Well.
I've been reading Donald Maas' WRITING THE BREAKOUT NOVEL, and in his section on subplots, he says that having two separate plotlines coming together is a favorite device of beginning writers. Two strangers whose lives will intersect at some point is one such construction. Bringing two time periods together is another.
Furthermore, he says that beginners insist on alternating sections from each plotline, and that almost no new writer brings them together quickly or skillfully enough. He cites John Fowles' THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN as a successful example.
Now I'm reeling because my WIP--all 300 pages wrestled and cajoled out of my beginner's mind--is described above. My story is about a female medical examiner who investigates a 180-year-old double homicide. What she discovers threatens the very successful presidential campaign of the wildly popular New York state governor, a man who will let nothing stop him from realizing his ambition.
The tale of the old bones--who they were, how they died, and why their discovery should threaten a presidential campaign--is told in a different narrative voice. I make the two plotlines intersect by weaving enough of the past in to account for the findings in the present. The medical examiner, holding the old bones in her hands, whispers, "tell me your story", and it's as if the bones answer back.
Now I'm doubting the whole damned premise and structure. I'm no John Fowles, that's for sure. What do you think? Is this as hackneyed and predictable as Maas suggests?
Just sign me,
Shaken, not stirred.
SusanR
I've been reading Donald Maas' WRITING THE BREAKOUT NOVEL, and in his section on subplots, he says that having two separate plotlines coming together is a favorite device of beginning writers. Two strangers whose lives will intersect at some point is one such construction. Bringing two time periods together is another.
Furthermore, he says that beginners insist on alternating sections from each plotline, and that almost no new writer brings them together quickly or skillfully enough. He cites John Fowles' THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN as a successful example.
Now I'm reeling because my WIP--all 300 pages wrestled and cajoled out of my beginner's mind--is described above. My story is about a female medical examiner who investigates a 180-year-old double homicide. What she discovers threatens the very successful presidential campaign of the wildly popular New York state governor, a man who will let nothing stop him from realizing his ambition.
The tale of the old bones--who they were, how they died, and why their discovery should threaten a presidential campaign--is told in a different narrative voice. I make the two plotlines intersect by weaving enough of the past in to account for the findings in the present. The medical examiner, holding the old bones in her hands, whispers, "tell me your story", and it's as if the bones answer back.
Now I'm doubting the whole damned premise and structure. I'm no John Fowles, that's for sure. What do you think? Is this as hackneyed and predictable as Maas suggests?
Just sign me,
Shaken, not stirred.
SusanR
Then make it as good as you can possibly make it. Then send it to your beta readers, let it rest, and make it even better.
:
