posted
I'm starting to get some feedback on the first chapters of Book Two. I have already decided not to think of these three books as a trilogy. I want them to be stand alone books that happen to occur in the same world with a lot of the same characters. I don't want to use a prologue if I can help it.
However, one not entirely unanticipated problem is re-introducing those characters when the main character is no longer meeting them for the first time. My main character has a very complicated family relationship and I don't want to constantly be slowing everything down to explain exactly how somebody is related to him.
Briefly, in another world view, my main character would be considered a bastard. His actual father has four legitimate children and several other illegitimate ones. Only one of those will be important, though. That's five half-siblings on Dad's side. His mother married and has two children by her husband, for a total of seven half-siblings that will figure in the story. The main character was raised by his step-father and he calls both his real father and his step-father 'Father'. Fortunately, they live some distance apart and he's rarely around both of them at the same time.
Add to all of that, the main character is married for the second time himself and has two children by his first wife. Yikes! It'd take me a chapter just to sort out who's who for a reader.
So, what I'm wondering is what about the idea of having a sort of family tree in place of a prologue? Sort of a cheat sheet for readers to go back and see how everyone is related. This would not be a substitute for introducing the characters. More a sort of visual aid. Altough it might take some of the pressure off the initial introduction and let me ease into it a little more slowly.
posted
Just add the information when it effects the story. You might have a scene where he asks one about the others of one group. William sees his half brother and goes to him. "Hey, Ralhp, How's your mother? How are her kids?" He then visits his other father and asks about those kids. To do this right, you give information that will effect later in the story when they become important.
As to meeting previous characters. you introduce them as you would in a single episode story, just write it so they are familiar with each other. You then include information about them about the past as it is necessary.
One series that did this well was Anne McCaffrey's PERN series. Each story was about a different character, but previous characters were introduced in the stories as needed.
I do like this kind of series wehre you don't have to read the first book to enjoy the entire series, but of course, reading the series makes it even better.
posted
I don't think a family tree in the prologue is necessarily a bad thing, but don't rely on readers needing to read it. I often skip tables and maps in a book, expecting the narrative to tell me what I need to know.
I remember OSC doing this type of exposition in Speaker for the Dead when introducing Ender. It might not be a geneology, but the character's background is important to the story, and the author can't assume the reader has previously read Ender's Game. Working it into the story, either through characters' perceptions & expectations that leave some things unsaid, or through direct exposition, will always be obvious to some readers, but seems to be the most common approach I've noticed. (Though, maybe because I've *noticed* it, it isn't the best... proving I don't really know )
posted
I am a part-time genealogist, so I kind of like family trees in the front of multiple-character books. But I like glossaries at the backs of books, and author notes at the back, too.
posted
Why don't you put the genealogy at the back of the book, sort of like an appendix or a cast of characters? I've seen several authors do character lists when they're afraid of confusing their readers.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to say without knowing your story in greater detail, but is it possible that the basic character of the relationships doesn't depend too much on the genealogy? If readers just had a general understanding that the people are related, would that be enough to make their actions make sense?
I don't think the genealogy is necessarily a bad idea, but I think the text still needs to speak for itself without it. My approach would be to write, then go back and examine each relationship with an eye to how crucial the exact nature of the relationship is, and add exposition where it is most needed.
posted
I would look at a family tree before I would read a prologue with a bunch of "begats". I think visual geneologies work better for fantasies (I'm not sure which side of speculative fiction your story falls). I often refer back to Tolkien's maps and geneologies when reading LOTR. I also find glossaries very helpful, especially when there is a lot of new terminology (like Tolkien or Herbert's Dune).
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think a diagrammatical family tree would work well for you. That frees up some of your prose from having to explain every relationship in detail, however you still must define relationships in the story where they are germane to the plot.
I view it in the same way I am always appreciative that an author has put in a map to track where the characters are and where they are going.
posted
Thanks. I worked up a rough geneology for the characters at the start of Book Two. I think it'd be very helpful--more so than a prologue. That way, I can hopefully dribble in the pertinent information a little more slowly, but any reader that just has to know how everybody is related--and most of them are--has an easy way to look it up.
I may have to do another, slightly more complicated one, for the start of Book Three. But I'm not there, yet.
As for whether it goes in the front or the back of the book, that'll be a decision for the publisher (she says confidently, sort of).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
It'd take me a chapter just to sort out who's who for a reader.
)
