Non-Linear Storyline: Dynamic vs. Static chapter sequence
While this question may be a little nit-picky I realize chapters do help the flow of a book, and, since I'm now plotting a novel, I figured it's a good time to ask.
In a non-lineary storyline, I've noticed two ways chapters are laid out; I think the best way to describe it is dynamic versus static chapter sequence.
Static chapter sequences I would describe as a round-robin approach to subplots. For example, if there are 3 subplots, each "act" will be broken up into 3 chapters, with the order of subplots constant with each act.
A real-world example of this is Burning Paradise by Robert Charles Wilson. When I was reading this the subplots were per-chapter to the point where it became annoying and monotonous for me. With this sequence, I see a few pros and cons:
- Pro: the reader is able to predict what chapter goes with with subplot so they're not having to guess for the first few paragraphs.
- Con: since chapters can control the flow of the story, the chapters may not coincide with the story flow.
Dynamic chapter sequences go with the flow of the story. You may follow one subplot for several chapters while another subplot may get a chapter here and there (and, in most cases, they end up getting an equal share at the end of the story).
A real-world example of this (that I'm reading right now) is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson.
For about half the book I was wondering if Salander was still alive (meaning she wasn't mentioned a whole lot). Pros and cons:
- Pro: the chapters follow the flow of the story
- Con: The reader may forget about small sublots.
Am I using the correct terminology? Is my question too confusing? Thanks, in any case! :-)
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/12567. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Your terminology is fine, and I think either way might work depending on your story.
The idea that we're left wondering if a character is alive may be quite deliberate on the author's part. Whether the reader is frustrated or writhing in suspense is, again, dependent on the story.
I don't object to the idea of making the reader work a bit at remembering subplots, and that also allows for a pleasurable subsequent re-read, as you go through remembering where so-and-so was and seeing how the author deliberately put that character to the side for the other plots to develop.
On the other hand, if you have enough subplots to make George R.R. Martin reach for a scorecard, then consistent scene cycling wouldn't be a bad thing.
I would lean towards what you're terming dynamic, because I think it will generally serve the story better, but the static structure could be equally effective if warranted.
0 comment threads
This is how I see it:
Static:
Pros:
- You can easier edit some subplots to fit better to main story
- Easy to follow by reader
Cons:
You can give away the information, that every chapter is new subplot. duh
The overall flow of the story can be boring
Dynamic:
Pros:
- Better flow of the story
- Reader is given away the information exactly at time you want them to know
Cons:
- Harder to follow by reader
- Harder to edit in the later stages
Personally, as writer, I incline more to the static story building scheme. As reader, I totally love the dynamic one. Great example of totally well built dynamic story is Terry Prachett Discoworld stories
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12593. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads