What shall I write about on my shiny new blog?
I have a rant forthcoming, but I thought that it would be better to do something positive right off the bat.
I’ve been working on the sequel to Granger’s Crossing for nearly a year now. I’m well into the second draft. The basis for this one goes back to around the time I was finishing up Granger’s Crossing. During my research I came across an actual murder I thought would make a good subject for the sequel. Apparently, a disgruntled trapper physically assaulted his young wife, who promptly went home to her parents. When the trapper showed up demanding her return, the father refused and the trapper shot him. Fast forward a few months and the trapper was found dead in the woods. From what I could tell, no investigation ensued for that death and it faded into obscurity.
Of course, there were a number of ancillary events around this that affected St. Louis history, namely the relocation of the father’s widow from Kaskaskia to St. Louis. This mattered because her daughters soon enough married prominent men and became part of the village legacy.
That as over a decade ago. What happened between then and now is part and parcel of the byways and frustrations of the publishing industry. I was unable to place Granger’s Crossing for nearly ten years. By the time the book found a home with Amphorae, I had moved on, back to science fiction. When Amphorae picked the novel up, I had to recover much of the research I had done (some of which I had misplaced) and re-immerse myself in that world. One of the bits I thought I had lost was the whole affair of the trapper.
But, like most writers, I am a packrat. I almost never throw anything out. I unearthed the notes, reacquainted myself with the period, and then—
Well, I had the murder, but not much else. Looking at where I had left off, I realized that, first, I had to get Granger and Martine back to St. Louis. And the timing between their departure and return had to be explained. What happened during that nearly two years? As well, what was going on in the rest of the country, along the Mississippi River, not to mention the changes within the village itself.
The first thing I found was that there had been a massive flood. Before reliable records about such things were kept, the flood of 1786 was reputedly one of the worst. Ste. Genevieve had to move itself inland afterward. Kaskaskia suffered erosion. On top of that, Spain had begun its embargo of American traffic up and down the river.
The situation, as they say, was fluid. Granger and Martine would be coming back into a chaotic situation.
But why had they been gone for so long, east to Granger’s hometown in Connecticut? And, naturally, what kind of reception did they receive upon arrival among these New Englanders? Like a giant ball of twine, pull on one end and see what unravels…
Answering these questions took me down other side roads of research. I am, truthfully, not as enamored of research as others, although I enjoy it. I love diving into the essence of a period, finding out what things were like, the politics, the social aspects, all that. But I have a limit when it comes to nailing down every little detail. It’s not that I don’t want to know, but one reaches a point of diminishing returns. I have a story to tell, I want to get on with it.
I learned long ago that in order to do this kind of thing, I have to do research as I write. That the whole notion of doing all of it up front, before word one is written, simply doesn’t work. It’s a recipe for stagnation. There’s too much. Mainly, you have no idea what parts you’ll actually use until you encounter the need in the story itself.
I am, I admit, an amateur historian. I do what I can to create a reliable idea of a period. I get the dates as right as possible (with some fudging here and there to fit the needs of the narrative). The characters, those based on historical figures, I draw as well as possible, but in that regard research has a natural limit, because a great deal of what has been written about many of them is hagiographic at best. That’s where imagination comes in. I paint them in essence, based on what biographical material I find and informed by the broader context of their historical setting.
And then I write, The key elements of the story in hand, I can start generating a plot. I am almost always surprised at the twists and turns. In this instance, the whole story of frontier politics came into play in ways I had not anticipated.
A third of the way into the second draft, I discovered the need for a brand new character. So this time through, as well as the usual nips and tucks and general improvement, I have to weave a new thread into the fabric of the whole.
This is fun. But also frustrating. I have never been a patient man. I want to see the finished product and the longer it takes to get there…
Curiously, I am learning the satisfactions of delayed gratification.
I’m now down to the last third of this draft and once more find myself driven into primary research over the matter of George Rogers Clark. Details, details.
My backbrain is starting to work on what the third novel will be about. Insistent, it is. I’m not ready to think about that yet, but I find my subconscious offering up bits and new story and setting. I had always had in mind to do a book involving the Whiskey Rebellion…