"Confound you, Myth Arc!"

Useful Note: A 'myth arc' is a general term dating from the original run of The X-Files, which describes the over-arching plot / conspiracy that is behind much the main characters encounter, only through an entire series and not just a season, or two or three episodes. It can also be applied to a book series where it may be a plot behind the events. Now that we got that out of the way...

The more difficult thing about writing the sequel to my novel for me is that everything is now planned. My first novel was written 'Stephen King style', which is to say I sat down, began writing and things just fell in place. Although I had an idea where I was going after the first fifty pages I did not plan that well. Fixing some inconsistencies is not that hard and the structure felt natural to most of my test-readers. But with the story in the sequel growing more complex, partially because it was not simple to begin with, and with two different time lines, things are getting trickier. The most satisfying part of experimenting in writing is the 'fractured narrative' and how it reflects the narrator's mind. The more difficult parts have to do with the untangling of the mysteries central to the story's myth arc.

This is separate from open endings or unreliable narrators, where obfuscation is part of the flavour and the reader has to put things together themselves. My first novel ends with a small victory and many mysteries solved, but larger mysteries and driving questions remain for the characters. But its easy to set up a mystery in a grand narrative but choosing the right moment to unknot one has to be planned carefully. If the dialogue, discovery or the tone is slightly off then the reader will not find it satisfying.

Examples; I'm a big fan of LOST, but I think that the final season did a terrible job at unknotting what the authors bothered to explain (the things they chose not to explain is a different subject altogether). Compared to the rest of the series, a series that truly pushed the boundaries of serial story-telling, it was not really satisfying. It could be because of a stretched-out, padded production, or because they did not really know what they were building up to. Or perhaps nothing could satisfy. Either way, it could have been better. A more extreme example is the original series of the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, where budget-cuts and an extremely troubled production meant the animators literally had to throw something together. When the company got around to making a movie that was supposed to wrap everything up they made something somewhat incomprehensible and morally horrifying, though many think it was out of spite to counter the death threats the director received for the series' ending. Congratulations. (I should add there is a tetralogy of movies that's supposed to remedy that, two of which are so far available on DVD). Most of the back story was eventually released through various other means, which is not useful if it has direct bearing on the events but is never relevant to the narrative. These days only think The Lord of the Rings can get away with appendixes. But I digress.

 

The danger I'm dealing with is ultimately to write like I'm connecting dots; like I've been given a list of plot points and must draw lines of prose to make sure they connect. The flow of narrative, information and twists have to feel natural, or else they wont feel like anything at all except arbitrary. A good instance I averted was in one chapter where the stakes of the second novel are laid bare. Despite being important I cut it from the chapter and decided to put the information in much further down. The relaying of the info was too sudden and too convenient, and I think the readers would sense this and object. This cosmetic cut taught made me realize that writers who write multi-layered stories must not be lazy and not just dump things on the reader because its convenient, otherwise you lose them. If you don't care about the plot, your characters wont really care either and neither would your audience.

Division

Not all novels are published as one book. Most famous example would be Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, which is usually called a trilogy despite the fact that it was written as one book. You could argue that is a forced trilogy, as it was published in three books because, as I understand it, it was too expensive to publish it in one volume. More recent we got George RR Martin's A Dance with Dragons, which was also published in two parts. In the end the decision to divide a book is usually based in economics, and occasionally, a publisher's wish to cash in. Which is where my current rewrite comes in.

For about two years, between 2007 and 2009, I managed to write a 350 000 word book despite the fact that many of my up-and-coming author acquaintances saw it as a bad move. Most of them advised me to either shorten it to 150 000 words (which is usually some publishers' limits) or divide it into two books. On the surface this may not seem like a problem. There is a relatively comfortable place within my book where the story can be divided in two but I need not consult Solomon to know that this division would be a bad (if reasonable) decision.

I believe my novel would not be broken if divided into two like some might, but on the other hand I feel the reasons not to are more compelling. One reason is that the book's emotional climax would fall in its second half, thus the second book. Even though there is an emotional climax within the first half as well (a rather devastating one for the main character) it would just make more sense as a whole and thus be more satisfying. Second, the climax proper is in the second half where many of the loose ends are tied up and the mysteries explained. I can easily manufacture a climax for the first half without it seeming tacked on (in fact, I was going to ad it in any case) but again it would not be 100% satisfying to most readers. Most would no doubt shake their fists at me for not resolving much. I do believe that they will care enough for the characters and their problems to read further, and the plots and mysteries should intrigue them too, but on the whole I'd rather give them more than less.

In the end (unforeseeable and undetectable) unless I go for self-publishing, then the division will have to take place. I am rewriting the novel in such a way where it can be done, but I will submit it first to publishers who would be more likely to not ask for it to be divided. It is important to me that my first novel should come out as best as possible and a division would undermine that.