The novel is in what OSC calls disaster-novel format: a disaster occurs, and we follow several characters as they react to it. Examples include The Stand, Startide Rising, The Day After. It's not quite as simple as the John Carter of Mars books, which usually alternated between 2 (John gets into trouble; Dejah gets into trouble; then back to John), but it's the same sort of thing, roughly
Disaster happens
Joe's existing struggle is altered
Mary's struggle begins
Tom struggles
Joe struggles some more
Tom and Mary struggle together
...
A struggle that involves them all
Resolution for Joe
Resolution for Tom
Resolution for Mary. The End.
How *do* I identify the core here? Does there have to be one?
That may not be the problem people are having, but I suspect it couldn't hurt.
Looking at the way the story is set out, I'd say that the whole idea of the story is being human, that being the core.
My guess, though, is that really, the heart of your story is how the displaced people - and, indeed, the people of the world in which they find themselves - come to terms with the situation. If you stress that up front, and make more of an effort in the synopsis to show that the various characters have succeeded (at least to an extent) in that goal, then it looks more like a complete story arc and less like a dispassionate view of an event and some things that happen because of the event.
So, yeah; give a better sense of direction up front and a better sense of closure.
The whole point of a disaster story is that it focuses in on the struggle of one person and people close enough to them to impact their struggle. In general, this person has to be someone vulnerable enough that they are caused to struggle, but strong enough that they make it through.
The story of someone whose excellent preparation makes it so a disaster hardly affects them is not going to be very interesting. The person who gets hit by the first unexpected phenomenon and dies instantly is also not very interesting (Which for some odd reason the Day after Tomorrow featured. Independence Day had those, but they were known to the survivors.) Independence Day isn't a disaster movie per se, since everyone had one goal which was to get rid of the aliens.
Let's look at Titanic. Maybe it was badly written, but as we are always pointing out around here, a lot of badly written stuff can still be good storytelling. One key thing is that the POV character, Rose, goes everyplace that we eventually see people dying- the engine room, the steerage, the dining room... the big propellers. The Day after Tomorrow gave no hint why we should care about that guy talking on his cell phone in Japan who gets hit with the really big hail.
P.S. I guess the only book I've read that I'd classify as anything like a disaster book is Gone with the Wind. I know it's about a war, but to women, wars are basically disasters.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited September 19, 2006).]
quote:
Disaster happens
Joe's existing struggle is altered
Mary's struggle begins
Tom struggles
Joe struggles some more
Tom and Mary struggle together
...
A struggle that involves them all
Resolution for Joe
Resolution for Tom
Resolution for Mary. The End.
The problem I see is that the struggles aren't nested. My rule of thumb is that the very first struggle introduced should be the very last one resolved. Second struggle introduced, second-to-last resolved, etc. Here, you start with Joe, but his ending is three resolutions in! Tom and Mary also overlap. Since I personally assign importance by nesting order, this makes it hard for me to know who to care about most, second most, third most, etc.
EDIT: It's also possible, depending on the emphasis you actually give to the disaster at the beginning, that the very last resolution should be the disaster's, not any character's.
EDIT AGAIN: I sound like I'm telling you to rewrite your novel. I assure you, I wouldn't presume to do that.
[This message has been edited by sojoyful (edited September 19, 2006).]
Is it the kind of Event story where the people survive the disaster and go back to their old lives stronger and better able to deal with the things that had been troubling them before?
Or is it the kind of Event story where the people figure out how to create a new order out of the chaos created by the disaster?
I think it would help to describe the story in terms of what the characters do about the disaster. Even if it's an Event story, the characters and their parts in it are what will probably create the most interest.
Will Bill find the courage and sense-of-humor required to overcome the chaotic destruction caused by a near-extinction-level-event meteor impact to secure the medication his diabetic siamese-twin daughters need, reclaim his lost dog, and hang on to the new-found love of his life, before pestilence, bandits, or his ex-wife snuff them all out?
It will give the gist of what the stories about in terms non-writers can understand
autumnmuse's: I will consider ways to make sure that there's one clear protagonist (I do have one -- he doesn't get half the screen time, but he gets more than anyone else).
Maybe something like
quote:So it's clear John is more central? (That, plus be sure that John gets a lot of screen time in the synopsis itself.)
John struggles.John meets Mary. She's found a struggle of her own...
--
soyjoyful's nesting idea: problematic, since #1 protagonist doesn't really have a struggle in the last chapter. Does he need to, I wonder? I could certainly _express_ his resolution in the last paragraph of the synopsis (and the last chapter of the novel).
--
Tch's thoughts: it sounds like you're speaking more about the end. Maybe you're thinking that I'm not emphasizing the resolution(s) enough -- I'm saying
quote:when I should be saying
So John found the maguffin.
quote:Is that about right?
So John succeeded. He found what he wanted -- the maguffin.
--
Is this pretty much dead on for what I was missing? If it is, I'll make another attempt, maybe this weekend. Thanks, everyone.
As an example: Let's take the movie Casablanca - it's plot can be summed up as: Cynical Ex-patriot rediscovers idealism.
Why do we care if Ingrid Berman had a good reason to leave Humphrey Bogart standing at the railroad station? Because she has to be worthy of what he goes through for her. While her struggle (does she stay with Sam or go with her husband or go without her husband and leave him in danger)is important to the plot, the story is not about her struggle but Sam's.
So it seems to me that if John's stuggle is the thrust of the story, your synopsis should reflect that. If it is the interaction between all three character's struggles, then you need to make that link. Or you might be cramming three independant stories into one and need to break them apart.
Good luck!