ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: hallowedthings on August 26, 2012, 02:29:43 PM
-
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.
-
Also remember one of Jim's standard operating procedures: "When I'm unsure how to proceed, I just have someone kick in the door." ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Fascinating. For me as a reader it's precisely the opposite.
how so?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well, the OP was specifically about how to increase the pace, which may be why nobody mentioned slowing it down.
Alright, true.
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.
Well, no one is voting for slow and ponderous at the moment (although ponderous, building terror has its advantages).
I suppose I was responding to the "don't want to put down at 3am" stated goal more than anything.
To extend the juggling metaphor, it's a lot more engaging for the viewer to juggle 3 or 4 of anything than for the viewer to step back and watch while a character juggles more and more and more subplots/Questions.
My point here is that "How many is enough and how quickly to toss them at the reader?" may be a more important question for the writer to answer than "How do I keep this pace up?", unless the reader is assumed to be disengaged from the start.
-
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.
I'm pretty much the opposite too. If there is a POV shift at a cliffhanger I end up reading lonegr because I know the resolution will be that much farther off when I pick it up again, whereas if I put down a first person narrative the minute I pick it back up I get answers. And if you have a cliffhanger lead to another cliffhanger to another cliffhanger I'll be up all night trying to find out how all 3 resolve. I'd never have that problem with a One person storyline.
-
I personally worry about POV juggling because there is always the chance that the reader will end up skipping chapters to stick with one POV. I had that happen to me when reading Game of Thrones (mostly because I hated all of the POVs except for one or two). I ended up skipping through half the book, getting very confused, and giving the book away to someone else. I think part of the problem was that some of the POVs didn't seem to be related to the main plot, so I'd say that for multiple POV books, it might be best to stick to no more than three POVs, and making sure that there is some connection between them, so that even when you switch to someone else you're still sort of in the same story space.
-
I personally worry about POV juggling because there is always the chance that the reader will end up skipping chapters to stick with one POV. I had that happen to me when reading Game of Thrones (mostly because I hated all of the POVs except for one or two). I ended up skipping through half the book, getting very confused, and giving the book away to someone else. I think part of the problem was that some of the POVs didn't seem to be related to the main plot, so I'd say that for multiple POV books, it might be best to stick to no more than three POVs, and making sure that there is some connection between them, so that even when you switch to someone else you're still sort of in the same story space.
If they're skipping POV's the writer did something wrong or the reader is lazy. That said, I read most of The Wheel of Time skipping everything from a female perspective that wasn't Min or Aviendah. I still got the story right. I missed out on some great character development though. If you're worried about readings skipping your Points of view you might be writing a character badly or sticking with them too long. That doesn't mean don't use them. That means don't bite off more than your reader can chew.
And GoT... It's much overhyped. So many of PoV characters are uninteresting or obnoxious. There's no hope left in the series. It was great for three books. Then it got old. You're not missing too much.
-
Another thing I meant to add earlier is that when a book in a series starts off with one first person, single POV, and then the second book in the series takes a side character from the first book and makes them the new first person, single POV it kind of throws me off a bit. It takes a little more time for me to get used to the new voice and seeing the former main character referred to in the third person (and, let's face it, the main reason I went back and bought the second book was because I liked the POV voice of the first book. I want more of that guy I already know!)
If you're worried about readings skipping your Points of view you might be writing a character badly or sticking with them too long. That doesn't mean don't use them. That means don't bite off more than your reader can chew.
I agree. Although it is a tricky balance to achieve.
And GoT... It's much overhyped. So many of PoV characters are uninteresting or obnoxious. There's no hope left in the series. It was great for three books. Then it got old. You're not missing too much.
I'd heard there was a board game and a movie in the works for it now? So I suppose some people got something out of it. For me, it was just ultimately too confusing. Too many people, too many plotlines. I never had any idea what was happening.
-
And GoT... It's much overhyped. So many of PoV characters are uninteresting or obnoxious. There's no hope left in the series. It was great for three books. Then it got old. You're not missing too much.
Uninteresting or obnoxious I can see as a matter of taste; I am bemused at the thought of any of the POV characters in that series striking anyone as either, but that's just me.
But "no hope left in the series", I seriously can't see where you're getting that from at all.
-
Uninteresting or obnoxious I can see as a matter of taste; I am bemused at the thought of any of the POV characters in that series striking anyone as either, but that's just me.
But "no hope left in the series", I seriously can't see where you're getting that from at all.
Uninteresting is a small number. Both are Stark Women and neither is Arya. Obnoxious-that list just goes on and on and on. Theon. Sansa. Stannis. Littlefinger. Sansa. Caitlin. Sansa. Did I mentions Sansa?
The lack of hope comes from having my hopes crushed by it too many times. Sure, he might finish it well but Mr. Martin killed my interest pretty handily between Feast and Dance.
-
Uhm, back on the original question... :-) I think you've said it well in your initial post. I would add (and you probably are also charting this in your work) these.
Fast pace in the Dresden Verse also follows a basic premise that the tension intensifies over the length of the book. There is an upping of the emotional ante in the plot.
On the Dresden Verse subplots, they fit. None of that, 'why do I have to read about this turkey or spend time on a flabby subplot'. Jim's subplots fit seamlessly, they are intelligent, and they are vital to the major plot.
Good luck with your writing.
FYI, I do not love excel character sheets etc. I hate them, but I do them. I also track every scene for its value (if a scene isn't adding three items to the overall plot, it gets cut or enriched), and I track every scene for its tension level, which I rate. I want to see that tension increasing. I will also balance and note on the sheet what type of tension I've put in there--action, threat level, character arguments, sexual tension etc.
-
FYI, I do not love excel character sheets etc. I hate them, but I do them. I also track every scene for its value (if a scene isn't adding three items to the overall plot, it gets cut or enriched), and I track every scene for its tension level, which I rate. I want to see that tension increasing.
You make that sound so...Bolero.
-
You make that sound so...Bolero.
*laughing* Thanks for sticking that song in my head now...
-
FYI, I do not love excel character sheets etc. I hate them, but I do them. I also track every scene for its value (if a scene isn't adding three items to the overall plot, it gets cut or enriched), and I track every scene for its tension level, which I rate. I want to see that tension increasing. I will also balance and note on the sheet what type of tension I've put in there--action, threat level, character arguments, sexual tension etc.
I'm not convinced that it always wants to be monotonically increasing, though, particularly if your book is longer than can be reasonable be read in one sitting; there is something to be said for giving the reader and the characters a break between a bad bit and a worse bit, dramtic reversals sort of thing.
-
I'm not convinced that it always wants to be monotonically increasing, though, particularly if your book is longer than can be reasonable be read in one sitting; there is something to be said for giving the reader and the characters a break between a bad bit and a worse bit, dramtic reversals sort of thing.
Are you talking about something like the Big Middle event that JB describes in his writing blog, or something more twisty?
-
a first movement resolution would be nice, even if the movement is not in sonata form?
-
Are you talking about something like the Big Middle event that JB describes in his writing blog, or something more twisty?
Jim's notion of Big Middle would be an example of the kind of thing I mean, yes. I'm also thinking of a couple of books othat do a "build-release-build-release-build-release..." pattern, moving faster between tension and release as they go; Raphael Carter's The Fortunate Fall is a good SF example, though my favourite is I think William Goldman's mainstream novel The Color of Light. (I'm a sucker for books about writers), and a number of things in genre that build to a climax, have enough space after it for things to appear resolved, and then drop you back into greater tension.
-
Jim's notion of Big Middle would be an example of the kind of thing I mean, yes. I'm also thinking of a couple of books othat do a "build-release-build-release-build-release..." pattern, moving faster between tension and release as they go; Raphael Carter's The Fortunate Fall is a good SF example, though my favourite is I think William Goldman's mainstream novel The Color of Light. (I'm a sucker for books about writers), and a number of things in genre that build to a climax, have enough space after it for things to appear resolved, and then drop you back into greater tension.
Hmm, Ill have to check that one out.
-
Would Burgess' Napoleon Symphony be an example of something a bit too deliberately structured?
-
Would Burgess' Napoleon Symphony be an example of something a bit too deliberately structured?
Nah, once it gets past a certain degree of deliberately structured, it's just poetry without line breaks.