Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/39767
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/39767
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

@FraEnrico talks about epistolary novels, and I agree with him - it does sound very much like what you're trying to do. What troubles me, however, is that usually one would have epistolary _novels_. You seem to be going for an epistolary _short story_. Ten _characters_ are often a bit much for a short story; you want ten _narrators_.

I'm not saying that it _can't_ work, but I am saying that you've got your work cut out for you. You've got to mark out very clearly who's speaking at every given point, and you've got to help the audience not get them all confused. Not just "help the audience understand who's speaking right now", but also help the audience remember which bits this particular narrator told before, how those bits tie together, why it's he, and not another narrator, who's telling this bit.

If, as you mention in a comment, you want readers to ignore the fact that different people are telling the story, and just focus on the story, why do you need so many narrators in the first place? Why can't it be just one invisible narrator (you) narrating the whole thing? Usually, multiple narrators would be used when they have a stake in the story - when they've been there, when they see things in a particular way that might contrast with the way another narrator would see the same events. But you're saying you want the readers to ignore the narrators. So what is it that they add? If any element of a story is to be ignored, why is it there in the first place?

Original score: 2