Advanced Fiction Writing Blog

We’re in the middle of a series of guest blogs with Cindy Martinusen Coloma. Cindy emailed me today with a comment to go before her next blog entry:

I’d love to comment on so many of your great comments. It is quite fascinating how different writers write - I mean we’re already an odd breed of people.

My writer’s group discussed the puzzle and the snowflake last night, and someone said, “No one cares what method you use to create the novel. All that matters is the final manuscript.” And that’s absolutely correct.

Anyway, I’m leaving a day early before being on faculty with Randy at a writer’s conference (we’ll both be there Thursday). We’ll get to chat about this in person, and I’m looking forward to meeting some of you there as well. During the next few days we’ll finish up the last few steps of the Puzzle Method. But let me just say what a pleasure it’s been to be a guest blogger here.

Randy sez: I agree. The cinnamon rolls taste just as good, whether you planned it all out in advance or just flung it together. I’ll now yield the floor to Cindy for her next blog entry:

BLOG 5:

Hello, I’m your guest blogger, here to help those of you who start an outline and find yourself writing a great sentence, or launching into a scene two-thirds into the book, or creating a dialogue between characters that you don’t quite know yet. We’re calling it the Puzzle Method until a better title presents itself.

Step 4: STORY PIECES CONTINUED

* You get to return to the story fully now! With decisions made, the story and characters will guide the way. So continue writing in pieces, or sections - whatever part of writing works best for you. Always leave room for the story to surprise you. (Once I discovered a great new subplot near the end of the book and the deadline. I had to go back and weave it throughout the entire novel - but it added such tension! Be sure not to ignore these).

* IF you find yourself lost, read over your scenes and scene-pieces and find a place where the creativity flows. If inspiration doesn’t come, start at the beginning. Some days, work really is just that!

* DISCIPLINE HERE - Create daily work count or hour goals. At the start of a project, I might set a goal for 500 words a day or 2500 a week (for the first week or two). By the end of a project, it might be 3,000 words or more a day (that might also be because I’m behind and deadline is coming). Please remember, it’s exactly like starting an exercise program, you work up to it! And it’s better to meet your goal and surpass it, than continually fall short. So be realistic. My usual goal is 2,000 words when other projects and life aren’t at a competing stage with writing. Sometimes other things are more important. Set a 500 word a day or 2500 a week goal during such times and when at the start of a writing project.

* Put HEADINGS at the top of each scene or scene-portion or even an idea. Here are some examples from Orchid House:

MANALO WITH REBEL GROUP MUST GO TO MANILA (Idea)

-one of his men wants to watch Die Hard II, he’s a fan of Bruce Willis. Quotes Die Hard lines

FIRST NIGHT - EMMAN (Sentence with idea of what will happen)

From his place in the tree Emman dropped the yo-yo, let it “sleep,” then flicked his wrist to bring it back.

Emman on guard duty watching Hacienda Esperanza, plays with father’s yo-yo, and knows he’ll do a good job protecting the American woman who has just arrived. He’s angry at Bok who arrives because the younger, annoying tag-along was brave enough to greet the American woman, even touch her hands.

These headings will help you find them again, you know, when you rush out of the shower in your towel and want to add something to that scene with Emman.

* Put aside every bit of obsessive-compulsive disorder and make a writing mess in ONE document (I’ll let you use 3 at the most if you are very good - as in breaking it into three sections though this should actually come later on. But I know some of you super-organizers may not be able to go further if I don’t give some room here).

* REMEMBER THIS: trust yourself, trust the story being created, trust the twists and turns, trust the rabbit trails, and trust “What if?”

Oops, Randy might shut me down with these looong examples. I’ll try to simplify it tomorrow!

Randy sez: Nope, I don’t mind if you go a bit long. Thanks, Cindy! I need to go finish packing tonight because I’m flying out tomorrow. I’ll TRY to blog at the conference, but it can be tricky to do that, because it’s so much fun to be AT a conference that I forget to do my email and blog. Writers are the coolest people on the planet. That’s the real reason I love writing conferences.

Today we’ll have another installment from guest blogger Cindy Martinusen Coloma. She’s been describing her “Puzzle Method” for the last several days.

I now yield the floor to Cindy:

BLOG 4 -

Week 2, Days 1-3 (7 days max if you want a strong schedule)

Now that you’ve had a week of fun, it’s time to start reigning in some of those ideas. It’s time to make some decisions before I set you free writing once again. BUT while you work on this, be sure to write any portion of the novel that arises from this step.

Step 3: DECISIONS

* What POV (s) - multiple points of view or singular?

* Who is (are) the focal character(s)? Who can best tell this story? More than one? Be creative in seeking the eyes and voice the story will be told through. Remember this may change later, and give yourself room for that change. Note: In Orchid House, I have 3 POVs that are very different from each other: an American woman, a Filipino Communist guerrilla fighter, a pre-teen Filipino boy soldier. So for each scene, I’d ask myself which view did I want the story told from? At times, I wrote it from several viewpoints and then chose who gave the best perspective, or could offer the story the best view. For some of the intense scenes, I wrote from all their POVs, but this can only occur if you keep the story progressing as well. (But now I’m getting into different writing territory).

* What tense do you want to use? (In my novel The Salt Garden, I wrote 3 POVs with 2 of those in PRESENT tense and one was from a memoir so it was PAST tense. I loved how it turned out, though it was initially a writing experiment that I wasn’t sure would work.)

* What is your realistic schedule for this book? Set it up and get accountability from someone who will be tough on you or pay for a mentor/coach (I recommend www.CoachingTheWriter.com or I do this as well www.method3AM.com ). Do whatever it takes to make yourself write! When you fail, try again.

Note: All through this, KEEP WRITING and allow yourself to play with the story, the characters, and to think outside what is normal in writing and normal for your writing. So see, you still get to have fun here. The discipline is coming!

Randy sez: Thanks, Cindy! I’d like to respond to a few comments from today:

Christophe described his problems with both the Seat-of-the-Pants approach and the Snowflake and then concluded:

So I’m kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. The more I read about this puzzle method, the more I get the impression that it’s the method I’ve been using all along (just didn’t know it), but my story wasn’t up to par. So what do I go with?

Is there such a thing as a mix between Snowflake and Puzzle? A Puzzleflake? Or a Snowpuzzle? The two methods are so much the opposite of each other, I can hardly imagine such a thing to exist.

Randy sez: I would go with the Puzzleflake, Christophe. My hunch is that you need freedom first, then discipline later. So start with the Puzzle, let it run until you start losing steam, and then do a few steps of the Snowflake (but not the whole thing). You do not want to chew all the sugar out of the gum. Different people have different levels of tolerance for structure. The Snowflake is less structure than many writers use (those who outline the whole thing six times before ever writing a word). But it is still more structure than many writers need. Use only as much as you can tolerate! Cate left a comment right after yours that shows how she solves the problem by Puzzling first, then Snowflaking a bit.

Andie wrote:

I’m trying an experiment today by taking the different parts of a scene: description, involuntary reactions, dialog, internal monologue and nonverbal communication and write these each separately then go back and layer them.

Randy sez: It sounds like you’ve been reading Margie Lawson’s course on Creating Character Emotions, right? Tell us how you like it! I’ve never tried your experiment, but it sounds interesting. I’m linear enough that I want to just unfold the whole scene in one shot, but I’ll bet there are people who would love your approach.

Barbara wrote:

I generally use the snowflake method to map out my story. But somewhere along the way, the characters take over and the story deviates (sometimes sharply) from the intended track. I still know the ending, but how do I get there? I tend to vere well of track from the original intent, and sometimes don’t know how to make it back. Any suggestions? Sometimes the only thing I can think of doing is to ignore some of what I’ve written and go back tothe original outline. But this doesn’t feel right to me. Is there a way to use my inspiration and still head in the direction of the outline?

Randy sez: The solution is simple. When the characters start veering the story off track, let them. They have come alive and are doing what characters are supposed to do. When you start feeling out of control, re-do your Snowflake spreadsheet to plot out the new story that is emerging. It won’t take more than a day or two. I do this all the time. My characters always want to change my story, so I never feel like the original story is “the way it should be.” If necessary, I may go back and re-do the one-sentence summary to fit the new story.

We’ll continue tomorrow with Day 5 of Cindy’s Puzzle Method.

Last week we began a series of guest blog entries by my friend, novelist Cindy Martinusen Coloma. Cindy is explaining her “Puzzle Method” of writing a novel, which is very different from my Snowflake Method. I say, the more methods, the merrier. It gives us all choices when we know more ways to get that story down on paper.

So I now yield the floor to Cindy:

Blog 3 - SOME THINGS TO REMEMBER

Some Words on Trust - this writing method requires a good amount of trust. As a reader and a writer, you have an innate sense of story. Trust it. Trust yourself. Just keep going.

The more you write, the more you trust yourself as a writer. Yes, we all fight the demons and often the best of writers become insecure about a work. But writers speak more of their faults, demons, and insecurities than about their truths. The more you write and read, the better you know story. So practice trust!

And hint: if one method of writing isn’t working - try another! Once I was toward the end of a novel and felt a little lost so I found The Hero’s Journey on my bookshelf. I discovered that my story followed that mythic structure quite closely. It helped ground me enough to finish one of my favorite novels.

And Now A Note on Publishing Realities - most publishing houses require the entire manuscript before offering a contract. But at times, a book proposal is needed.

What do I do? I fake it! I write chapters and a synopsis knowing the final manuscript will be a far cry from what I turn in. To some editors, I’ve given an update during the writing, others I’ve let be surprised (and only once that didn’t go well). In fact, I usually rewrite the first chapter or chapters after I finish the novel. So no, book proposals are tough for out-of-order writers, but I also know any kind of writing discipline that we don’t like is good for us. And it won’t hurt the story creation.

Randy sez: Thanks for another installment of the Puzzle Method, Cindy! A word about proposals:

Pre-published writers are almost always going to have to write the full manuscript first in order to sell their first novel. There are rare exceptions, but generally that’s the case.

Published authors generally can sell their next book on the strength of a proposal. Cindy’s advice holds true for all novelists, whether they are Puzzlers, Snowflakers, or hard-core Outliners. You can’t guarantee in advance how the story is going to turn out, no matter how well you plan it. If your characters are truly alive, they’ll take charge of the story and do things their way, whether you want them to or not. Every editor in the world knows this, and fully expects that the story described in the proposal will be substantially different when finally written. Once in awhile, they decide they don’t like it. Most often, they love the actual novel a lot more than that horrid thing that was sketched out in the proposal.

I 100% agree with Cindy: you have to trust yourself as a novelist. You have to let the story go. If you do that, nine times out of ten, it’ll come out fine in the end. Once out of ten times, the story just can’t be rescued. Not your fault. You want the glory, you gotta be prepared to crash/burn. I have never figured out a way around that truth.

Go for the glory. Trust yourself to find your story. Have fun.

I’m in Minneapolis right now in a hotel lobby hooked up to the wireless network and hoping to get this blog out before I turn into a pumpkin. I’ll answer a few questions and then Cindy will answer a few questions.

Ann wrote:

If anybody else is interested in going for the First Chapter writing contest, I’ll post the url, but only with Randy’s okay on that.

Randy sez: Yes, go right ahead. It’s fine to post URLs on this blog. My blogging software is set up (I think) to put all comments with a URL into moderation. Then I can decide whether it’s spam or not. (You’d be amazed how many spam comments I get on this blog, but not one has ever appeared here, because my spam filter is set pretty tight.)

Karla wrote:

Randy is a logical, sequential thinker (I mean, c’mon, the guy’s a physicist!).

Randy sez: LOL, I actually think in pictures. I wrote my Ph.D. thesis on the strength of a picture which flashed into my mind while I was walking through the library at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Most of the scientific ideas and computational methods I’ve created in my career were based on pictures that I saw in a flash, and then took months to work out the details. So yeah, I can do the logical/linear thinking, but without those occasional flashes of pictures, I’d never have accomplished much. And the Snowflake is popular in part because it’s a pictorial metaphor for a very complicated process.

I got an email from Cindy today with responses to some of your comments, so I’m going to paste that in here.

Cindy sez:

First of all, wow, I love this great group! And one thing I’ve realized, is that I love to write/talk about writing – which I knew, but now discover I want to write and write so many things to all of you. But I’ll try to shave it down.

Answers to Gerhard:

First Question about Endings: Once I get a general sense of story, I also get the general destination (end) of a work, but it might be very vague like: Someone must die, not everything will be resolved, and I want a character to discover something profound and unexpected, be it physical or spiritual or….

Or there are times when I know, “Wow, that’s what the ending will be!” and it hits me with such profound knowing that I want to jump up and kiss someone or run outside and dance on the top of my car. Sometimes I do make odd cheering displays but my family ignores me since they’re pretty used to it. Other times, the discovery of an ending is more subtle, or the ending I thought of improves or the real “Wow, I know the ending!” comes later. I try not to obsess over getting it though. Once I didn’t know the key, climatic “thing” until 2 weeks before deadline and literally as I wrote the scene (the characters were in an underwater cave)! I was so freaked out, but then, I did the cheering once it came.

Randy breaks in to comment: When John Olson and I were writing OXYGEN, we knew the ending stunk pretty bad. We figured our editor would give us some ideas on how to fix it. He did. He said, “The ending is lame. Fix it.” So then we worked like mad dogs to do our revisions and kept putting off the ending, hoping that inspiration would strike. But it didn’t. Finally, it was the last day before the final revised manuscript was due. John and I talked on the phone all day, trying to come up with an ending. We tried several, and none worked. Around 11:15 that night, John came up with an idea. It was “right.” We knew it. I slammed out a few hundred words in fifteen minutes, emailed it to John, and went to bed. John worked it over till about 3 AM and then sent it in. And it was right. You just never know when that inspiration is going to flash for you.

Returning to Cindy:

I’ve never had a scene surprise me as being “the end.” A scene may surprise me by being the beginning (like a revision of chapter 2 because it’s a better hook or maybe I find it’s stronger to start from another POV as happened with Orchid House), but the end is always somewhat known. That final piece fits, and I think writers know when it does (like the final piece of a puzzle). This is true with dramatic, subtle, or even those ending that sort of drop off and anger us as readers. I think the author probably believed this was the end of his story. Though of course, writers fail and books get published without the story fully crafted.  

For the Second Questions (see, I like to talk about these things!), I’ll go into more detail as we go through the steps of the Puzzle Method, but here’s a preview:

No, I don’t analyze and draw up a list of missing scenes – that sounds like something Randy would do (I may not even have full scenes. Sometimes I have a sentence that I like and know should be there, or a description of something of part of a dialogue – imagine the list of missing parts then!). BUT for those who are a mix between Snowflakes and Puzzles that might be a great idea.

Randy interrupts again: Right, I have to have a list of scenes, or I can’t really get rolling. Once I have that list, though, I can write pretty fast.

Cindy resists urge to punch Randy for interrupting:

This is one of the Puzzle steps, so spoiler warning. There is a certain time in the writing (usually when I have about 50,000-70,000 words) when I print the mess out and start putting it in order. I often storyboard, literally cutting and moving things around on my floor – putting the pieces in sections (beginning, middle, end). Then I go to the computer and I move those pieces into sections. When I then start writing my chapters, the connecting scenes come easily (some pieces get tossed too).

What never fails to amaze me is how much easier it is to finish one portion of a scene or a chapter and how it connects to another when I use this method. I wrote much slower, with less passion and a lot more drudgery when I went from page 1 to page 2…. More on all of this in a few days.

Thanks for all the warm welcomes and great comments. I’m very impressed with this group!

Randy sez: OK, we’ll pick up again with more on the Puzzle Method on Monday. See ya then!

Today is Day #2 of guest blogger Cindy Martinusen Colomo, who is sharing her “Puzzle Method” with us. I’ll yield the floor to Cindy now:

BLOG 2 - MAYBE THE MOST FUN IN WRITING WEEK

Today, I’m jumping right in and tomorrow I’ll add some thoughts on trust and publishing realities.

Day 1 to 7 (at most 7 days or else you won’t ever get done!)

1. THE SPARK - a story begins with a spark of something. It might be:

* An image, situation, a character (someone you see on the street or someone who comes into your head) a climatic moment, a surprise twist, a newspaper headline. (My character of Emman in Orchid House started when I pictured a Filipino kid with a gun at his side, a cigarette butt in his mouth, as he watched Magnum P.I. through the open window of a small house)

* WRITE IT DOWN!!!

2. FIRST STORY PIECES - take that spark with you, and just see how more pieces arrive in your life.

* Many of these ideas and images come at the worst times, like in the shower, before bed or right when I wake up, or especially when I’m driving in the car.  WRITE THEM DOWN!!! (Get a tape recorder for the car or pull over, take a notepad to the bathroom and have one by the bed)

* There is great power and fun to this time of free-roaming imagination. Don’t obsess over putting anything together right now. Just keep creating pieces. If two click together, then by all means, put them together! Don’t miss opportunities, let the story reveal itself with the knowledge that it’s going to change a lot. New plot twists, characters that surprise you, and research are just a few things that take your story to new places.

Note: I’m a big believer in writing every day or at least consistently. For the first week of creating this story however, I’d advise letting the pieces of your story come to life throughout, well, your life. Be open to the world around you. Give imagination some space to be free and maybe work on non-fiction if you have daily writing goals. For your fiction, meditate, go on a drive, take long baths, watch and read what inspires, eavesdrop at restaurants. And write down everything that comes to you.

Randy sez: It was interesting to read the comments that were posted today.

Gerhard asked a question for Cindy:

When you write out of sequence, do you know that you are now going to write an ending? Or do you just write a number of scenes and then later decide, or find, that a certain scene ends up being THE ending?

Second question: When you write a number of scenes there are obviously gaps between them, gaps to be filled in order to get the story from A to B so it makes sense. Do you then analyse and draw up a list of missing scenes and tick them off as you write them?
How do you know how not to overdo or underdo filling in the gaps? Too big a gap and the reader gets lost, too much filling and the reader gets bored?

Randy sez: I’ll defer this question to Cindy. Cindy, email me privately and I’ll post your response here tomorrow.

Heather wrote:

I used the Snowflake on my second novel (which is finished and resting before a final polish before going out to my critique group) and loved it. I am now trying to use it on my newest one and it’s just not gelling for me. This novel has multiple subplots and I think that’s why… for some reason I cannot seem to get the subplots integrated into the one paragraph summary, and without them the ‘main plot’ feels too thin to carry a novel.

I do think the Snowflake is right for me, but maybe not for this book? I have all the sample Snowflake materials but none seem to handle subplots like mine. Randy, any suggestions? In the meantime, I await the puzzle method’s explanation.

Randy sez: You should not try to get the subplots into the one-paragraph summary. Each character has a one-paragraph summary for their own story, so put the subplots there. It’s hard to say what method will work best for you. You may be a Snowflaker but need something different to get you unjammed. Or maybe you’re a hybrid. It doesn’t matter. When you’re stuck, just try something different till you get unstuck.

Tomorrow, I’ll be in Minneapolis for the board meeting of my favorite writing organization, but I should be able to post Cindy’s next article on the Puzzle Method without any problems. See ya then!

Today we’re going to start a new series of guest blogs with a friend of mine, Cindy Martinusen Coloma. I’ve known Cindy for a long time — I met her years ago at a writing conference. She is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met, and it’s always fun talking with her. I’ll be seeing her again in about a week at a conference where she’ll be teaching her “Puzzle Method” and I’ll be teaching a mentoring track.

I’ve asked Cindy to join us now to give you all a preview of the Puzzle Method over the next few days.

Here’s her bio:

Cindy (Martinusen) Coloma has written eight novels to critical acclaim. She is a national and international speaker/teacher and co-owns Method 3AM Writing Services which offers aspiring to published authors helps in manuscript reviews, critiques, book doctoring, mentoring programs and in developing brand and websites. Since 1997, Cindy has co-led a monthly writers group near Redding, California. Check out her web sites at www.cindymartinusen.com and www.method3AM.com.

Cindy’s newest release Orchid House just came out in February. It was written by “The Puzzle Method,” is set in the Philippines and is told through three conflicting POVs — an American woman, a Communist rebel leader hiding in the mountain jungle, and a Filipino boy soldier who wants to be like Magnum P.I.

Randy sez: Cindy has been telling me about her Puzzle Method for a few years now, but I’ve never got the whole story. I’m going to get it now, and so will you. I gather the Puzzle Method is about as far as you can get from the Snowflake Method while remaining on the same planet. That’s good! It means there are options. Not everybody loves the Snowflake, which doesn’t bother me. Different folks need different strokes, like they say.

(By the way, if you Google “puzzle method fiction” right now, guess what the top result is? That’s right — this blog. I’m guessing in a few days, the top return for “puzzle method” will be this blog. We’ll see.)

Anyway, I’m turning the floor over to Cindy now:

BLOG 1 - INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Puzzle Method of Writing — not the “puzzling” method, let’s make that clear from the start.

This was my problem.

I don’t like fiction outlines, and I don’t end up following them anyway.

I don’t write best by starting at Chapter One.

I don’t create detailed character sketches, it takes the life right out of them.

And Randy’s “snowflake” is revolutionary to many, but it just might kill me.

Michelangelo said, “I saw the angel in the marble and (I) carved until I set him free.”

When I write, there is a hint of something, a story or a character or a “something” that I see in the marble — though not fully — but nearly and most definitely there. The story wants to come to life, longs to be brought into creation. And so the words are tools, carving at the marble to set the story free.

Now if that sounds overly esoteric, don’t worry. The next days of my guesting here on Randy’s blog will be given over to instruction on how to create a novel from story puzzle pieces or from out the marble (and I promise not to overdo the metaphors).

So, I’m introducing to you “The Puzzle Method” which is an out-of-order way to write. It is a style for people who get bogged down in pre-writing and pre-organization of a novel. After nearly two decades of creating stories and learning the craft, I now easily trust that this is the best way I create a novel — or even a short story or article.

I hope this and Randy’s work will help you find your best writing method with less trial and error so you can get to the work of setting angels free.

Randy sez: Every writer is different, just like, um, those pesky snowflakes. Rah, rah for diversity! I’ll be looking forward to the next post, when Cindy gets down to details on the Puzzle Method.

I’ve spent the day putting together my e-zine and I am about all written out. So today, I’d like to point you to Chip MacGregor’s blog at www.ChipMacGregor.com. He’s got the best explanation of the economics of publishing that I’ve ever seen. If you’ve ever wondered about advances and how publishers earn their nickel, Chip will give you the goods.

Today I’m going to respond to a few comments that came in over the weekend. Tomorrow, I’ll be working on the next issue of the e-zine, so won’t blog. Wednesday, I’ll be starting a new series with a guest author. She’ll be talking about her scheme for designing a novel which appears to be the very opposite of my Snowflake method. More on that on Wednesday. In the meantime . . .

Tiffany wrote, regarding Dwight Swain’s book:

Also, when you’re looking at fiction from an intellectual or literary fiction standpoint, it can rankle to have someone say “Story about ideas is boring,” and “People read for excitement, not intellectual stimulation.” I agree with Swain, to a certain extent, though I’m positive I wouldn’t have agreed when I was studying English Lit and creative writing in college, and was wholeheartedly embarrassed by my addiction to pulp fantasy. Still, every time he makes a blanket statement like that, I find myself thinking of all the exceptions (one of my friends, for instance, who likes to unwind by reading some Kant or Plato or Hegel).

Randy sez: Right, Dwight Swain explicitly says at the beginning of his book TECHNIQUES OF THE SELLING WRITER that it’s not for literary novels. He teaches what works for genre fiction, not for literary fiction.

The complaint I’ve heard from some people is that Swain is boring. I never found him boring, so all I can say is that boring is relative. After all, there are even folks who have no interest in statistical inference! This appalls me, since I find it fascinating. After all, without some form of inference, you would know NOTHING. Yet there are a few people (you know who you are) who find the question of Bayesian priors just a wee bit dull. Conversely, I’m told there are people who LIKE accounting. (Snore…)

The truth is that no matter what you find extraordinarily fascinating, there is some philistine somewhere that finds it unutterably boring. Speaking of which . . .

Melissa wrote:

Yeah Randy, you’re definately right about writer’s and their research. My husband thinks that I must be one of the foremost minds in 10th Century Irish History because of all the research I put into it. But I can’t help what I love. Plus I’m one of those worry worts whose always got to cross reference everything to make sure I get my facts straight. As a historical fiction writer, how much research should be put into your book? I was told by one author in that genre that you should have at least three different sources that agree on a given topic before you put it down as fact. That seems to be an aweful lot of sources to me! Especially considering all of the facts you have to verify!

Randy sez: Probably the biggest criminals (in terms of boring other people) are historical writers. They do all that research and so they figure they have to inflict it on their readers. No. No, no, NO! Do 100 times as much research as you need in order to write the book. Then put in 1 percent of what you know. This ensures that you won’t bore your reader and that you’ll have enough material for your next 99 books without doing any more research.

As for that rule that says you have to have at least 3 sources, I don’t believe it. Most of what we know about ancient history comes from a single source. And in fact, a lot of what we know about any time period is contradicted by at least one source. Want proof? Read tomorrow’s newspaper. I assure you I haven’t seen it yet. If you read it carefully, you’ll find at least one “fact” which you know perfectly well is false.

Historical sources were human and they had biases. So they disagree. The art of history is figuring out what probably happened in spite of those pesky sources, who exaggerate, prevaricate, fib, lie, cheat, and generally bend the truth. When you don’t know something, make it up. If you’ve done your homework, your guess will be as good as anyone else’s and better than most.

Just as an example, I write about Jewish history in the first century of this era. Our main source is the Jewish historian Josephus, who fought against Rome in the Jewish revolt, then got captured and switched sides to work for the Roman. After the war, he retired to Rome to write history. He produced two major works which contradict each other on a number of points, and which are clearly biased or implausible at many others. An unsolved problem is to deconstruct Josephus and figure out what REALLY happened. Yet he’s the best thing we’ve got: he covers the period up to A.D. 70 very well; after that, we know very little for quite a long period of time. No historian would want to lose this very valuable source, even though interpreting him is very difficult.

OK, on Wednesday we’ll begin a new series on the “Puzzle Method” of writing a novel. See ya then!