Today’s word count: 1214 words

NANTUCKET word count to date: 33,959

In keeping with my intention to make writing more of a priority, I sat down to write far earlier than I normally do. I finished before dinner, in fact. I started by deleting a couple of lines from the end of yesterday’s writing, and then plunging in from there.

A surprise showed up today, in the form of a new character. I’m not sure at all how he fits into the story, but he just showed up and he made sense where he showed up. As to how he might come into the story later, though, I’m not sure at all. I figured I might as well write him in and see where he takes me.

This is part of the reason why I like writing without a concrete outline. It’s kind of like reading a novel: I continue writing because I want to see what happens. With this book, because it’s a mystery, I kind of know what happens, in that I know who the murderer is, and I know why the murder was committed. But other than that, I don’t know what happens between here and there. I also don’t know how the paranormal comes into play in the story, which is kind of scary (for me as a writer, I mean) – since one of my main characters is all about the paranormal.

Actually, this whole not-knowing thing can be rather challenging. When I stopped working on this novel last November, at the end of NaNoWriMo, I had just written a scene that involved another murder. This second murder was a total surprise to me. I think this second murder is connected to the story. And if I was reading this novel rather than writing it, I’d assume it was the same murderer. The signs are all there. But the truth is, I don’t know. I don’t even know why it happened.

But I guess if it keeps me writing, just so I can find out for myself what happened, then I’m all for it.

For those of you who write, do you use an outline? A semi-outline? Or do you wing it, and go with the flow?  I’ve always liked Stephen King’s concept of story writing as simply digging out a fossil that’s already there – the idea that the story already exists, more or less fully formed, and the writer’s only job is to simply to use the tools at hand to dig it out of the ground.

Every week I come across interesting links that aren’t reviews, but more along the lines of book talk and book news. They can run the gamut from new releases, fun book thoughts and sometimes things that are only marginally book-related. So I’ve decided to post them each Saturday, and since I’m not feeling particularly creative today, the only name I could think of was “Saturday Links”. So Saturday Links it is!

Here’s what I’ve shared this week (and for everyone who follows me on Twitter, I have – I hope! – set things up so that anytime I share a link, it will get Tweeted):

Stephen King: Best Books of ‘08: Several books here that I want to read – Joseph Wambaugh’s Hollywood Crows, Kate Atkinson’s When Will There Be Good News?, Stef Penney’s The Tenderness of Wolves and the novels of Robert Goddard.

Excerpt from Charlaine Harris’ upcoming Sookie Stackhouse novel, Dead and Gone, found via Urban Fantasy Land: I’m tempted to start the Stackhouse series with Dead and Gone, instead of going back to the beginning.

Twelve Days of Giving: Books for Twilighters: I haven’t read the Twilight series yet (they’re in my TBR), but I liked this list of gift suggestions for fans of Twilight. I’ve read Meg Cabot’s Mediator series which I enjoyed very much. And I’m adding Demon in My View to my TBR.

I’m sitting here re-reading my copy of Stephen King’s On Writing. You could say I’m procrastinating, as I’m doing this instead of working on one of several editorial deadlines that are coming due next week and the week after, not to mention the condition of my TBR pile, each book of which I plan on reviewing here at Ms. Bookish.

But I love On Writing; for me, one of the pleasures of life is re-reading it every now and then. That got me wondering: what is it about this book that appeals to me so much?

And then I realized, it’s because of this:

But Amy [Tan] was right: nobody ever asks about the language. They ask the DeLillos and the Updikes and the Styrons, but they don’t ask popular novelists. Yet many of us proles also care about the language, in our humble way, and care passionately about the art and craft of telling stories on paper. What follows is an attempt to put down, briefly and simply, how I came to the craft, what I know about it now, and how it’s done. It’s about the day job; it’s about the language.

If you’ve read this blog for the short while it’s been around, you’ve probably noticed, I enjoy popular fiction very much, whether it’s for adults, teens or children. Yes, I do read “literary” fiction, although if given the choice, I’d prefer re-reading certain classics (Pride and Prejudice and A Good Soldier come to mind), and I have a special fondness for plays and screenplays (especially Beckett and Bergman).

But ask me to make a Deserted Island list, and it would be filled with popular fiction (right below Getting Off Deserted Islands for Dummies, complete with a compact inflatable raft as an insert, that is).

For me, the well-written popular novel is exactly that – it’s well-written. It combines a serious commitment to the craft of language with the excitement of plot and the charm of well-developed characters. I admit, too, that I don’t need both exquisite characterization and intricate plot together, either. The presence of one or the other can hook me just fine. But the language? It’s got to be there, or I can’t find my way through the work.