Shaken, not Stirred.

[SusanR]

Well.

I've been reading Donald Maas' WRITING THE BREAKOUT NOVEL, and in his section on subplots, he says that having two separate plotlines coming together is a favorite device of beginning writers. Two strangers whose lives will intersect at some point is one such construction. Bringing two time periods together is another.

Furthermore, he says that beginners insist on alternating sections from each plotline, and that almost no new writer brings them together quickly or skillfully enough. He cites John Fowles' THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN as a successful example.

Now I'm reeling because my WIP--all 300 pages wrestled and cajoled out of my beginner's mind--is described above. My story is about a female medical examiner who investigates a 180-year-old double homicide. What she discovers threatens the very successful presidential campaign of the wildly popular New York state governor, a man who will let nothing stop him from realizing his ambition.

The tale of the old bones--who they were, how they died, and why their discovery should threaten a presidential campaign--is told in a different narrative voice. I make the two plotlines intersect by weaving enough of the past in to account for the findings in the present. The medical examiner, holding the old bones in her hands, whispers, "tell me your story", and it's as if the bones answer back.

Now I'm doubting the whole damned premise and structure. I'm no John Fowles, that's for sure. What do you think? Is this as hackneyed and predictable as Maas suggests?

Just sign me,
Shaken, not stirred.
SusanR

[Bufty]

Susan R, I am sure James R or someone else will offer a more constructive reply for you but I am wondering if you haven't just picked on an isolated paragraph and are worrying unnecessarily because it has a sort of similarity to what you are trying to do.

Re-read the preceding paragraph to the one you quoted - don't you feel you have the required 'reason' for the characters to be in the same book?

[MacAllister]

Susan--all you can do is tell the story you have. :) Then make it as good as you can possibly make it. Then send it to your beta readers, let it rest, and make it even better.

Don't make yourself too crazy over this. :)

(For what it's worth, your brief synopsis above sounded interesting and readable to me--I'd definitely give it a deeper look, if I'd picked it up in a bookstore.)

[Maryn]

SusanR, relax. I've recommended to friends quite a few novels that use this structure. Some alternate chapters between one situation and the other, some have sections/books each containing multiple chapters from one or the other, at least one divides them more or less evenly in half...

In other words, if it works, it works. I suspect Maas is warning wanna-be's that it has to be done well, because I've certainly critiqued (and earlier, written) some that most definitely weren't working. From what I've seen of your work so far, I'm betting it probably is.

Maryn, who was impressed with this (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22591).

[zornhau]

It sounds like you have a good reason for the structure, so should go with it. (Though might it not be better to have the 19th century account in journal or letter form, as discovered piece by piece by the modern characters?)

Suspect DM's really warning about trying to create artificial tension by delaying the moment the story really starts.

e.g. Suppose it's "The Ditsy Secretary vs the Assassin".

The story really kicks off when he hijacks her car. However the novice writer starts a week beforehand, alternating scenes of trivial girliness (shopping expeditions, gossip, getting a hot date) with scenes of brutal but predictable evil (getting a contract, murder, theft, cop-killing etc).

Neither thread has any real tension or drive of its own. By interweaving them, the author is saying, "But look! Something's gonna happen! Nearly there! Almost!" The reader may beg to differ.

Or imagine a military story which alternates between two groups of soldiers musing about home and having angst as they plod towards an inevitable confrontation...

[aruna]

Well.

I've been reading Donald Maas' WRITING THE BREAKOUT NOVEL, SusanR

NOTE CAREFULLY: Donald Maass has two s's! I'm the one "s" one, and no relation!

My first novel has not two but three intesecting plot lines and readers loved it. I wouldn't worry about it.

[Gabriele]

NOTE CAREFULLY: Donald Maass has two s's! I'm the one "s" one, and no relation!

My first novel has not two but three intesecting plot lines and readers loved it. I wouldn't worry about it.

I raise you four. :D

To be honest, my first novel was a lot of scenes with not much of a plot to connect them. But in the revised version, it still has four plotlines. :tongue:

Two of my Roman Empire NiPs have two major plotlines as well, one with an additional subplot, and The Charioteer has several subplots. I can't write simple plots for the life of me, and I can't do with less than 50-80 characters, either. And more than one MC.

[CaitlinK18]

SusanR, I would read both your novel and "The Ditzy Secretary vs. The Assassin". Cop-killers excite me! :Clap:

Seriously, what you've described sounds workable and compelling. If it makes you feel any better, in my WIP I have no less than four plotlines (told from one first person POV, but still...) which have to somehow knit together to solve a supernatural mystery by the end. It ain't easy, that's for sure, so kudos to you for attempting it.

PS. I love forensic anthropology...have you studied it or did you research?

[SusanR]

Whew! I'm a whole lot calmer now. Thank you all very much for your reasoned, encouraging responses. When I read that section of Maass' book, I freaked, thinking I was attempting something really hackneyed and obvious. While it may turn out that way, what else can I do but write the story as authentically as I can?

Grateful thanks to all...:)

Aruna, I'll be more careful with the "s"s in your name and He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned Without a Second S Anymore.

Caitlin, I'm not a forensic pathologist, nor do I play one on TV, but am I a physician, so I speak "medical." (Glad to translate for anybody, btw.)

I got my writing quota done today, thanks to your calming influences. Now I have to go the gym and stave off writer's butt. (How do you stay FIT?)

SusanR

[zeprosnepsid]

All reading that paragraph would say to me if my novel were like that is that I need to work harder. It points out that the structure you have chosen has innate difficulties. Accept them and work with them. And by giving you an example -- French Lieutenant's Woman -- it says to me: read it and see what it does right.

Weaving intersecting plotlines cleverly and with clarity is no easy trick. But I'm sure you can do it if you give it enough attention.

Good luck!

[Jamesaritchie]

I find a lot to disagree with in Maass' book, and even when I agree with something he says, I find he usually takes it to extremes. When you compare what he has to say about breakout novels with novels actually on the bestseller lists, things don't jibe very well. Book after book after book on the bestseller lists go against his advice in pretty much every way.

I think his book is all about what he likes to see in a book, not necessarily what publishers and general readers want to see.

Having said this, I believe he's more right than wrong on this issue. Many new writers do take much too long to weave two plotlines together, and often do so with less than professional skill. Such is very common in manuscripts from new writers. And many new writers do alternate sections with less skill and poorer timing than they should. It just seems so natural.

This doesn't mean you're doing the same. There's nothing at all wrong with your premise that I can see. I do think plotlines should be brought together, in one way or another, sooner rather than later, and how skillfully you handle anything is all that really counts.

But "brought together" can mean several things, and will vary from book to book. Just don't confuse the reader, and don't let the reader get bored waiting for something he's seen coming since chapter three.

It's how skillfully you do what you do that matters. Forget "new writers." How well are you handling it? That's all that matters.

[SusanR]

Thank you for taking the time to reply, Mr. Ritchie. I calmed enough to get some writing done, thank you very much...:)

Of course, there is the issue of skill...*grin*....there's the rub....and that question will go unanswered until I submit my novel for publication. Until then, like all unpublished authors, I work in the dark.

SusanR