as i read the best novels and short stories out there today, most are full of what's called "episodic" sections. so when does this work and when is it bad?
posted
My understanding of the term "episodic" is in relation to the way they used to do most television shows (aka "episodes"). What they did was have something happen that was resolved by the end of each show so that when the shows were rerun, it didn't matter what order you saw them in, the characters were always the same from episode to episode.
A couple of examples:
If the main character fell in love with someone, that person either chose not to make the relationship permanent or was dead by the end of the episode.
If THE FUGITIVE found the one-armed man in the episode, the one-armed man got away again at the end of the episode.
So, basically, the people who went through some kind of change in the story were those played by the "guest actors" and the main character stayed the same. I suspect that the "one adventure after another, without really changing the main character" is what may be referred to as "episodic" in terms of published stories.
It would probably work best if you were writing a series that you never intended to resolve (you'd just keep writing another adventure for your character(s) to participate in), and that your readers wouldn't have to read in any particular order to enjoy the stories.
posted
So where's the bad part of that come into play? It doesn't seem to be such a bad idea depending on the story and characters.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:So where's the bad part of that come into play? It doesn't seem to be such a bad idea depending on the story and characters.
Generally, a novel should have a central conflict that is set up in the beginning and resolved at the end. Trust me, it holds together a lot better that way and you're much more likely to have a satisfying ending.
Also, generally, there should be some arc for at least the MC so that the character grows or changes in some way during the course of the story. At least learns something.
All generalities have exceptions. (Most debut authors are not likely to succeed by trying to be the exception in a major way. Small things may be different.)
quote: So where's the bad part of that come into play? It doesn't seem to be such a bad idea depending on the story and characters.
What Meredith says but I add or say in other words. I have been told by an assistant editor or two, that readers of short stories feel cheated if the MC doesn't change. I wonder how they know this but it seems to be accepted overall. I believe the same thing applies to novels.
I have read series where the MC does seem to be pretty much unchanged and even the adventure goes on for a few books. Of course evidently the change doesn't really have to be much. But in most books there is a significant change somewhere, some how in the MC.
Personally I don't care if the MC changes-other than winning the day-unless he starts off being a jerk but from discussions on other sites I seem to be the only one that feels that way.
So in other words the MC has to have some type of change. Could be in attitude, beliefs, emotionally, the way he thinks of certain things.
Not sure if I need to add an example but one of the series I referenced is one by Lisa Shearin. Writer of the Raine Bernares adventures. A great series and some good writing but so far its the same "Rock" she has problems with and the the same bad guy, even though he died twice. I do think that she does go through some type of change, mostly small ones sometimes you almost have to search for it, in each novel so it may not be a good example but its the best one I can think of.
posted
What exactly do you mean by episodic scenes?
Charles Dickens used to write episodic stories, leaving you at a cliff hanger at the end of each episode. He did this because his stories were developed as a serial, written just before publication of the particular episode. But he was brilliant enough to pull all the disparate points together at the end without the need for revision.
Asimov's Foundation series is certainly episodic. And Olaf Stapleton's The Star Maker is episodic, and certainly had no real character development, much less than the Foundation series. Both of these are brilliant, but don't really follow anyone's character arc through the story - that is not the point of the stories.
But these are whole stories. What about scenes themselves. There are diverse opinions around.
It's one of those things that depend on the story that you want to tell and the audience that you want to attract. Certainly, some story and character development can be too subtle for some readers, and therefore look to them like a series of vignettes. Others will find that sort of story interesting, allowing them to discover the connections rather than be obtusely guided through them. And I can fall into either category, depending on my mood and the story.
[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited October 30, 2010).]
posted
I always took "episodic" to mean that the story breaks down into "episodes," i. e. the scene opens, something goes on, the scene closes, and the next scene begins without a detailed written transition covering how the story got from the end of one scene to another.
quote:... readers of short stories feel cheated if the MC doesn't change.
That may be because one of the definitions of "short story" is that it is supposed to be about the most crucial thing that ever happened in the MC's life, so it has to be about what Changed Everything for the MC, and therefore how the MC was changed.
Of course, with that definition, the author has no reason for ever writing about that MC again, because the definition requires that there be Only One such incident that Changes Everything.
Unless, of course, the author can figure out how to Change Everything all over again.
posted
I just watched the first season of Veronica Mars on Netflicks. I thought it was interesting story wise that there was an interesting and clear arc of the story, (who killed Veronica's best friend), which didn't get resolved until the end. There were also interesting mysteries that took several episodes to solve.
But every single episode had Veronica solving some Nancy Drew type mystery, like who kidnapped dogs in the area.
I think episodic fiction could be broken down in a similar way. I think though, that would mean that the term episodic fiction should be shortened to epic fiction.
For example, WOT and LOTR's all have a clear arc, yet there are several none arc related "episodes" that need to take place. Like capturing and interrogating Moghedian. Or dealing with the Shiado.
Episodes in fiction give you a chance to put the book down, a small story arc that is held in the middle of a much larger and complete one.
But that just might be me. And I might be wrong. ~Sheena
posted
Many authors in speculative fiction try to have a hook of sorts at the end of each chapter, leading to the next, an end-of-chapter page-turner. Some stories don't lend themselves to that technique, but it seems like a generally good idea. I guess this is semi-episodic. Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the idea of episodic being 'bad' is when it is done wrong. When the hero goes through a bunch of adventures with no end purpose in mind is where the criticism lies.
Imagine a hero that wanders in the forest, fights a troll, fights and elf, hunts for dinner, finds a treasure, traverses some rapids and then saves the princess at the end. If those other things didn't somehow move the MC forward in reaching the goal of saving the princess, they would be pretty useless random events. This seems to me to be the bad type of episodic.
However, the idea that each chapter has it's own arc with its own resolution that contributes to the forward motion of the story seems completely natural to me.
quote: That may be because one of the definitions of "short story" is that it is supposed to be about the most crucial thing that ever happened in the MC's life, so it has to be about what Changed Everything for the MC, and therefore how the MC was changed.
Of course, with that definition, the author has no reason for ever writing about that MC again, because the definition requires that there be Only One such incident that Changes Everything.
Unless, of course, the author can figure out how to Change Everything all over again.
I don't think I have head that definition. The assistant editor who told me the MC has to change said it could be any type or size of change.
Maybe I should start another thread to discuss it but I consider it the equivalent of an old wives tale since no one has ever offered any evidence why it's true. Even with that belief I am going by it as I write since editors believe it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
