SFAM | Guest Post | Marianne de Pierres on Writing

Marianne de Pierres on Writing

When you write a novel, where do you start; with the character, the place or the plot?

This is a question I’m regularly asked when I speak at events. And the truth, for me, is that a novel can start from anywhere. When Mark asked me to blog about the Sentients of Orion, I started thinking about where this series had started. I remembered that it began with some ideas that I wanted to explore within fiction. Specifically, what happens to a society when it’s plunged into sudden anarchy, what happens to women and children in war and what is the endpoint for the evolution of our species. Those three ideas are the kernel from which the series grew. The first two relate most specifically to the first book, Dark Space, whereas the third notion is examined slowly, over the course of the four novels.


The other idea I had for writing the series was to begin the story in microcosm (focusing most of the first book on one world, around one or two characters, and just give tantalizing glimpses of a wider story). The idea was to reveal more and more of the macro story with each novel. I realized later, after reading some reviews of Book 1, that that wasn’t what some readers wanted or expected of their space opera. For better of for worse that’s what they got, and those who chose to invest and stay with it, have, I think, found rewards in seeing the greater story unfold.

The Sentients series has been a labour of love and learning for me. The love has been in creating the character journeys. The Sentients of Orion cast are colorful but not always likeable characters, some of who respond to pressure situations in a less than heroic manner.

My personal character favourites are Jo-Jo Rasterovich and Tekton; both terribly self-centred at the beginning but upon whom circumstance has a profound and life-changing effect. Mira Fedor was frustrating to write at first. I wanted her to be mired in and confused by the traditions of her people. Hence her sometimes ineffectual response to situations. The temptation was to make her strong and capable from the start. But she simply wasn’t; that is something that came later. I had to control my innate desire to build a strong heroine from the outset and give her time to evolve. Thales was a different kettle of fish, an almost empty page; naïve and clever but childlike in his innocence of human behaviour. His journey sees him as a victim initially, but through personal sexual discovery he finds strength and true principle. Trin was probably the hardest of all, though. He was detestable, with little to redeem him. Screwed up by his upbringing and then plunged into a life or death situation, his character development had to be handled slowly and with care. He was not, overnight, going to become a good guy – if ever. And I had to make some hard choices about how he acted, and risk alienating the reader.

The learning? Well, my research was wide and varied and fun, but it also threw my own inadequacies in my face. I had big ideas that I wanted to discuss; what is God? where is our place in the evolution of the universe? Philosophical questions that needed to be couched within a backdrop of plausible science. I turned my brain inside out trying to find a way to do that, and came hard up against my own limitations as a writer and a thinking person. When things were at their darkest, I reminded myself that I was fortunate enough to be telling a story in the genre that I love most, and that it was a privilege I would not let slip away.

So that’s some of the background to writing the series.

As a personal aside, the fourth and final book comes out in November 2010. I look forward to hearing from those of you who’ve been on this expedition with me; whether or not I’ve been able to stimulate and satisfy your thirst for wonder. Regardless of your answer though, in advance, thank you.

Marianne de Pierres