The Review Club Forum Arcs, Tension, and All Things ..

I want to start a thread where we can talk about plot. We've already talked a little bit about runaway plots and plot planning, but I wanted to start a thread specifically dedicated to these kinds of issues that we can keep coming back to.

So a few things I've been thinking about. How do you build a climax that lives up the expectations created by the rest of the novel? How close to the end of the novel do you put the big blowout (that is, how much resolution after the climax)?

But any plot comments, ideas, or questions are welcome here.

-cc

Quote:


So, there is a book called Writing the Breakout Novel by literary agent Donald Maas and it has lots of great suggestions on plotting. Plus I just got back from NYC where I saw him give a lecture on that very subject so it is fresh in my mind. The gist of what he had to say is this:

Ask yourself these questions every step of the way:

How could the protagonist's situation effect more people?
How can time become an issue? (a deadline of sorts)
How can more people be hurt by this situation?
How can the problem become worse?
How can the problem be more complicated?
What other problems cascade off this situation?
How can this problem be really, really bad?
What would make this problem even worse than that?
If there is a God and your protagonist is Job, how would God screw him over even more?
How would this problem be so bad that the protagonist will fail and the story will have a bad ending for your protagonist?

After you've asked all these questions and written the answers into your story, you are ready for the climax and you must ask yourself the biggest question of all - How can the protagonist's problem be IMPOSSIBLE to solve? Write that into the story.

Now, think really hard for a couple days about how to get your protagonist out of this situation. Once you've done all that you can write your ending.

This all may not translate as well on the written page as it did in the lecture hall as we wrote down our answers to each of these questions, but I do think it is a very good exercise. He is basically saying that good plotting and a great climax depend on raising the stakes so high for your protagonist it is even hard for you as the writer to figure out how to get him/her out of the situation.

As for your question about resolution, I'll be thinking on that and get back to it. Great thread btw. Thanks CC.

Brent:

Thanks so much for sharing that. It is very helpful.

Julie

Oh, that is brilliant Brent. Thanks. Plot is my bane but I love irresolvable plots or ironic twists.

Thanks BBC looks like I'll be adding a book to my collection.

Just to join the chorus on how brilliant that post is, first, Brent. I've heard all over the place to up the stakes and make it matter and blah blah blah (abstract platitude) blah blah blah, but that's a real concrete way to think about tension and conflict and the BIG ONE (AKA the climax). I especially love the advice about making it hard for you to figure out how to save your characters and not allowing their survival to be a foregone conclusion. Helps me exponentially. *bows to Brent*

I also want to add a question. What do we all think about either (a) flashbacks as a plot technique or (b) multiple timelines in a story?

-cc

I don't think flashbacks can be avoided to some degree in any novel. Memories are soft flashbacks. Now would it suffice just to explain a memory and have the reader grasp enough of the meaning or do you need to jump full on to a flashback and work it in the active sense? I think the need of a flash back comes down to how much meaning you want to inject into the event that happened and how much barring will it have on the upcoming event. How much of it is needed.

Time lines
As long as the multiple time lines intersect at some point I don't have any problems. I've seen multiple time lines pulled off greatly but I've also seen some horrible jobs. If you have to ask what is the point of it, something is wrong. As long as there is relevance, as long as it is interesting, as long as it isn't confusing, why not?

One thing on timelines that I think is important is each period should stand as a story on its own. It should have all the elements of making one at least. The reader should want to see the end of each one and should feel some regret at leaving one but also rejoice at coming back to a different one. The tricky part is starting a new one for the first time. That takes good timing not to loose the reader.

Hey cc: ::tongue::

For those that don't know, I am a firm hater of flashbacks, hence my reaction to this question; however, I do see that using them can aid a story. The issue I take with flashbacks is too often they are used because a story is not well plotted or planned out. Sure a nice memory gives good backstory, but at what cost to the reader?

When I'm reading a story and a flashback occurs, I skim it. Why? Because I am reading for the real time story. If you want to hook me with a backstory, or inform me do so inside the story. I don't mind a brief flash, or a flash of a memory, but when it is used to propel a story, I see a real potential for a flat plot.

There's my two cents. Anyways, I have seen well done flashbacks and poor ones, so my advice when using them or considering them is: Anything can be done as long as you do it well.

As for timelines, I think you can use different ones, but again you risk confusing the reader.

Quote:


I am on the same page as Julie on this one. Though I am guilty of using them myself, I inevitably end up stuck with something that I need to cut anyway. There is almost no way to write a flashback that doesn't slow down the story. And there is almost no story out there that needs to be slowed down.

I think using different timelines, however, could be a good end-run around the flashback problem. Though I've never tried it myself, I think it could be done successfully in capable hands. The more the delineation between the timeline shifts the better. In other words, it would probably work best if they were distinct chapters or in some other way separated.

That's my thinkin' on it.

I once wrote a short story in which the time lines were broken into three periods: present, past 1 and past 2, and the present was written in present tense and the two past timelines in past tense. The structure went something like this:

1 - Present 1 - scene a
2 - Past 1 - scene a
3 - Past 2 - scene d
4 - Past 1 - scene b
5 - Past 2 - scene c
6 - Past 1 - scene c
7 - Past 2 - scene b
8 - Past 1 - scene d
9 - Past 2 - scene a
10 - Present 1 - scene b

Present 1 was really a running narrative wholly in the mind of ego. Past 1 involved ego and character A. Past 2 involved ego and character B. What worked is thematically the story moved from the initial crisis revealed in scene 1, with each new scene revealing a bit more of the crisis and character in each scene, until resolution in scene 10. The theme ran a straightline but the timelines did not.

Some liked it, some hated it. I still like the idea. I do agree with Julie about the risk of info dumping, which is what is often done with flashbacks.

So, the sum up, I don't have a problem with flashbacks -- I use them perhaps too often, and I don't have a problem with fragmented timelines. The trick, IMHO, is that the flashback MUST reveal something that is immediately important and cannot be introduced in any other way because your peeling away a central thread that binds the story together -- TIME.

Cheers!

Quote:


Excellent point Rob. I think with that understanding, a flashback can be useful. I think that is probably where my flashbacks fail me. I tend to write flashbacks that reveal something that is immediately funny or witty instead of immediately important.

btw - I guess your advice is so good that you needed to say it THREE times. ::smile::

Shoot Rob you have me interested. How about posting it? At some point this week I'm going to try and review you. Wouldn't mind reviewing that.

Brent:

Thanks so much for agreeing. CC and Cam badgered me about this a few days ago and I thought I was the only one. So Cam...CC.... ::tongue:: Tee Hee!

Just kidding. Rob excellent points as well. And I'll ditto Anthony that I wouldn't mind reading how you accomplished that various past/present viewpoint.

You all rock.

OK, plot. Still. But a new thing to talk about.

Beginnings.

How do you think beginnings should go? Should they be all action, with the backstory and slower portions coming later to fill in the gaps left by the early excitement? Expository set up (please, no)? Some combination of slower character introduction and action?

I think we've all heard to lead in the middle of the action, whether in a short or a novel, but what does that mean? There are almost as many definitions of "action" in writing as every other term that gets bandied about. And is this rule even worth keeping?

I personally think that if I don't lead with action, I'm already bored as the writer. And if I'm bored and it's my story, the poor reader is asleep. Which is never never never good, especially when that first chapter has to hook some overwhelmed agent or editor (but that's a subject for another thread). But I think you have to start to slow down quickly or your reader gets tired too.

I have to think more about the answer to my own question. How about you all answer it for me? ::biggrin::

-cc

I've never read anything that suffers from too much action at the beginning, so my vote is for having a beginning that has as much going on as you can possibly stomach without feeling like you are just being silly.

In this society, books compete with television and video games and the interweb and all that crazy, high-fallutin' fast-paced stuff. Don't start when the bad guy pulls out the gun. Start when the bullet is making contact with the skin.

And for the more literary minded out there, consider the gun/bullet/skin thing a metaphor.

As for slowing down, I wouldn't bother. If your reader tires of it and falls asleep, you can be confident that your book will be the first thing she reaches for in the morning.