How do you decide or what are the warning signs that there is two stories in one.

[anthorn]

We've heard it from Brandon Sanderson. We've heard it from others. When writing a novel he has sometimes found one part of that book, whether a character, idea, scene, landscape does not work, and is immediately transferred into another where it does work. I.E the Way Of Kings and that other novel I unfortunately can't remember. You know the one.

So how do you decide or what are the warning signs for you that you have or at least have the potential for two books from one book?

For me, at least I think for me, at the moment, although I'm wondering whether or not it's just me not wanting to subconsciously commit to a book. Is when you have two groups of characters heading to one place for different reasons but could easily be the same reason. Two characters heading from a southern nation, one to marry the King and then murder him, and the other to make a business deal.

 

[goldhawk]

The external conflict of a story is the protagonist dealing with injustice of some manner. The internal conflict is them dealing with an identity crisis of some manner. If you have two of either, the story won't work. Split one off into another story.

 

[Cathbad]

"warning"? I'd think a story-within-a-story would be a good thing?

 

[Ihe]

The external conflict of a story is the protagonist dealing with injustice of some manner. The internal conflict is them dealing with an identity crisis of some manner. If you have two of either, the story won't work. Split one off into another story.

I'm not so sure about that. You can have more conflicts of either type, as long as there's a hierarchy in place and a thematic coherence. Otherwise, what'd be the point of subplots?

I am at a crossroads concerning a possible WiP at the moment which deals with this same issue. I have a rich story with multiple options for the major plot, but since both would need to be the main plot, I'm battling diminishing one over the other, or splitting them into two different stories.

The warning point for me is when the main plot becomes overly layered and complex beyond its initial design (of course, usually it's outliners who would realise this before it's too late). This can be evidenced by multiple potential major plot points at roughly the same quartile of the story, all of them being equally necessary to drive and understand the plot (when one first plot point isn't enough, for example). That could imply there might be another intrusive plotline intertwined within the main story, one too big to share the spotlight.

Having several main storylines running in parallel dilutes the impact and development of all of them and can diminish reader connection and lower stakes (ie: if one plotline nears/ends in disaster, the reader can simply change focus to the other more hopeful plotlines. It gives the reader a way out, IMO, which doesn't help the immersion and the reader never commits. Obviously, there can always be exceptions to this, etc etc (as can be the case in stories with multiple viewpoint characters, but even this has a limit).

 

[sknox]

If you take elements of Story A and write Story B, and then are able to publish both, then you had two stories. Otherwise, you had a muddle.

I can *always* see other ways to take Story A. I have wagon loads of Stories B. The only question is whether actually to write one or more of them, or go with the dozen of other Stories A I have on back burners.

 

[DelActivisto]

I think it depends on what the writer wants. I had several different magic systems in my story when I started. It just didn't make sense, and I had magic revelations about every 10 pages instead of being able to focus on development and plot. So I tossed a few of them out and might use the ideas in different stories.

 

[J Riff]

I've had a character barge in and wreck the story, or at least change it to where it gets dropped into the WIP pile never to be seen again.

 

[DelActivisto]

I've had a character barge in and wreck the story, or at least change it to where it gets dropped into the WIP pile never to be seen again.

I hate it when they do that. No consideration whatsoever, ya know?

 

[The Big Peat]

I was working on an idea recently where I realised that the middle of the book arc basically needed to be a book in its own right. I simply couldn't build it up then resolve it in a sensible manner in the allotted page space. I could have let the book become two or three books, but I didn't want to do that, because I thought the core concept was better suited to one book.

That was and usually is my warning sign. If I can't do justice to that part of the story, or that character, in their allotted space, then that's a different story.

Incidentally, I still don't have a solution there. I need to go back to the drawing room with that book.

What's really annoying is I think I might be doing it again with my latest idea.

 

[tinkerdan]

For me it was when each of my acts of a three act story could be easily split into their own three acts that I realized I was jamming too much into one story. the hardest part of that decision is that that leaves some plot threads rather thread bare in places until the reader reads all three books.

 

[CryptOfCthulhu]

When too many side plots begin to pop up and I know that I either need to remove the excess and move on, give them to another character for another book, or change the outline and thus the length of the overall story to fit them all in.

 

[sknox]

When too many side plots begin to pop up and I know that I either need to remove the excess and move on, give them to another character for another book, or change the outline and thus the length of the overall story to fit them all in.

The trick, of course, is learning to recognize how many is "too many" and even what a side plot looks like. Then the even trickier trick is the removal, an operation that would make the nerve of a brain surgeon quail. To me, it's like trying to remove a set of figures from a tapestry, thread by thread.

 

[CryptOfCthulhu]

The trick, of course, is learning to recognize how many is "too many" and even what a side plot looks like. Then the even trickier trick is the removal, an operation that would make the nerve of a brain surgeon quail. To me, it's like trying to remove a set of figures from a tapestry, thread by thread.

This is why I like to outline using a "connect the dots" method. Big dots for major plot points and small dots between each to break them down into smaller events. I do this to try and keep a logical progression where cause and effect is concerned. If I remove something I'll most likely have to tweak things a bit to reflect the change.

 

[DelActivisto]

The trick, of course, is learning to recognize how many is "too many" and even what a side plot looks like. Then the even trickier trick is the removal, an operation that would make the nerve of a brain surgeon quail. To me, it's like trying to remove a set of figures from a tapestry, thread by thread.

I'm sorry, but I really don't want a quail working on my brain.

 

[sknox]

No, no, you misread that. The brain surgeon quail would only work on quail brains, obviously, so long as they had the nerve to do so. They would do so because plot threads had become embedded in the poor bird brain. Rich bird brains could afford human surgeons. Or was that sturgeons?