Suddenly, a Pirate Ship Loomed Over the Horizon

QUESTION: In action scenes, I use the phrases "suddenly" or "all of a sudden" a ridiculous amount of times when describing fast-paced action scenes. What other words or phrases can I use?

If you write the scene correctly, you don't need "suddenly" or any other synonym or phrase. The reader is smart enough to know the fighters in a physical battle are moving fast so everything is "suddenly" unless we say otherwise.

The trick is to get into the head of one of the characters and stay there. Let the reader see what the character sees and feel what the character feels.

You don't say, 

Suddenly, the other fighter pulled out his knife and jabbed at him.

You say, 

Sam dodged the other man's fist. The hand that should have been blocking his next blow moved downward toward the man's knife sheath. 

A flash of steel. 

Throwing himself backward away from the other man's knife, Sam slammed into the ground on his back. 

Or, if you are describing a battle of many men, you don't say 

Suddenly, a line of cavalry surged over the top of the hill toward them.

You say, 

On the hill just above the soldiers, the drumming of many horse hooves and the Rebel yell of hundreds of men warned them. 

The Yankees spun around as the Confederate cavalry charged toward them.

How Many Viewpoints

 QUESTION:  How many viewpoint characters can I use?  And must I have the bad guy’s point of view?

The point of view character or POV is writing jargon for the person whose head you are inside during a scene in fiction.  With the exception of omniscient viewpoint novels, all current genre novels have only one character’s POV at a time.

The number of point-of-view characters you use in a novel depends on genre needs as well as the story you have to tell. If your choice of POVs isn't mandated by the market, you use the number of POVs you need.

In STAR-CROSSED, I used six POVs because my story was so complex, and the novel was big enough at around 130,000 words to allow so many characters.  One of the POVs was my villain.  

I have also created complex suspense plots with only one or two POVs because the plot was so tightly connected that those POVs were enough.  None of those had the antagonist's POV.  

If the antagonist doesn't have a POV, the reader will still get a sense of the person because of what he does.  

The main characters are also discovering who or what this person is by following the clues of the crime or the situation. As the characters learn about this criminal so does the reader.  

If this person's crimes are methodical, this gives the reader a bit of information about him.  If he cuts off the victims' fingers with a surgical knife, the reader learns something else about him.  

By the time the bad guy is unveiled, the reader should have a very good sense of this character without a POV.  At the moment of unveiling, the reader will usually be given the final pieces of this character's emotional puzzle.

Some writers have trouble writing the bad guys because they are concentrating on the good guys and the plot needs of the novel.  I always suggest that a writer write a summary of the plot from the point of view of the bad guy starting with the crime, if there was one, and move from that point to the final unveiling.

The bad guy's choices and his story must be as logical for his personality as the plot choices and story of the main characters. 

Showing vs Telling

 QUESTION: Is there one hard and fast way to always show instead of tell?  

If you stay firmly in the viewpoint character's head and feel and see what she/he feels and sees, you will never tell rather than show.

Take the example of fear.  If you are afraid, you don't just think to yourself, I am afraid. If you think that, you really aren’t that afraid.

Instead, you may feel a shiver run down the spine, your heart will pick up speed, your body could tremble, etc., etc. 

If you write about what the fear feels like, that's showing.  If you just say that the character is afraid, that's telling.

How do you get so firmly in a character's head?  Part of it is practice.  Part of it is acting.

One of the most popular methods of learning acting these days is called The Method.  The actor is supposed to immerse herself into the character so that she isn’t acting, she’s actually the person.

One variation of The Method is called Being in the Moment.  I like that as a metaphor for what a writer does.

Put yourself in the moment of the scene.  

When you are ready to write a scene, close your eyes and imagine where your viewpoint character is.  What surrounds her?  Are any of the objects around her of importance?  How are they important?  What are the sounds?  The smells?  Who else is around her?  How does she feel about them?  How will she physically react to them?  

Now open your eyes and start typing.

Writing the Query Letter

Nathan Bransford, former agent and editor, has a very good article on how to write a query letter.  

https://nathanbransford.com/book-publishing-advice#How-to-write-a-query-letter

And How Not to Write a Query Letter

https://nathanbransford.com/blog/2026/09/10-things-that-dont-belong-in-a-query-letter

I really recommend Bransford's site.  He’s also a traditionally published writer so he’s a triple threat for information on the publishing industry.  

Hot, Warm, and Cold Viewpoint

 QUESTION: What exactly is hot viewpoint? How is it different from other types of viewpoint?

Hot viewpoint is about the viewpoint character's emotional reaction to what is happening. Hot viewpoint is full of sensual details, strong emotions, and important/dangerous/violent actions. Most hot viewpoint moments are action scenes full of adrenaline, love scenes, or physical or emotional fight scenes which can include an argument between characters.  

Cold viewpoint has almost no emotion involved. It’s a simple recital of facts or what’s happening.

Warm viewpoint is halfway between them with emotions of importance, but not extreme importance.

Examples:

COLD: Pamela glanced at the doors' numbers as she passed them. Room 82 should be just ahead.

WARM: Pamela smiled as she glanced at the hotel room number.  Tom said he's be in Room 82.  He'd promised her champagne, roses, and a night of passion. A night to remember.  She could hardly wait.

HOT:  The slight cheesy stench of the alien made Pamela's nose twitch as she leaned against the hallway wall.  Her hands were sweating so much she feared she'd drop the Colt she held in her right hand.  With a quick prayer for courage, she eased toward Room 82 then kicked in the door.

For a writer, it's not so important to know the difference in an intellectual way, but to understand it instinctively as we write. If we are inside the character and feel what she feels, we are more likely to get it right.

Just Say No to Omniscient

On one of the blogs I follow, a reader asked about whether she should use omniscient viewpoint in her first chapter.  In omniscient viewpoint you read the thoughts of all or most of the characters' heads as well as get an overview of what is happening outside of the character viewpoint.  Here is my reply.

These days, people have so many ways to entertain themselves that reading has a hard time even being considered, let alone being in the top five of how someone wants to spend their down time and money.  As writers, we have to figure out why our stories should be part of that down time.  What does reading this story give that no other entertainment gives?  

Science has helped here by studying the brain activity of readers.  "Being there" is what readers want.  They want to be in the story and feel, see, taste and sense through character viewpoint.  The character's reactions make our brains experience the same thing, and this makes the brain and reader very happy.  Omniscient viewpoint's main target is the intellect which works for some readers, but it doesn't offer those wonderful I'm-there brain reactions a majority want.  

Another reason not to use omniscient is that newer writers suck at it, every single time.  It's a landscape of bad craft land mines that the ignorant writer skips happily through, blissfully unaware that the reader experience is being destroyed in his path.  Once the craft is master level after years of writing and the writer reaches excellence, he may decide omniscient POV should be tried.  Even then, he'll probably start a few chapters then go "Hell, no. This is tripe."  End of omniscient experience.  

As a writing teacher, I'm guessing that the real reason the question asker wants that fantasy first chapter as omniscient is she wants to info dump all her world building in one spot because she thinks the reader needs this pile of world building vomit NOW.  Spoiler alert:  They don't.  

So, listen to agents, editors, other authors, writing teachers, and readers, and just so no to omniscient.  

More than One Type of Viewpoint in a Story

QUESTION: I want to use first person point of view for my hero, and third person for my other characters. What do you think?

As a rule in popular fiction, you don't switch from first to third POV or vice versa.

Some writers have done this, but many readers and reviewers don't like this because they find it so jarring it knocks them out of the story.

This would be a particularly dangerous for a newer writer who doesn't have the experience and control to handle these changes or the reader's trust that they know what they are doing.

I can't suggest which type of POV to use. Only you can decide on that. Consider your comfort level with the different viewpoints, and the ease of telling the story with that POV. 

With first person, you must also be certain you can hear the main character's voice well enough to stay in that voice for the whole novel. It’s also extremely rare for a novel in first person to have more than one viewpoint character.  

If you do decide to write both first and third POV, you should have a very particular reason for it.