Can a good novel loiter?

[Kindness]

If there's one thing I'm good at it's waffling.

That's why I worry about my WIP, because I've got a reasonable amount of miniature events which aren't related to the plot. The characters don't stand around and do nothing, but there are events that don't further the story -- they're just there for showing off personalities, or creating humour.

What I'm wondering is, does a story need to progress toward the end with every page? (Because when I look at big fat novels I think that can't all be plot!) Will a book feel too 'watery' if this isn't the case?

[DeleyanLee]

Progressing the story and progressing the plot are two different things. Progressing the plot is progressing the story, but you can easily progress the story without touching the plot.

Plot is the series of events that happen along the way that should conclude in something cool and climatic in the end.

Story consists of characters and their lives and hopes and dreams and fears and relationships, the world and how it influences what's going on, the underlying theme(s) that give the whole thing deeper meaning and relevance, the reader's comprehension of all that's happening, etc, etc, etc.

Which is why I say "Plot is overrated"--it's not the be-all-and-end-all of storytelling.

[Kindness]

I've never thought if it that way I've always had this nagging feeling that if I'm not getting closer to 'The End' the reader might start getting impatient. That's one of my biggest fears ><

[Sevvy]

It's all about balance. You need scenes that advance the plot and scenes that work on character and theme etc. And if you can make your scenes characterize and advance the plot, all the better.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Every word in your book should do at least one of three things: advance the plot, deepen characterization, or evoke an emotional response.

The ideal is doing all three at once. For myself, if I'm not doing at least two, I flag the sentence/section/chapter for possible deletion.

[Chris P]

A few asides are nice, as long as they show us something about the character or the place. But in my case I have to keep them to a minimum, as the book gets too long. In my revisions, I had to ask many of the questions noted above. My novel is travel fiction, but of course any travel story is about the transformation of the characters as much as it is about the journey. Any scene must: 1) illustrate where they are (e.g., describe the Pyramids and the surrounding area), 2) illustrate the struggle of the characters (e.g., the MC's inability to be spontaneous), 3) illustrate the greater theme of the book (e.g., backlash against globalization). I need to do each of these with the fewest number of characters, dialogue, locations, and words in general, but at the same time avoid the curse of "telling."

[mkcbunny]

Originally Posted by Kindness

there are events that don't further the story -- they're just there for showing off personalities, or creating humour.

If "showing off personalities" translates as character development, then they serve a purpose. Ideally, character-developing scenes and conversations would also convey something else in terms of plot or detail. Even seemingly unimportant subjects can connect to theme, if not plot momentum.

[Kindness]

Ah, okay, thanks I suppose what I've written does have a place in the text. I'm just worried that what I think is good might split readers -- they'll either find it interesting or think move on!... The same way people either love or hate wordy descriptions (they'll savour them to get a good image or skip ahead to the next paragraph/page). Owing to procrastination and cutting about 30k my story now sits at 45k, so length isn't one of my worries yet ^_^

[MumblingSage]

Originally Posted by Kindness

I've never thought if it that way I've always had this nagging feeling that if I'm not getting closer to 'The End' the reader might start getting impatient. That's one of my biggest fears ><

The problem only comes when the reader starts having the nagging feeling that this passage isn't bringing them any closer to 'the end'. Although I can only speak of that from personal experiance, and as a writer, I'm far more critical of the books I read than most people. I'm also a little envious of people who can write 800-page books without seeming to break a sweat.

[shaldna]

waffle = evil


seriously, everything you write, every word, every sentance, must be in order to progress the plot in some way.

[The Black Ghost]

If you want to make a good book, you need to advance the plotline (the main series of events), but you have to define the characters and their relationships...which can take a lot of time. Some of these defining moments should tie in to the main story, but there is room for divergence.

[HConn]

There have been many wonderful books that loitered. Really. You can write anything you want, as long as you are interesting about it.

Loiter away!

[JayG]

If the scenes you’re talking about are just there, as a break in the action, you should think about developing character in other, more related ways, as enrichment to necessary action. If, on the other hand you’re talking about subplots, what’s the problem? You need them.

As readers, we assume the character stops for groceries, calls mom, and all the things life tosses at us. But it’s the problem and its solution we’re focused on. That’s why there are no genres where people just go about the business of day-to-day living. After all, if the novel isn’t more exciting than my own life, at all times, why read it? The reader is there to worry, and they love to be able to say, “Oh shit! What do we do now?”

In the movie Vertigo, in the opening scene the protagonist nearly dies in a fall, giving him a fear of heights that the plot hinges on. Does the protagonist like country music? Chocolate over vanilla? Dogs over cats? Why would I care? I want to know what’s happening next, for which the protagonist needs my help.

[Fillanzea]

Moby Dick and Les Miserables are often considered to be great novels, and they certainly do spend some time loitering. It's a flavor of storytelling that's out of fashion nowadays, and I wouldn't recommend that you spend a chapter on the particulars of whale biology, but I think a good writer can still pull it off.

[maestrowork]

Well it depends... I've read many literary novels that loiter. Eventually I could connect the dots and realize what they were about. Still, it took some energy to go through them because naturally, I wanted some plot. I just finished a book of which 85% is loitering. Didn't really like it.

Then again, somebody else might.

I think the more character-driven your story is, the more receptive the readers are to the loitering, as long as the plot does advance, just not on ever page. The more commercial the book and plot-driven, the less patient your readers would be. I guess it all depends on the pace. "Loitering," by nature, slows down the pace.

But a good question is: Why should the readers care? Is it interesting?

New writers should be careful about too much loitering, especially if their genres and potential readers don't have the tolerance for it. Sometimes I see writers loiter for no reasons than the fact that they think their characters are so interesting, that we should watch them pick out groceries or wash their cars (which has nothing to do with the overall plot). Some writers also go in circles and overdo the navel-gazing thing to a point I'd say, "get on with it already!" So beware. When you feel like you're writing in circles and dragging your feet, maybe it's time to move the plot along.

[Emily Winslow]

I'm pro-loitering, provided, as always, that it's interesting.

[shaldna]

i think we need to define 'loitering' here.

In books like moby dick and les miserables, there is indeed alot of downtime, however, this is all used to progress the novel, through character development, scene setting, foreshadowing, backstory etc etc.

To me that's not loitering.

Loitering is those scenes that serve no purpose. Nothing happens, we learn nothing new, nothing is developed.

Loitering are those scenes that go nowhere and do nothing.

[DustyBooks]

I think it would be pretty hard to write a scene in which nothing was developed. The question then becomes, how much weight should a scene carry? How many of the above elements do you need in a scene or passage of exposition/narrative, and how much of them? It would also be pretty hard to only have one element in a scene--good comic relief tends to be tied to character development in some way.

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on this too, since my WIP also seems fairly rambly to me, especially compared to what my friends write. I think it's because a lot of the books I read are old.

[mudbubble]

I'm nearly 10k in to a first draft that is nothing but character development and strange set pieces with no firm plot in mind. Nothing but muscle free floating off the skeleton with no sinew or tendon to anchor it.

I don't know if a good novel can loiter but I know good first draft can (not calling mine good, it is a mess as of right now) but saying the OP's might be a very good first draft that is hanging in front of the Cirlce K smoking a joint and trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up.

There will come a point when you are in revision where you will have to be the bad cop and decide to yell at a scene to "MOVE ALONG", arrest it, or turn a blind eye to a little harmless shennanigans.

I am all for the write it all in and edit it out when you get to the end school f thinking because I never seem to know where my characters are going to take me. Of course mine 1st WIP is doing 2 to 4 In Trunk State Penitentiary for felonious suckage.

So listen to the sounds that a mudbubble makes when it pops but don't live your life based on them.

[C.M.C.]

It's a good idea not to let the book wander, but if it needs to stretch its legs a bit, there's nothing wrong with that. If you adhere too fastidiously to the idea that every word needs to be advancing the plot, the book can quickly turn into an elongated series of plot points with little actual writing supporting it. Being focused can indeed go too far.

[kaitie]

Originally Posted by shaldna

i think we need to define 'loitering' here.

In books like moby dick and les miserables, there is indeed alot of downtime, however, this is all used to progress the novel, through character development, scene setting, foreshadowing, backstory etc etc.

To me that's not loitering.

Loitering is those scenes that serve no purpose. Nothing happens, we learn nothing new, nothing is developed.

Loitering are those scenes that go nowhere and do nothing.

I think that's exactly what everyone here has been saying. The OP says that they're there for character development, so if that's the case they aren't technically loitering. They do serve a purpose.

[kurzon]

"Depends".

I recently re-read a bunch of Margaret Maron novels. Fantastic novelist. The series main character is a small court judge who is involved in murder mysteries, and also the lives of her very complex family. But there's also her job, and the books are full of the minor cases she deals with. Domestic violence, drunk driving, speeding. Perhaps a tenth of the novels are these petty little appearances by people we will never meet again and who have no relationship to the plot.

And it's so interesting!

So, as I said, it depends. Execution is everything.

[Linda Adams]

I'll be watching this thread. This is an area I've had a really hard time with. Because I started out as a short story writer, I tend to treat "loitering" scenes as things to be cut out because there's this little voice that says, "They're not plot, so they're not necessary."

What doesn't help is that when I've seen it in books, I've usually noticed it because it's done really badly (i.e., a subplot that feels more like the author needed to add to the page count; the wrong kind of loitering for the particular type of book; etc.). It seems to be unnoticeable when it's done well, or at least I'm assuming it is!

[maestrowork]

I think that's exactly what everyone here has been saying. The OP says that they're there for character development, so if that's the case they aren't technically loitering. They do serve a purpose.

True. And that's all good, unless...

I would caution against doing too much character development, especially when there's no conflict or tension. If there's enough conflict or tension, then I think character development can be marvelous breathers between the plot points.

I think loitering happens when the tension or conflict disappear. It's okay if the character is picking out fruits at the market, but if there's no tension (even just internal), then the scene would be flat and uninteresting, and give the readers a feeling of "why am I reading this?"

[Libbie]

Depends.

There needs to be a plot, or you don't have a story. But plot is just conflict. Some kind of conflict needs to be occurring. However, maybe the conflict is all in the characters' development. Douglas Coupland's novel Generation X is like this. For nearly the entire novel, there is no "external" plot -- it's all the three main characters dicking around in the desert, being young and dumb and trying to figure out their internal selves. It's a gorgeous book -- beautiful prose -- but until nearly the end of the novel, there aren't really any serious decisions to be made. However, it's clear to the reader that through the course of all these "we're a trio of young screwoffs" scenes, the characters are internally conflicted, each in their own way.

As long as what you're writing is providing some kind of conflict, it ought to work. The characters need to face choices and experience changes. Whether that comes from some easily identifiable antagonist (another character or a situation, such as being stranded in the wild) or from something more vague (the struggle for identity at the end of childhood/beginning of adulthood) doesn't really matter. But the conflict must be there in order for a story to work.