![]() |
| From www.goodreads.com |
First up is Beautiful Malice, by Rebecca James. The story is told in three different time periods, and, unless I'm mistaken, two are in the present tense. What is surprising is that I was never confused as to what place in time I was in each time it switched. I think this is partially because each time period had a distinct set of characters that didn't overlap, and the subject matter of each was very focused. The middle time period covered the most ground in terms of length, while the past and present portions were very focused.
Also, despite all of the changing in time I never felt overwhelmed by backstory. The past was told when it was necessary to inform the rest of the story, and always just enough to move it forward but little enough that the persisting questions kept me hooked.
![]() |
| From www.elizabethnoblebooks.com |
I think that this easily could have made what was a great concept and good writing unapproachable, but it worked. In my opinion, namely because the novel didn't belong to any one character. I wasn't more attached to one sister over the other, and each of their independent stories strengthened the common, unifying plot line - life after the death of a mom/wife.
Now I don't know that I'm going to be trying to do either of these any time soon, but as I read these books back-to-back I was reminded of something that is both an incredible and frightening aspect of writing - there are no rules!
This fits in well with a quote I just re-read:
Imagine Milton enrolling in a graduate program for help with Paradise Lost, or Kafka enduring the seminar in which his classmates inform him that, frankly, they just don't believe the part about the guy waking up one morning to find he's a giant bug. - From Reading Like a Writer, by Francine ProseJust because something is difficult, rarely done, and advised against doesn't mean it is impossible to do well, which is why I think it's helpful to consider how it has worked in other writing. Now I don't think we should all go crazy and have ten narrators in a single story, but I think we should follow our instincts. Get creative. Take a risk every once in awhile.
What's the biggest risk you've ever taken in your writing? What books have you read that successfully did something risky?




3 comments:
I sometimes wonder about the "rules" we hear about. Authors like J K Rowling, Stephanie Meyes, George Orwell, Simone Elkeles, and Nora Roberts (my all-time favorite author), just to name a few, shouldn't have ever been published given the number of "rules" they violated. I think it just proves that sometimes, the general reading public is not as concerned about some of these "rules" if the story or the characters are engaging enough.
Well, there's an old german adage that kind of goes with this:
"Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regeln" -
losely translates to "Exceptions prove the rule". That's true for publishing as much as for the rest of life.
All those editors/agents/publishers have to set up some kind of system (i.e. rules) because the system would otherwise break down. Imagine having three hundred manuskripts to go through in a month...you really need to have a system or you'll lose it completely.
The few that break those rules, those are strong enough to break through that system, to reach out to whoever is reading it and touch them in some way.
Let's hope we can be that powerful in our writing.
These are good points. I agree, there are definitely rules in the loose form of the word, but they are by no means binding - so I give many props to people who successfully break them!
Post a Comment