Last week I changed something major in my manuscript.
Okay, I actually changed a lot of things. I shook some 35,000 words from my manuscript, which liberated me to expand the ending. But the most important thing I changed was a name. A monster.
I don't have revenants anymore.
I have incarnates.
It took weeks to settle on a new monster name, and insofar as the monster's metaphorical basis is concerned, the nomenclature had to be perfect. Actually, incarnate works better than revenant, which means Amy Hunington did me a favor. Ha!
And by god, if I HEAR anything about a YA novel with incarnates over Publisher's Marketplace/YALITCHAT/Various-editors'-and-agents'-blogs/QueryTracker.com, I cannot guarantee the safety of the authors of such imaginary manuscripts.
All my best,
Scarlett
Friday, May 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Incarnate! I like it! I've always just LOVED that word anyway.
ReplyDeleteI like the word too. I spent hours researching Latin and Greek words associated with sin/imbalance/blood/et cetera, but failed to find anything I really liked. Finally, I was revising the opening lines--rather than being 'revenant', Chloe calls herself 'destruction'. And then it hit me: 'destruction incarnate.' The word has some great, dark connotations and a great lyric sound. . . and rather than meaning 'reborn', it means 'made flesh'; therefore, the 'incarnates' are sin and imbalance made flesh, seeking atonement. . . it's perfect. So thank you, Hunington!
ReplyDelete