Moving the plot forward at the right pace

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slow Typist

Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
I'm not sure if I have the right approach to moving the plot forward at the right pace. I've summarised my views/ approach below and I'd appreciate any thoughts on - do people agree/ disagree?

I know that the pace of a novel will vary between genres and between individual novels within a genre, and that there's no one 'right' way to do it. However, I'm saying that the general principles below should hold true across different genres. What do you think - am I talking complete rubbish?

Here's what I think:

- As a general proposition, the pace/tension should gradually increase over the course of a novel, to build up to a climax at the end.

- If the pace/tension don't gradually increase, then the ending won't feel 'natural'; it might instead feel as though the author has just chosen a random place to stop writing, which wouldn't be satisfying for the reader.

- In the early and middle chapters, the plot developments shouldn't happen too fast. So in the early/middle chapters (but possibly not the later ones) I would adopt Dwight V Swain's formulation (from the book "Techniques of the selling writer.") Have an action-filled 'scene' where something happens, ending in an unexpected development or twist of some sort to 'hook' the reader, then follow it with a slower paced 'sequel' where the characters react to what has happened and decide what to do next. Once they've made their decision, move into the next 'scene' where they act on the decision. Then into the sequel of that scene, and so on.

- If you have only action-packed 'scenes' in the early or middle chapters, with constant action, there will be no chance for the reader to catch their breath, and the plot will feel unsatisfying/ too fast.

- As set out above, however, the pace/tension should increase as the plot moves towards its conclusion, building up to a climax. So towards the end of the novel, the balance between action packed 'scenes' and slower paced 'sequels' should increasingly shift towards the 'scenes.' The scenes should become longer and/or the sequels should become shorter. Towards the very end, as the tension reaches its highest point, possibly dispense with slow paced 'sequels' altogether and just have non-stop action 'scenes' until the final resolution.
 

Hamilton

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2012
Messages
243
Reaction score
45
Location
NJ
I see it like this:
The more time that has been spent building up to a particular point in the story, the more impact it can and should have. The climax is the most dramatic moment in a Story, and it is also the point the entire course of the story has been leading up to. In the first few scenes, there just hasn't been enough development yet to create that impact.

Not sure about the scene-sequel pacing issue. Think it might be more effect than cause?
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
I'm not sure if I have the right approach to moving the plot forward at the right pace. I've summarised my views/ approach below and I'd appreciate any thoughts on - do people agree/ disagree?

I know that the pace of a novel will vary between genres and between individual novels within a genre, and that there's no one 'right' way to do it. However, I'm saying that the general principles below should hold true across different genres. What do you think - am I talking complete rubbish?

Here's what I think:

- As a general proposition, the pace/tension should gradually increase over the course of a novel, to build up to a climax at the end.

- If the pace/tension don't gradually increase, then the ending won't feel 'natural'; it might instead feel as though the author has just chosen a random place to stop writing, which wouldn't be satisfying for the reader.

- In the early and middle chapters, the plot developments shouldn't happen too fast. So in the early/middle chapters (but possibly not the later ones) I would adopt Dwight V Swain's formulation (from the book "Techniques of the selling writer.") Have an action-filled 'scene' where something happens, ending in an unexpected development or twist of some sort to 'hook' the reader, then follow it with a slower paced 'sequel' where the characters react to what has happened and decide what to do next. Once they've made their decision, move into the next 'scene' where they act on the decision. Then into the sequel of that scene, and so on.

- If you have only action-packed 'scenes' in the early or middle chapters, with constant action, there will be no chance for the reader to catch their breath, and the plot will feel unsatisfying/ too fast.

- As set out above, however, the pace/tension should increase as the plot moves towards its conclusion, building up to a climax. So towards the end of the novel, the balance between action packed 'scenes' and slower paced 'sequels' should increasingly shift towards the 'scenes.' The scenes should become longer and/or the sequels should become shorter. Towards the very end, as the tension reaches its highest point, possibly dispense with slow paced 'sequels' altogether and just have non-stop action 'scenes' until the final resolution.

I don't really try to follow such techniques when I'm writing a novel. I simply try to let the story unfold at whatever pace seems right for the particular story and characters. But I have no problem at all with what you've written. It seems like exactly what I do without thinking about it.
 

BRDurkin

Trigger-Happy Pyromaniac Writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Messages
751
Reaction score
81
Location
Lakeview, OR
Website
bryanrdurkin.blogspot.com
In general, I would tend to agree with what you've posted. Of course, as you've said, every story in every genre is going to be somewhat different. But in general, a book can't all be slow scenes with a sudden climactic ending, or all action with no chance for the reader to catch their breath. I also agree that the tempo should gradually increase toward the end.

And the climax should be at the end. I absolutely hate it when I read the climax, and then there are five, six, seven chapters left, and I'm wondering if there's something more. Then come to find out, nope, that was it, story's over. The writer just...didn't stop writing, for whatever reason.

But I don't think a story has to be scene-sequel-scene-sequel, either. That can force a writer into a mold that may not necessarily work for that particular story. For some of my WIPs, I've had patterns like scene-scene-sequel-scene-sequel-sequel, just for example.

To conclude, in general I agree, but as always, what works for the particular story is what works. Bet you didn't see that one coming. :p
 

Slow Typist

Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Thanks for the replies. A couple of queries/ points:

I don't think a story has to be scene-sequel-scene-sequel, either. That can force a writer into a mold that may not necessarily work for that particular story.

In this (quite well-known) article on scenes and sequels - http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/art/scene.php - the author does seem to be saying that you should stick rigidly to the scene/ sequel pattern. What do people think?

Not sure about the scene-sequel pacing issue. Think it might be more effect than cause?

Can you clarify what you mean by this?
 

Layla Nahar

Seashell Seller
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
7,655
Reaction score
913
Location
Seashore
In this (quite well-known) article on scenes and sequels - http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/art/scene.php - the author does seem to be saying that you should stick rigidly to the scene/ sequel pattern. What do people think?

In the article he also says to forget the rules. I think what he is saying is also covered by logic. Something happens, characters react, which causes something else to happen and then characters react and so on. As writer's it's our job to make sure to keep the reader interested. Go slow where the story calls for slow, fast where it calls for fast.
 

Papaya

Unfold your own myth. - Rumi
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
688
Reaction score
113
Location
Northern California
Writing is the same as many things in life. First, you must learn the fundamentals. Once you actually understand the mechanics, you let that be a guide, but there is no rigid formula for how to write a novel.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I'm not sure if I have the right approach to moving the plot forward at the right pace.

You don't. There isn't one.

Stop worrying about it and write your story. Do you suppose Cézanne or Van Gogh or Picasso got worried about how much yellow to have in a particular painting? Mozart or Brahms or Prokofiev conflicted about how many F-sharps to have in a given composition?

Write the story. It will never be right for some readers. I just responded to another thread in the Western fiction genre forum concerning criticisms of a novel I consider a masterpiece, and apparently some people do not, some of which is based on the pacing of the story. It's a judgment issue.

How much tabasco sauce do you put in your seafood gumbo? How many chocolate chips in your toll-house cookies? What's the best number of stars in the sky?

caw
 

lothar97

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
75
Reaction score
12
I agree with increasing tension as the novel progresses, though it will still have spikes and valleys as you go along. A book that decreases in tension the entire time sounds pretty boring, right?

As far as pace goes I don't know if having more action scenes and less reaction scenes is a requirement. Perhaps your character has learned enough about the world and problems that he or she faces in nearing the end that decisions don't require as long to make. It's not something that I have thought much about but it seems likely that characters might react more quickly during climax.

One plot tool for scripts, Save the Cat, says that a time clock appears at the midpoint and pace increases there. http://www.blakesnyder.com/downloads/synthesis.pdf
 

CatchingADragon

dragon seeker
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
231
Reaction score
22
Location
Virginia, USA
Website
catchingadragon.com
I think there's a difference between "pace" and "tension."

If the pace is too slow, the reader will get bored. If the pace is too fast, the reader will get confused. Different sorts of paces will work for different sorts of readers. What's too slow for one reader may be just right for another.

I think tension, however, is the understanding of the story's conflict and what's at stake. The more that's at stake, the higher the tension. However, tension doesn't last, because readers get used to it. The writer also has to take some time to form the elements of the stakes. Dangling a princess over a cliff is not high stakes if we don't care about her first. Hence why stakes start low and rise throughout the story, peaking at the climax.

Pace does not necessarily have to correlate with tension. While many stories parallel an increase in tension with an increase in pace (especially stories in which the conflict is solved with high-paced action, as in an action movie), that is just a style decision.

- As a general proposition, the pace/tension should gradually increase over the course of a novel, to build up to a climax at the end.

Tension, yes. Pace can go either way, but, yes, it usually does parallel the tension.

- If the pace/tension don't gradually increase, then the ending won't feel 'natural'; it might instead feel as though the author has just chosen a random place to stop writing, which wouldn't be satisfying for the reader.

Definitely true for tension. I'd say the changes in pace are a style decision, but, again, they do usually parallel the tension.

- In the early and middle chapters, the plot developments shouldn't happen too fast. So in the early/middle chapters (but possibly not the later ones) I would adopt Dwight V Swain's formulation (from the book "Techniques of the selling writer.") Have an action-filled 'scene' where something happens, ending in an unexpected development or twist of some sort to 'hook' the reader, then follow it with a slower paced 'sequel' where the characters react to what has happened and decide what to do next. Once they've made their decision, move into the next 'scene' where they act on the decision. Then into the sequel of that scene, and so on.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "plot developments." Surely the tensions cannot be raised too high, because time is needed to establish the elements of what will be at stake to raise the tension. The tension can only build from a starting point; it can't start high because there's nothing to compare it to. So the lower tension of a story's beginning happens naturally; the writer doesn't have a choice.

In this way, the "scenes" and "sequels" should emerge naturally. But, yes, I agree with it. I think it's necessary for the establishing of the elements of the stakes which will later be used to raise the tension.

- If you have only action-packed 'scenes' in the early or middle chapters, with constant action, there will be no chance for the reader to catch their breath, and the plot will feel unsatisfying/ too fast.

I think it depends on how the action is handled, and whether the stakes are being raised during the action. In general, though, yes, because action-packed scenes may not allow for a raising of the stakes if they don't allow for the characters to try a new plan. I think it's possible, just uncommon.

- As set out above, however, the pace/tension should increase as the plot moves towards its conclusion, building up to a climax. So towards the end of the novel, the balance between action packed 'scenes' and slower paced 'sequels' should increasingly shift towards the 'scenes.' The scenes should become longer and/or the sequels should become shorter. Towards the very end, as the tension reaches its highest point, possibly dispense with slow paced 'sequels' altogether and just have non-stop action 'scenes' until the final resolution.

I don't think "scenes" and "sequels" necessarily correlate with faster or slower paced action. One can have a fast-paced action sequence filled with multiple "scenes" and "sequels" throughout it. Many action films do this when they begin the final action sequence with broad action, then close in on the main character and the villain fighting it out. The stakes are being raised even during the final sequence, and "scenes" and "sequels" become closer and closer. If anything, there are a lot more "scene-sequel" bounces before the climax until the main character makes his final decision that saves the day.

Just my thoughts...
 

rwm4768

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
15,472
Reaction score
767
Location
Missouri
Personally, I like plot pacing where the tension gradually increases in a linear fashion. But there are also variations within that trend, like a wave or sine graph. That way, you have a bunch of mini-climaxes that build toward the story's climax. I think you need a few of those exciting scenes early on. Otherwise, the reader might get bored.
 

Sanoe SC

The Spice Must Flow
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
124
Reaction score
9
- In the early and middle chapters, the plot developments shouldn't happen too fast.

I'd suggest that most novels begin with a number of plot developments.

For example, the first few chapters of Dead Witch Walking has Rachael:
- Attempt to capture a supernatural criminal
- Get fired from her job
- Get kicked out of her apartment
- Realize someone has cursed her
- Decide to create her own agency
- Shack up with a vampire and realize that's a bit dangerous

Though there isn't a lot of action in the sense of bullets flying, the MC encounters a new difficulty every two steps she takes. I'd consider all of them plot developments.

After the first few chapters, things ease up as she starts dealing with these issues and getting comfortable with her new situation.
 

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
One plot tool for scripts, Save the Cat, says that a time clock appears at the midpoint and pace increases there. http://www.blakesnyder.com/downloads/synthesis.pdf

interesting little diagram, but it apportions the novel structure over 110 pages - what if your novel is longer? I don't think you can just multiply the page references to scale as appropriate,as some things still have to happen in the first 50 pages. But i guess this is just one of the things that makes this model a rough guide rather than a template :D
 

CatchingADragon

dragon seeker
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
231
Reaction score
22
Location
Virginia, USA
Website
catchingadragon.com
interesting little diagram, but it apportions the novel structure over 110 pages - what if your novel is longer? I don't think you can just multiply the page references to scale as appropriate,as some things still have to happen in the first 50 pages. But i guess this is just one of the things that makes this model a rough guide rather than a template :D

Yeah, the page numbers are designed for screenplays, where writers must be much more conscious of a film's time constraints.
 

Reziac

Resident Alien
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
7,451
Reaction score
1,177
Location
Brendansport, Sagitta IV
Website
www.offworldpress.com
I think there's a difference between "pace" and "tension."

And I think they need to be in sync, or the story will feel off-kilter. I recall a crit I made here, where I said something like "the tension is high but the pace is plodding and that's what was throwing readers.... they'd complain about one or the other without realising the real problem was a mismatch."

Pacing isn't how fast the action moves, either. I'd say that rather, it's the reader's sensation of momentum. Slow action that's full of tension can have a LOT of momentum, thus seem like it's moving fast and dragging you along willy-nilly.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
The idea of scene and sequel is a concept and once you understand it you should treat it as just another tool or technique in your toolbox to be used as and when and how you decide to use it to help make sure your story flows at whatever pace you decide it should flow.

There is no stipulated length either for a scene or for a sequel, and trying to squeeze them in in pre-determined chunks is failing to understand the scene/sequel concept.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
Thanks for the replies. A couple of queries/ points:



In this (quite well-known) article on scenes and sequels - http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/art/scene.php - the author does seem to be saying that you should stick rigidly to the scene/ sequel pattern. What do people think?

I think you absolutely should stick to scene/ sequel, unless you have a good reason for not sticking to it.
 

CatchingADragon

dragon seeker
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
231
Reaction score
22
Location
Virginia, USA
Website
catchingadragon.com
And I think they need to be in sync, or the story will feel off-kilter. I recall a crit I made here, where I said something like "the tension is high but the pace is plodding and that's what was throwing readers.... they'd complain about one or the other without realising the real problem was a mismatch."

Pacing isn't how fast the action moves, either. I'd say that rather, it's the reader's sensation of momentum. Slow action that's full of tension can have a LOT of momentum, thus seem like it's moving fast and dragging you along willy-nilly.

I think the "sensation of momentum" comes from the tension. I would define pace as the rate at which the tension changes (up or down), like a music's tempo. Tension will gradually fade when not changed, so increasing the rate at which the tension increases will naturally keep the tension high. So I don't think they're "in sync" so much as being naturally related. In this way, I think you could have a story in which the pace (changes in tension) remains constant (or at least steadier than usual), while the tension increases. Whether or not it will feel "off-kilter" will depend on the reader's preferences and expectations. (The best examples I can think of are various foreign films; can't think of any American films off the top of my head, and certainly not many books...)

All that said, I agree that a story with a constant pace is far more likely to feel "off-kilter" to today's audiences than a story with an increasing pace at the climax. Whether this is a cultural preference or an instinctual expectation, I don't know.
 

Cappy1

Scared and loving it...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
122
Reaction score
9
Website
mark-capell.com
Yes, most of what you've said is true. But if you wrote every book according to those rules you'd be a very one dimensional writer. In any of the creative arts, it's best to learn the rules because then, when you break them, you know why you're breaking them.
 

Slow Typist

Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Yes, most of what you've said is true. But if you wrote every book according to those rules you'd be a very one dimensional writer. In any of the creative arts, it's best to learn the rules because then, when you break them, you know why you're breaking them.

I agree. :) I'd only ever want to break the rules from an informed position. I don't feel as though I understand them well enough yet.
 

Slow Typist

Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Thanks for your replies, CatchingADragon - lots of helpful stuff in there. However, could you expand on your definitions a bit?

...tension, however, is the understanding of the story's conflict and what's at stake.

I would define pace as the rate at which the tension changes (up or down), like a music's tempo.

Can you give some practical examples to illustrate exactly what you mean? For example, if "tension" is "the understanding of the story's conflict and what's at stake," does it follow that tension can only be increased by a plot development which moves the story's central conflict forwards? Is that what you mean?

I won't attempt a definition of "tension" but, as I understand it, the "textbook" way of increasing tension over the course of a novel would be to put your character through a number of crises, each one greater/ more dangerous than the last, until the story's climax.

Further to what Cappy1 wrote, I don't mean that all novels should be written in the "textbook" way. However, knowing what the rules are, and (more importantly) understanding why those rules exist, is necessary to be able to make an informed decision on when/whether to break them.

I should have written more about tension in my first post...
 

Putputt

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
2,980
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. :)
 

CatchingADragon

dragon seeker
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
231
Reaction score
22
Location
Virginia, USA
Website
catchingadragon.com
For example, if "tension" is "the understanding of the story's conflict and what's at stake," does it follow that tension can only be increased by a plot development which moves the story's central conflict forwards? Is that what you mean?

For instance, say there's a hero who has to defeat an evil king to save a princess. Nice and cliche. Killing the evil king is the story's main conflict, and the princess's life is at stake. But to get to the castle, the hero has to travel over a dangerous bridge, while evil soldiers are trying to kill him. The tension is raised because now his life's at stake (and we care about his life because of the story's bigger stake, the princess's life). The hero of course manages to defeat the soldiers and get across the bridge, and the tension is lowered because, whew, he's not going to die on the bridge. And now he's one step closer to the story's main conflict: defeating the king.

But the tension could not be raised if he's walking over the bridge and then, oh no! It's about to rain! Because who cares if it rains? That's completely unrelated to his ability to defeat the king and save the princess.

So whatever is raising the tension has to be linked to the story's overall conflict and what's at stake. (And the audience's ability to understand the connection.) It might be a chain of dependencies. The hero has to reach the sword in time to kill the soldier to cross the bridge to defeat the king to save the princess. If he doesn't reach that sword before the soldier kills him, it matters because ultimately the princess's life is at stake.

All that said, I also think stories have an "overall tension" that can be raised. Maybe at first the evil king is just planning on wedding the princess. Then, as the hero gets closer, the evil king raises the stakes by threatening to blow up the kingdom with a curse that will be fulfilled when the moons align in three days. Now every day the stakes are raised because there's less and less time. Then, near the very end, the stakes are raised yet again when the evil king dangles the princess over a pit of fire. The story's overall stakes go from saving the princess from an evil marriage, to saving the kingdom with a ticking clock, to saving the princess's very life. (Watching movies, it can be amazing how consistently the overall stakes are raised right at or just after the midpoint, and again several times near the end, piling on the awfulness of what will happen if the hero doesn't succeed.)

I won't attempt a definition of "tension" but, as I understand it, the "textbook" way of increasing tension over the course of a novel would be to put your character through a number of crises, each one greater/ more dangerous than the last, until the story's climax.

That's the gist of my understanding as well, I was just describing that it works because of the story's overall stakes. It all comes down to the story's overall stakes.

I certainly think all audiences have an innate understanding of all this when reading a book or watching a movie, but it tends to work subconsciously. I certainly might be over-thinking it, because a good storyteller could do this all naturally, but I enjoy thinking about the psychology of it all, and I think (or at least hope) it helps my storytelling.

ETA: Pace, by my understanding, would be when and how often these changes in tension occur. Film-wise, certainly most modern Hollywood films have narrowed in on a pretty specific pattern, and I'm sure this has influenced novels as well. Their wide success may be evidence that something about the pattern innately resonates with how our brains deal with stories. But there are some foreign films in which the pace is slower and the stakes and changes in tension are far more subtle, so I'm not sure if it's a psychological or cultural phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

dchisholm125

can jump higher than you
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
350
Reaction score
61
Location
Denver, CO
TANGENT!

And the climax should be at the end. I absolutely hate it when I read the climax, and then there are five, six, seven chapters left, and I'm wondering if there's something more. Then come to find out, nope, that was it, story's over. The writer just...didn't stop writing, for whatever reason.

Tangent!!

So, I have three questions to pose:

1. Can a climax be hidden and come on suddenly without warning as long as the tension has been clearly built over the course of the book?

For example, a hated antagonist that is only mentioned, but never seen, suddenly appears at some gathering and the climax ensues.

2. Can a book simply just NOT have a climax, but still be a good story?

3. If you're trying to keep real-time pacing in your story, how do you fill time when you're character is traveling?
 

Reziac

Resident Alien
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
7,451
Reaction score
1,177
Location
Brendansport, Sagitta IV
Website
www.offworldpress.com
Tangent!!

So, I have three questions to pose:

1. Can a climax be hidden and come on suddenly without warning as long as the tension has been clearly built over the course of the book?

For example, a hated antagonist that is only mentioned, but never seen, suddenly appears at some gathering and the climax ensues.

2. Can a book simply just NOT have a climax, but still be a good story?

3. If you're trying to keep real-time pacing in your story, how do you fill time when you're character is traveling?
I'd say yes to all of those. I've read some of both types 1 and 2.

And I've read some pretty good "travelogues" too, where nothing much happens plotwise but there's all sorts of interesting things to see and do along the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.