Dresden Files Pacing

[hallowedthings]

From a technical standpoint, what do you think it is that makes each book so fast paced?

So far I've noticed:

Constant danger: There's always the threat of something going wrong, which keeps you on your feet. Time seems to go fast when you're having fun or anticipating something, so scenes never seem as long as they are.
Spectacular fight sequences: The danger regularly tips into a scuffle or a major fight sequence. These look cool and have consequences, so they're both instant gratification and full of tension. There are a large number of them in each book (relative to most other books) so by the time you get to the end you feel like you've had a satisfying amount of adrenaline injected into your system. The fact that there are so many means that you know there's something explosive around the corner -- you just don't know when it will jump out.
Switching between important subplots: This provides variation and adds to that feeling of anticipation because you know all these issues are up in the air and they WILL come down, with consequences. The fact that they're important means that the way they pan out matters, so you care. They also tend to feed back into the plot -- now or later -- so the consequences are generally long-term.
Rate of revelation: Each scene introduces something significant about the main plot or one of the subplots, or both, so it feels like there's constant progression. You're not waiting for things to get moving again.

I've been using these in my writing for a while, because for years I noticed them consistently in all of the action-packed stories I've enjoyed. Thinking back over the Dresden Files made it absolutely clear to me. Pick up on anything I've missed?

PS: I don't encourage checking your story against these while you're writing because it'll most likely stifle your creativity, but it's helpful as a checklist... well, it is for me, at least.

[Shecky]

Also remember one of Jim's standard operating procedures: "When I'm unsure how to proceed, I just have someone kick in the door."

[LizW65]

Other DF techniques I've noticed are unusually short chapters--often only a few pages each, which keep up the movement and pacing, and a good balance of dialogue with exposition, character, and description.  Someone also pointed out on this board a long time ago that Jim varies the quality of his sentences a lot--short and long, question-and-answer type, breaking the fourth wall, and so on.

[Quantus]

The Single POV has a lot to do with it for me.  In 3rd POV, Codex Alera for example, you loose a little momentum each time you switch from one character/voice/plotline to another.  With Dresden, even when you are switching plotlines, it's still the same Voice and POV, its just him having to juggle several flavors of pain-in-the-ass.  He is constantly going from the Frying Pan to the Fire, but you never just drop the plotline and switch to some "Meanwhile" storyline. 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

With Dresden, even when you are switching plotlines, it's still the same Voice and POV, its just him having to juggle several flavors of pain-in-the-ass.  He is constantly going from the Frying Pan to the Fire, but you never just drop the plotline and switch to some "Meanwhile" storyline.

DM had a little bit of that problem for me, which is why it's one of my least favourite; the Red Court plotline and the Fallen one feel almost entirely independent, and some of the transitions grate, IMO.

[Aminar]

The Single POV has a lot to do with it for me.  In 3rd POV, Codex Alera for example, you loose a little momentum each time you switch from one character/voice/plotline to another.  With Dresden, even when you are switching plotlines, it's still the same Voice and POV, its just him having to juggle several flavors of pain-in-the-ass.  He is constantly going from the Frying Pan to the Fire, but you never just drop the plotline and switch to some "Meanwhile" storyline.

There are plenty of examples where multiple POV's don't cut the tension down.  It's about making sure all of your plotlines hold tension at the same rate.  For instance Michael Crichton usually put his characters into terrifying scenarios that affected the whole caste even if they were separate, making the tension stay high the whole time.  Now if you cut from raging battle scene to an old lady sewing and reminiscing there can be cuts in the tension that make The Grand Canyon look small.  It's all in the way things are split.

[Quantus]

There are plenty of examples where multiple POV's don't cut the tension down.  It's about making sure all of your plotlines hold tension at the same rate.  For instance Michael Crichton usually put his characters into terrifying scenarios that affected the whole caste even if they were separate, making the tension stay high the whole time.  Now if you cut from raging battle scene to an old lady sewing and reminiscing there can be cuts in the tension that make The Grand Canyon look small.  It's all in the way things are split.

Im not talking about tension, or transitions maintaining tone;  Im talking about having a reader hooked at 3am on a workday and not giving them an opportunity to put the book down.  In a 1st POV story, no matter what the tension or the mystery or whatever, the "Next thing" is always a single page away, and the reader is going to be constantly giving themselves "Just One More".  In a 3rd POV with multiple POV stories you loose that innate continuity most of the time.  Even if it ends one chapter cliffhanger style with character A in a battle for his life, and switches over to another character also in a battle for his life, the tension is the same but the reader knows that they have reached a stopping point, and can much more easily put the book down.  You know its a stopping point, because its the point the author chose to stop at and relocate you to the other story; s/he is taking a break and going to come back to it, so you as the reader can as well.  But when we are sitting on one guy's shoulder the entire time, no matter what the transitions are its still just that one thread you are following, which makes it subtly harder to let go, even if life/work/family would tell you that you should.  Switching POV's is always going to be a little bit of a speed bump. 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

In a 1st POV story, no matter what the tension or the mystery or whatever, the "Next thing" is always a single page away, and the reader is going to be constantly giving themselves "Just One More".  In a 3rd POV with multiple POV stories you loose that innate continuity most of the time.  Even if it ends one chapter cliffhanger style with character A in a battle for his life, and switches over to another character also in a battle for his life, the tension is the same but the reader knows that they have reached a stopping point, and can much more easily put the book down.  You know its a stopping point, because its the point the author chose to stop at and relocate you to the other story; s/he is taking a break and going to come back to it, so you as the reader can as well.  But when we are sitting on one guy's shoulder the entire time, no matter what the transitions are its still just that one thread you are following, which makes it subtly harder to let go, even if life/work/family would tell you that you should.

Fascinating. For me as a reader it's precisely the opposite.

[Quantus]

Fascinating. For me as a reader it's precisely the opposite.

how so?

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

how so?

In a book that's one contiguous first-person narrative, some scales of tension aren't an option, because you know if that narrator gets into a jam mid-book, you will see at least that they get through it and usually also how pretty much immediately thereafter.  If someone like GRRM puts a character in mortal jeopardy half-way through a book with 16 POVs and no particular pattern to which POVs happen when, there's no guarantee you'll get resolution during that volume, or in that viewpoint - it could be reported to another character in another thread entirely.

There are first-person narrators I find very hard to put down, all right - Felix Castor probably the most, but that's much more to do with the rhythm of the voice than the events being told.  If anything, i am more likely to be able to put one of those down mid-action-scene than in a conversation or a bit of description, because character writing generally compels me and action writing generally bores me.

[Quantus]

In a book that's one contiguous first-person narrative, some scales of tension aren't an option, because you know if that narrator gets into a jam mid-book, you will see at least that they get through it and usually also how pretty much immediately thereafter.  If someone like GRRM puts a character in mortal jeopardy half-way through a book with 16 POVs and no particular pattern to which POVs happen when, there's no guarantee you'll get resolution during that volume, or in that viewpoint - it could be reported to another character in another thread entirely.

That makes sense to me, but how does that make it easier or harder to put down?  For me, if I know or suspect that I may not get the resolution I need for months or years waiting on the next volume (such as with GRRM or Robert Jordan), it would make me more inclined to surrender to sleep and pick things back up in the morning.  If I know that I am actually holding the answer and just need to get through to it then Ill be more able to rationalize that little bit of more reading before I sleep, usually telling myself that the question will just keep me up longer.  I have even been known to skip ahead until the plotline is picked back up to get my resolution (though in my elder years I have learned enough patience to not do this so much).

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

That makes sense to me, but how does that make it easier or harder to put down?  For me, if I know or suspect that I may not get the resolution I need for months or years waiting on the next volume (such as with GRRM or Robert Jordan), it would make me more inclined to surrender to sleep and pick things back up in the morning.  If I know that I am actually holding the answer and just need to get through to it then Ill be more able to rationalize that little bit of more reading before I sleep, usually telling myself that the question will just keep me up longer.

If I know I will have the answer tomorrow, that's much easier to wait for than not knowing either way, for me.  Questions like that can only keep me awake for so long; I sleep a lot, particularly under stress, and I sleep hard.

[Quantus]

If I know I will have the answer tomorrow, that's much easier to wait for than not knowing either way, for me.  Questions like that can only keep me awake for so long; I sleep a lot, particularly under stress, and I sleep hard.

Sleep, I have heard rumors of this.  It's some kind of street drug for teenagers, right?  I hear its all the rage.

[o_O]

I see no one has mentioned Slowing the pace down so that the reader can think up expectations (and then potentially dashing them),  either by itself or as part of Rate of revelation.

To me, that's more important than POV-constancy in a multiplicity of subplots, and much more effective than a constant, high rate of revelation.     A constant, high rate of revelation gives me absolutely no incentive to build up any sort of thought-model of the situation - it is simpler and easier to just read the next chapter. 

 And if I don't build up a thought-model, then I'm not fully engaged in the story, and it's just...meh.

[Quantus]

I see no one has mentioned Slowing the pace down so that the reader can think up expectations (and then potentially dashing them),  either by itself or as part of Rate of revelation.

To me, that's more important than POV-constancy in a multiplicity of subplots, and much more effective than a constant, high rate of revelation.     A constant, high rate of revelation gives me absolutely no incentive to build up any sort of thought-model of the situation - it is simpler and easier to just read the next chapter. 

 And if I don't build up a thought-model, then I'm not fully engaged in the story, and it's just...meh.

Well, the OP was specifically about how to increase the pace, which may be why nobody mentioned slowing it down.  I agree that giving the reader enough to build some theories and expectations is important, but Id think there are many ways to do that without intentionally making it a slow/ponderous tale.  For me at least, the revelations others have mentioned may simply be revealing that there is another Question out there that needs an answer; it doesnt have to be a steady reveal of plot information, just steady development.