New story type?

I think you're thinking too much.

I also think that if you can't synopsize your story, you've got a big problem in the telling of it.

There's nothing new in storytelling; there are only variations. If your variation works, great, but calling it something "new" and fancy is more likely to turn off agents and editors than it is to help you sell the project.

Hm, since this is really novel specific, I'm gonna port it there. Please stow your luggage in the overhead bin and return your seats to the upright position!

AuthorGuy said:

Quick question:

What do you think of the idea, of a new type of novel, not a different
genre, in which the main character does what he does, but also and more
importantly causes all the characters around him to react in a variety
of ways and resolve the conflicts of the story in a rather more non-
deterministic way? I'm not thinking of an ensemble story, but rather a
story which has one main conflict, and all the characters are held in a
relation to that conflict. The story involves the introduction of one
character, the Catalyst, to whose sudden presence all the other
characters react, and the resolution comes from all these reactions
occurring in the same limited space. The Catalyst himself need not
even know what is happening around him, although he probably will.
I've never read a book of this type before, although I think I wrote
one, and I'm trying to come up with a useful category - a Catalyst
story - to put it into, since none of the others that I know of seem to
work. I can think of several examples in comedy, but I'm not talking
here about comic stories.
The problem I have here is that this story type seems to be very resistant to standard synopsis. If it's a valid type, it may need a different type of query and that would have to argued for.

Click to expand...

So, i-is there a story, or....?

-Jason

This was a very commonly used literary structure in the 19th and early 20th centuries: two of the most famous uses of it are Jerome K. Jerome's novella The Passing of the 'Third Floor Back' and Eugene O'Neill's play The Iceman Cometh.

You would synopsize this the same way you'd synopsize any other "group of disparate characters react to one character or event" story: it might be helpful to look at CliffsNotes or SparkNotes summaries of The Iceman Cometh or Thornton Wilder's The Bridge of San Luis Rey (that's an event--a bridge collapse--not a person, but it still might be of interest).

A more recent version of the "one character at the center" ensemble piece is Elizabeth Strout's book Olive Kitteridge, where the story hinges around thirteen different reactions by people or groups to the title character.

The good news is that this isn't "new" and there are other examples out there for you to draw on. The bad news is that if you were hoping you'd come up with something new, you haven't.

I agree that this is not new, I know I've seen movies like this. One thing I'll comment on is that the catalyst character is usually not the viewpoint character. If you're writing distant/omniscient third they might seem like the main character, but usually they are either mysterious and their mystery is a big part of how they motivate other characters, or they are clueless and act as an unconscious force. Sometimes the catalyst is not a character at all but a law, prophecy, animal, or inanimate object. In all of these cases, the catalyst is usually inappropriate for a viewpoint character because they don't have a strong internal conflict and personal stakes in getting the big problem solved, or because removing the mystery about what exactly their internal conflict and personal stakes are would remove a lot of the suspense of the plot and leave the realism and ethicality of the character's ability to influence the others so much open to doubt.

AuthorGuy said:

The catalyst is the MC. I wsn't trying to write something new, I wrote something that I found I was unable to describe or synopsize using the structures I'm familiar with.

Click to expand...

Don't be fixated by a structure - in your synopsis just tell the reader (probably an agent/publisher) what happens in your story. What's the hook? Get it all on one page, maybe two. Is the story itself interesting as well as the style in which it is told? Try us out - just do a brain dump. And I'd go with the advice about not saying it's 'new': that'll make people nervous.

AuthorGuy said:

I found I was unable to describe or synopsize using the structures I'm familiar with.

Click to expand...

If your continuing character is not the emotional focus,
and the reader's interest follows several intertwined substories instead,
you might, in your synopsis, describe those five or six stories one after the other and then explain, briefly, how these substories are linked.

Fortunately,you don't have to worry about the synopsis till you complete and polish the manuscript.
Until that's done, you just have to worry about writing the story.
Sufficient unto the day, as it were.

Well, if the catalyst character is the main character, then the synopsis is pretty standard.

When Joe Jones retires to Riverside, a decaying mill town on the banks of the Wabash, the motivational speaker unwittingly sparks a feud between young and old. Jeanne Davis leads the younger contingent, folks who seek to capitalize on Jones's famous presence and turn Riverside into an international conference Mecca. On the oldsters' side, Will Hutton sabotages the young peoples' efforts, believing that Riverside's quiet isolation is its greatest virtue.

Caught in the middle, Jones makes a Solomonic decision: he'll run a benefit telethon for the town, enlisting his celebrity friends, as long as the funds are used to keep Riverside the sleepy backwater he loves. But when a disgraced Hollywood producer desperate for one last shot at the limelight comes into the mix, Jones's plans backfire on national television.

Or whatever.

It may be that your MC is not the one you think is the MC. Or -- you may not even have an Mc at all. A proper MC is active -- he acts to move the story forward and resolve the conflict. He doesn't wait to get rescued by supporting characters, if that's your case.

So, the character with the biggest word-count presence in the story is not automatically a good MC.

It's not a matter or story "type" or an easy synopsis. The problem may not be in the synopsis, but in your story, and the characters and conflicts that you choose as fundamental.

My comments may be way off the mark, because I don't really know how you structured your plot, but here goes. Try to think what really makes your Catalyst an MC, and everything should become clear, both in regards to your plot and the synopsis. Follow the Catalyst's motives, conflict, actions, goals and the change he/she goes throughout the story, and the way it all affects other characters. If you feel that your Catalyst isn't strong enough to carry your story, perhaps take a look at which SCs can fill in. Your story may have bigger strengths in areas you've overlooked, and you only need to tip the emphasis a little this way or that to get everything balanced right. Hope this helps. Or makes sense, at least.

In my story, a central character needs to find the McGuffin for the first quarter of the novel. Once he finds it, he disappears with it, and from then on his brother has to find him for the rest of the story. The second guy is my real MC, not the first, although he comes in, sets up the conflict and draws in other characters to resolve the conflict and rescue him (see, your story may not even be unique!).

Basically, I have the same idea:

He's the MC, but he doesn't resolve the larger issue. He's there to handle a smaller issue, which leads to complications. Most of the necessary events of the story are performed by several SCs who are driven to react to the MC

Click to expand...

Except that in my case it's

He's the SC, and he doesn't resolve the larger issue. He's there to handle a smaller issue, which leads to complications. Most of the necessary events of the story are performed by several MCs who are driven to react to the SC

Click to expand...

Which makes things a lot simpler to write, describe and synopsize.
The MC in my book is the guy who does all the hard work.

It may not be applicable to your story, if your Catalyst is the clear-cut MC.
Because my "catalyst" character essentially disappears from the story for 3/4 of it, becoming an abstraction, a goal the MC need to reach. But then again -- if your Catalyst is ACTIVE for the majority of the story, shaping it, he /she is your MC, so you got it right.

In any case- Good Luck.

Remember, your story IS unique, because EVERY story is unique.

Rashomon: one problem, solutions put forward by ass't characters with various motives.

AuthorGuy said:

That's the problem. He's the MC, but he doesn't resolve the larger issue. He's there to handle a smaller issue, which leads to complications. Most of the necessary events of the story are performed by several SCs who are driven to react to the MC. In the process, the create a situation where yet another SC is able to come through and acts to save the MC, which in turn results in the resolution of the larger issue. Only it's not that simple.

Click to expand...

Remember, the main character and the POV character need not be the same. Think The Great Gatsby. It's from Nick's perspective, but the major conflict is Gatsby's.

Also, it's possible, though difficult, to start out with an apparent main character, who then moves aside for the true main character's story to unravel (even if it's still from the POV of the original character). Think of Brave New World, where Bernard appears to be the MC at first, until John appears and steals the rest of the story.

Write it first, then categorize it.