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!

[stackcats.livejournal.com]

Flashbacks can be done well, like in the Firefly episode "The Message". Sometimes they irritate me, though. More so in books than TV shows. I'm reading "The Gunslinger" at the moment, and at first the flashbacks annoyed me, but towards the end they get more interesting.

[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.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

What about Firefly's "Out of Gas" or TW's "Fragments" where the flashbacks are backstory but don't really relate to the current plot?

[jadesfire2808.livejournal.com]

Structurally, I don't think that would have worked, personally. We don't know anything about John at that point, so it's confusing rather than interesting.

The kind of thing that does work is when we know something is coming that's apparently catastrophic for the characters, and we want to know how they're going to get out of it. So there's a CM episode (Minimal Loss) that starts with an explosion shown on the news, then goes back three days. For the whole episode, we know something's going to blow up, we just don't know how, what or who. Ditto the SGA episode 'Tabula Rasa' (is that the memory loss one?). In that, not only do we want to know what the hell happened to the characters we love, but the structure reflects their fractured memories. That's what I was trying to do in DiM - the timeline is screwed and the structure reflects that, as well as giving a 'what the hell' beginning that gradually unfurls.

Does that make sense? I can give you examples of when and how this kind of things works (and not just from my own writing ;)) but it's hard to put my finger on *why* it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Mostly because in my head, I can just see that stories that work are like strings of pearls... *slaps synaesthesia upside the head*

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

It seems like a tricky beast, telling a story that way. Much harder to make it WORK, don't you think?

[stackcats.livejournal.com]

Fragments was more of an excuse to deliver the backstories. I enjoyed that episode because the 'now' plot wasn't the important story; the real story was how the team came together. In fact, in both those cases, I preferred the backstory. I haven't seen Out of Gas in a long time, although now I feel like re-watching the whole series :0)

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

ooh, love the icon. Yes, that's a good point- the backstories were a lot more interesting, weren't they?

[jadesfire2808.livejournal.com]

I know my perspective is different because of the way I view stories, but sometimes...sometimes that's how the story needs to be told. If your instinct is that the story isn't working in linear form, then you shouldn't write it like that. If your instinct is that it's not working trying to do flashbacks, then you shouldn't write it like that.

The hardest one like that I attempted was DiM, where I was constantly flicking back and forth to check that my science was in the right place and that relative times were working. Was it hard? Yes. Could I have written it any other way? No.

If you're writing a story with a huge bang (the literal or non-literal kind) near the end, but the rest of the story is fairly suspense free, then having the reader know that things are going to go kablooey at some point is going to keep them on the edge of their seats (potentially). If you can ratchet up the tension as you go, putting the bang at the beginning could spoil everything.

Having parallel story lines is very, very hard to write, but it can really work. It can also pull the guts out of an otherwise strong plot. At the end of the day, you're the only one who can make that call.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I remember the discussions on when and when and how for all the DiM shifts. Yeah- that story probably wouldn't have worked told linearly.

I suppose, that's what it boils down to. You have to tell the story in the manner that will make it work.

[stackcats.livejournal.com]

I have a few of these icons :0)

SGA's "Sunday" irritated me, incidentally. I think most TV programmes muck about with the chronology just to say 'look how clever we are', and that's what bores me. If it genuinely helps tell the story in a more interesting way, or if it's necessary to get in all the details, then it doesn't bother me.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I HATED Sunday for the bizzare timeline way of telling things.

I think you've hit the nail on the head If it genuinely helps tell the story. Genuinely is key. Otherwise, what's the point?

[rustydog.livejournal.com]

"Sunday" irritated me most because it felt manipulative. "How long can we keep you in suspense about who died?" Or maybe that was the SG-1 episode "Heroes parts 1 and 2" I'm thinking of. Or maybe both. Anyway, the story structure was part of the way they achieved that manipulation, and it just felt unnecessary.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Oh yes- it's far too common to feel manipulated. I hadn't pinned down why I disliked it so, but that's exactly it.

[stackcats.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you're absolutely right, it did feel manipulative. Maybe they realised it was a damn stupid story anyway, and tried to jiggle it about so no one would notice?

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

you know, I wouldn't put it past them :)

[stackcats.livejournal.com]

I just Hated Sunday, really.

And yeah, I think that's the key with any plot device. If it doesn't add to the story, drop it.

[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]

I just Hated Sunday, really.

Yeah, there is that. :)

[jadesfire2808.livejournal.com]

It's definitely one of those 'once you know the rules, you can break them' things. If you understand what you're doing when you mess with the structure, you can make it work. As you say above, it's bad when it's manipulative, but if it's geniuinely to add tension, it can really work. I'd say in 'Fragments' and 'Out of Gas', the flashbacks ARE the story - the rest is really just a frame to hang them on, and that's why it works.

In 'Tabula Rasa' it added to the fractured sense of character - once it went back to straightforwardly linear, it actually felt a little watered-down to me. 'Minimal Loss' did it expertly, because you know right from the beginning that there's going to be a huge explosion in the compound. And you know Our Heroes are in there, so it's hanging over you the whole time. Also the rest of the plot is strong enough to support the tension - that makes a difference.

One thing I'd add is that playing with the structure (rather than just inserting back-story flashbacks) is more than just chopping up and rearranging the plot. I don't think it would work to just write the story then shift everything into a different order. Stories accumulate tension as they go, and I think it shows when people have just done it for effect, and when they've done it because the plot genuinely works better this way.

[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?

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

the accumulating of tension is *very* important. Hmm, okay, you've given me a lot to think about, thanks

[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.