Perhaps a description of the situation would be in order:
My MC is defending his candidacy to the National Academy in magic theory. This is kind of a Big Deal in this society, as successful defense grants full Citizenship (which is also a Big Deal) and it is extraordinarily rare for more than one person to be inducted in a year. The defense takes place as something akin to an oral examination by a panel of members of the academy, and can in theory be attended by anyone (and anyone is welcome to query the candidate). The defense takes something on the order of six hours, during which the candidate fields questions from the examiners on a variety of topics both related and unrelated to the candidate's field of expertise.
The important events that I want to occur in this chapter:
Though it may be hard to believe, they are all actually important events and (I think) all exciting to read. It would feel horrible to me to separate any of them into another chapter, as it would mean breaking up a set of events that are very tightly bound in location and time. If anything could be broken off, the first item is the best candidate, but that would break one of the plot points that the "skeptic" examiner literally finds out about the exam the night before (and is f-ing furious about it), and only agrees to come because he owes a favor to one of the other examiners.
I have only gotten through the first third or so of the chapter - it just feels like it could very easily go on for a long, long time. This isn't the climax of the novel, but it's the last thing to happen before the climax occurs. This event is the last part of the heroes' plan to fall into place before they can save the day in the climactic battle. (I swear it makes sense in context.)
The issue is keeping the reader engaged. You need to continually build the tension and write the episode so that the reader becomes immersed in the session. If you can't do that, then you might consider breaking it up, but a reader will expect some kind of an arc in each chapter.
IMO, I'd plan on a single long chapter first and see how it reads. As an alternative you can write it both ways and expose it to readers to see what their opinions are. I think the secret is keeping the reader engaged for the whole episode.
What I see with what's presented above is that it illustrates a character's self-efficacy, but not so much about what's at the core of the scene. Some private stakes, some small public stakes, but not a lot about how it connects and how it is in unity with the larger story. I don't especially see how the story outcome increases in doubt, what details the characters will learn from the defense that will lead to the outcome, nor the forces of antagonism in opposition increasing to lead into the climax, the three features I think are essential when a climax approaches.
A very similar scene is depicted in Thomas Harris' Hannibal. Hannibal Lecter as Dr. Fell is before a board of eminent culture scholars defending his qualifications for a position as curator of a collection of art and manuscripts. A nepotist skeptic doesn't want him to have the position, let alone permanently.
Lecter's presentation connects directly with his collision of wills with Pazzi, the cop who's decided he will sell Lecter to Verger so that Verger can exact his revenge. The appointment and motivations and challenges for the defense are set up earlier in the novel, revisted a time or two, and then takes place before a climactic scene, not the climax, that flows naturally from the defense into the climactic scene. It's not a long scene in time or word real estate, but it is crucial to the story, provides backstory and moves the story forward at a sharp pace, and is dynamic dramatic action.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited January 08, 2010).]
quote:
What I see with what's presented above is that it illustrates a character's self-efficacy, but not so much about what's at the core of the scene. Some private stakes, some small public stakes, but not a lot about how it connects and how is is in unity with the larger story.
The brief synopsis above leaves out how this particular academic defense fits into the plot of the book as a whole - the stakes are rather large. There are indeed clashes of will, and the panel of examiners themselves have an interesting blend. One is very supportive (though maintaining appropriately rigorous decorum as an examiner). The second is an old professor of the MC who is pleased (although surprised) to see him, who is also known to be one of the most difficult examiners in the Academy. The third (only there b/c he owes a favor to the second) is opposed to just about everything about this defense; that it was insufficiently announced, that the MC wasn't known to him beforehand, and that the MC threatens the examiner's own status as the youngest person ever to be admitted to the Academy. This one (the skeptic) is determined throughout the exam to fail the MC, and comes very close to winning the battle - neither of the other two examiners will "save" the MC and he knows it.
I always thought the exam itself was an interesting setting; as done here it is sort of a fusion of that type of exam with a defense of dissertation, though instead of gaining a PhD you gain admittance as something similar to the Fellows of the Royal Society.
[This message has been edited by micmcd (edited January 08, 2010).]
Dramatic irony raises potent suspense questions and empathy-worthy potentials. Readers know that a protagonist is approaching opposition before the protagonist. The who, what, when, where, why, and how suspense questions' potentials are manifold.
Edit: My most recent defense wasn't in a face-to-face setting, it was all done online. Application for a travel guide writing position. Writing samples, curriculum vitae, statement of intent, demonstrated knowledge of the region and familiarity with its attractions and with vendors, and other salient information. I passed the first two screenings, provided more information as requested, and placed second out of four finalists for one position. The screener had more affinity for the winner based on subjective criteria, willingness to be socially visited in a home setting. She was a total stranger to me, I offered to meet publicly first, but . . .
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited January 08, 2010).]
The first examiner knows the MC's true motivation for undergoing the exam (and the stakes if the MC fails), but the second and third do not. And though the third examiner is actively trying to sink the MC's candidacy partly because of his own ego, he is also doing it out of a sense of duty to the Academy, and in so doing he is actively (albeit unknowingly) fighting to doom his country.
I'm reminded of a parlimentary tactic to pass a contentious act by abruptly calling a bill out of secret committee discussion, giving little formal advance notice of the pending vote, giving favorable legislators timely informal advance notice, and polling the vote in the middle of the night. The straw man is often a freshman or junior legislator with little political equity and constituent backing bucking for caucus and constituent recognition by toeing the party platform, in other words, expendable.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited January 08, 2010).]
It could perhaps be the case that a faction of the Academy objects to the fast-tracking of the examination, and the only way the supporting examiner can win approval for the exam is to have that faction have one of their own as an examiner. In that case, though, it might seem almost just to have the skeptic somewhat humiliated by the protagonist -- I was planning on the skeptic being surprised, but still a determined (and worthy) adversary of the MC's admittance.
Setting up the opposition beforehand would be a great way to cut out a little of the chapter and still have the rest of it hold together.