Plot Timeline Structure

[donutsweeper]

Some stories start with a literal 'bang' where the build up/explosion/argument is shown and then the story backtracks to show how the characters got to that position and leads the reader back to the event and past it.  Other stories start at the beginning and move chronologically in order.  Occasionally, a story will jump around between two points main event points (sometimes one being told in flashback, sometimes not).  And so on and so forth.[Poll #1346977]Is there one that annoys you?  One you prefer? Oh great and brilliant Flist let me know what you think![Poll #1346977]

Comments

[stackcats.livejournal.com]

I like linear, to be honest. I'm put off when a story opens on something big, and then goes on to 'ten hours earlier' or whatever. This is probably because I like a good surprise ending more than anything.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

In general, that's my preference as well. There's a tv show that I want to like that has every episode like that and it just bugs me.

What do you feel about flashbacks? When they're separate from the main plot of the story?

[jadesfire2808.livejournal.com]

For me, it all depends on the source material and the nature of the story. If the idea is to unravel a mystery, or for the two timelines to highlight things about each other, then I like it. I've used it a few times (Difficulties in Mathematics, Vegas) where I wanted to keep the reader off-balance or I was playing with time or character.

Criminal Minds has done it a couple of times and it's worked. 'Fragments' did it, and it worked. I think it's one of those make it work kind of things - you can do anything, as long as you do it well!

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I did the two separate timelines thing in my bigbang because the story of then had to be explained slowly to highlight the story of now.

But, what about the start 3/4 of the way through and then back up and tell the whole thing - i.e. If "KKBB" had started with the confrontation in the morgue and John handcuffing himself to Gwen precredits and then after the credits rolled we see the blowfish scene. That sort of thing.

[rustydog.livejournal.com]

I agree with Jades - I think it depends on the story. Some stories will be most effective in a non-linear format. But my instinct is that linear should be the default; only go non-linear if it *needs* to be told that way. It can be overdone, and when it's unnecessary, it shows. Also, there's the question of whether the author can do it *well*. A mediocre story told linearly is just a mediocre story; a mediocre story in a non-linear form could be incomprehensible. Does that make sense?

So I don't think I have a preference, it just depends on the story and the writing. It's an interesting thing to experiment with!

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Perfect sense.

I tend to write linear, but I was looking at my two long (10k+) stories and both have flashbacks- the TW/SGA Pants!verse where the story goes along, there's a flashback to explain how Jack's there, and then the story continues. and my bigbang, which has the two separate but related stories in the two time-lines going on.

And now I'm looking at starting my new bigbang and trying to figure out how to slip in the needed info. *gah* Why do I come up with complicated ideas?

[nakeisha.livejournal.com]

Really, I find it depends on the story - some stories simply have to be non-linear to work and some just write themselves that way.

Overall if push comes to shove I prefer A to B to C, etc.

But one thing I really tend to hate is when we have one chapter (scene) in A then we go to R then back to A then back to R than back to A then back to . . . You get the picture? Because I find I just get into one bit and we go whee back to another. That really drives me mad (er, well madder than I am) and I tend not to like it in TV shows either - although just occasionally the latter has worked.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I suppose any style, no matter how unusual or bizarre, can work if done correctly. But it's a big 'IF,' isn't it?

I do understand what you mean about A-B, R-S, B-C, S-T style. It's hard to get invested if the plot is broken up like that.

It seems that, as a default, most people seem to prefer A to B to C unless there are valid reasons for it not to be.

[awanderingbard.livejournal.com]

For me, there is nothing I love more than reading a book that starts with a bang and then connects all the dots along the way. I love that moment when you realize just how everything connects together. Flashbacks can be used in a similar manner (the book "Holes" by Louis Sachar uses it to great effect). A to B to C is fine, but that spine-chilling moment when you put the pieces together is so cool to read.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Ah, that's a good point. The big bang can be used to ratchet up tension and draw you in immediately if done well.

[unfeathered]

Linear for me, please!

Stories that dart about all over the place in time just for the sake of trying to develop some suspense annoy the hell out of me. The suspense works the first time round, but that's it and I'm not likely to read it again.

On the other hand, it can of course be absolutely amazing if done well, so I wouldn't dismiss it completely out of hand.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Oh, now that's a good point that I hadn't considered- once you've read it there's no longer any suspense so if that was what was driving the story along (the tension, the wondering over what's going to happen) there's no reason to reread. Thanks.

[aeron-lanart.livejournal.com]

Any of those are acceptable as long as the story draws you in. I tend to write linearly and I think that is what I prefer, but I'm also a sucker for flashbacks which isn't really surprising seeing as I cut my 'modern' fannish teeth on Highlander: the series where flashbacks to a previous time were an integral part of the story. I've done the flashback thing myself in a HL crossover - present time story happened on ST Voyager, flashback was to Tudor times.

I think the starting dramatic moment can be annoying, but likewise can work very well if handled right. CJH dying at the beginning of a fic and then finding out why he was in the situation (again) is something that I have seen used, and done well too.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I think nearly anything is acceptable if done well. That's a good point about Jack though- killing him can be a grabber (that came out wrong, but you know what I mean)

[k-haldane.livejournal.com]

Usually I write linear. I have had stories that just wouldn't come to life, however, until I rearranged the sections. The best example recently is Phoenix (http://k-haldane.livejournal.com/145945.html#cutid1) , where the timeline was my beta's idea, although the decisions about where and when and how big the flashbacks were was all my work.

And I didn't start with the end, but with the middle, so there's still a "what happened next?" element.

My work or somebody else's, the answer for me is "it depends". These devices exist because they fulfill a need, but any device can be used badly.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

IT depends seems to be the most common answer. :)

[snakewhissperer.livejournal.com]

i love linear. I hate flashbacks, but what i hate even more is jumping around. I used to like highlander but the flashbacks annoyed teh crap out of me. Keep me in suspense already!

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Jumping around too much can be annoying *nods*

[tejas.livejournal.com]

It all depends on the story, she says who has written all sorts of timeline stuff. ;-)

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

that's very true. Any manner can be done amazingly well. Or incredibly crappy

[travels-in-time.livejournal.com]

I like linear, but sometimes a story needs to be told in a certain order for a specific reason. In that case, I like it. But I've read stories that were told all out of order, or backwards, for no reason that I could see--it didn't add anything to the story, just made it more confusing. Sometimes I think people do this just to be "edgy" or jump on a bandwagon or something.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have definitely read some of those- look, they scream, I can be clever! *shakes head* no, not quite so much...

[lizz-112.livejournal.com]

I said "Begins with big dramatic moment M and then backtracks to A and makes its way back to M and beyond" but only when it's done well and makes sense.

If I dont know what's happening, then I'll just stop reading. But if it's in a certain order, and works with the story. I like it.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

done well and making sense is key. *nods*

[rabecka.livejournal.com]

As a general thing, I like linear, especially with longer stories. That's cause I tend to get involved in the story, and having it jump jars me out of that.

Having said that, the fact is that I'd much rather have an interesting story, told by a good writer, that jumps in any direction, than a mediocre linear story. Of course, a story like that needs a good writer to pull it off. And yes, luv, that means you. Charming the Pants off the Pashahads is one of my favorite stories ever, and it's not linear...

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Most people seem to be leaning towards linear, depending how the story needs to be told. Thanks for the opinion!

[mad-jaks.livejournal.com]

*admits to getting confused as soon as you introduced the letter M*

I am fonder of a big bang moment than a straight forward start at the beginning chronological unfold than anything. How the story is framed around that, whether it's lots of small flashbacks, or one jump back to the beginning, I'm not too bothered as long as I can follow the thread.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I wasn't sure how to describe it. So you like to jump in when there's a moment of suspense and action and then backtrack to discover how the story got there?