posted
So I got the same complaint from several about my synopsis: that it wasn't clear what the core of the story was. Maybe there were other significant complaints (those who offered opinions can tell me).
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?
posted
To clarify: are you saying that none of these characters is sole protagonist? They all have equal screen time and emotional investment for the reader? The reason I ask is that usually there is a protagonist, even in multi-POV format novels. For example, the Stand, while it had many fully developed characters, is essentially about Stu Redman. If you can pick the strongest/most central character, focus on them for the query/synopsis. I'm not saying leave the others out, rather emphasize that central character's journey.
That may not be the problem people are having, but I suspect it couldn't hurt.
posted
Most people would believe that the disaster would be the core of the story, but since it's not, and I can that, I believe the core of the story is the human emotion, suffering and struggle to come to terms with whats happened is the core of the story.
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.
posted
I have to say, I recall reading the synopsis and feelign that it kind of petered out, and yes, I didn;t really feel for who/what the heart of the story was.
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.
posted
The resolutions shouldn't come Bip bip bip like that. There should be one primary resolution to the story, that's part of what makes it a story. Other resolutions can occur, but they are echoes of the big resolution.
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).]
posted
Disclaimer: I haven't read the synopsis or any other part of this work. I recognize that if I read it I might think differently.
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).]
posted
Could you describe the story in terms of an Event story (as in M.I.C.E.)?
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.
posted
It might help if you can express a core question that captures the overall struggle. A silly example is
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:John struggles.
John meets Mary. She's found a struggle of her own...
So it's clear John is more central? (That, plus be sure that John gets a lot of screen time in the synopsis itself.)
--
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:So John found the maguffin.
when I should be saying
quote:So John succeeded. He found what he wanted -- the maguffin.
Is that about right?
--
Is this pretty much dead on for what I was missing? If it is, I'll make another attempt, maybe this weekend. Thanks, everyone.
posted
Try summing your plot up in 20 words. It's tough but it makes you focus on what is the central theme or realize you don't have one. And I hate when I come to the conclusion that I don't have one.
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
