No, I'm not talking mathematics here. I'm speaking of the notion that all stories, especially those of certain genres all follow a formula or pattern. My somewhat rhetorical question is whether or not all stories have to contain specific elements or contain those elements in specific places within the book?
Why do I ask?
A couple of months ago I entered my first book in a literary contest. (The entry consisted of the first chapter, a portion of the second, and a two page synopsis.) Recently I received the judges' scoring sheets from the preliminary judging. And yes, one judge in particular "tore" it up rather well. Naturally I was quite dismayed at his/her reaction, but I also wonder if it might be indicative of things I need to look at and possibly correct.
Without going into detail, it was suggested that my opening chapter(s) were more of a prologue to the actual story. Secondly, the one judge noted that my protagonist didn't have any defined long range goal. And because I had entered it in the Mainstream category, and because the story migrates to a more fantasy oriented setting, one remarked that such a change could be troubling to a reader who had obtained it to simply read Naval Adventure.
At this point I want to assure everyone that despite the somewhat harsh criticism levelled at my work, I am not devastated or angry. I am a little disappointed, but I do see a certain level of validity in the judges comments. At the same time, I've received critiques and comments from judges in other contests, as well as agents and other impartial and professional readers who have responded much more favorably. That tends to make me think that it is more a matter of opinion rather than there being anything essentially flawed in my writing.
Now back to my original question. It seems that many of the "how-to" books and classes on writing set everything up by a formula. It's almost as if all the writer has to do is plug his own characters, setting, and story line into a pre-existing layout. Does a book have to follow that layout to be good? Does a protagonist have to have an over riding goal at the very start of the story? Is there room at the beginning for the reader to simply get to know, understand, and hopefully like (or sympathize with) the protagonist? Does a writer have to jump write right into the primary story, or is he allowed to develop the "why" and "how" of "why" and "how" the central character becomes involved in the primary story?
I suppose I'm asking or wondering about this, because I do see a validity to the recent comments and criticisms I've received. If I eventually determine that it is a big enough deal, I'll have to do some restructuring of the book. Perhaps it needs to start at a later point and have the portions leading up to that point interleaved into the plot as back story. That way, I believe the primary goal could be made clearer, earlier in the book. However I personally do not like to use a lot of flashback sequences, and in revising the story earlier even eliminated many that I did have. (A couple of my very early first readers found them to be a little confusing.) Quite honestly, I would prefer to not make any big sweeping changes to the story. It's basically told in a straight forward chronological order, and I'd like to keep it that way. I'd rather not jump into the middle of it and then move forward and bounce back to ensure that all essential elements are included.
That's probably it for today. Maybe some tomorrow, but don't count on it. Time now to go to a meeting of the little writer's group I belong to here in Spokane. Coincidentally we will be discussing chapter 9 of BEYOND THE OCEAN'S EDGE. ( A last minute thought! If anyone would like to read and evaluate the story, e-mail me at daveeva@comcast.net Then we can make arrangements to send the story to you for evaluation. I might also be convinced to read and evaluate something of yours as well.)
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
vespican) wrote,
contemplative
