Should story stay true to its roots?

[The Lonely One]

I'm having an issue with a MS/WIP; I'm about 12k in after a few months of writing a story, based on a childhood game my brothers and I played at a younger age. Of course it's already a bit different ten years later, names were changed, events from the games/storyline altered to fit into the narrative style.

But now looking at it, I have come to realize it's really three stories shoved into one and is very, VERY complicated -- there are a slew of characters and backgrounds and histories and a lot of things happening simultaneously. My solution thus far has been to switch the focus of the narrator to various characters in different chapters (see: Dandelion Wine), to show the progress of each of the MC's and to continue development until they will later meet up towards the end of the story.

But I'm looking now at some of these back stories and just how many characters there are. I'm wondering if I should do some major scissor action -- that is, cut some of the secondary characters and simplify the history of things, or just let the history affect characters in an unspoken way.

There are so many directions I could take with this, I'm just looking for anyone who has been in a similar situation and what they would recommend.

If it helps: the story is about three brothers who must save the universe from evil itself, and one who nearly becomes it in the process.

[kzmiller]

Sounds like you have the right number of characters to me! See C.S. Lewis' success with his Narnian books. Same number of characters, similar (very generally speaking) dynamic. I think you're going to have to write to the end to find out how it's going to work for you.

One thing I did that worked for me in one of my books was that I started where the core adventure really started and let the histories bleed through onto the page when the characters had a wee bit of down time (aka dark moments, aka points of reflection, etc.) Also I hunted around for thematic commonalities and opposites. So, if for example there's a theme developing in the direction of love conquers all, I look for hints of love conquers all in the stories of the other characters as well as dis-proofs (love fails) of the theme and offshoot proofs (love destroys or love is a trap.) This way I can get a 360 of a theme that may normally only get a two-dimensional thread through the narrative.

[regdog]

Is there any way to turn one story into three individual but interwoven novellas rather than one full length manuscript?

If not perhaps keep writing the sstory you are now and when you reread and edit see if some secondary characters just disappear fromt he saotry and if possible edit them out

[Rococo Fox]

I don't think there's any problem with having too many secondary characters. Even if some of them are barely developed, you can always make them worth reading about. If you feel overwhelmed with writing about too many characters, you can always reduce some of them to brief appearances that still carry power. Sometimes it's those little characters that make a difference, and sometimes forcing yourself to make their appearances brief also forces you to make their presence in the novel and their very characteristics more defined, having to encompass the very essence of each character in only a few scenes or whatnot.

As for the story seeming like three stories, you could try a similar method and just really focus on what in each story is the most important, what you can do to capture the real meaning of each story and its most significant aspects without making any of them too extensive or complicated. If you do decide to take some major scissor action, I recommend listing the major and minor details of each story and seeing which feel the most important but also keeping in mind which you personally feel most inspired to write about.

For example, let's say one scene in a character's backstory was him meeting up with a childhood friend in a coffee shop and realizing how much they've changed. It might not be the most important scene to his overall story, but if there's some sentiment or power in the scene to you personally, don't cut it. You'll likely find that you can achieve a good balance between making the stories both rich in memorable detail and not convoluted or filled with extraneous material.

Good luck!

[Phaeal]

Write the whole thing without much introspection. Then look at the huge pile of still damp clay you've created (after a few weeks of rest) and figure out which clumps to carve off and which to save and how to shape what remains.

[tehuti88]

I would just write it the way it "wants" to be written first, and see how it turns out. Even if it ends up with a hundred characters and labyrinthine subplots. Maybe you'll have to redo it, or cut out a lot, but maybe you won't. Maybe it will be one book, maybe it will be twenty. Who knows. Maybe you're one of the writers who can pull this off successfully.

And I might be in the minority here but I like longish stories with lots of characters and labyrinthine subplots. Write 'em all the time.

--Tehuti, whose own current WIP, too, is many charactered and labyrinthine and is based on childhood games...huh, she didn't even realize that until now, so perhaps she's biased?

[The Lonely One]

Thanks for the helpful comments, everyone. I've already eliminated one character, who is essentially the devil. Initially, there was the devil (a different name, obviously) and his son. They serve almost the same purpose in the plot, though at first they were separate entities that performed separate actions. Since all their powers and motivations are almost identical, there's no reason to muddle with it. I plan to make similar judgment calls on character as I go.

[Elonna]

I agree that you should try to wait until you're finished and see how it turns out and how it all works itself out. Just my opnion though :D

[The Lonely One]

I agree that you should try to wait until you're finished and see how it turns out and how it all works itself out. Just my opnion though :D


I appreciate all the advice -- waiting may be prudent. I'll likely have to rewrite a substantial part of this most recent chapter, however. Frustration+being lost = shoddy work.

[blacbird]

This is the Novel forum. The story should be good. That's the only restriction.

caw

[Birol]

Basically, you're a little over 10K in, don't have a solid direction, have started second guessing yourself, and rather than stepping back and taking stock, you're planning on scrapping everything and starting over? You can reach the 10K mark many, many times, scrap what you've done to that point, and start over and it will never get you any closer to The End.

I'm not saying you're wrong to scrap what you have and start over, but until you figure out the direction the story is taking, what the story is about, and have a handle on how you're going to tell it, you run the risk of repeating this situation at the 10K mark over and over again.

Trust me on this.

[blacbird]

but until you figure out the direction the story is taking, what the story is about, and have a handle on how you're going to tell it, you run the risk of repeating this situation at the 10K mark over and over again.

Trust me on this.

I don't often disagree with Birol, but on this one, I do. Write the damn story for the specific purpose of finding out what it is about. It's not at all unusual for writers, very fine and famous writers, to proceed without entirely knowing the outcome of a story. I forget who it was, but it was someone very well known, who said something like, "I write to figure out what I want to say."

The key thing is not to stop when you run into confusion. Plod forward. Even without knowing what's out there as you go. Chances are you'll find out. And almost everybody here will tell you that the act of writing begets further writing. You can always cut stuff later.

caw

[The Lonely One]

Basically, you're a little over 10K in, don't have a solid direction, have started second guessing yourself, and rather than stepping back and taking stock, you're planning on scrapping everything and starting over? You can reach the 10K mark many, many times, scrap what you've done to that point, and start over and it will never get you any closer to The End.

I'm not saying you're wrong to scrap what you have and start over, but until you figure out the direction the story is taking, what the story is about, and have a handle on how you're going to tell it, you run the risk of repeating this situation at the 10K mark over and over again.

Trust me on this.

I also want to emphasize I haven't scrapped 10k words, not by any means. I'm more than happy (well, maybe that's overemphasizing things -- I'll never be totally happy but that's just the artist's curse) with the first five or so chapters. It really took to the fable style of narration I was going for, the strong poetic imagery and metaphor, and pretty much all the values I wanted for it. I'm just saying I see my vision of the MS more and more so compromising what I'd originally considered "the story." Which I'm okay with (P.S. it annoys me that okay is not in spell check).

What I may scrap is this recent chapter, but I'm not willing to start from scratch at this point. But as my mind refines what the story is, I'm beginning to lose characters, simplify background stories, and draw in more storybook grandiose as part of what I envision this MS to be.

Which leads back to why I asked this question originally; To "stay true to its roots," this story would be a complicated mess of backstories, subplots and characters that don't lend to its current state, but I'm torn to stay somewhat true to it. Yet I'm realizing I may have let more of the messiness seep in than I'd anticipated.

Sorry, this probably makes no sense as it's 3 a.m. where I am (why am I awake, you ask? because I'm insane, if that's a good enough reason.)

Anyways, hope there is some shred of explanation in all of this, if anyone bothers to read it.

Well, goodnight, before I babble on for another 500 words.

[Birol]

I don't often disagree with Birol, but on this one, I do. Write the damn story for the specific purpose of finding out what it is about.

I didn't say you have to know what the story is about when you sit down to write, but you do need to know what direction you're heading in. If you're in Illinois and want to "Go West, Young Man," you'd better travel in the direction of the setting sun. Whether you're going to California or Oregon doesn't have to matter at that point; whether you want to see the Pacific or the Atlantic Ocean does.

What I may scrap is this recent chapter, but I'm not willing to start from scratch at this point. But as my mind refines what the story is, I'm beginning to lose characters, simplify background stories, and draw in more storybook grandiose as part of what I envision this MS to be.

Then it sounds like the story is evolving. That happens.

[zornhau]

To the OP's thread title question: "No!" There is no should, apart from it should be a good story when it's done. However, if you wander from the original concept, then you may lose what it was that made the story worth writing.

To the OP's actual situation: 12K is only 10% through, (or 20% if your first draft is a bit thin). Like others upthread, I think you should finish the thing then worry about what to trim.

[Rococo Fox]

But there's a difference between merely needing to edit out extraneous material and actually not knowing how exactly one wants to tell the story, in what direction they want to go, what characters they want or need to include, et cetera. It sounds to me like the OP is going through the latter situation somewhat, in which case it's probably wise to take a step back from the story and think about it in a "big picture" sort of way and try to sort things out in her own mind before proceeding.

If she continues to plow ahead with uncertainty about these very important aspects of her novel, it's likely she'll end up with a product that's even more difficult to edit and reshape than if she stopped while she's ahead and gave it some serious, focused reflection. It's also likely that if she continues writing her story "true to its roots" with all the elements she's unsure about, there will be masses of writing that can't just be scissored away because they all draw back to the elements she decided not to change. If that's the case, it's probable she'll have to go back and rewrite the whole thing or at least a lot of it later.

If she recognizes dissatisfaction or confusion with her direction right now, I say the best thing is to outline the plot, characters, style, et cetera so she can get a firmer grasp at what she needs to do when writing. Of course, there will still be revisions and such to be made even if she does have a clearer idea of her piece, but taking a step back to redefine the novel before writing more of it will refocus the task at hand in a necessary way.

[DeleyanLee]

Stay true to its "roots"? I honestly don't see a need for that. Stories mutate and grow because that's their nature and their original roots might be totally lost from the finished product. Just seems natural to me that this happens.

Now, it should always stay true to whatever it was that geeked (in the old definition: it excites you so much you go to extremes for it) you to write it in the first place. Whatever that spark, that flash, that idea was--THAT should never be lost no matter how much the story mutates and grows. My experience is that once you lose that geek point, the heart of the story stops beating and it's just a dead thing anyway.

But I see that geek point as totally different from the roots.

[tehuti88]

Now, it should always stay true to whatever it was that geeked (in the old definition: it excites you so much you go to extremes for it) you to write it in the first place. Whatever that spark, that flash, that idea was--THAT should never be lost no matter how much the story mutates and grows. My experience is that once you lose that geek point, the heart of the story stops beating and it's just a dead thing anyway.

But I see that geek point as totally different from the roots.

In truth, that "geek point" is what I always believed the true roots of a story to be, at least in my case. Everything that geeks me out and sparks a story is the real root of my work, and I have to stay true to that. But maybe I'm just weird that way. :)

[DeleyanLee]

In truth, that "geek point" is what I always believed the true roots of a story to be, at least in my case. Everything that geeks me out and sparks a story is the real root of my work, and I have to stay true to that. But maybe I'm just weird that way. :)

As an illustration: My first novel got its spark from a D&D adventure I was in at the time where one of the PCs was a phoenix who kept setting fire to his buddies more than our enemies. I started wondering what kind of buddy a phoenix could have that wouldn't turn into overdone bacon at the drop of a flame.

The roots of the story was the D&D adventure and the original characters--and that got quickly left behind for things that suited the story's needs much better, not to mention what truly belonged to me and not the rest of the gang.

The spark of the story was the fantasy elements that came to mind with the answers to "What kind of buddy could a phoenix not roast?"

So, to me, they're very different things.