Chapters?

I've definitely read books that had no chapter breaks, Puck. Do what's right for the book


Moved to Basic Writing Questions.

I split my books into chapters on the location of the action. So one chapter can be quite short and another long but I prefer the natural division of the story. But if there's no need for chapters, don't use them.

There are books with 500 chapters and ones with none.

"SPEAK" by Laurie Halse Anderson is a good example of a great book with no chapters.

You can always write it without chapters for the first draft, then break it up later on.

You can write chapters if you want . It's not a requirement for writing a book, but they are helpful or organizing yourself.

As a reader, I appreciate resting places in the book. They're good for putting the book down to sleep, so as a writer, I try to have something exciting going on when I insert a break in order to entice the reader back. But they're also good for allowing me as a reader to consolidate what I just read, to see the shape of that scene and where it's taken me. Breaks can be chapters or just space on the page indicating a scene break. I'd read something without breaks if I liked it a lot, but I'd miss them.

My WIP doesn't have chapters. But once I'm done I'm going to break it up into chapters. Most books have chapters. Most people want to read books with chapters. Of course, you can submit a manuscript with no chapters at all -- but some agents may balk at that. A book that is "different" like that has to be brilliant, I think...

p.s. and why talking in 3rd person and thinking of writing a book without chapters? If you're trying to be cute, sophisticated, etc. you may end up just sounding pretentious. Beware.

I would say that unless the book is essentially a single, unbroken narrative, dividing the major scenes into chapters is helpful for the reader.

The chapterless book I read most recently was Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson. It's an absolutely beautiful book -- stunning prose, heartbreaking story -- and it won the Pulitzer Prize. It's one unbroken narrative: an aging preacher's letter to his young child.

However, it certainly wasn't an easy read. Every time I stopped and started reading, it took a while to find my place and readjust myself to the narrative. I found myself rereading much of what I'd already read, and it probably took me over a month to finish (though I was reading some other books at the time). I'm glad I read it, but it'll probably be a while before I tackle another chapterless book. I think the writer generally needs to throw a couple readability bones to the reader (and I say this as someone who always enjoys a literary challenge). Even Ulysses has clear chapter breaks.

Dana-Lynn said:

"SPEAK" by Laurie Halse Anderson is a good example of a great book with no chapters.

Click to expand...

One of my favorite books!

However, it does have clear breaks in the narrative, marked by the school quarters and the main character's report cards. Though they're not marked and numbered as chapters, they're still divisions in the narrative that function the way chapters do.

As a reader, I appreciate the separations. Even if only marked in sections.

The majority of Terry Pratchett's books don't have chapters. Wikipedia quotes an interview with him where he says that "life doesn't happen in regular chapters, nor do movies, and Homer did not write in chapters", adding "I'm blessed if I know what function they serve in books for adults."

A critic of one of his earlier books did say "A complete amateur ... doesn't even write in chapters ... hasn't a clue" but now Pratchett has sold over 55 million books worldwide.

So, if you don't want chapters, don't use chapters.

maestrowork said:

p.s. and why talking in 3rd person and thinking of writing a book without chapters? If you're trying to be cute, sophisticated, etc. you may end up just sounding pretentious. Beware.

Click to expand...

Puck always does that. Lol ,and so does Blue.

satori said:

However, it certainly wasn't an easy read. Every time I stopped and started reading, it took a while to find my place and readjust myself to the narrative. I found myself rereading much of what I'd already read, and it probably took me over a month to finish...

Click to expand...

The question is: would the book be better if it were actually broken up in chapters (given the same quality of writing and the same story)? What do you think? Do you think the chapterless approach hindered or enhanced it?

Antony B said:

A critic of one of his earlier books did say "A complete amateur ... doesn't even write in chapters ... hasn't a clue" but now Pratchett has sold over 55 million books worldwide.

Click to expand...

Isn't that quote in the back of some of his books alongside all the good ones? Nice way of thumbing his nose at that critic.

But, yeah, I reckon that Pratchett would cheerfully tell you from the top of his enormous mound of money that no chapters is just fine.

But we are not Practchett.