Do you think it's weird not to bring the main character into the story until the middle of Chapter 7? Over 15,500 words into the novel.
The reader knows who the MC is since it's a novel in a series so I guess they would be waiting for him to show up.
Do you think it's weird not to bring the main character into the story until the middle of Chapter 7?
Yes. That said, I don't think I've ever read a book or story like that.
I don't think I've ever read a book or story like that
Me neither, but a lot happens before the MC is called. The alternative is to start it with the MC being called and tell him what led to his being called. Telling rather than showing. Boring. Also, I lot of clues wouldn't be able to be dropped. Or do it in a prologue. Also boring, and many don't read prologues. Or do it with a flashback. I didn't like any of those.
So it is weird, huh? I hope it doesn't turn off the readers. I'm hoping they get engrossed in the story and forget about the MC until he shows up.
That said, I don't think I've ever read a book or story like that.
There was an episode of Dr Who like that, 'Blink', which introduced the Weeping Angels. Dr Who didn't appear until right near the end. I really enjoyed the episode but it felt very weird.
AJ
There was an episode of Dr Who like that,
What part of "read a book or story" did you not understand? :)
Not that this is a book - it's not - but it reminds me of TV shows like 'Poker Face'. The MC never shows up until 1/3 of the episode is over; the first third shows the crime the MC is about to solve.
I can totally see it depending on the story. I can't quickly think of a literary example, but would guess they exist.
the first third shows the crime the MC is about to solve.
That's basically it. Less than a third, but that's the gist of it.
Do you think it's weird not to bring the main character into the story until the middle of Chapter 7
No, but yes, if told from first person POV...
but yes, if told from first person POV...
I almost mentioned that it was not 1st-person POV in my OP. No, it's 3rd-limited.
No, but yes, if told from first person POV...
I have a concept of a story (not sure I ever write it (or anything) actually), with is basically all in close 3rd pow, but there's one or more short interjections in 1st person, from a character that may or not have an active role in the story overall otherwise.
Like, say, the story follows a girl in close 3rd, her explorations and exploits, and what not. But then, while she's skinny dipping in assumed privacy, there's a sudden pow shift with: "I lowered my binoculars..." that then goes into offering an infodump about the greater world the girl may or not be oblivious about, but certainly not immediately stressed with, all while leering at her. And that's it, the story goes back to follow the girl in over-the-shoulder telling of her life. The 1st person character may never be seen again, or even be named. But the reader now knows the narrator is some kind of stalker/voyeur... I'm weird, likely, but I find that insanely hot.
Weird as in unusual? Yup.
Weird as in off-putting? Nope. Especially not in a series that features that character. In fact, in that context, it might just be interesting and engaging for fans.
Good luck!
Weird as in off-putting? Nope.
Depends on the nature of the story.
If it's supposed to be more of a mystery, the reader should only experience the crime through the detective's eyes as they gather evidence.
On the other hand if it's more of a thriller or police procedural, it would be fine.
If it's supposed to be more of a mystery, the reader should only experience the crime through the detective's eyes as they gather evidence.
In the way that most every rule has some exceptions, you may enjoy reading The Murder of Roger Akroyd; it's a Poirot novel and it does some really interesting things with the form of a classic detective novel. It's worth going in blind if you can, so I don't want to say too much about it except that you do not need any backstory about Poirot to enjoy it and it's worth the time to read even if you think (as I do) that Agatha Christie is Not Good at writing mysteries.
Especially not in a series that features that character. In fact, in that context, it might just be interesting and engaging for fans.
I would imagine it might be a poor decision commercially. Imagine playing the first third of a game with your star crowd-pulling centre forward/quarterback sitting on the sidelines.
Didn't Arthur Conan Doyle leave Sherlock Holmes out of the story until quite a long way through 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'? Although that's now a popular classic, I believe readers of the initial serialised form were unimpressed by the early lack of Sherlock Holmes.
AJ
I find long passages without MC to ultimately unsatisfying; but several successful authors made use of such approach. I am still not a fan.
I'm not either, but it's common in detective/thriller and police procedural genres.
The idea is to let the reader/viewer see the crime itself directly.
The idea is to let the reader/viewer see the crime itself directly.
Exactly. And to leave hints about the later twists, although they won't be recognized as hints at the time.
It seems disproportionate for the original crime to take a third of the whole story.
Is the first third written 3rd omni, with the final two-thirds close third? That might be jarring.
Sorry to seem mister negativity - it's your story and you should tell it how you want - but since you asked, it's probably fair to point out potential issues.
AJ
Is the first third written 3rd omni, with the final two-thirds close third?
It's all 3rd-limited. And it's less than a third of the story before the MC shows up.
When googling it, most of the results are forums. I found very few articles on it. But most of those say it's bad. Their reason is the reader gets attached to a character they think is the MC in the beginning only to have the author do a switch on them. And they're talking about a chapter or two, not seven.
But at least one mentioned prologues or what they called chapter prologues. Most said to fill the background in later in the story in bits or use a flashback. The filling in wouldn't have the impact. Either would the flashback.
The only one I remember that might be in my favor discussed plot-driven vs charactere-driven. They said it might work in a plot-driven story. That's what this one is.
The only one I remember that might be in my favor discussed plot-driven vs charactere-driven. They said it might work in a plot-driven story.
The reader knows who the MC is since it's a novel in a series so I guess they would be waiting for him to show up.
The unifying factor of the series is the character. To me, that suggests your story may be more character-driven than plot-driven.
AJ
AJ, maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I think of "character driven" as stories where the action is tied up in the development and growth of the main character(s). On the other hand, just having a central character that is the same in all the books in a series does not make it character drive. See, e.g., James Bond. But, maybe I'm just missing your point.
I think of "character driven"
All good stories require great characters and a great plot (except maybe some literary fiction that doesn't really have a plot).
In my mind, character-driven focuses more on the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist and the decisions they make. In plot-driven, the actions and events are the main focus.
On the other hand, just having a central character that is the same in all the books in a series does not make it character drive.
I think it does. It would be a different story without James Bond. The plots are all rather similar.
But SB is fortunate to have SOL as a testing ground. If he tries it, he'll get valuable feedback from the readers by comparing the story's score with that of the earlier books in the series.
AJ
It would be a different story without James Bond. The plots are all rather similar.
James Bond is the same in every book. What seems to change from book to book are the gadgets Q makes. It's definitely plot-driven.
My novel "The Nymphomaniac" is character-driven. Maybe that's why I wrote it in 1st-person. It's a coming-of-age story delving into the girl's emotions, confusion, exploration, learning, etc. There are many sub-plots as she experiences life, but it's all about the character.
My novel "High School Massacre" is plot-driven. I wrote it in 3rd-limited because I needed more going on in the plot that the protagonist didn't know about. It's not about the protagonist, but about how he solves the mystery and makes the bad guys pay.
James Bond is the same in every book. What seems to change from book to book are the gadgets Q makes. It's definitely plot-driven.
In Ian Fleming's books, try replacing James Bond with Jack Reacher. It doesn't work. Jack Reacher doesn't have James Bond's talents (and vice versa). The plots are based around James Bond's skillset. The books are primarily character-driven.
AJ
The plots are based around James Bond's skillset. The books are primarily character-driven.
Yeah, but those skill sets are the same in all the books. Bond's personality is the same in all. He thinks the same, acts the same.
Bond's personality is the same in all.
Not any more, that's why I specified Ian Fleming's books. Some of the authors who wrote later Bond stories under license have allegedly written their own protagonists into the role. That's a problem with finishing or continuing another author's work - it's very difficult to keep the characters true to the original author's representation.
AJ
Not any more, that's why I specified Ian Fleming's books.
Those are the only ones I read (when I was a teenager). I didn't know other people wrote James Bond books.
But the point is: What's driving the story? James Bond's feelings, emotions, etc. or the action and events he gets into? The former is character-driven, the latter plot-driven.
But the point is: What's driving the story? James Bond's feelings, emotions, etc. or the action and events he gets into? The former is character-driven, the latter plot-driven.
To me, it's never that simple. I would tend to agree that Bond stories are more plot-driven than character-driven, but if one changes the character, the plot will necessarily change. The way Bond reacts to external actions and events drives feelings and emotions and causes him to react in certain ways. If it was someone else, they would react differently.
Mind you, that's always the case, but short of totally 'inner mind' story, external actions and events will always be the thing that causes a character to react. On the other hand, a different character would react differently.
It's not all or nothing, it's 51%/49% or maybe 60%/40%. That's probably why this discussion quickly gets frustrating - one person sees the balance to one side, the other sees it to the other.
AFAIK Fleming only wrote, maybe, the first half-dozen 007 novels, then the movie producers started having other "authors for hire".
And they weren't the first or only publishers or producers to do so.
Doc Savage, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Perry Rhodan, Mack Bolan (and spin-off's), Casca, the numerous serial "adult-westerns, all had writer teams.
The Star Wars "by George Lucas" that came out around Christmas-time 1975 ... ghost-writen by Alan Dean Foster, who worked as a screen-writer, yet still had over 100 novels, mostly SF, of his own published ...
Some current "Best Sellers" authors ... really aren't.
MD
Oh, I agree, and each writer brings a slightly different view of who 'the characters' are.
Still, most of the Bonds are recognizably 'James Bond' from a high-level view, as are the various Hardy Boys et al. Nancy Drew has a significant evolution compared to the others, mostly because what worked for girls decades ago would be laughable now.
I don't have any problem with alternate writers picking up series that are (not an exhaustive list): 1) fairly 'generic' (most of the ones you mention count) in terms of book-to-book connections, etc, 2) books that never had 'an author' per se, but were always under a pseudonym that doesn't correlate one-to-one with an author, or 3) the author is named on the book (as Alan Dean Foster was, I'm pretty sure).
On the other hand, an author who starts a series but then 'subcontracts' later volumes to ghostwriters while trying to hide that feels like they're doing something wrong.
3) the author is named on the book (as Alan Dean Foster was, I'm pretty sure).
Actually, it wasn't ADF, but George Lucas on the cover. (I still have the paperback in one of my storage boxes.) This was about 6 months prior to the movie premiere in late May. As much hoopla about the upcoming SW movie in April and May, I never tied it in with a SF book I read a half-year before ... until I realized I was anticipating the plot, earning me an elbow to my ribs from my girlfriend, and glares from nearby seatholders. FWIW, ADF was one of my favorite authors at the time, and I hadn't known he was working in the film industry until later.
James Bond's feelings, emotions, etc. or the action and events he gets into?
James Bond's feelings and decisions, definitely.
We both agree character and plot elements are important to James Bond's novels. Where we disagree is about which one is slightly? more important.
AJ
which one is slightly? more important.
Not more important. They are both important.
It's when the author sits down staring at a blank screen. What are they thinking about? A plot or a character. Which will drive the story?
Will the author have an idea about a school kid being bullied and write a story about him? Or will the author have an idea about robbing a Las Vegas casino and write that story?
I feel like it's not something we can adequately answer without seeing an outline. Generally speaking, as a reader I'd likely get irritated, but there are always exceptions. Just be prepared for your beta readers to tell you to cut way back if it just doesn't work.
I was looking at RoyalRoad to see if 4064 had posted a new chapter and noticed this ad for some other story there. It was along the lines of:
I'm not introduced until chapter 24, but I'm worth it.
along with a picture of the character in question.
I'm not introduced until chapter 24, but I'm worth it.
Doesn't sound like the protagonist, though.
Not sure, the advert changes every time and I never actually looked at the story it was advertising.
Wes Boyd's "Dawnwalker" introduced the MCs in Chapter Two. Chapter One was all about one of the secondary characters and a minor figure who became more important in later books. I'm not sure if that story was ever on this site (or Finestories), but if it was it is long gone now.
I'm not sure if that story was ever on this site
Well, the series name (Spearfish Lake / Dawnwalker) is a pretty big clue
Probably not, but it may depend on whether it's a multi-POV character book or part of a larger series. It's not that unusual in fantasy to introduce a character late in the first book, or even a later book, and yet have them be instrumental to the plot of the series overall.
George R R Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series does this a lot, with characters first appearing as non-POV and becoming POV in later books. Other series that do this a lot are Terry Brooks' "Shannara" series, Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series, and Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series.
Granted, all of these started in the 1990s or earlier. The style may be fading out, but my genre tastes have changed in the past few decades so I'm not sure.
A lot will depend on how it is done and if we're talking about a book with several point-of-view characters, one of which gets more page-time than the others or if the seven chapters are some sort of issue.
While not super common, this isn't that unusual in certain genres, especially high-concept science fiction and fantasy. Spending several chapters building the world before introducing the protagonist helps the reader to understand the stakes better, especially if the protagonist starts as a fairly generic character (eg, a farm boy).
This is also fairly common in mysteries and police procedurals where the book starts with the crime and the suspects before bringing in the detective. There's no point for great detective to show up before a crime has been committed, but once it has they steal the show.
where the book starts with the crime and the suspects before bringing in the detective.
Yep, that's what it does.
Thanks, I feel better.
Of course, it could also start with Watson answering the door when somebody is there asking for Mr Holmes. Or maybe the police detective calling Dexter to come and analyze the blood spatter around a murder scene.
Of course, it could also start with Watson answering the door when somebody is there asking for Mr Holmes.
That's a difference in the nature of the story. The Sherlock Holmes stories are detective/mystery, a who done it.
Part of the appeal of it is the reader trying to solve the mystery before the book gets to the big reveal.
So for that kind of mystery, you want the reader to see the crime clue by clue just as the fictional detective does.
For a detective/thriller or police procedural, it's different.
For these two, while you can let the reader see the crime only through the investigator's eyes, it's not uncommon to show the crime up front. It's not meant to be a who done it.
So for that kind of mystery, you want the reader to see the crime clue by clue just as the fictional detective does.
Arthur Conan Doyle was notorious for not mentioning things his detectives later used in evidence :-)
AJ
And I would say that shifts the story more into 'thriller' or 'procedural' ('brilliant detective procedural?').
For a real 'mystery,' I think all of the evidence necessary to reach the correct conclusion (and rule out incorrect conclusions) should be present by the time the character solves the mystery. Intentionally hiding key evidence from the reader is cheating.
Or maybe the police detective calling Dexter to come and analyze the blood spatter around a murder scene.
It's not a mystery. It's a thriller. The beginning of the story is what happens to get the protagonist involved so that he can save the day.
It's not a terrible or weird idea at all as long as you don't go completely screwball with it.
For example start the story outside of the MC's viewpoint as a sort of introduction to him
my personal favorite is the example is the movie "the hunted."
The only real problem is if you take too long with it...
outside of the MC's viewpoint as a sort of introduction to him
It's an introduction to the plot, not the MC. It's the 4th book in a series so people should know the MC. That was one of my concerns. Imagine someone reading a new James Bond novel wondering where James Bond is.
