posted
I've had two (not here) state in essense, that what I've written is not a story, but series of scenes.
I guess I do write in scenes and when the scene has done what it needs to advance the plot, I have a line break, followed by another scene. In that manner, mundane details are filtered out.
Does anyone need to see Pendaran finish hypnotizing the protagonist, walk down the mountain, get in the car, and make his way on to the interstate?
Does anyone need to see how the protagonist got from the graveyard to his grandfather's house, collect the item from the cabnet, and file it away?
Does anyone need to see the protagonist make the six hour trip back home, and have a week transpire?
To me, sometimes not even narritive summary to fill in the gaps. Even with or without, there are often more subtle indications.
posted
If two people gave you the same criticism, you need to look very carefully at what is giving them that impression. That doesn't mean they are right in their diagnosis of the problem, but it's a strong indicator that there is a problem.
Maybe they aren't seeing how some of the scenes advance the plot. Maybe they find overall plot weak, so the individual scenes overwhelm it. Maybe it's something else. Or maybe they are just weird people and they are wrong. But I suggest you look very hard to find the true reason for their complaint before dismissing it.
posted
That's true, which is why I brought it up. And why I am fielding the question in regards to what differinates a series of scenes from a story.
This is the second 'ping' in that regard. The first was several months ago, in an earlier draft. The second was recent, different person, second draft.
posted
There are scenes, and then there are the winddowns and buildups between the scenes, linking them in a causal chain. If the causal chain isn't clear, then people tend to get lost. Also, a lot of times, there is significant details that can be placed in those places. Foreshadowing is great there. But I didn't read what you wrote, so that's a general statement, related to what was said in the post.
[This message has been edited by Netstorm2k (edited January 02, 2005).]
posted
If you don't know what someone meant, then ask them.
Almost all stories are told in scenes. If someone is saying that it's not a story, that isn't because it's a series of scenes. They are saying that the scenes don't form a coherent dramatic whole, which is different from saying anything about any given scene.
If I had said "this isn't a story, it's just a series of scenes", then I would mean that there wasn't a single unifying dramatic tension which is introduced at the beginning, developed by following scenes, brought to a climax by a penultimate scene, and resolved in or near the last scene.
But I'm not the one that has given you that criticism, so I don't know that my interpretation is correct, particularly since I haven't read your story either. You should go back and ask your critiquers what they meant.
posted
From what I read, which was the first two chapters, I can kind of see why some people were saying that. It isn't that it is just a collection of scenes, it's that the viewpoint shifts so dramatically between the first and second chapters, between two characters with radically different thoughts, and points of view. The first chapter was in first person, and the second was in third. So that can be confusing. But I've already given Chris one-half of my comments, so he knows what I think about that part. But the overall concept is good, I think. It might help to clarify the connection a bit, but there will always be some readers who just don't get a piece.
Posts: 331 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
