooden bridge. The brown, fast-flowing water is swirling around the bridge supports only a foot below the surface of the bridge...

The reader will feel cheated if these two drive over the bridge without a problem and arrive without further trouble at their destination. If the car stalls on the bridge, the bridge shakes, but they just manage to get off the bridge safely, the pay-off will be there since the danger was realized. It also works if the bridge collapses while they're on it or right before they edge out onto it.

Also note that the scene wouldn't be nearly as tense if the storm had been mentioned only once, the characters had a pleasant discussion with no concern for the weather, and then suddenly the two were faced with the dangerous bridge.

Writing Tidbits #3

Telling, Showing, Implying

If the information is vital for understanding the story, then outright state it. ("She feared dogs.")

If the information is important but not vital, then show it in a scene. (Have a scene where the heroine screams and runs away when she sees a dog.)

If the information adds to the story but isn't important, then imply it. (When the stablegirl and prince are out walking, she notices they will pass close to the kennel, so she diverts their route towards the gardens.)

Writing Tidbits #2

Tension v.s. Surprise

Don't go for surprise over suspense/tension. If you are withholding information to create a surprise later, but it decreases the suspense up to that point in the story, then stop withholding information. Suspense always trumps surprise because suspense is what makes the reader continue reading to the end.

Likewise, twists in the story should never be surprising even if they are unexpected.

Writing Tidbits #1

"Writing Tidbits" are, in part, to remind me of important writing lessons I've learned. You may find I've sometimes overlooked applying them in my stories, but that's partly because those things don't come naturally to me. I'm writing these Tidbits on this blog in the hopes they may help other writers.

Increasing Tension

If a scene has potential danger, increase the tension for the characters by making them react as if the danger is present (even if you, as the author, know that they don't need to be afraid of the outcome). Don't overlook any opportunity to keep some level of tension in the story. Even if the character is oblivious to the danger, the reader needs to know that the danger is present.

Creating Interesting Characters

On DeepGenre, David Louis Edelman wrote an article on Building Character(s). In the comments section, Sherwood Smith said something I found very useful about creating interesting characters:

...A couple more possible additions to your list:

1) Character emotional range. If the character is always gloomy, always sarcastic, always with the wise-ass quip, or always nasty, even if he or she has all the motivation in the universe, that character is going to read one-dimensional because we all know we’re a bundle of (usually contradictory) emotional reactions. The hard-assed villain at a light or even tender moment, the hero being off-balance, the side-kick having the cool head, you get the idea, giving characters range helps because:

2) The perception of lack of dimension (I think) comes through readers’ expectations being fulfilled. If the reader can guess ahead of time how a character will react, even if there is every logical reason for the character to do or say that thing, then there’s no growth or guesswork. When the character takes the reader by surprise, I think it ups the ante, the possible interest.

Some Things Change, Others Never Do

The New York Review of Books (Volume 55, Number 10, June 12, 2008) contains a very interesting article. "The Library in the New Age" by Robert Darnton talks about books and newspapers, how things have and haven't changed, and why printed books will be with use for a long time. I'd encourage people to read the whole article, but the following is an except to whet your curiosity:

Having learned to write news, I now distrust newspapers as a source of information, and I am often surprised by historians who take them as primary sources for knowing what really happened. I think newspapers should be read for information about how contemporaries construed events, rather than for reliable knowledge of events themselves. A study of news during the American Revolution by a graduate student of mine, Will Slauter, provides an example. Will followed accounts of Washington's defeat at the Battle of Brandywine as it was refracted in the American and European press. In the eighteenth century, news normally took the form of isolated paragraphs rather than "stories" as we know them now, and newspapers lifted most of their paragraphs from each other, adding new material picked up from gossips in coffeehouses or ship captains returning from voyages. A loyalist New York newspaper printed the first news of Brandywine with a letter from Washington informing Congress that he had been forced to retreat before the British forces under General William Howe. A copy of the paper traveled by ship, passing from New York to Halifax, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, where the paragraph and the letter were reprinted in a local newspaper.

The Edinburgh reprints were then reprinted in several London papers, each time undergoing subtle changes. The changes were important, because speculators were betting huge sums on the course of the American war, while bears were battling bulls on the Stock Exchange, and the government was about to present a budget to Parliament, where the pro-American opposition was threatening to overthrow the ministry of Lord North. At a distance of three thousand miles and four to six weeks of travel by ship, events in America were crucial for the resolution of this financial and political crisis.

What had actually happened? Londoners had learned to mistrust their newspapers, which frequently distorted the news as they lifted paragraphs from each other. That the original paragraph came from a loyalist American paper made it suspect to the reading public. Its roundabout route made it look even more doubtful, for why would Washington announce his own defeat, while Howe had not yet claimed victory in a dispatch sent directly from Philadelphia, near the scene of the action? Moreover, some reports noted that Lafayette had been wounded in the battle, an impossibility to British readers, who believed (wrongly from earlier, inaccurate reports) that Lafa-yette was far away from Brandywine, fighting against General John Burgoyne near Canada.

Finally, close readings of Washington's letter revealed stylistic touches that could not have come from the pen of a general. One—the use of "arraying" instead of "arranging" troops— later turned out to be a typographical error. Many Londoners therefore concluded that the report was a fraud, designed to promote the interests of the bull speculators and the Tory politicians—all the more so as the press coverage became increasingly inflated through the process of plagiarism. Some London papers claimed that the minor defeat had been a major catastrophe for the Americans, one that had ended with the annihilation of the rebel army and the death of Washington himself. (In fact, he was reported dead four times during the coverage of the war, and the London press declared Benedict Arnold dead twenty-six times.)

Le Courrier de l'Europe, a French newspaper produced in London, printed a translated digest of the English reports with a note warning that they probably were false. This version of the event passed through a dozen French papers produced in the Low Countries, the Rhineland, Switzerland, and France itself. By the time it arrived in Versailles, the news of Washington's defeat had been completely discounted. The comte de Vergennes, France's foreign minister, therefore continued to favor military intervention on the side of the Americans. And in London, when Howe's report of his victory finally arrived after a long delay (he had unaccountably neglected to write for two weeks), it was eclipsed by the more spectacular news of Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga. So the defeat at Brandywine turned into a case of miswritten and misread news—a media non-event whose meaning was determined by the process of its transmission...

Description and Title for My First Novel

I've been trying to write a "back cover summary" description for my first novel to use when friends ask, "what's it about?"

Here's my attempt:

Rica grew up at a strict military school in an isolated village. She's been trained to obey orders without hesitation and knows little of the world beyond the school except what she's been taught. Her teacher doesn't believe she has what it takes to become an officer, so she's about to start her life as a mercenary when a heavenly being appears. He indicates that she's the new queen of the kingdom of Norida by decree of the kingdom's god.

Norida's high ministers have ruled for twelve years, since the death of the last king. Rica tries to learn her new duties and what powers she holds as Queen, but her High Ministers are more interested in manipulating her into doing as they wish than in educating or obeying her. But she's too stubborn to let that stop her.

When two assassins attack her, Rica realizes that her ministers and perhaps her own guards want her dead. Now she has to discover who her enemies are and bring them to justice while hunted by the very people who should be protecting her.

I've been calling this novel Queen's Justice for some time now, but I'm changing the title to Justice Rising. It hardly matters, though, since any publisher who buys this novel will probably change the title to something else.