I get asked about emotional pacing fairly regularly, and I’ve been sitting with the question for a while now because I want to give an honest answer rather than a writerly-sounding one.

Here it is: I don’t think I pace emotion at all. Not deliberately. Not with a spreadsheet or a beat sheet or a highlighter and a copy of somebody’s craft guide. I don’t sit down and decide that chapter twelve needs a tension spike or that we’re due for a tender moment before the conflict escalates in act three.

What I do instead is live with my people until they feel real to me, and then I get out of their way.

That probably sounds like I’m being precious about it. I’m not. It’s actually the most practical approach I’ve found, because the moment I start managing a character’s emotional journey from the outside — deciding when they should crack, when they should soften, when the breakthrough is supposed to land — it goes flat. Every time. The reader can feel the hand on the lever. It stops being a person and starts being a plot function, and nobody falls in love with a plot function.

Lachlan McKenzie does not have his emotional moments on my schedule. Neither does Flynn, or Declan, or Isla, or any of the Worth boys. They have them when they have them — when the pressure has been building long enough, when the right person says the wrong thing, when they’re tired or scared or finally, finally ready. My job is to know them well enough to recognise that moment when it arrives on the page, and to not rush it or manufacture it or tidy it up into something more convenient.

What that means in practice is that I spend an enormous amount of time in pre-writing just being with my characters. Not plotting them. Learning them. Their histories, their specific fears, the things they do when they’re trying not to feel something. By the time I start writing, I know how they move through the world — and emotion is just part of that movement.

Does the pacing work out? Mostly yes, and I think it works because it’s honest. Readers are extraordinarily good at detecting when an emotional beat has been engineered for effect versus when it grew naturally out of who someone is. They might not be able to name the difference, but they feel it. The real moments land. The manufactured ones clunk.

And yes — this probably explains why my three acts don’t always look like every other three act novel on the shelf. The shape of the story follows the shape of the people in it, not the other way around. Sometimes that means a slow build that takes longer than conventional wisdom says it should. Sometimes the crisis hits earlier, or the resolution is quieter, or there’s a detour that exists purely because that’s where the character needed to go. I’ve made peace with that. More than made peace with it, actually — I think it’s a feature, not a flaw.

Because if every book followed the same emotional blueprint, hit the same beats at the same intervals, delivered the same shape of feeling in the same order every time — what would be the point? We’d all be reading the same book with different names on the cover. The world is considerably more interesting than that, and so are the people in it, and so, I’d argue, should be the stories we tell about them.

So if you’re sitting there with your own manuscript wondering how to pace the emotional arc — maybe the question isn’t when should this happen, but who is this person, and what would actually break them open?

Answer that well enough, and the pacing takes care of itself.

— Bella 🏒