Looping Nonlinear Narrative

ClareDugmore · Mar 8, 2013

Sorry if this question is in the wrong place, I wasn't sure it's a basic question, but I found no place for more in depth questions. If there is, please point me in the right direction.

I was wondering if anyone has any experience with looping Nonlinear narrative?

If I've already told part C of the story at the start, what do I do between parts B and D? How to I cover C again without being repetitive?

Any insight would be much appreciated, thanks.

Edit to add extra info: The specific story I'm asking this question in reference to is told in first person POV, so writing scene C again from another POV isn't an option.

Buffysquirrel · Mar 8, 2013

One way to cover C again while reducing the repetition would be to use a different POV character. They might have a completely different take on events.

BethS · Mar 8, 2013

This makes me wonder why you told Part C first.

ClareDugmore · Mar 8, 2013

Buffysquirrel said:
One way to cover C again while reducing the repetition would be to use a different POV character. They might have a completely different take on events.

Thanks for the input. That's totally what I'd do if I were writing in third person. I should have mentioned in the original post that the story is in first person, so it makes it trickier.

BethS said:
This makes me wonder why you told Part C first.

Because I thought the particular scene would draw the reader in most, but I still needed to include some stuff that happened before.

bonitakale · Mar 8, 2013

ClareDugmore said:
Sorry if this question is in the wrong place, I wasn't sure it's a basic question, but I found no place for more in depth questions. If there is, please point me in the right direction.

I was wondering if anyone has any experience with looping Nonlinear narrative?

If I've already told part C of the story at the start, what do I do between parts B and D? How to I cover C again without being repetitive?

Any insight would be much appreciated, thanks.

Seems to me that most of the books I've read that do this either (a) do C again, from another point of view and shorter, or (b) bring us up to date, so to speak, with a pretty broad hint and skip over it. Like, "So here he was, in Alden's office, where he'd sworn never to be again. He'd explained the whole situation, and Alden, as usual, had said nothing."

As a reader, I prefer the writer to make it very clear. I've read some books that had me paging back to find out when and how we'd wound up at the beginning again.

Buffysquirrel · Mar 8, 2013

ClareDugmore said:
I should have mentioned in the original post that the story is in first person, so it makes it trickier.

Does a bit

. Hmmm. Summarise bits you had as scenes before, and make scenes out of parts you summarised before? Bring new insights to bear?

Sarah Waters goes over the same ground twice in Fingersmith, but with two different first person narrators. It is a tad repetitive at times, but I thought she did a pretty good job, on the whole.

the wrong idea · Mar 8, 2013

It depends on why you're writing things in that order and why you feel repeating C is necessary.

Really, the simplest way to not be repetitive is to not repeat it. Skip straight from B to D. Maybe repeat the very end of C--a line or two of dialogue, that sort of thing--to make the switch easier to follow. One way this can work is if C goes from the start of a conflict to the climax of that plot thread, then B gives background and context to that plot, then the final scene of C is repeated while a context is fresh in the reader's mind that makes them see it very differently.

Alternatively, you can repeat the events of C, but do it from a different character's perspective, either one who wasn't always around the first time, or who has a very different angle on things than the earlier perspective character.

Similarly, you could keep the same perspective character but split the events of C between the two locations--show what you need to the first time, then go back and fill in the gaps the second time through, repeating as little as possible. Again, if done right this can add depth to C based on what the reader learns in B.

As a last resort you could heavily abbreviate or summarize one version of C, hitting only the key points, perhaps by starting D with one character filling another in on the events of C. But that's painfully heavy-handed and I wouldn't do that unless you're really committed to the nonlinear order and you get multiple complaints about other approaches being confusing or awkward.

ClareDugmore · Mar 8, 2013

[FONT=&quot]

bonitakale said:
Seems to me that most of the books I've read that do this either (a) do C again, from another point of view and shorter, or (b) bring us up to date, so to speak, with a pretty broad hint and skip over it. Like, "So here he was, in Alden's office, where he'd sworn never to be again. He'd explained the whole situation, and Alden, as usual, had said nothing."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As a reader, I prefer the writer to make it very clear. I've read some books that had me paging back to find out when and how we'd wound up at the beginning again.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That's actually how the issue of what to put in the gap came about. I originally had a short summarization between scenes B and D, and one of my critiquers said while I know what's gone one, readers might need a refresher. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Buffysquirrel said:
Does a bit
$C:\DOCUME~1\Cladd\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif$
. Hmmm. Summarise bits you had as scenes before, and make scenes out of parts you summarised before? Bring new insights to bear?

At the moment, that’s what I’m thinking of doing. I’ll have the protagonist summarise the scene from two different perspectives; once right as it happened, and once when she’s had time to dwell on it.

Buffysquirrel said:
Sarah Waters goes over the same ground twice in Fingersmith, but with two different first person narrators. It is a tad repetitive at times, but I thought she did a pretty good job, on the whole.

Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll check it out.

the wrong idea said:
It depends on why you're writing things in that order and why you feel repeating C is necessary.

Really, the simplest way to not be repetitive is to not repeat it. Skip straight from B to D. Maybe repeat the very end of C--a line or two of dialogue, that sort of thing--to make the switch easier to follow. One way this can work is if C goes from the start of a conflict to the climax of that plot thread, then B gives background and context to that plot, then the final scene of C is repeated while a context is fresh in the reader's mind that makes them see it very differently.

Alternatively, you can repeat the events of C, but do it from a different character's perspective, either one who wasn't always around the first time, or who has a very different angle on things than the earlier perspective character.

Similarly, you could keep the same perspective character but split the events of C between the two locations--show what you need to the first time, then go back and fill in the gaps the second time through, repeating as little as possible. Again, if done right this can add depth to C based on what the reader learns in B.

As a last resort you could heavily abbreviate or summarize one version of C, hitting only the key points, perhaps by starting D with one character filling another in on the events of C. But that's painfully heavy-handed and I wouldn't do that unless you're really committed to the nonlinear order and you get multiple complaints about other approaches being confusing or awkward.

I wanted to write things in that order because I scene C makes an impactful opening for a novel. As I said above, previously, I only had a brief summary of events again between scenes B and D, but one of my [FONT=&quot]critiquers said while I know what's gone one, readers might need a refresher. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I will have a think over the different methods you suggested, maybe even writing versions of them all, and see which works better. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks for the input everyone. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Torgo · Mar 8, 2013

Well, movies do this a lot - any given Quentin Tarantino movie, for instance. One thing you can do is, you stop the action in one timeline, jump to another, and when you jump back you have a paragraph or two of restatement to bring the reader back into the scene. So it's C, A, B, D-1, D. You restate as little as posssible.

Or the Usual Suspects - two POVs, Kevin Spacey's narrative and Chazz Palmintieri interrogating him, with the former told somewhat out of sync (the scenes on the ship at the end start the ball rolling, while coming last.) There's a lot of jumping around, but you can always quickly establish when and where something is taking place.

As a technique it's fine. It's a bit harder in print because you can't rely on camera techniques - in the TV series Damages, which hops wildly between two timelines six months apart, there's an oppressive colour filter on the later timeline. (When they eventually coincide in the last ep, there's a nice overt filter switch that tells you you've caught up.) It's still doable in print, though. Damages repeats itself a lot, but it never repeats itself verbatim; you'll see scenes that are stitched together from moments you've already seen, but they only make sense in context and sequence. You can repeat narrative if you are adding something, putting it in the proper context (e.g., the last chapter of any classical mystery.)

the wrong idea · Mar 8, 2013

ClareDugmore said:
I wanted to write things in that order because I scene C makes an impactful opening for a novel. As I said above, previously, I only had a brief summary of events again between scenes B and D, but one of my [FONT=&quot]critiquers said while I know what's gone one, readers might need a refresher. [/FONT]

Hm, well. I'd take critiques like that with a grain of salt. If someone personally doesn't like it or found it confusing, that's one thing. But what you're doing isn't that unusual, as demonstrated by the examples in this thread. I suspect "this might confuse other people" will be a more common reaction than "this confused me". On the other hand, some people may say the former to avoid admitting the latter.

Anyway, I'd encourage finding a way to get more narrative mileage out of it than just a better opening, such as my examples about B giving context that changes the reader's view on C. Otherwise it risks feeling forced or gimmicky, which will annoy some readers if they notice.

Maze Runner · Mar 8, 2013

Can you leave something out of your opening either in action or in elaboration that could be more effectively revealed between Parts B & D?

Looping Nonlinear Narrative

ClareDugmore

Buffysquirrel

BethS

ClareDugmore

bonitakale

Buffysquirrel

the wrong idea

but it feels so right

ClareDugmore

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

the wrong idea

but it feels so right

Maze Runner