Deconstructing novels

[Stable]

I've been thinking of going back through some famous/favourite novels and deconstructing the plots. It might be fun, it might help improve my writing to study the greats.

Has anyone else tried this? Did you get much out of it?

Would anyone be interested in joining in so that we can compare notes and keep each other going? If so what would you like to be on the list to study?

These are the questions/guidelines I've got to use as a starting point (taken from here although I skipped number 1). I'd be interested in any feedback you think is relevant to the questions as well:

1. What is the familiar element of the plot? - What people connect with and understand.
2. What is the unique angle? - Fresh, unfamiliar or familiar with a twist
3. What is the hook? - NB hook is often catalyst of conflict.
4. What is the protagonist's goal, motivation and conflict? - eg. Protagonist wants [goal] because [motivation] but [conflict] prevents him from getting it.
5. What is the protagonist's need vs goal. - Goal usually external, need internal
6. What is the protagonist's story dilema? - If protagonist does x to reach goal x' then y will happen. y is terrible.
7. What is the protagonsist moral code/compass?
8. Examine 4 - 7 for antagonist.
9. What are the turning points in the plot?
10. What is the protagonist's character arc? Can you track subtle changes to their character through the story?
11. How does it end?
    • Happy = Goals and needs all met.
    • Tragic = Goals and needs not met.
    • Ironic = Goal met but need unfulfilled.
    • This list leaves out goal not met but needs fulfilled. Seems like an obvious other category though.
12. Are loose ends tied up or unanswered?
13. Is the core story question answered?
14. Is the ending appropriate to the rest of the story? Why/not?
15. What does the protagonist learn by the end?

Bonus things to look out for:

• Any particular phrases that stand out as amazing writing
• Do you feel differently at any point to what you think the author's intention is? WHy?
• Brandon Sanderson-style character moments. Pivotal character moments - how were they set up to be impactful?

I've had a go at deconstructing Railsea by China Mieville this week as a proof-of-concept. Once I'd read the book going through 1 - 15 took me about 30 minutes. I could type it up if people are interested, but it's in a notebook for now. I'm thinking about what will be on my list, probably keep it to about 1 book per author and try to get a mixture of styles. If nothing else it will be a good excuse to go back through my bookshelf!

 

[The Big Peat]

I've tried deconstructing books by beat, but not by this method. I can't say I found dissecting them by beat very useful but had a lot of success with following the beats while writing something of my own.

I won't be joining you, but I will be following this thread to see what you get from it.

 

[tinkerdan]

Seems a lot of extra work.
I deconstruct with the three act structure

Beginning (hook if you will)
Inciting incident
Struggle or Conflict (often internal)
Peak of act one
Obstacles
Midpoint
Obstacles
Crisis
Peak of act two
Climax
More obstacles (sometimes more conflict)
Wrap-up
End
But I narrow them down as such
::
Hook(does it have a hook?)
Struggle-Conflict(What are the conflicts or struggles and the stakes?)
[Obstacles] (Peak-midpoint-peak} (What are the obstacles and is there a definable midpoint in the character's growth that finally leads to the crisis)
Crisis
Climax
More Conflict-Struggle(revisit-reevaluate conflict and stakes)
Wrap-up and Resolution(Are all the questions answered-threads resolved)
End
::
I'm certain all your points fall into this somewhere--however I would find yours more useful in writing rather than deconstruction of someone else written words.

 

[Stable]

Thanks tinkerdan, that is a bit more succinct! The only point that really took up time was going through the turning points in the plot. That's at least partly because the question is poorly defined (what's a turning point?) whereas your structure specifies plot points to watch for, assuming that the story fits the three act structure. I might try to watch for those points next time I do this.

 

[CTRandall]

Colour me intrigued. I've never done this but I think I'm going to try. I'll have to think aboit which novel I want to try it on.

And does anyone know a good resource describing "beats"? I've got an intuition of what they might be but I'd better do some actual research before I accidentally set my imagination on fire or blow up my latest draft or something...

 

[Stable]

@CTRandall Let me know and maybe I can get a copy and go over it too!

My list of books I want to go over currently includes:
The Goblin Emperor
Prince of Thorns (antihero journey - it may be tough to just do one book from the trilogy as you only get part of the journey)
Something by Brandon Sanderson (maybe Alloy of Law as I've only read the original Mistborn trilogy so far)
Something by Terry Pratchett TBD
Uprooted
Something by Robin Hobb TBD

 

[The Big Peat]

Colour me intrigued. I've never done this but I think I'm going to try. I'll have to think aboit which novel I want to try it on.

And does anyone know a good resource describing "beats"? I've got an intuition of what they might be but I'd better do some actual research before I accidentally set my imagination on fire or blow up my latest draft or something...

I'd love to, if only because that would mean my own grasp of the concept wasn't so bloody tenuous!

But I can't. I'll have a look some time though.

 

[aThenian]

Hah. I did something pretty similar recently with Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People (John Le Carre) focusing on the plots, which are incredibly complex. I think it's an interesting exercise if it's a book you really admire. (I think it was Bernard Cornwell said he started his writing career by doing an analysis of a CS Forrester Hornblower book so he could understand exactly how it worked - and said he was surprised more people didn't do the same).

I've chucked out my notes for TTSS and SP but it was interesting to compare the two books. There's a LOT of similarity in structure. I also concluded TTSS is the better novel in that there aren't any plot holes, while I think SP a little shaky in places; but SP is more exciting with more of a thriller element (and exotic locales while TTSS is mainly Whitehall basements and Paddington boarding houses).

 

[Stable]

@aThenian Shame you don't have the notes still, sounds interesting!

I remember reading a sci-fi novel series on one of the "netflix for books" sites that started up and failed a few years ago, and quickly realised that the author had taken Hornblower and put it in space, with some slightly dodgy reasoning for why the futurenavy copied the disciplinary practices of Napoleonic GB. I thought that was genius in a way, why make your own plot when there's a perfectly good one over there? But it's not plagiarism because spaaaaaace.

 

[Guillermo Stitch]

I do find this a very interesting idea. I will follow the thread and think about a book I could try it with. One concern of mine would be over-formatting the deconstruction. I'd be really interested in finding/learning about/establishing a much more stripped down, open set of criteria for breaking down what a book is doing and how it is doing it (without making that initial assumption that it is doing it within some consensual framework or schema it shares with other work). Not sure what I mean by that yet, but you've got me thinking.

 

[Stable]

@Guillermo Stitch For me the breakdown helps me think of what to look for. If you are more practiced at this kind of thing perhaps a more open, fluid approach would be better. In that kind of a vein I'd suggest looking for the character moments and setup - I feel as though that would cover many of the other points if done well.

 

[Jay Greenstein]

The problem with looking for the magic plot-formula is that while you know what the author chose to have happen, you don't know why the choice between "do this but not that" was made at any point in the progression of that plot. Remember, we see only the finished product. No way of telling the whys of it because we only see the product, but not the process that created it.

While we we might plot a given story, then write it that way, as it progresses any given character—based on his/her background, needs, etc.—may well rebel and say, "No, I wouldn't do that," forcing the author to restructure events and plot to make them want to. We can't know that rebellion happened and caused the author to rethink by viewing the polished and finished product. So, all the analysis we do won't help if we're not in the viewpoint of our own protagonist as we write so as to hear them say, "No!" And if we don't, we'll never know if the protagonist is doing something because our plot says s/he must, or because it makes sense to the protagonist. In other words, knowing how to place the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint so as to involve, not just inform them, matters far more than the plot. Remember, there are only seven basic plots.

Think about it. If our writing isn't interesting enough, and entertaining enough to make the reader want (or better yet, need) to turn the pages they'll never experience our wonderful plot. And if no one reads past page one, all the time spent writing the rest is wasted.

Any plot is made of a series of scenes, in which the protagonist's options steadily reduce while tension mounts, leading to the climax. But if we're not aware of the elements of the scene and how they each work to keep the reader's interest mounting, who cares how good the plot is? No one will see it.

In short...if we know the techniques of fiction, as against screen and stage plays, and, how to structure a novel so as to keep the reader turning pages, plot is easy. After all, you might finish a novel and say, "The plot was only so-so, but I loved the writing." But you will never say, "The writing was lousy but the plot was great."

Hope this helps. Your mileage may differ.

 

[millymollymo]

I've not pulled a book a part to see how it works, I'd rather read a book and marvel at how well an author has kept me in their world. But I do know many who do this.
Reading helps to write whether or not your deconstructing. Many agents advise (some even demand on their query or sub pages) you read something published from the last two or three years.

 

[Stable]

Here's my write up for The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison. Spoilers abound.

Spoiler: The Goblin Emperor Deconstruction

• Familiar elements: Elves are classical pale pointy-ears. Royalty and Byzantine bureaucracies.
• Unique angles: Elves and goblins interbreeding, elves are steampunk.
• Hook: exiled boy suddenly becomes emperor. Must survive court and discover who killed the previous emperor (his father).
• Protagonist (Maia) wants to improve life for all his people because his (dead) mother raised him to care (and it's also a way to honour her memory) but inexperience, bureaucracy and powerful interests are in the way.
• Goal is survival/being decent. His need is for friends.
• Dilemma: can satisfy conscience or powerful people, not both.
• Moral code: all people matter regardless of station.
• Antagonists:
  • want status quo and/or more power, either for its own sake or because they believe it is their right, but the emperor does not react as they expect (ie. they underestimate him).
  • Antagonists needs aren't really covered - we don't see their internal impetus.
  • Antagonists' dilemma is that to get what they want they have to commit treason.
  • Antagonists' moral code/failing doesn't recognise/care about "little people".
• Turning points:
  • Reveal previous emperor's death not accidental.
  • Bodyguards "cannot be your friend".
  • Realises if he can't please everyone he doesn't have to try to please anyone.
  • The assassination attempts.
  • Sending away his former guardian.
• Character arc: Starts timid, apologetic and ignorant. Soon shows some spark when given power. By the end is still apologising, but it's because he believes it's the right thing to do. Has become able to make court work for him and convince others for causes he believes in. Core ideal of decency to all does not change.
• Ending is happy - successful as emperor and in personal life.
• Appropriate ending - protagonist is rewarded for being a good person and willingness to learn his new role.
• Protagonists has learned confidence in self, to make friends and to rely upon (reliable) people.

Spoiler: General thoughts

In terms of character moments the entire novel is basically a set up to make having friends/supporters by the end a sweet victory.

The first time I read this I thought it was genius. It's still a compulsive page turner for me, but now I'm paying more attention the protagonist is disappointing, almost a Marty Stu (I'm making an exaggeration, but not a huge one).

He never makes a wrong move, always treats others well and all his problems stem from external factors, never his own behaviour. Compare this to the last book I read (Railsea) where the MC is constantly making mistakes stemming from his personal issues. Even his main flaw (lack of education/knowledge about the government he now leads) has an external source that is specifically called out in the text (his guardian Setheris) and is fixed by another character with no positive action by the protagonist. The solution just lands in his lap.

By the end of the book all the "good" people love him, despite the fact that he has mostly been reactive and just uselessly following advice from people who know better. It leaves him feeling 2 dimensional rather than an interesting, complicated character.

 

[Plucky Novice]

I've not tried deconstructing a novel myself but I've heard it suggested before. I think it was either in the Brandon Sanderson lectures or the writing excuses podcasts.

I would imagine being able to review how a writer did something might be quite helpful but identifying the tool/mechanism is just half the story (pardon the pun). I think to be useful you have to be able to work out why the author used a particular technique. Only then can you ask yourself why you want to employ it in your writing and only by knowing why will you use it effectively.

So for me it's not so much the what as the why.

 

[CTRandall]

Analysis helps you identify tricks and tools of the trade. Yes, you need to work to figure out why an author used a particular device--consciously experimenting with things in your own writing will help with that as well. Ultimately, though, if you aren't aware of the tools, you'll never be able to use them.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's good to be able to deconstruct the plot of a novel - but never underestimate the storytelling choices themselves. IMO a mediocre plot told well will always do better than a great plot told badly.

 

[Stable]

Yep, I think @CTRandall put it very well - you have to see what's happening before you can figure out why. A few people have pointed out that great writing is more important that plot, I think that goes without saying, but I don't think it absolves us from attempting to improve other aspects of our craft as well. I don't know if it's possible to break down and study great writing in the same way, you just have to read it and write it. If anyone knows a way please enlighten me!

Going through the two books I've deconstructed so far has really pointed out to me the importance of flaws in your protagonist. To be an interesting character I think those flaws have to interact with the rest of the story, they can be overcome, but you need to see the character cause themselves trouble. It also gives me a reason/excuse to sit around and really think about each story and try to come to a deeper appreciation, so that's nice too. I really like how The Goblin Emperor mirrored the pro/antagonists' moral directions, in seeing people as people or objects and pawns, for example.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I don’t see this as a good use of your time. There is no paint-by-numbers approach to writing, however; have you thought of picking up some penguin study note kind of books?

They go into theme, plot, allegory, symbology, character etc. Might find this more helpful.

Just a thought.

pH

 

[Toby Frost]

Has anyone else tried this? Did you get much out of it?

It doesn’t seem like a total waste of time, but not the most useful way of doing it, at least for me. Personally, I wouldn’t bother to put books through this sort of general analysis unless for the fun of it: I’m not sure, for instance, that it is very important to know what the protagonist’s goal is so long as it is clear that that goal is actually present in the book – and it would be an odd work of genre fiction that didn’t have one.

Where it would be more useful, I think, is where a book contained an especially good example of some aspect that merited closer inspection. For instance, the plot in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is interesting, since it basically involves Smiley, by going forward through the book, uncovering the back-story, which is told in reverse by the various people he meets. Each meeting gets him closer to the centre of the conspiracy. So for me, the really important thing is “What particular features of excellence does this book contain? How are they achieved?” The things that make the book only good, or at least acceptable – the characters of the spies, Smiley’s relationship with his wife, etc – are less interesting to me as a writer.