on writing (II)

As could have been suspected, I haven't yet written the last two chapters of Act 2. Ams read through Act 2 with quite a few pointers; she liked it, but she agreed with me that there were areas of concern. I'd already had these areas of concern written down, and Amanda basically confirmed my suspicions. In light of this I've been doing a lot of thinking regarding the style of the story, wrestling with different things like present-tense story-telling versus past-tense; story-driven plots versus character-driven ones; the nature of the three-act story having to be tweaked in light of the nature of serial novels. Lots and lots of thinking, lots and lots of note-taking, lots and lots of purveying different pieces of literature (both mine and not mine) in the attempt to piece together the best possible route for this sort of story. These are things that always need to be taken into consideration, and as the scope of this multi-volume project becomes evident in my mind's eye, I'm thinking the original route--something akin to Chuck Paluhniuk's mode-of-writing--should be discarded. At this point I'm thinking about doing what I did with the 2010 remake of "36 Hours" (a remake which has done surprisingly well, *almost* redeeming the success of the original). 

Being a fan of paradoxes, the question "Past tense or present tense?" can be answered, "Both." Likewise, the question of "story-" or "character-driven" storytelling can be answered, "Both." How so? It looks something like this: not one but two story-lines, one focused on the past and one centered in the present. The difference in narrative style between the two helps to both feed and differentiate the different story-lines. The past story-line is, specifically, the story of the zombie pandemic of 2011-2015 (I literally just now came up with those dates; they'll probably be tweaked). The present story-line is the main character's reflections on those events in a different time and place where all this has become integrated into the national psyche. 

The Zombie Pandemic: A History. The bulk of the story will be focused on the actual pandemic. Each novella's broken into three acts, each of which fits into a chronological retelling of the story, each act with its own over-arching and embedded story-lines. The technical details involve past-tense story-telling, a cleaner and more precise prose, story-driven rather than character-driven. The biggest conflicts aren't those things raging in the main character's head but those raging in the world outside him. While not a total tossing-out-the-window of characterization, the focus is shifted from the character's interpretation of the world to the character's activities within that world. This might be the best fit for this part of the book for several reasons: quicker, more fast-paced story-telling that's action-oriented and descriptive rather than reflective and contemplative. This "reflective" story-telling can become a trend for a person like me, slowing down the story in a literary morass of psycho-babble and incoherent contemplations spreading eight pages (something I'm guilty of doing; I need to save that shit for the blog). With this mode of story-telling, I'm freed from that burden and able to steer around it, keeping the action chugging along rather than becoming a muddled mess. And, ultimately, focusing the attention on story developments rather than character developments would be a good maneuver. It's like that cryptic rule: "Know your audience." And let's be honest: most people who like reading zombie stories are the sort who want a good zombie story, not an analysis of the character in the midst of it. This doesn't mean the character will be dry and static but that, within the actual story, the over-arching focus isn't on that. 

Fifteen Years Later (Give or Take). The present-tense story-line will be the place where I can divulge my little fits of fancy when it comes to reflecting on the cognitive responses to a zombie pandemic and the manner in which that affects our worldview and, thus, our modus vivendi (manner of living). This is, honestly, the most fascinating thing about a hypothetical wide-spread zombie outbreak. The tale of the pandemic, told in past-tense, will be from the main character's perspective as he looks back on those events and goes through them, digging through the horrors of his past to try and find some sort of meaning in them for the present. It is, essentially, what we do all the time without knowing it. The technicalities of this part of the story are that it's told present-tense, with much more reflection on the events and how they've affected the main character as well as his world, and this is character-driven rather than story-driven. 

I came up with this technique of two plot-lines (and by "coming up with it" I mean thought of it; I'm sure it's been done before) a few years ago, and I found that it worked amazingly well with the "36 Hours" remake. The remake's success, coupled with readers emailing me about the style, has reinforced my conviction that such a two-pronged plot-line can be successful so long as the two story-lines remain integrated. What this means is that the present story-line isn't some shot out of the dark but the direct and natural result of the events which transpire in the zombie pandemic. Everything in the present-tense story-line must be in harmony with what's come before; and not only that, but the present-tense reflections on the events must be evident in the events themselves, so that continuity is achieved. It's a pretty big bear to wrestle, but it's like Rob Hoos, in that it's a good bear to wrestle, and even when you've been defeated, there's sort of a victory there (if only because you got to wrestle with Rob Hoos). All this is tentative in the sense that I haven't yet fully decided on a route to go with the story (in the sense of its literary style), but I'm going to play around with it for a bit and see how I feel (and what others think).