Structuring/plotting question
Mariska Stamenkovic
but I've got kind of a burning question. Burning me, at any rate.
I'm laying the groundwork for a novel, and need to make a plotting and
structuring decision that has me stumped. I'm working with what
amounts to two story lines, one in the past, one in the present, that
echo each other to a great extent. The present-story's protagonist is
sort of traveling back in time, while the past-story's people are
moving ahead. The end of the past-story is the beginning of the
present-story, and both story lines will reach that point
simultaneously and converge.
The question: should I cut back and forth between past and present,
developing each line equally and in its own right? Or should I go the
more conventional route, stick with the present story, and weave in
the backstory as I go? The latter would be more commercially viable, I
think, but it would also greatly diminish the impact of the echo
between the two stories. Since I'm going 'literary' with this one, I
have a bit more leeway. But only a little, and I don't want to slip
off the thin ledge.
So far, I haven't found any books that employ the first strategy
(developing two separate storylines at the same time). Which isn't a
very good sign I guess, if I want this book to have a market.
If you should know of any books that do something similar, please let
me know. I'd be dying to see how others do it. Any other sage words on
the matter would be greatly appreciated!!!! (oops, I forgot. Gotta
stay uneven, right? Here then: ! )
Maris (Yes, the Pickable Brains List is alive and well. Just no fresh
brains added in some time. I'll post a minor update soon)
xena
apart. Times alternate in chapters I believe, with chapter taking place
when the heroes are young and terrorized, and the next when they are
older and scared. It's very interesting how it takes place. You might
want to study it. I thought it was his best book, considering.
"Little Altars Everywhere" by Rebecca Wells takes place during several
different years, each chapter told by different characters. The years
go from when the main character is a child until she is in her thirties.
The years gradually increase, but she does flashback every now and then.
I think that it would be possible to do two plots side by side like
this, having them merging together. I like the alternating chapter
idea.
Xena
Carol Flynt
On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 21:16:06 GMT, ma...@gate.net (Mariska Stamenkovic)
wrote:
>Sorry to jump out of the woodwork like this, after my long absence,
>but I've got kind of a burning question. Burning me, at any rate.
I'm haunted by a vague memory of a book by Mary Stewart (I think) -
womthing about "Green" in the title. It's a gothic, takes-place-
in-an-old-mansion kinda title. Anyway, the theme is about
reincarnation, and Stewart weaves two stories into one, one
being about the current protagonist, the other being about
her previous self in the previous life. The two stories come
together about the time we figure out what's going on. (Current
protagonist knows nothing from reincarnation at the start of
all this.)
That's very sketchy, but it's the best I can do. It's been
at least 20 years since I read it. Sounds like it could be
very close, structurally, to what you're doing.
I, too, (like you and Jenny) have the idea for a novel building
in my back brain which involves two stories, past and present.
And the novel really requires that the two stories be told
independently until the point where it becomes obvious how
they're tied.
So, if it's not commercial, then we can all get drunk together
and share our rejection letters.
Carol (Hope this helps some) Flynt
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PREFERRED EMAIL ADDRESS: ca...@cflynt.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xena
>
> yes and barbara... barbara.... what IS that writer's name?!
>
You're not thinking of Barbara Michaels, are you?
Jenny
wrote:
>Sorry to jump out of the woodwork like this, after my long absence,
>but I've got kind of a burning question. Burning me, at any rate.
>
>I'm laying the groundwork for a novel, and need to make a plotting and
>structuring decision that has me stumped. I'm working with what
>amounts to two story lines, one in the past, one in the present, that
>echo each other to a great extent. The present-story's protagonist is
>sort of traveling back in time, while the past-story's people are
>moving ahead. The end of the past-story is the beginning of the
>present-story, and both story lines will reach that point
>simultaneously and converge.
That sounds *really* interesting. Keep us updated if you have the
time and I'll be the first to order it when it's published! I have a
strong past/present relationship interest myself.
>The question: should I cut back and forth between past and present,
>developing each line equally and in its own right? Or should I go the
>more conventional route, stick with the present story, and weave in
>the backstory as I go? The latter would be more commercially viable, I
>think, but it would also greatly diminish the impact of the echo
>between the two stories. Since I'm going 'literary' with this one, I
>have a bit more leeway. But only a little, and I don't want to slip
>off the thin ledge.
>
>So far, I haven't found any books that employ the first strategy
>(developing two separate storylines at the same time). Which isn't a
>very good sign I guess, if I want this book to have a market.
Faulkner did it with past/present in the first part of _The Sound and
the Fury_. Tolkien develops two storylines simultaneously, although
it isn't a past/present thing, in books 2 and 3 of _The Lord of the
Rings_ (although structurally he only wavers back and forth twice
before they converge). It isn't exactly the same thing, but Toni
Morrison moves back and forth between present and past a lot in
various works, without the past scenes being dependent on the present
ones per se. I'm thinking mainly of _Paradise_. These are just a
couple of examples off the top of my head, and I'm sure there're more.
They might not be the greatest examples either, but they are doing a
similar thing, and they are literary, and they all sold well.
>If you should know of any books that do something similar, please let
>me know. I'd be dying to see how others do it. Any other sage words on
>the matter would be greatly appreciated!!!! (oops, I forgot. Gotta
>stay uneven, right? Here then: ! )
Mine moves back and forth between past and present, like yours. But
since memory questioning history, and vice versa, are part of the
whole point of the thing, it deals mainly with memory. That solves my
problem of structuring them by giving me a ready-made context for
switching. The past and present scenes are intermingled, and the past
scenes depend mainly on the present. But, they don't reflect the same
story, and there aren't many parallels between them, so in a sense I
am developing them separately. In other words, if I switched some of
the past scenes around, the present scenes would likely not be
affected much, and it would all still make sense. The present plot
happens in chronological order, while the past plot doesn't unfold
strictly sequentially.
I keep them clearly distinct from one another mainly with the fact
that there's a change in point of view (present scenes first person,
past scenes third), but since the periods are over 700 years apart,
the distinction is fairly obvious. The stories don't really converge,
until the end, and then only in a sort of figurative sense.
OK, that makes very little sense if you don't know my story, but if
you're interested, I'd be happy to discuss via e-mail. Mind you, I am
hardly an expert -- I'm hardly anybody at all :-) (Emily Dickinson -
"I'm Nobody -- Who're You?" - great quote :-)).
>Maris (Yes, the Pickable Brains List is alive and well. Just no fresh
>brains added in some time. I'll post a minor update soon)
>
Jenny
-----
~ a fu, y sydd, ac a fydd byth ~
Alma Hromic
>
>On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 21:16:06 GMT, ma...@gate.net (Mariska Stamenkovic)
>wrote:
>
>>Sorry to jump out of the woodwork like this, after my long absence,
>>but I've got kind of a burning question. Burning me, at any rate.
>
>
>I'm haunted by a vague memory of a book by Mary Stewart (I think) -
>womthing about "Green" in the title. It's a gothic, takes-place-
>in-an-old-mansion kinda title. Anyway, the theme is about
>reincarnation, and Stewart weaves two stories into one, one
>being about the current protagonist, the other being about
>her previous self in the previous life. The two stories come
>together about the time we figure out what's going on. (Current
>protagonist knows nothing from reincarnation at the start of
>all this.)
>
yes and barbara... barbara.... what IS that writer's name?!
she did it with "Lady of Hay", anyway. something along those lines. it
worked well wnough.
you just need iron control in order to make sure you don't let it all
slip into chaos...
A.
ABdikjse
suggesting. It has been years since I've read her books, but recall them as
flowing well, with time jumps blending into each other smoothly and not
confusing to the reader. Hope this helps.
Lady8
Steve Pritchard
xena wrote in message <36E4929A...@cyberhighway.net>...
>Stephen King's "IT" takes place in two different times, about 23 years
>apart.
Which, incidently, is precisely the time it seems to take to watch the film
of the book.
(I mean, just how *boring* can one film be?)
Andrea Chen
time), I personally like short chunks which keep them both in my head.
If the writer goes off 50 or 100 pages and then jumps to another line
it's often hard to keep the relationship. This may be a passing fancy,
but given from what you have described of your story it seems like the
technique best suited. It also makes it easier to amplify the
"echoes."
On the issue of commercial viability I'm unsure, but it seems the issue
is readability. But then again I don't know the prejudices of editors.
However given exposure to television with commercials and frequent
breaks from one scene to another I don't think that most readers will
have difficulty with a well done technique of this type.
Mariska Stamenkovic wrote:
>
> Sorry to jump out of the woodwork like this, after my long absence,
> but I've got kind of a burning question. Burning me, at any rate.
>
> I'm laying the groundwork for a novel, and need to make a plotting and
> structuring decision that has me stumped. I'm working with what
> amounts to two story lines, one in the past, one in the present, that
> echo each other to a great extent. The present-story's protagonist is
> sort of traveling back in time, while the past-story's people are
> moving ahead. The end of the past-story is the beginning of the
> present-story, and both story lines will reach that point
> simultaneously and converge.
>
> The question: should I cut back and forth between past and present,
> developing each line equally and in its own right? Or should I go the
> more conventional route, stick with the present story, and weave in
> the backstory as I go? The latter would be more commercially viable, I
> think, but it would also greatly diminish the impact of the echo
> between the two stories. Since I'm going 'literary' with this one, I
> have a bit more leeway. But only a little, and I don't want to slip
> off the thin ledge.
>
> So far, I haven't found any books that employ the first strategy
> (developing two separate storylines at the same time). Which isn't a
> very good sign I guess, if I want this book to have a market.
>
> If you should know of any books that do something similar, please let
> me know. I'd be dying to see how others do it. Any other sage words on
> the matter would be greatly appreciated!!!! (oops, I forgot. Gotta
> stay uneven, right? Here then: ! )
>
xena
they were going to pull it off when it was first announced.
Xena
Bil & Tag
Jenny wrote:
> (Carol Flynt) wrote:
>
> >
> >I, too, (like you and Jenny) have the idea for a novel building
> >in my back brain which involves two stories, past and present.
> >And the novel really requires that the two stories be told
> >independently until the point where it becomes obvious how
> >they're tied.
> >
> >So, if it's not commercial, then we can all get drunk together
> >and share our rejection letters.
> >
> >Carol (Hope this helps some) Flynt
> >
>
> has the most rejection letters, buys...
>
> I should be receiving the first of mine sometime this spring/summer,
> so I may already be ahead,
Point me towards the bar.
I've already racked up about 30 for my latest book (or, I should say, for
the query letter for my latest book).
_____________________________________
"Bil & Tag"
a.k.a. William and Tracey Greene
e-mail: remove (NOSPAM)
Jenny
>
>I, too, (like you and Jenny) have the idea for a novel building
>in my back brain which involves two stories, past and present.
>And the novel really requires that the two stories be told
>independently until the point where it becomes obvious how
>they're tied.
>
>So, if it's not commercial, then we can all get drunk together
>and share our rejection letters.
>
>Carol (Hope this helps some) Flynt
>
It sure does help *me*... count me in on the drunk part :-). Whoever
has the most rejection letters, buys...
I should be receiving the first of mine sometime this spring/summer,
so I may already be ahead,
Jenny
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| PREFERRED EMAIL ADDRESS: ca...@cflynt.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----
Mariska Stamenkovic
type of book-blindness--I've got Stephen King's IT sitting right here
on my desk, for crying out loud.
Anybody see my brain? It's the gray one with the pearly sheen. Must
have left it around here somewhere.
Maris (and a balloon for everyone. Down here, they float)
Alma Hromic
wrote:
>Alma Hromic wrote:
>>
>> yes and barbara... barbara.... what IS that writer's name?!
>>
>
>You're not thinking of Barbara Michaels, are you?
ERSKINE. barbara erskine. that's the one i was thinking of.
A.
Steve Pritchard
Mariska Stamenkovic wrote in message <36e83fed....@news.gate.net>...
>Thanks for all the responses and advice. I must be suffering from some
>type of book-blindness--I've got Stephen King's IT sitting right here
>on my desk, for crying out loud.
>
>Anybody see my brain? It's the gray one with the pearly sheen. Must
>have left it around here somewhere.
If you've read "IT", then your brain has probably dribbled out of your ears
in an attempt to escape further punishment.
Heidi Wessman Kneale [Auntie Dem]
Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> sayeth:
>
>xena wrote in message <36E4929A...@cyberhighway.net>...
>>Stephen King's "IT" takes place in two different times, about 23 years
>>apart.
>
>Which, incidently, is precisely the time it seems to take to watch the film
>of the book.
>(I mean, just how *boring* can one film be?)
Steve,
I graduated w/ a BA in Film. I've had to watch films far more boring
than IT.
I once had to watch a 45 minute film involving a single shot. It was
a very slow closeup, in an empty room in London, of this seascape.
Once in a while, people would walk in the room, look at the picture,
sit on the windowsill, then walk out. You could hear traffic in the
background. But not much else happened.
So, for 45 minutes, we watched this zoom into this picture of the
seascape.
As we closed in, and the seascape filled the screen, the sounds of the
traffic changed to sounds of the ocean.
It would have been such a cool film, had it been forty minutes
shorter.
'IT' has nothing on this film.
_____________
Heidi
xena
> Anybody see my brain? It's the gray one with the pearly sheen. Must
> have left it around here somewhere.
Uh...I found it in my fridge. <blushing> I thought it was a roast that
I'd been meaning to throw out...uh, here you go.
Xena (I wonder what those taco-looking things are way in the back--I
don't remember having tacos this year...)
Steve Pritchard
Heidi Wessman Kneale [Auntie Dem] wrote in message
<36eb6ced...@news.iinet.net.au>...
>In the Year of our Lord Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:03:55 -0000, "Steve
>Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> sayeth:
>
>Steve,
>
>I graduated w/ a BA in Film. I've had to watch films far more boring
>than IT.
>
>I once had to watch a 45 minute film involving a single shot. It was
>a very slow closeup, in an empty room in London, of this seascape.
>
>Once in a while, people would walk in the room, look at the picture,
>sit on the windowsill, then walk out. You could hear traffic in the
>background. But not much else happened.
>
>So, for 45 minutes, we watched this zoom into this picture of the
>seascape.
>
>As we closed in, and the seascape filled the screen, the sounds of the
>traffic changed to sounds of the ocean.
>
>It would have been such a cool film, had it been forty minutes
>shorter.
>
>'IT' has nothing on this film.
This is one of those films that the more learned critics classify under the
category of "arty bollocks", isn't it?
(Would that "IT" had been only 45 minutes long)
xena
again.
Xena
Paul Harwood wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 15:32:38 -0600, xena said in misc.writing:
> Probably some leftover scrapple from the '97 Austin wrevel; Lutz
> brought the stuff in kilo bricks, and, the last I saw, Wendy was
> furtively stuffing bricks into people's suitcases.
>
> The "taco-ishness" of scrapple is a well-known indicator of fine
> aging, in much the same way that "cottage cheese" is an indicator of
> well-aged milk.
>
> Share it with company, xena; scrapple with a fine "taco" crust, a good
> pinot ... I'm growing dizzy at the thought!
>
> Scrapple: It's not just finger food any more.
>
> Paul Harwood
Joe Brown
> I agree that this book did not adapt well to film. I wasn't sure how
> they were going to pull it off when it was first announced.
>
> Xena
>
> Steve Pritchard wrote:
> >
> > xena wrote in message <36E4929A...@cyberhighway.net>...
> > >Stephen King's "IT" takes place in two different times, about 23 years
> > >apart.
> >
> > Which, incidently, is precisely the time it seems to take to watch the film
> > of the book.
> > (I mean, just how *boring* can one film be?)
>
>
As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
Me is a short story transferred)
Joe D. Brown
+----------------------+
| When it rains |
| it doesn't drizzle |
| on my windows. |
| |
| It gets in my socks. |
+----------------------+
Jerry Kindall
<Pine.BSI.3.96-heb-2.07.9...@pob.huji.ac.il>, Joe
Brown <jb...@pob.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, xena wrote:
>
> > I agree that this book did not adapt well to film. I wasn't sure how
> > they were going to pull it off when it was first announced.
> >
> > Xena
> >
> > Steve Pritchard wrote:
> > >
> > > xena wrote in message <36E4929A...@cyberhighway.net>...
> > > >Stephen King's "IT" takes place in two different times, about 23 years
> > > >apart.
> > >
> > > Which, incidently, is precisely the time it seems to take to watch
the film
> > > of the book.
> > > (I mean, just how *boring* can one film be?)
> >
> As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
> Me is a short story transferred)
"The Dead Zone" was probably the best of them, although "The Shining" was
also pretty darn good.
--
Jerry Kindall mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com Technical Writing
Manual Labor http://www.manual.com We wrote the book!
"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one
set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogo stick."
Jenny
wrote:
>As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
>Me is a short story transferred)
>Joe D. Brown
>
I think there are several Stephen King novels that were adapted very
well:
Stand By Me (sorry to differ with ya :-))
Misery
Shawshank Redemption
The Dead Zone
Carrie
I've also heard good things about Apt Pupil, but haven't seen it. The
ones that did adapt well tend to be the ones that don't involve
BigScaryMonsters, or any too-far-fetched special effects or horror.
Shawshank and Stand By Me, for example, are the best IMO, and they
aren't horror at all.
Since most of his books have been filmed, I guess it's only to be
expected that the quality would encompass a wide range. Most of them
are just mediocre (Needful Things, for example). Some are crappy (the
Tommyknockers, for example. Just a bad book to start with, and the
movie doesn't help). Some are good movies, but horrible adaptations
(the Kubrick version of The Shining).
The Stand and It are in a category all their own in terms of sheer
badness. Unfortunately, these tend to be his best books (again IMO).
I think part of the problem is that the readers become so attached to
the characters in both books, as they exist in their imagination, that
no adaptation would do them justice. The other problem is that both
movies really, really suck.
I have a weakness for SK, obviously,
Jenny
Jerry Kindall
Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Jerry Kindall wrote in message ...
> >In article
> ><Pine.BSI.3.96-heb-2.07.9...@pob.huji.ac.il>, Joe
> >Brown <jb...@pob.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> >> >
> >> As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
> >> Me is a short story transferred)
> >
> >"The Dead Zone" was probably the best of them, although "The Shining" was
> >also pretty darn good.
>
> Misery worked for me.
Haven't seen that one. It was after my King phase.
Hear "Shawshank Redemption" is also good.
xena
for weeks that my teeth were falling out. I even woke up to find bits
of tooth in my mouth from grinding my teeth.
Then I quit my job at Allstate...
Xena
Jenny wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:54:17 +0200, Joe Brown <jb...@pob.huji.ac.il>
> wrote:
>
> >As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
> >Me is a short story transferred)
Jenny
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:54:17 +0200, Joe Brown <jb...@pob.huji.ac.il>
>wrote:
>
>
>>As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
>>Me is a short story transferred)
>>Joe D. Brown
>>
>
>I think there are several Stephen King novels that were adapted very
>well:
>
>Stand By Me (sorry to differ with ya :-))
>Misery
>Shawshank Redemption
>The Dead Zone
>Carrie
>
Please allow me to flame myself before you do :-). Your whole point
was not to include short stories, and I myself said the word "novel,"
and then off I went talking about Stand By Me, Shawshank, *and* Apt
Pupil.
Jenny, you ignorant twit. Pay attention, will you?
How's that?
Steve Pritchard
Paul Harwood wrote in message <36ea0fdf...@news.earthlink.net>...
>Probably some leftover scrapple from the '97 Austin wrevel; Lutz
>brought the stuff in kilo bricks, and, the last I saw, Wendy was
>furtively stuffing bricks into people's suitcases.
>
>The "taco-ishness" of scrapple is a well-known indicator of fine
>aging, in much the same way that "cottage cheese" is an indicator of
>well-aged milk.
>
>Share it with company, xena; scrapple with a fine "taco" crust, a good
>pinot ... I'm growing dizzy at the thought!
>
>Scrapple: It's not just finger food any more.
Thanks Paul, just when my bileousness had started to subside...
Steve Pritchard
Jerry Kindall wrote in message ...
>In article
>Brown <jb...@pob.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>> >
>> As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
>> Me is a short story transferred)
>
Steve Pritchard
Jerry Kindall wrote in message ...
>Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Haven't seen that one. It was after my King phase.
Yes (th book is still better) it is a good little film.
>Hear "Shawshank Redemption" is also good.
Interesting, and I didn't even know it was a King story when I saw it.
Heidi Wessman Kneale [Auntie Dem]
Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> sayeth:
>This is one of those films that the more learned critics classify under the
>category of "arty bollocks", isn't it?
>(Would that "IT" had been only 45 minutes long)
Yup. Otherwise, nobody'd ever watch it.
It's too boring to even use as a sleep aid.
__________
Heidi
Lorrill Buyens
<st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> finished their moo goo gai pan, opened
their fortune cookie and read:
>Jerry Kindall wrote in message ...
>>In article
>><Pine.BSI.3.96-heb-2.07.9...@pob.huji.ac.il>, Joe
>>Brown <jb...@pob.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>> >
>>> As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
>>> Me is a short story transferred)
>>
>>"The Dead Zone" was probably the best of them, although "The Shining" was
>>also pretty darn good.
>
>Misery worked for me.
I found "Needful Things" surprisingly watchable, although a large
part of that was Max Sydow's excellent performance as the Devil. (I
once told a fellow Hound of the Internet that I'd like to see him play
Moriarty...)
Lorrill (It was *much* better than that terrible miniseries they made
out of _The Tommyknockers_) Buyens
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Lorrill Buyens
>On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:54:17 +0200, Joe Brown <jb...@pob.huji.ac.il>
>wrote:
>>As if any Stephen King novel was adapted well (The Body->Stand By
>>Me is a short story transferred)
>Since most of his books have been filmed, I guess it's only to be
>expected that the quality would encompass a wide range. Most of them
>are just mediocre (Needful Things, for example). Some are crappy (the
>Tommyknockers, for example. Just a bad book to start with, and the
I like _The Tommyknockers_ very much, personally. It was that, _The
Dead Zone_ & the short stories which first got me interested in him.
(The only books I truly hated were _`Salem's Lot_ and _Cujo_ - never
finished either of `em...)
>I have a weakness for SK, obviously,
You hide it well... ;-)