Brainstorm alert:
I hate to always refer to whatever novel I just read, but... in Parable of the Talents, Lauren's daughter has page or so discussing her mother's life and how she feels about it, and then the bulk of the chapter is an expert from Lauren's journal.
Maybe if you have a upfront, blurb, or paragraphs where characters discuss past events? Then the bulk of the chapters are the events in question.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited May 17, 2005).]
quote:
Would this confuse or disappoint the reader?
Maybe. To be fair, I doubt I'd be interesting in reading a summary of events after the fact. On a more personal note: I once wrote a story where I actually skipped the moments with any real conflict and summarized them afterward with dialogue between characters, etc. Every critique I received said doing this was extremely disappointing. I haven't done that since.
A man bets his entire wealth on a sword fight with a rival. The reader sees him prepare to fight, then the novel jumps to the next chapter.
In this next chapter, we see the effects of the sword fight. The man's daughter is in horrible poverty, and her son is aching to do something about it. He plans out his revenge...
Next chapter. You get the idea. I'm starting to think about this, and it IS a shaky idea. Is it too disappointing?
> I'm starting to think about this, and it
> IS a shaky idea. Is it too disappointing?
Actually, I think it's a brilliant idea. But you need to realize that what you're thinking of as the "main events" are not really the main events of the story. The main events of your story are how characters deal with the consequences of past events.
However, its generation-skipping structure may make it difficult to sell as a novel. You might try a shorter version (novella or novelette) first, and if that sells then you might be able to expand it and sell it as a novel.
Thus, you are talking about the story in terms of those two characters from the beginning. You're not switching tracks or jumping scenes. The reader already knows that the dramatic action is going to revolve around how events affect your POV characters.
As I understand scm288's idea, there aren't main characters who continue throughout the novel. It's a multigenerational saga where we repeatedly see the sins of the fathers visited upon the heads of the children (so to speak).
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited May 17, 2005).]
quote:
A man bets his entire wealth on a sword fight with a rival. The reader sees him prepare to fight, then the novel jumps to the next chapter.In this next chapter, we see the effects of the sword fight. The man's daughter is in horrible poverty, and her son is aching to do something about it. He plans out his revenge...
I can see ways in which your initial suggestion would work, but when you give it an example I have to ask...Why do you skip the swordfight?
After the son plans his revenge, do you skip the actual revenge?
Skipping generations and showing long-term consequences is an interesting idea for a structure, but I can't help but wonder why you have to skip these pivotal moments as well.
It worked for Asimov. It has probably worked for lots of others, too.
Of course Asimov was not relying on the offstage stuff to build suspense, he made sure the personal conflicts were onstage enough that they kept the reader in suspense. The big military conflicts merely kept the plot moving.
In some ways, they can overshadow the real story, and in other ways, they can be anticlimactic.
The betting father has made his fateful decision before the swordfight. The details of the fight don't matter to his posterity, what matters is that they lost. The grandson's decision to seek vengeance is the key point in his life -- we don't need to see his plot put into action and fail in order to understand the ramifications for future generations.
Including the "main events" gives their details too much prominence. The blow-by-blow of the swordfight highlights the event, as opposed to the aftermath.
I ran into a variation on this problem with the story I wrote at Boot Camp. The story was about a young man who broke one of his people's most important laws in order to save them from destruction. But I didn't want the story to be about that "main event"; I wanted to tell the story of the old man that young man became fifty years later. But every time I tried to follow the rules and write the story in chronological order, starting by showing the "main event," the rest of the story was overwhelmed by it. So I started fifty years after the "main event" and only referenced it as part of the protagonist's memories.
When you want to focus on aftermaths, showing "main events" (maths?) is a distraction.
5,1,6,2,7,3,8,4[,9] (where scenes are numbered in chronological order, not the order they are placed in the narrative)
Having started with scene 5, the story leading up to scene 4 answers the reader's "how did we get here?" questions. This might be the main question, in which case scene 4 should be the last one, or the question of what will happen after scene 5 might be the most important, in which case there should be a scene 9 on the end.
Does that make sense?
[This message has been edited by Jules (edited May 17, 2005).]
In every story, there is plenty of interesting stuff happening just offstage. But if it happens offstage, then it cannot be the main event of your story.