A mystery story that plays with mystery conventions
Dear Storyteller,
I hope you enjoyed reading Susan Glaspell’s “A Jury of Her Peers,” whether this was your first time experiencing the story or you revisited it for our deep dive. What follows contains major spoilers, so please make sure you’ve read the story first – it’s worth enjoying without any preconceived ideas.
You can find “A Jury of Her Peers” at Gutenberg.org here.
In what follows, I’ll share what I noticed in the story and highlight some writing craft tips – techniques you can try out in your own fiction.
I think any writer can learn from this story. Obviously writers of mystery fiction may want to study this closely, but non-mystery writers can also learn a great deal from this example of how mystery fiction techniques can be used to defy genre expectations.
What genre conventions? Well, for starters, a murder has been committed. So as a reader, I expect someone will investigate it. And I expect clues that will lead to a culprit. My expectations were formed by mystery writers like Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) and Agatha Christie (Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple).
Susan Glaspell’s story delivers on mystery genre expectations, but also turns them upside down.
The first gentle undermining of expectations is that we don’t follow the sheriff and the county attorney as they go “off stage” to examine the crime scene and other locations for evidence, leaving the primary viewpoint character, Martha Hale, and the sheriff’s wife, Mrs. Peters, to investigate the kitchen for clues to what really happened to Minnie Foster (aka Mrs. Wright).
The biggest defiance of convention comes toward the end, though.
The first time I read the story, I was focused on finding out who murdered Mr. Wright (note the name – a nod to Right vs. Wrong…), and how justice would be served. Then comes a surprise toward the climax. The story challenges the conventional idea of law and order by spotlighting the “unofficial” crime – how the domestic abuser, John Wright, destroyed his wife’s life – and then giving the main character, Martha Hale, the agency to protect Mrs. Wright from an unjust system that would define her only as a killer, not a victim of a crime who was acting in self-defense.
The twisting of genre expectations is what makes this story technically unconventional for its time (it was also socially unconventional, because of how it addressed domestic abuse), and why it still feels fresh today.
What interested you the most as a reader? What techniques have you taken away as a writer?
Here are just three topics worth looking at in the text:
- The names (Martha Hale, the County Attorney aka “Young Henderson,” Mr. Wright, why Martha insists on thinking of Mrs. Wright as Minnie Foster, yet Mrs. Peters gets no first name…)
- The gaze (how Martha looks at things, how Mrs. Peters’ gaze communicates something within her, how the County Attorney gazes too…but differently)
- The dialogue (how it characterizes and sets Martha apart from her antagonist, the County Attorney)
Let’s dive into how the story works. I’ll look at the structure, key techniques, and some craft lessons we can extract.
Off to a good start
Here’s what we first encounter when we start reading “A Jury of Her Peers”:
When Martha Hale opened the storm-door and got a cut of the north wind, she ran back for her big woolen scarf. As she hurriedly wound that round her head her eye made a scandalized sweep of her kitchen. It was no ordinary thing that called her away—it was probably farther from ordinary than anything that had ever happened in Dickson County. But what her eye took in was that her kitchen was in no shape for leaving: her bread all ready for mixing, half the flour sifted and half unsifted.
This is a solid beginning. We immediately get our main viewpoint character engaged in an action.
Not a big action, no. But she’s not passively observing the story world, either. This is especially important because she’s about to go through several scenes where she’s reluctant to take action, instead standing back and observing the situation, so the story needs to give us a taste of her active personality upfront.
I love “her eye made a scandalized sweep of her kitchen.” That single word “scandalized” tells us she has standards. It’s a characterizing moment, a small one, that will culminate in her radical action at the end. The lesson here is that we shouldn’t underestimate small characterizing details – they are the stepping stones to big, dramatic moments.
Her view of the kitchen might feel humdrum here at the beginning of the story, but as the mystery moves forward, we’ll see how Martha’s attention to details that matter to a farmer’s wife will ultimately lead to the big revelation – and an act of justice – at the end.
So this opening felt more meaningful to me the second time I read the story.
In reading fiction, I think it’s always interesting to pay attention to what your reaction is the first time and then, after reaching the end, return to re-read the beginning. Usually, if you connect with the story, the beginning will take on a new meaning. Sometimes the opposite meaning.
Now, let’s look at this line: “It was no ordinary thing that called her away—it was probably farther from ordinary than anything that had ever happened in Dickson County.” Which raises the obvious question, “What is calling her away?”
This is an oblique reference to the central question in the story: who committed the crime and how will justice be served? But notice that we don’t get the full question yet. In part because Martha isn’t thinking directly about it; but also, I’d argue, because Martha doesn’t know yet – part of the story is about her awakening to the right question.
Here are three takeaways – our first craft tips – from this short story beginning:
- Introduce the viewpoint character quickly, ideally in the first sentence.
- Give the viewpoint character an action that characterizes them.
- Tell us – or hint at – what the story’s central question will be.
Are these “rules”? No. They are guidelines, invitations for us writers to try out to see if they sharpen our stories.
Now, let’s take a look at how “A Jury of Her Peers” is structured. But first…
A few words on structure
Structure can help us in two ways: when we’re planning a story or when we’re trying to understand one.
When we read other people’s fiction, we’re trying to understand how they’ve pieced together each moment to create a bigger experience. The more we look at how stories are structured, the more we build an analytical muscle. In other words, it gets easier and easier to see the shape of the story.
That’s a muscle we can then flex for our own fiction. Because when we revise a story or novella or novel, we are effectively approaching the draft as if we were a reader trying to understand it.
However, keep in mind that the way we see structure isn’t always the same. Go check out the many books on plotting out there – from Save the Cat! to A Hero’s Journey – and you’ll see how the same story can be deconstructed using different tools. Is one more correct than the other? Not necessarily. It’s more a matter of perspective than it is a matter of right and wrong.
I’ve found the many theories helpful, not as ultimate truths, but as tools I can experiment with, trying one out for a work in progress and then applying another to see what happens.
That’s a longwinded way to say that what I’m sharing here is my perspective. I hope it helps you form your own perspective – and inspire insights that I didn’t have.
So, having said all that, here’s how I’ve broken down “A Jury of Her Peers” into scenes.
Breaking down the story scene by scene
I’ve chosen to divide the story into 15 distinct scenes. Mostly, the scenes follow the conventional theatrical idea that a scene begins when the location changes or characters walk on or off (the short story was adapted from Glaspell’s one-act play Trifles).
These days, thanks to Hollywood-inspired storytelling, a scene is often defined in terms of conflict – a character wants something but faces an obstacle to getting what they want, and the scene ends when the character either succeeds or fails. I’ve kept that in mind, too, but when I was deconstructing “A Jury of Her Peers” I found it most helpful to think of it as a traditional stage play, not a modern movie.
The 15 sections below describe the scenes, the characters present (though they may not always be active), and questions raised, plus you’ll find my notes on notable dialogue, description, or objects — as well as craft tips I’ve gleaned from the story.
If you prefer to read the scene breakdown in PDF format, you can download it here:
Let’s dive in:
SCENE 1
- Viewing Martha’s kitchen
- From: When Martha Hale opened the storm-door…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
QUESTIONS
- Why is Martha being called away, when she “hated to see things half done”?
NOTES
- The first sentence is an action – but it’s really a reaction. Martha is in a reactive state. Mrs Peters asked Martha to join; the wind makes her grab a scarf; her husband calls her away. See? All reactive.
- As readers, we already have questions: Why is Martha being called away? But this passage gives us few answers. As it should be in the beginning of a story.
- Note how objects already play a role: the woolen scarf, the flour in the kitchen. There’s a tangibility to things in this story that’s very nice – and that will prove significant for the plot.
SCENE 2
- Approaching the Wrights’ farm
- From: She again opened the storm-door…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mr Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- Who are the three men and one woman with Martha – and why must they go to the Wrights’ farm?
NOTES
- We learn who the people are but not why they’re here – only that it’s something bad.
- “And right there it came into Mrs. Hale’s mind, with a stab, that this man who was so pleasant and lively with all of them was going to the Wrights’ now as a sheriff.” Martha senses the danger. Already this early, the story establishes our detective hero (Martha), sidekick (Mrs Peters), and the antagonists (the three men).
- “It had always been a lonesome-looking place. It was down in a hollow, and the poplar trees around it were lonesome-looking trees.” Note repetition of “lonesome-looking” – used sparingly, this is a good technique for emphasizing; it can have a haunting quality.
- Notice how Martha observes her surroundings up until this moment; here, on the cusp of her crossing the threshold (literally and figuratively), she delves deep within herself to reflect on her personal stake in the story. This gives us a sense of her motivation.
- Craft tip: When characters stand on the cusp of a difficult decision or risky undertaking, it’s a good time for deeper reflection.
SCENE 3
- Establishing county attorney’s authority
- From: The men went over to the stove.
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mr Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- Who’s in charge? And (still open) why are they here?
- This must be an official investigation – could it be a serious crime, like murder?
NOTES
- There’s a subtle reference to the rocker, which will play a part later. Note how gradually the story establishes the setting. We writers can be tempted to dump all the information at once: “The kitchen was small and contained…” Resist the urge. Let the setting, like the story, unfold gradually.
- Notice that the CA tells the women to “come up to the fire” (more a command than an invitation), and then how the sheriff takes charge, only to be undermined by the CA, who ends the short scene in charge. The sheriff bends to the CA’s will – but importantly, the women don’t.
- It feels stronger that the story establishes the CA as the authority. Both Mr Hale and Sheriff Peters make comments that set up a strong patriarchal power imbalance. But even within the patriarchal power, there’s a hierarchy, and we learn that the CA is at the top.
- Craft tip: In a story that deals with big oppositions in power, like men vs. women or poor vs. rich, try this out: individualize the power and establish a single character at the top of the hierarchy, and see how that works. Often it will save a story from becoming a kind of ideological essay with abstract parable-like forces rather than a drama with emotional impact.
SCENE 4
- Mr Hale reports
- From: “Well, Mr. Hale,” said the county attorney…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mr Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- Why are they here?
- Will Mr Hale make things harder for Minnie Foster?
- Did Minnie kill her husband?
- Related: Will the CA prove that Minnie killed her husband?
NOTES
- OK, so now we know: they are here to investigate Mr. Wright’s suspicious death. Which invariably introduces the traditional mystery questions: Who killed the victim and will the killer be brought to justice?
- We don’t know yet if Minnie did it or not. Keep in mind that in a traditional mystery, the prime suspect usually turns out to be innocent. Also keep in mind that the traditional mystery has a conventional, even conservative view of what a crime is and who should be punished.
- Sometimes a story is not just about the questions asked on the page but about the questions readers will bring to the story because of preconceived ideas.
- Did you notice how the small chair was added to the rocker, expanding the key objects in the setting? And then there’s the reference to the rope (the off-stage murder weapon) and the apron. Of those two, which will turn out to be more important to the story? The apron. This defies traditional mystery conventions, in which the murder weapon is usually hugely important.
- I love how Martha tries to influence the situation without speaking – through her gaze – and how she worries her husband will make things worse for Minnie. In the end, it does seem he has made things harder for Minnie by saying she looked “scared.” It’s a small victory for the CA. His victories will grow bigger as the story advances. In general, this is how we want to build drama – on average, increasing successes and failures from small to ever larger. On average? Yes, because sometimes you may want a larger success or failure followed by a smaller one, making the rhythm of your story more varied and the trajectory of the plot less predictable.
- “…so he hadn’t been home when the sheriff stopped to say he wanted Mr. Hale to come over to the Wright place and tell the county attorney his story there, where he could point it all out.” Notice this smooth way of weaving backstory into the narrative; we’re being told about Harry, except we’re also getting backstory without it feeling like the author is shoving it down our throats. And right after this she worries about Harry out in the cold – a good way of making Martha sympathetic to the reader.
- Craft tip: To build sympathy for a character, show the character caring, worrying, or loving another character – it makes them more human, relatable, and likable. You can take this one step further by making the character take an action that shows consideration for another person.
SCENE 5
- Confrontation btw. Martha and county attorney
- From: “I guess we’ll go upstairs first—then out to the barn and around there.”
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mr Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- Did Minnie kill her husband?
- Does the kitchen contain clues to the murder?
NOTES
- Will the CA succeed in getting Marta to implicate Minnie in the murder? (Will the CA prove that Minnie killed her husband?)
- More objects: the fruit jars, roller towel, and dirty pans under the sink. Notice the CA’s reaction to the smashed fruit jars: “‘Here’s a nice mess,’ he said resentfully.” An impartial man of authority wouldn’t express resentment. We’re often warned about adverbs, but here’s a case of an adverb doing good work – it hints that the CA is biased against Minnie.
- Mrs Peters, who asked Martha to come in the first place, tries to draw Martha into the conflict here (“Oh—her fruit,” she said, looking to Mrs. Hale for sympathetic understanding.) When Martha doesn’t react, Mrs Peters turns to the CA, who ramps up his attack on Minnie (he doesn’t want to build sympathy for Minnie; he wants to prove her guilt and punish her).
- Martha has been drawn into the conflict, but she continues to be reactive, or defensive. The active scene goal here lies with the CA: He wants to get Martha to implicate Minnie. Martha’s reactive goal is to defend and protect Minnie’s reputation.
- Note how the CA says Martha is “loyal to her sex” – in other words, she’s taking Minnie Foster’s side, while he’s set himself against her. This is a clear establishment of the antagonism that will drive the story forward.
- Craft tip: With a main character who is reluctant to act, add one or more secondary characters who pull the character into the action. This can be a more or less friendly stranger (like Mrs Peters in this story, Gandalf in JRR Tolkien’s The Hobbit, or the ghost in Shakespeare’s Hamlet) or it can be an antagonistic force (like the county attorney here, Count Dracula in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, or Captain Ahab in Melville’s Moby Dick). I’ve often revived a dead story by adding a character who actively draws my passive protagonist into a conflict she doesn’t want to be part of, giving my heroine no choice but to take action, even if it’s a reaction.
- Also take a look at the exchange between the CA and Martha, how he lobs statements at her and then she questions or disagrees with them. It’s like a dialogue duel:
- CA: “You didn’t like her?”
- Martha: “I liked her well enough.”
- CA: “I shouldn’t say she had the home-making instinct.”
- Martha: “Well, I don’t know as Wright had, either.”
- CA: “You mean they didn’t get on very well?”
- Martha: “No; I don’t mean anything.”
- Craft tip: Set up two characters against each other and make one state something that the other will disagree with, which then sparks a reaction (a question or another statement) from the first character, which again provokes disagreement from the second character. Notice how the same happens in dialogue between Martha and Mrs. Peters.
SCENE 6
- Establish county attorney’s authority – again
- From: He moved toward the stair door, followed by the two men.
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mr Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- Does the CA trust the women? Does he see their role as important in the investigation?
NOTES
- The CA says he trusts Mrs Peters, because of her role as the sheriff’s wife (she is “one of us”), but he leaves out Martha, suggesting he doesn’t trust her.
- Note how he suggests that the women may find a crucial clue to the motive. This is important because a) it establishes that the CA doesn’t doubt Minnie killed her husband; b) it actually makes the CA more dangerous, because he’s not as quick to dismiss the women as the sheriff and Mr Hale are; c) it foreshadows what will, in fact, happen – Martha and Mrs Peters will unravel the mystery.
SCENE 7
- The investigation begins: Why did Minnie leave her work unfinished?
- From: The women stood motionless and silent, listening to the footsteps…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mrs Peters
QUESTIONS
- What interrupted Minnie, so she left her work half-finished?
NOTES
- My heart lifts when I read this section, when Martha slips into the role of sleuth. It delivers on a mystery trope that I enjoy as a reader – the detective who, through deduction, will try to discover the truth.
- Now the importance of the objects comes to the fore.
- Note how Martha’s question about Minnie harks back to our question at the beginning: Why would she leave her work half-finished? Because of the scene at the beginning, the story has established that the interruption of domestic work has significance.
- Craft tip: If you want to develop a clue in your story, consider if there is a mirror image of that clue and place it earlier in the story to give it significance. That way when you get to the clue itself, its importance has already been established.
- For example, you want to add a clue that the primary suspect was not the last person to use a knife in the kitchen. Early on, the protagonist notes that her husband, who’s left-handed, has been at her desk, because he’s left her favorite fountain pen on the left-hand side of her notepad, where she never leave it. Later, at the scene of the crime, she notes that a carving knife next to the chopping board is not only clean, it’s positioned to the left of the board, suggesting the person who last used it was left-handed – which the prime suspect isn’t. The sleuth deduces this because of her earlier realization about her husband using her fountain pen.
SCENE 8
- The investigation continues: Where does Mrs Peters stand?
- From: They were soon back…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mrs Peters
QUESTIONS
- Does Mrs Peters care about Minnie’s side of the story?
NOTES
- This scene establishes Martha and Mrs Peters as working together – as seeing eye to eye.
- Notice how their observations about the objects match the traditional detective’s approach.
- “…she said she wanted an apron. Funny thing to want…” There is uncertainty in how they “read” the objects at this stage, but as the story moves forward, both of them will become more confident in uncovering clues.
SCENE 9
- The quilt revealed
- From: Mrs. Peters went to the back of the room to hang up the fur tippet she was wearing.
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mr Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- What’s significant about the quilt?
NOTES
- This brief interruption of a scene reminds us that the CA is still working hard to find a solution, which means condemning and punishing Minnie Foster.
- And a key clue occurs at the same time: the quilt.
- This works well. Discovering the quilt is a breakthrough for the detectives, and so it’s a good time for the antagonist to return – to remind us of the threat looming over them.
SCENE 10
- The investigation continues: What’s the significance of the quilt?
- From: “I don’t see as there’s anything so strange,” Mrs. Hale said resentfully…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mrs Peters
QUESTIONS
- What’s significant about the quilt? And what will Martha and Mrs Peters do with that knowledge?
NOTES
- We learn that the quilt is evidence – and that Martha is willing to tamper with official evidence to help Minnie. This is step one in a series of three that builds to the climax.
SCENE 11
- The investigation continues: What’s the significance of the bird cage?
- From: But next moment she moved…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mrs Peters
QUESTIONS
- Why is the bird cage important and what happened to the bird?
NOTES
- This scene is the big reveal: The story has set up the idea that it’s focused on investigating the murder of Mr Wright, but this scene reveals the crime committed against Minnie Foster.
- The bird cage and sewing basket are key clues, leading our sleuths deeper into the mystery.
- Remember how I mentioned the way the CA and Martha engage in a dialogue duel? The same technique is used here to show how Martha and Mrs Peters are investigating what happened:
- Mrs Peters: “Here’s a bird-cage. Did she have a bird, Mrs. Hale?”
- Martha: “Why, I don’t know whether she did or not.”
- Mrs Peters: “Seems kind of funny to think of a bird here. I wonder what happened to it.”
- Martha: “I suppose maybe the cat got it.”
- Mrs Peters: “No; she didn’t have a cat. She’s got that feeling some people have about cats—being afraid of them.”
- Martha: “My sister Bessie was like that.”
- Notice how the sequence of dialogue ends when Martha doesn’t offer a counterpoint – she agrees, but also diminishes the attempt to go deeper into the matter. In reaction to this, Mrs Peters looks closer at the bird cage.
SCENE 12
- Establish county attorney’s authority – once more
- From: “Well, ladies,” said the county attorney…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mr Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- Will the CA discover the bird cage and its significance?
NOTES
- The CA notices the bird cage, raising tension, but Martha and Mrs Peters dodge a bullet – he doesn’t realize its importance.
- It doesn’t seem accidental to me that the men return at this moment. Right when the women have discovered the clue that’s going to blow the case wide open. We can learn something here.
- Craft tip: When your main characters come close to getting what they want, it’s a good time to push them back by bringing the forces of antagonism into the action again, obstructing the progress the characters have been making.
SCENE 13
- The jury deliberates: Who’s going to punish this crime?
- From: The two women sat motionless, not looking at each other…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mrs Peters
QUESTIONS
- Who will deliver justice for Minnie Foster?
NOTES
- The response to the key question in this scene, “That was a crime! That was a crime! Who’s going to punish that?” is delayed until the end, but we get a stepping stone toward that final resolution: Martha and Mrs Peters agree to cover up the truth about the broken jam jars.
- Along with Martha redoing the quilt work, this is an example of Martha taking greater and greater steps to cover up the crime, so there can be justice for Minnie Foster. The final effort in this series of three is Martha hiding the dead bird.
- Craft tip: The power of three pops up in stories again and again, from parables in the Bible to modern Hollywood screenplays. Don’t underestimate how deeply resonant a series of three can be for a reader. When you’re working on a story and want a climax to happen, consider what the climax is and brainstorm related actions. Find two that feel like they are smaller than the climactic action and string them together to create a progressive series of raised stakes.
SCENE 14
- Strengthen county attorney’s authority – one last time
- From: “No, Peters,” said the county attorney incisively…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Mr Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- Will the CA discover what Martha and Mrs Peters have discovered (i.e. the truth about the murder)?
NOTES
- Notice how dismissive the CA is in this scene, and how distracted he seems here at the end of the story. He’s a huge threat to the women, but he’s less assertive than earlier in the story. How would the scenes change if the CA aggressively questioned the women or returned to snooping diligently around the kitchen and its objects?
- “’I want to go over everything. I’m not satisfied we can’t do better.’” This is an overt reminder that the antagonist – the CA – won’t stop until he succeeds or fails. The reminder is good timing, since we’re so close to the climax.
- Notice how much more direct the story has become in telling us things (including via Martha’s dialogue). The closer we get to the climax, the more overt the story can become.
- Craft tip: Reestablish or ramp up the stakes of the story just before the climax – and, at this point, don’t worry too much about being subtle.
SCENE 15
- The jury hands down its verdict: justice
- From: Martha Hale sprang up, her hands tight together…
CHARACTERS
- Martha Hale
- Sheriff Peters
- Mrs Peters
- County Attorney
QUESTIONS
- Will the CA discover what Martha and Mrs Peters have discovered (i.e. the truth about the murder)?
NOTES
- This scene is the climax of the story. Note how short it is. The climax itself can be narrowed down to a single sentence: “Martha Hale snatched the box from the sheriff’s wife, and got it in the pocket of her big coat just as the sheriff and the county attorney came back into the kitchen.”
- Craft tip: Make the climax quick. Compression is your friend. Often a climactic scene will consist of a failed attempt to resolve the climax (here we witness Mrs Peters attempt to hide the bird, and fail). Then, maybe, we get one more attempt, but often we’ll go straight to the “climax proper” (as Charles Raymond Barrett calls it in his book Short Story Writing). In short fiction, the climax proper is ideally a single sentence. After this sentence, the story has reached its resolution, and now you want to swiftly wrap up. If you have a story where the ending is dragging or feels long and flat, try this: set yourself a strict word limit – 250 words for the scene and a single sentence for the action that marks the climax proper.
Final words
My hope is that the comments above – including the craft tips – are helpful.
There are more writing insights to gain from the story, of course. But don’t worry about picking apart the rest of the story. Instead, take another look at a scene in “A Jury of Her Peers” to see how a specific technique works, and then try it out yourself –write a short scene with a setting, characters, and situation of your own making that puts that technique to good use.
I recommend focusing on making that little scene work – don’t worry about whether it grows into something bigger. In fact, there’s value to thinking of it as exclusively an exercise. Sometimes it can take the pressure off the work and allow us to experiment more freely.
And that’s what this is all about: learning from classic stories so we can experiment and, hopefully, write even better fiction.
What technique would you like to try out? Did you do it? How did it turn out?
Next time
Next time, I’ll be looking at persistence – that essential, but difficult author skill – and what we can learn from Charlotte Brontë and others about how to keep writing, even when we face criticism and rejection.
Until then, keep writing!
