Spiraling Scope

[vox]

Do you ever have the problem of the scope of your story growing exponentially? I realize that good fiction depends upon the stakes getting higher and higher throughout the book, but my problem (if it is a problem) is a little different.

I've been working on your basic suspense/thriller type novel. As the story unfolds, we see that the events my MC's are dealing with are a bit larger in scope than what they first imagined. For example: in the beginning the MC's deal with things that wreck their everyday lives. But as the plot thickens, they realize that these circumstances are tied to events which will rock their state government and could end with an assassination if not headed off. I have no problem with the scope here.

In creating the backstory for these events, I have come to the conclusion that I can probably write two more stories with these characters. Basically they'll be sequels that pick up the action at the conlusion of my first WIP. Still no problem.

What I'm questioning is this: each of the two sequels takes the scope to a much larger level. As I envision it, book two would start at the state level and end up dealing with national issues and consequently book three would start national and rise to international conflict. Beyond that I think the concept is played out and I'd move on to other characters. But I wonder if I'm limiting my future with these characters by letting the scope get so big.

So...does this type of thing happen in your work? If so, is it a bad thing that you have to resist or do you let it go there without worrying? Or am I just over thinking the whole thing?

[slcboston]

So...does this type of thing happen in your work? If so, is it a bad thing that you have to resist or do you let it go there without worrying? Or am I just over thinking the whole thing?

No.

Yes... or no, depending. :)

Yes. Definitely. :D

Hmm.. probably best if I elaborate, isn't it? Ok, I don't write about larger conspiracies, which is essentially what you're describing. I do have things that affect the community within which my characters exist, but that's a little different, and nothing as consequential as what you seem to be suggesting.

As someone who used to read a lot of the fiction that did that, though (i.e. was a big fan of Robert Ludlum) as long as it's all plausible that sort of exploding scope is not only okay but to some extent even expected of the genre. Which I think is an important caveat here: what kind of story are you trying to tell? Some stories work better the bigger they get, others - even if they have profound consequences - work better if they stay small scale.

(Thinking here of a Dean Koontz book I read recently that dealt with the initial arrival of an alien that was essentially here to make our species better - but it never got into the global consequences, instead focusing on the trials of that lonely little alien.)

As for over-thinking it - yup, guilty. :) But hey, we all do this. My own particular advice is to just write, and then go back and look at it later. That way, you're writing, rather than worrying about what you're going to write, and that's always the better way to go. :)

[JustGo]

Personally, I love the spiraling scope effect, and it sounds like you have an awesome story to me! I'd say keep it and use it. If you're still attached to the characters afterwards, you can still use 'em - just never lower the scope and the stakes. Doesn't always have to rise, it just can never be less impressive and has to be different. People like Clive Cussler manage to make money off of that sort of thing for decades.
Just go with where your creativity tells you to, and you should be safe.*

*This is coming from a young and unpublished writer. He is not to be held responsible for failure due to taking this advice and cannot be ranted at, sued, taken to court, murdered, skinned, or otherwise punished for giving above advice.

[Will Lavender]

I don't know how much I would worry about the "future" of the characters. I would take them and their story to a pleasing conclusion in the first book, and leave the future books on the proverbial shelf (the one in your mind, of course) for now.

If you get wrapped up in what happens in book two, book three, and so on, you run the risk of limiting what you're doing with the characters now. It's extremely important in the thriller genre that each book be self-contained. You rarely ever -- in fact never -- see a novel that cannot be understood and appreciated on its own. Of course, there are many authors who write series; but this genre isn't fantasy, where each book is often contingent on the next. Thrillers need to exist as solitary volumes, and so whatever you're doing as far as scope needs to be contained and interesting enough so that a reader can enjoy book one with the same enthusiasm with which he enjoys book eight.

The basic idea of your scope is fine, though, as I see it. Thrillers often need to be big, lofty, weighty, as Donald Maass says in Writing the Breakout Novel. I don't see a problem with the scope becoming incrementally larger as the narrative plows on.

[Danthia]

If this story is three books long, then do three books ;) I've actually stop reading way too any series I loved because the author ran out of new ideas for the characters. If you still like the world, perhaps find secondary characters and take them for a spin for a while. And you never know what ideas may come up by the time you get to book three. You may have more storeis than you think. I'd say don't worry abut the future and just write the best books you can. The rest will sort itself out.

[vox]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Being new to the game, I always wonder if I'm headed for some pitfall that a more experienced writer would easily see and sidestep. As advised, I'll just write it and worry about one story at a time. I do appreciate being able to run ideas past folks here. The collective wisdom available on this board is quite a safety net!