Moving the plot forward at the right pace

[dchisholm125]

Well, for the real-time pacing, I use that time for the MC to internalize and/or recount previous experiences. However at 200k words it may be too much blabber, not enough plot.

I just don't like the idea of 'I got on the bus in X' and then the very next sentence says 'I got off the bus in Y fourteen hours later.' it feels like an insult to the reader...

I don't mean to overtake the thread either Slow Typist... we have similar issues with pacing

[CatchingADragon]

Originally Posted by dchisholm125

I just don't like the idea of 'I got on the bus in X' and then the very next sentence says 'I got off the bus in Y fourteen hours later.' it feels like an insult to the reader...

I think most readers would prefer it. You don't even have to describe getting on and off the bus. Perhaps just: "After a long bus ride..."

It's the same reason we don't describe our characters' bathroom trips. If it doesn't have to do with the story, it's not needed. Skip to a scene that moves the story forward.

My opinion at least.

[Bufty]

If you do nothing of interest on the journey from A to B why bother telling me - it's boring and I'm not interested.

It's not even necessary to say outright you got on a bus, or whatever.

Transitions are your friend.

I scattered the papers onto the floor. Nothing made any sense. Maybe the answer lay in Atlanta.

#

Two days's later I took a taxi from the Atlanta bus station to the last address I had for Marge. The apartment was on the fifth floor of.....

One of the dangers of First person is waffling on about trivia.

=dchisholm125;7986822]Well, for the real-time pacing, I use that time for the MC to internalize and/or recount previous experiences. However at 200k words it may be too much blabber, not enough plot.

I just don't like the idea of 'I got on the bus in X' and then the very next sentence says 'I got off the bus in Y fourteen hours later.' it feels like an insult to the reader...

I don't mean to overtake the thread either Slow Typist... we have similar issues with pacing

[Slow Typist]

Originally Posted by Putputt

Hi Slow Typist,

I think you may be over-thinking this. I'd just write the book, leave it for a few weeks once it's done, and then read it, taking note of where the pages fly by for you and where they slow down. After you've edited, you can send it out to your betas and ask them where their interest wanes. That's a great way of catching where the pacing starts to flag.

It sounds like you have the theory of good pacing down pat, now you just have to put it into practice.

I personally would rather risk over-analysing than risk getting it wrong.

[Putputt]

Ahh, I guess you and I have different opinions on this.

For myself, I find that there is a huge difference between theory and practice. Knowing, even understanding, why something works in theory doesn't mean I'm sure to get the book right. I outline before I write, I have a good idea of what's going to happen, but once I start writing, the book takes on a life of its own. I don't stop to question, "Hey, is the pacing going to work if I do this scene now?" I know the scene should go here or there because that's what the book needs. I don't know this before I actually start writing the book.

As for "getting it wrong", I don't think you should be afraid of doing that. Don't let the fear of getting it wrong hold you back. It's precisely why writers edit.

[Bufty]

Over-analysing is neither a desirable attribute nor very productive.

Originally Posted by Slow Typist

I personally would rather risk over-analysing than risk getting it wrong.

[Slow Typist]

Originally Posted by Bufty

Over-analysing is neither a desirable attribute nor very productive.

I agree. I didn't say I was aiming to over-analyse.

I suspect that several on here would be quite horrified by the approach I'm taking to writing my novel...

[Slow Typist]

Originally Posted by Putputt

Ahh, I guess you and I have different opinions on this.

For myself, I find that there is a huge difference between theory and practice. Knowing, even understanding, why something works in theory doesn't mean I'm sure to get the book right.

I don't think there's any known writing method which makes it sure you'll get the book right...

I outline before I write, I have a good idea of what's going to happen, but once I start writing, the book takes on a life of its own. I don't stop to question, "Hey, is the pacing going to work if I do this scene now?" I know the scene should go here or there because that's what the book needs. I don't know this before I actually start writing the book.

I've already written a very detailed outline and there will be no scope for the book to 'take on a life of its own' once I begin writing it up.

Don't ask me how long - I doubt you'd approve!

[Bufty]

Nothing wrong with detailed outlining, but saying in advance there will be no scope for the book to '...take on a life of its own...' is sort of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Good luck.

Originally Posted by Slow Typist

I don't think there's any known writing method which makes it sure you'll get the book right...



I've already written a very detailed outline and there will be no scope for the book to 'take on a life of its own' once I begin writing it up.

Don't ask me how long - I doubt you'd approve!

[dchisholm125]

I agree with Bufty on that one, letting your characters and plot flow organically can lead to spectacular things =] Trailing from the plot can open up interesting new relationships, conflict, drama, and sub-plots for future books in the series or even to use later in the one you're currently writing.

[CatchingADragon]

My outline was so detailed that it's actually the first draft!

[mermitage]

Look, bad pace is like porn - you'll recognize it when you see it. I find it best to get out of my own head when it comes to form and just write, relying on my instinct on the rewrite to recognize where I may need to slow or speed up the pace. Also, find some good editors. Your job is to get the story down because without a compelling, interesting plot, pace doesn't matter.

Author of Soul Blind

[Slow Typist]

Originally Posted by CatchingADragon

My outline was so detailed that it's actually the first draft!

Heh. Glad I'm not the only one, although mine isn't quite that detailed! I think there are a few posters on here who aren't fans of very detailed outlines (and several have warned me to 'get writing').

[RachaelLaWriter]

Just wanted to check in and say that this thread has been incredibly helpful and interesting. I've been struggling with some of the pacing and organization in the middle of my piece, and everyone's comments have me rethinking things...

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by Slow Typist

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

The way I see it, the amount of time spent on a particular event in a story should be suited to the event. Pacing isn't something that can be imposed from on high. One can't just say, "I'm near the end of the story, so I should make my sequels shorter." The climax tends to have faster pacing because, by that point in the story, the stakes are at their highest and all the important information has been revealed. But if your climax is not naturally suited to fast pacing because of its subject matter, shortening the sequels will do nothing useful.

[Slow Typist]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

The way I see it, the amount of time spent on a particular event in a story should be suited to the event. Pacing isn't something that can be imposed from on high. One can't just say, "I'm near the end of the story, so I should make my sequels shorter." The climax tends to have faster pacing because, by that point in the story, the stakes are at their highest and all the important information has been revealed. But if your climax is not naturally suited to fast pacing because of its subject matter, shortening the sequels will do nothing useful.

Thanks. So shortening the sequels won't work as a way of speeding up a section of the plot which doesn't have a naturally fast pace.

But assuming the climax does have a naturally fast pace (because all the right info is out etc), do you think that the sequels should be shortened, to complement the "natural" pace?

[Slow Typist]

Originally Posted by RachaelLaWriter

Just wanted to check in and say that this thread has been incredibly helpful and interesting. I've been struggling with some of the pacing and organization in the middle of my piece, and everyone's comments have me rethinking things...

I've found it very useful as well - thanks to everyone who's contributed...