posted
I am currently working on a novel that seems to be stagnating. It's a complex story that (I think) requires a lot of background and buildup to bring readers into the main conflict. It also involves a main subplot that does not even immediately tie into the main plot. I may even end up asking some more opinions later on, but for now here's what I think I need addressed:
How early does the main character's goal need to become clear? Is it possible to keep the reader interested with lesser goals and perhaps a little bit of danger until the true goal is revealed later on in the story? (In this case, about 2/3 through.)
If you've ever seen an example of something like this done well, I'd love a reference.
posted
At first I want to say that what you are suggesting would make me uneasy. I mean, it's typically considered best to make the main conflict apparent as soon as possible, to hook the readers.
Then again, the best writers are those who not only disobey conventions, but end up making new paths through the annals of literature.
So I say, don't worry about the plot mechanics. Write it as best and as organically as you know how, and you'll end up with the best story in the end. If you attempt to engineer the plot too much, it will show.
posted
IMO it's good to use the main plot to hook readers, but it's not necessary. Use whatever you've got to hook your readers. It's the strength of the hook that matters, not its depth throughout the story. As long as you've still got them on a strong hook when you get to the main plot you'll be fine.
posted
I usually find it very annoying for a subplot with its own conclusion exists early in the story purely for the sake of exposition. OTOH, if you do it well enough, you can get away with anything.
You might see if the conflict can begin before we fully understand it. Consider _Homebody_, the main plot begins right off even though we don't understand it until most of the way through. That could be a good model.
If not, see how much you can condense your exposition. Using a perspective character who doesn't understand the background can help, though be careful with that.
The basic rule is that the reader should understand enough to find what's happening interesting at any time. Of course, they don't need to understand it all -- wondering what you're missing can be fun!
posted
If the sub-plot you're talking about doesn't even tie into the main story, then you need to ask yourself what story you want to tell and tell that one.
If, however, you can get your sub-plot to ties into your main story, then it can be done. Herman Melville's MOBY DICK and Leo Tolstoy's ANNA KARENINA both have main characters who don't show up until 75 or 100 pages into the story. Of course, both of those novels are very long, and both Melville and Tolstoy were at the height of their artistic abilites when they penned those novels.
posted
"Moby Dick" ruined Melville's career. He was a successful author that wrote a literary novel. His fans didn't like or buy "Moby Dick". "Moby Dick" didn't become popular until after Melville's death. What I'm saying is, it's risky to try writing like that even if you're an established author. As for Tolstoy, does anyone really understand Russian Literature?
Posts: 198 | Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted
I think I may not have made myself clear. I don't have a sub plot taking over the first part of the story, although it shares a lot of time with the main plot. The main character and the main antagonist are introduced in chapter 1 and continue to appear regularly throughout the book. But it is not until about 2/3 of the way through the book that the main character has a true goal (to destroy the antagonist). Up u8ntil that point she is just being beaten to the ground.
My main reason for concern was that, after reading some of the discussions here, I saw that protagonists who aren't proactive are not liked by the readers. My main character becomes proactive, but not until she's just about hit rock bottom. So will people bear with me that long? I'd really like to show what makes her snap.
As with any writing, it all depends on how you handle the plot/characters up to the point in which you get "to the point". Will your story carry interest for that long?
Perhaps I could use The Thomas Covenant series as an example. Donaldson developed Covenant as an anti-hero who doesn't even CONSIDER proactivity until the third (!) novel. I'm not sure, at least in the first trilogy, if Covenant ever has a goal. He completly destroys lives because of his emotional impotence--but it works. Although most h-a-t-e the protag because of this, it kept us reading for six novels.
[This message has been edited by ALH (edited May 30, 2003).]
posted
So your protagonist gets beaten down for two thirds of a novel before she starts thinking about fighting back. Are you sure you have a believable protagonist? More importantly, are you sure you have one the reader can sympathize with?
Those are honest questions. Maybe you do.
If so, what *does* your protagonist think of doing? Is she getting beaten down so hard that she's fighting to survive? If so, then you can probably look at it as one conflict that starts early. Does she try peaceful means to get the antagonist to stop? Again, one conflict, multiple methods.
If she gets beaten down for that long and doesn't do *anything* about it, I (and probably most readers) will lose respect for her and that will kill the emotional effect of the novel. It doesn't have to be something really major, and she certainly doesn't have to strike at the villian, but so long as she's doing something, it's one conflict.
One exception to that -- she can spend the beginning of the novel fighting the voice in her head telling her that she deserves this for whatever reason, and only when she wins that fight does she go on to the external one. I wouldn't recommend this approach, because it divides the climax and because it's very difficult to make the first part interesting, but it is an option.
posted
I consider the Thomas Covenant series a unique experiment. It sold once -- somehow -- but it's an idea that's not worth copying.
There's an entire genre of sweeping epics that run for generations or centuries. In these, the characters and goals at the beginning can be completely different from the characters and goals at the end. Yet these books are still very popular.
It's not uncommon for a character to hit rock bottom before he/she turns into a hero. The Great Gatsby doesn't become a hero until he is spurned by Daisy. This is shown in a flashback.
If you haven't read Gatsby, look at the first Batman movie. Young Bruce Wayne became Batman because his parents were murdered. But this rock bottom scene was also handled in a flashback. That's probably the best use for flashbacks, a technique that's easy to overuse.
Popular Non-flashback examples of characters who become heroes when they hit rock bottom:
The Fugitive doesn't become a hero until he's convicted of murdering his own wife!
Luke Skywalker doesn't become a hero until his aunt and uncle are killed.
Spiderman.
The Lion King.
I'm no expert, but I believe I see a pattern in these examples. If the "rock bottom" scene is in a flashback you can put it anyplace in the story. But if it's part of a continuous plotline, it needs to happen early. Good luck.
My protagonist is about six in the first chapter...then it almost immediately skips a bunch of years. The reason she doesn't fight back right away is she's a child. When it skips ahead (not very far in at all) she tries to rebel a couple times and keeps getting pushed back down. She's fighting BOTH the voices in her head telling her she's not good enough or smart enough or pretty enough AND the antagonist, an authority figure who keeps asking her to do things she knows are wrong. Not until about 2/3 through does she come to understand (in a scene that I hope is pretty dramatic) that the antagonist is a bad person and she needs to fight back whatever the cost.
I hadn't thought of the possibility that my scene 2/3 in might take away from my climax...I'll have to keep that in check.
Tough to take/give advice this way. I'm not sure how to give people to full picture in a few paragraphs. But I think your last comments have rung true and I appreciate the help.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
