The Elements of Awe, Part III
Donald Maass on May 05 2010 | Filed under: CRAFT
I wonder if the researchers at the University of Pennsylvania who studied why certain articles in The New York Times online are e-mailed more frequently realize that they’ve unlocked for fiction writers the ultimate code: what creates word of mouth. Thanks, guys.
So far in this series I’ve discussed character strength, evoking high emotion, story scale and awe…which is to say, giving the reader (or really, your characters) new ways of seeing, feeling, believing and understanding themselves and the world. Lift your readers out of themselves and they’ll talk others into making the journey. Oh, it sounds so easy.
Yeah, well.
Let’s dig into a subject I glossed a bit: scale. One commenter asked plaintively whether it’s necessary to write a multi-POV novel. Of course it’s not. It’s just that readers respond powerfully to a sense of vastness, a depth and sweep, being transported, journeying far and yet feeling at home. It may be easier to evoke all that with multiple points of view.
Then again, that by itself is not the whole trick. To create a true sense of scale, every characters’ storyline must be equally absorbing.
Last fall I had the privilege of co-teaching day long workshops with award-winning mystery writer Nancy Pickard and best selling women’s fiction author Susan Wiggs. With each, I did a scene-by-scene breakdown of a recent out-of-category novel. For Nancy it was The Virgin of Small Plains; for Susan it was Summer Cottage. Susan’s novel had sixty-four total scenes. Nancy’s is a past/present story told in seventy-three scenes.
But here’s the thing: Both Nancy and Susan each used just three principle points of view. One of those carried most of load. The character Abby in The Virgin of Small Plains had 40% of the scenes; Sarah in Summer Cottage had a little more than 50% of the scenes.
Still, what gave those novels their sense of scale was the completeness and depth of the storylines involving the other characters.
In Susan’s novel, the love interest Will has eighteen POV scenes all to himself and several problems with which to contend, not least of which is his troubled teenage daughter, Aurora, who herself has twelve scenes. In Nancy’s novel, the characters Rex and Mitch both have fifteen scenes. (There are sixteen further scenes from other points of view.)
If this sounds like a simple formula-Hey kiddies, all you need are three points of view, one dominant, two secondary, then write sixty-plus scenes, et voila!-it isn’t that simple. In Susan and Nancy’s books those extra POV characters are highly compelling and their storylines are not simple. No scenes are filler.
So, how do you make sure that a given secondary character has enough storyline to justify their existence and fill a dozen or more scenes? Here are a few steps to get you started:
- For each POV character, ask: As this character sees things, what is the main problem going on?
- Find four major ways in which that problem will get worse. If there are easy and standard solutions to the problem, make them fail.
-
Write out how this character can be completely defeated by the problem…then let it happen on the page.
- For each character, build in a parallel (or reversal) of something happening to the novel’s main character.
- Find three ways to connect each storyline to others, for instance with characters that have multiple functions or places that host more than one event.
Scale may sound like a function of plot elaborateness but it isn’t. Three points of view aren’t that many. Three storylines—how hard is that? What’s hard is making those extra storylines compelling, whole and connected.
Maybe next the researchers will invent ambition pills. We can hope.
Donald Maass is president of the Donald Maass Literary Agency in New York. His agency sells more than 150 novels every year to major publishers in the U.S. and overseas. He’s also the author of several craft books for writers, including the highly acclaimed Writing the Breakout Novel and The Fire in Fiction.
Photo courtesy Flickr’s Wolfgang Staudt






















Thank you for your questions for secondary characters. I think one of my stumbling blocks has been not completely defeating some of the “major” secondaries, which doesn’t allow readers to see how those characters face defeat.
I can see where that would be important, especially for a series secondary character who will be expected to play supporting roles in subsequent books. Thanks again.
.-= RhondaL´s last blog ..Where did they get that name?? =-.
Like?
0
Reading this, I felt like you were sitting across from me and counseling me on my current manuscript!
I am half way through the first draft and writing in multiple POV. One of the things I have been concentrating on this week is pulling apart my three story arcs and looking at them individually – testing them if you will. Now I have some great standards by which to measure them. Thank you!
.-= Rebecca @ Diary of a Virgin Novelist´s last blog ..For the love of words =-.
Like?
0
Scene justification is one of the issues I’m having with a novel that has been under revision for *coughs*longerthanIwanttoadmit*coughs*. The PoVs are all over the place (my last count was 7 different PoVs… or was it 9?), and I’m really scrutinizing now which ones are necessary and which ones I just threw in there for… whatever reason it was, I can’t remember now.
Most of my recent works stick to a single viewpoint or two, three at most. And this wasn’t a conscientious change in technique on my part, it just sort of happened the more I learned about writing and storytelling in general.
Those are some excellent bullet points. I think my favorites are the second and third. Sometimes we fall in love with our characters too much, and don’t want them to see them fail in the short term. But without those so-called failures along the way, there is no reason to keep reaching toward the pay-off at the end.
Great post! :)
.-= Lydia Sharp´s last blog ..Guest Post at The Other Side of the Story =-.
Like?
0
I LOVE knowing the scene breakdown in quantities. It’s not so much that I want to “write by numbers” as that I recently had a math revelation — in a WIP of 28k words, I had 28 scenes! gee… — so it’s good to see that correlation confirmed in other, published books.
As usual, great advice. Thank you!
.-= Kristan´s last blog ..Read-search =-.
Like?
0
Often, when I read, I am terribly disappointed by the lack of depth — and by association, my own lack of awe. Everybody, it seems, is writing (and reading) books that march forward through an action-packed, dramatic-present-only storyline, no matter how many points of view are shown. But what I crave and am not getting from all this is more of what’s going on INSIDE each character’s mind. Not just about the events at hand, but about their meaning and its resonance. I’m sad that contemporary American literature has let this go.
I recently read a fantastic “counter-point” to this trend: The Elegance of the Hedgehog, by French author Muriel Barbery. There is virtually no action — no storyline! — for about 75% of the narrative, which takes place mainly within the two main characters’ minds. It was absolutely delicious to so fully inhabit somebody else’s psyche while reading. THAT, I believe, is true awe.
But I couldn’t help thinking as I read: if this book had not been previously published overseas, it would have never broken into the US fiction market.
And I often wonder when I read the books that have recently broken in: have we Americans, as readers and consumers of culture, confused the depths of awe with the hype of the shock factor, and action?
Like?
0
Sharon-
I’m intrigued by “The Elegance of the Hedgehog”, which I haven’t read. You report that it’s mostly internal yet gripping if not awe inspiring. How do some authors get away with that?
Ah. I recently wrote a short piece on the secret behind telling not showing (you read that right) for Writers Digest magazine–it’s for a fall issue, I think.
Anyway, there’s a technique to it that’s well worth mastering. I’ll make that the subject of a future post here on WU. Thanks for the idea.
Best,
Don
Like?
0
Don, thanks for the reply. I am a true believer in this particular method of showing-not-telling (in all its variations!). I look forward to reading your piece on it in WD and to reading more on this from you in WU!
All best,
Sharon
Like?
0
I find the scene vs POV breakdown fascinating. Since I’m a reader that wants to know what the other guy is thinking and what’s going on in their life, I generally gavitate to books that have more than a single (or even a couple)POV. While I’ve certainly read books that had too many POVs, I generally struggle more with first person or single POV pieces. This has been great, thanks!
Like?
0
Purchased your WORKBOOK yesterday. Still procrastinating, tho. Thanks Donald.
.-= The White Wolf´s last blog ..Experimental Rose Prose Thunder =-.
Like?
0
Just what I needed to read when I needed to read it. After months of resisting, I finally realized the current WIP must have a second point of view to work. Now I have a place to start.
Thanks for another great post.
Like?
0
This is isuch a profoundly timely piece for me. Thank you. I am still reading through, but this sentence struck a very deep chord:
“To create a true sense of scale, every characters’ storyline must be equally absorbing.”
This is exactly the work that I am engaged in at the moment on my novel – thank you for adding impetus to it.
Now to read the other pieces.
Like?
0
Thank you for adding to the wealth of information authors can glean from and use to better their craft.
For me, I sometimes find the story spills out onto the page; (ink bottle tips over, words form, page covered).
When on the nth draft, years later, it gets daunting to review and ascertain that tips like, “Find three ways to connect each storyline…” are being incorporated into the piece of writing.
Yet real story tellers will take the time to scan the manuscript to make it the best it can be.
Thanks again for the words of wisdom.
Daryl
.-= Daryl Sedore´s last blog ..Attitude; Issues for Life =-.
Like?
0
This is pretty timely. My last manuscript had enormous scale and probably should have had multiple viewpoints, but didn’t turn out that well because I was fighting the secondary characters. Your list is really going to help me in revisions! I think letting the characters have their way while using the ideas you’ve posted, especially those that would give the characters depth, will really help the novel come alive. Thanks!
.-= Kristin Laughtin´s last blog ..Literary Orange, Part III (of III): Hosting the Panel, and What Writers Can Take Away from Listening to Those Who Have Already Made It =-.
Like?
0
I love how you said to write a parallel or reversal of the protagonist’s storyline. Makes me think of Pride and Prejudice (Lizzy/Jane), Walk Two Moons (Sal/Phoebe) A Tale of Two Cities (Sydney/Charles), and the movie Slumdog Millionaire. But those are very obvious. I should start looking for more subtle parallels or reversals.
Thanks so much for this great post!
Like?
0
Thank you for your helpful tips. I really appreciate the bulleted points on how to judge whether the secondary characters point of view adds depth.
I’m just a beginner, but I had a secondary character take over a story once. Everyone in my critique group liked his (the villain’s) point of view better than my heroines. When I look back at that story, I can see that somehow I conveyed more depth, and more drama for the villain than I did for my heroine.
Thanks again for showing us the important points!
.-= Tyrean´s last blog ..Dancing, Writing, and Living =-.
Like?
0
[...] Maass mentioned RWA-WF member Susan Wiggs in his recent Writer Unboxed post this week, in which he talked about using multiple point of view to give depth to a novel and [...]
Like?
0