Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Does something need to happen in every single chapter?

+0
−0

My style of writing is - I think - more investigative into characters and what drives them. I think however that this could be problematic for readers because nothing major happens in every single chapter. I feel like a lot of writers suggest just moving right through the story but I am not sure that I can do that with my story without it becoming overly simplistic. I am writing a story with a world that has a lot of details, so I'm not sure that I can really just move through it without everything becoming to 'easy' for my characters. What do you think?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/21522. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

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.

+0
−0

Does something need to happen in every chapter? Yes.

Something needs to happen in every paragraph.

Something needs to happen in every sentence.

The story must advance. A story needs more to advance than physical action by the characters, however. It is the telling that needs to advance. Actions are merely one device for advancing story. Description, reflection, and conversation can all advance the story. One the other hand, action does not always advance the story.

Description, reflection, conversation, action, and all the other parts of human life are matter for story. The right use of any of them advances the story and the wrong use of any of them retards the story. Action may seem like a easy and reliable way to advance story, but story is about the arc of a character and you can have action galore without advancing the arc of a character. Thus many big action blockbusters fall flat, while many quieter slower-paces movies become hits.

Every chapter, every paragraph, every sentence must propel character along the arc of story. How is entirely a matter of the nature of the story itself.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+1
−0

That's up to you. Whether you decide to advance the plot in each chapter or not is entirely your call. Your readers may disagree with your decision, but frankly that's their problem. Ultimately, what you write is yours. If your goal is to sell copies, then by all means appeal to the common denominator. If your goal is to convey meaning, not everybody is going to "get" it anyway.

Personally, I actually find that almost always, my favorite parts are the parts where nothing happens in the common interpretation of plot advancement, but instead we see exposition. For example, in Michael Crichton's The Great Train Robbery, there's a part where, in the course of the titular heist, the main character decides to run atop the train, and jump between cars.

Crichton breaks what many readers would implicitly consider a pretty important rule: he tells the reader something exciting is happening, but then takes a pretty lengthy unexciting detour before resolving the tension. He goes into detail about why this character decided that running on top of the train was not a terrible idea. Crichton explains concepts of fluid dynamics, which actually shed light on real-world phenomena that lots of readers have probably wondered about (and in fact, I ended up asking my high school physics teacher about it and learned about all kinds of stuff as a result). Then he explains that the character's application of these concepts is fundamentally flawed and it actually really was a terrible idea after all.

It's by far my favorite part of the book. It could have been an entire chapter and I would have loved every word of it, even with Mike "leaving me hanging" on the action. Maybe some other readers didn't care and were put off by it but, like I said above, that's their problem. If Crichton had left it out for their sake, I wouldn't have enjoyed the book nearly as much.

So, if you feel like there's a way you can add meaning, don't be afraid to spend time (pages? chapters?) not advancing the plot to do it.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/21644. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »