>Theme
>symbols
>plot
>characters
>prose
>structure
How do these intersect to form a cohesive whole? It seems the best fiction has all parts working together, especially in support of theme.
I know there's still some good effort posters out there.
You are asking a massive question and you don't really seem to understand what those are. Structure is how all of those work together, structure defines how each is used and how they relate to the whole.
good question, doubt there's anyone intelligent enough left on this board that can explain all that. maybe try a writing craft book. "aspects of the novel" is really good.
Think of a theme that speaks to you. Juggle vague story elements in your mind that make a compelling story with that central theme. I.e. the concept of sacrifice, or redemption, or loss and a plot that explores that theme in a fulfilling way. The characters and structure follow from there when you get a general idea. Prose is just the ability to convey information in your own style that isn't annoying, confusing or boring which takes experience and talent.
Pretty simple when it’s put that way. I guess the difficulty’s in the execution.
>simple in theory, difficult in practice
All artistic endeavors, btw.
Infinite Jest is the first novel that really stuck out for me for it's structure: the flipping back and forth between characters as well as the moving forward and backward through time. I read somewhere it was supposed to be based on one of those triangles-inside-triangles-inside-triangles that I can't remember the name of, but ended up changing somewhat. I think if he had structured it as a straightforward narrative from point A to point Z it wouldn't have been near as engaging.
Sorry, I don't have anything to add to the rest of your question.
probably felt he had to top v. and gr by making an even more complex structure than theirs
He did not make a complex structure, it was simple enough that he could break it in the final draft without harming anything other than structure despite the novel relying on it. Wallace separates plot and structure which greatly simplifies things, unless you are a plotgay attempting to figure out IJ. Wallace moves his complexity over to theme, mainly the depth at which he explores theme.
Sierpiński Gasket. It is more proper to say structure is influenced by it, as you zoom in you gain detail but in the case of IJ you also get the bigger picture. He sums it up in CT who seems to loom up on you and recede at the same time.
What’s CT?
Initials, Charles Tavis.
> one of those triangles-inside-triangles-inside-triangles that I can't remember the name of
Fractals?
Have you read it in order? It loses almost all its effect that way. Pretty amazing how he knew where best to place each scene for maximum effect despite the myriad cast of characters and non-chronological unfolding of time.
>Have you read it in order?
What I mean by that in case it's not clear is reading each scene in the chronological time that it occurred rather than going from page 1 to 1000 (or whatever). So for example the opening of the book would be the last section read.
For years I have been threatening to do some threads on analysis, IQfy has slowed down enough that we probably could do it now. I will put some thought into it, feel free to throw around some ideas/hopes/desires for such a thread. In past months I have been seing more and more anons putting in the effort to try and not just reduce it all to a thumbs up or a thumbs down, might be time.
Plenty of writers have written on the craft of writing
the plot and characters need to lend themselves to the overarching themes you want to convey, they need to be in the ballpark or juxtaposed to it
i seriously dont know how to write with that stuff in mind at all to me its all high school english stuff that doesnt really mean anything to say. i dont mean that in a pretentious way. but i just kind of write. i guess its bad, but it would still be bad if i tried to work that stuff in too
It's no different from painting or architecture or music composition & Performance. If you need to have the elements and terrain arrayed before you set to work - rather than improvisation (required a much higher resolution Idea/Image - then outline thoroughly. e.g. 70 notecards, 70 scenes = a film script Callback counterpoint, stealthy foreshadowing-- these things make for something rereadable.
peak lit thread. OP posts Hemingway whose plots are like "I was here. Then I was there. Then something happened. Now I'm here" and the response is about Infinite Jest which is completely non-linear and arguably has a structure which doesn't matter at all to the reading. Imagine Sun Also Rises but it's told in the manner of IJ. It would just be schizobabble. (I mean, to be fair if you're aiming for schizobabble go for it). It's almost like you should maybe consider the performance you want to do for the audience youre aiming for and go from there. if the only way to do a coherent narrative was either Hemingway or DFW then there would be like less than 100 books.
You don't even know what structure is.
Plot is a structure but it does not have to be the structure the novel is built on and a novel does not need a plot. A novel's structure can be pretty much anything, simple example, decide on a theme, outline how you will explore and develop that theme and then write the story around that outline, theme is now the structure.
not a bad take.
>a novel does not need a plot.
midwit take. a novel will have a plot of some kind no matter what. if it didnt it isnt a novel or a story by definition.
>midwit take. a novel will have a plot of some kind no matter what. if it didnt it isnt a novel or a story by definition.
Why? So far your case is a dimwitted argument at best. Only way you can support your case is by being uselessly reductive and saying there is always a plot even in plotless novels.
>there is always a plot even in (claimed) plotless novels.
this is quite literally the point my thickheaded midwit. define plot, look at dictionary definitions, then try and fail to do mental gymnastics for your original argument.
So your point is to pretend to be smart, got it.
theme>characters>structure>plot>prose>symbols
this is how you write a novel
prose>character>theme=structure>plot>symbols
how is plot different from structure?
Plot=content. Structure=form.
Plot: A story about a guitarist who tells you about his life.
Structure: Divided into 3 sections:childhood, adolescence, adulthood.
How do I cope with the fact that any story I think of essentially just boils down to a series of events? I feel like I have the need to say something whilst simultaneously having nothing original to say. The more I think about each individual story premise, the more it boils down to cheap genre fiction in my mind.
Plot should be something the expounds or give opportunity to explore the theme, characters should be involved and challenged by what happens in the plot, prose should be connected with the mental state of the character or perhaps some other way, symbols should be associated with character/events, etc., and structure...I don't know, somehow reflective of the theme I guess, just chop the story up if you want some cool structure like Pulp Fiction.
All that matters is prose and theme. Even characters don’t matter, just look at most of Pynchon’s stuff.
Surely at least some semblance of plot is important? Theme has to be examined through the lens of the events that happen
There will always be a semblance of plot but theme can be explored completely removed from plot. Trout Fishing in America has a very simple structure, we have one symbol and what it symbolizes is unknown, we will reuse that symbol over and over and see what happens to it with each chapter using it in a different way and chapters having little if any connection with each other beyond the symbol. Theme would be exploring our relation to symbols and what that says about us. We have no plot here and theme is explored through the symbol and its evolution.
If we try an analyze it through plot things get wonky quickly, we can treat it as a framed narrative with the symbol being the frame or as a short story cycle and we can analyze each chapter and thread by their own plot but it doesn't really work because the symbol becomes meaningless in isolation and plot on the chapter level is often just as absent as on the book level.
So we follow the symbol is it moves through ever changing contexts and watch how its own context evolves and changes and grows accumulating meaning which it carries into each new context it gets thrust into.
Good points, anon. I haven't read that or any Brautigan yet so I can't comment, but if you've read One Hundred Years of Solitude I think that was closer to what I meant. Even though the plot is pretty thin the themes of the book get expounded (over and over) by the actions of the characters.
>Even though the plot is pretty thin the themes of the book get expounded (over and over) by the actions of the characters.
Right, I was going to the extreme to show how structure can be built off of any literary devices and function completely independent of plot to the point the writer can remove plot. But the semblance of plot will always remain because we have to assume plot and pay attention to events and try to structure them or risk ending up lost if the author pulls all the random events together into a plot later in the novel.
> just look at most of Pynchon’s stuff
Picturesque, memorable, soulful. Not exactly the best example of characters not mattering.
>Even characters don’t matter, just look at most of Pynchon’s stuff.
True, although in his later books he at least tries some semblance of character
It's hard to explain how. The last book I read that would be a truly great example of modern notions of symbolism and structure would be Niels Lyhne (relatively short book, recommended by people here). Generally when you read an ambitious book, it should give you a self-contained view of the world that can be more or less easily mapped onto the world. The structure of a narrative is just the movement from the more simple elements of its picture to the more elaborate ones (usually the first chapter is a microcosm of the entire work). The symbols are just the moving parts of the story, but usually don't map onto elements of reality themselves. Prose is just the window-dressing to evoke the necessary emotions in the reader. It should reflect the picture it's conjuring, but it's not usually the relevant part of the work by itself.
It’s not trivial, you can’t just start with a good abstract and make a good story. A really great book is rare we just tend to read those first and get spoiled.