Fantasy Novel Prologue

Christine Wheelwright

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
899
Location
Oh Canada!
I'm really not sure about this piece. It is intended as a prologue to book two of a trilogy (the first book already written). Therefore it refers to two events that the reader may already be familiar with, along with a third that leads directly to Chapter 1. I worry that this may be somewhat overwritten (pretentious even?). Opinions welcome.

_____


History, it can be said, is understood through the study of great events; battles, conquests, the destruction of nations, deaths, perhaps murders, and chance encounters that would later have profound results, even while they appeared inconsequential in the moment. Perhaps much can also be learned from the quieter periods, when realms were stable and peace prevailed. But such times are less well recorded, for it is strife and conflict and glory and despair that fascinate. And, indeed, throughout history there have been many such events, as any proud scholar will gladly tell you. But if, reader, you wish to challenge a great historian - perhaps one who has become smug in her wisdom - you should ask the following question. Was there ever a time when three such events happened all at once, in three different places, the protagonists knowing nothing of each other and with no apparent connection, leastways until later? It is a difficult question, is it not? But I will give you three such instances now, as a prelude to this story. And, yes reader, perhaps I wish to impress you with my knowledge, although I have never considered myself scholarly. But every author wants to be thought of as wise - every author craves the respect of her readers.

I will take you first to a castle by the Detz river where a stricken king lies dying in his bed. His physician is sent for and attends him in the bedchamber where family and courtiers have already gathered. This king has not been injured in conflict; his reign was peaceful, we can at least say that for him. Rather he is afflicted by illness and now lies gasping in pain, eyes wide, devoid of recognition when his ministers attempt to address him.

The physician leans close and detects an odor as his nose passes the old king’s lips. It is unmistakable! This man does not die a natural death! But now the monarch’s daughter, observing these actions, puts an arm around the healer’s neck and rests her head upon his shoulder. It is an act of affection - is it not? - to a well-loved servant of the royal family. Why, he even guided the girl into the world, twenty summers earlier; a difficult birth, by all accounts. But in this moment, rather than taking comfort from the princess’s embrace, the physician senses a chill in the room as she whispers to him, “I suppose his heart is weak. It is common among men of his age, is that not so?”

The captain of the castle guard stands close to the healer. Too close! He is a large man. The lover of the king’s daughter, so they say, or her plaything at least.

The physician makes a show of examining the king, prodding him, looking at his eyes and mouth, listening to his chest. At last he speaks to the room. Yes, it is his heart. Yes, the king will soon die.

And now, reader, let me take you eight days ride to the west. Here, outside the realm of the dying king, stands the City of the Goddess. It was the center of a great state once, ruled by a despotic queen, now long deposed. In recent summers the power of this matriarchal republic has waned, but still it survives, bordered by northern tribes with whom it shares an uneasy alliance. At the heart of the city sits the Temple of the Goddess, the tallest and most magnificent structure in the known world. And here, on the same day that the poor physician attends his dying master in the castle to the east, on the eleventh day of the raven, in the fourteenth year of the Republic - as the Chronicle of the Temple will record it - a barbarian princess confronts the High Priestess in her state room. And what is the cause of this confrontation? The Temple has lately been keeping a young man of the north as a slave within its walls. And what of it? The Temple has many such slaves, it is well known. Those who hate the Goddess will shake their heads and murmur at the depravity of the priestesses. Others, perhaps more charitable in their opinions, will shrug; does a woman who has devoted her life to the service of the Goddess not deserve to be kept warm on a cold night? But this time the Temple has gone too far! The keeping of a northern man is against the treaty that binds republic and tribes together. The visitor is angry, but the High Priestess charms her; come, sit and have wine, an honest mistake has been made. The princess is satisfied, but when she leaves she takes the boy with her.

Yes, reader, you may know something of these happenings. They have been recorded in earlier stories. The princess in the castle, soon to be queen, is Zantina. The boy, you say, is surely Tak. Or Taneric the Great, as he is known to history. Or perhaps you prefer the name Taneric the Heretic if you are a follower of Wodh. It makes no difference to me, reader. I am merely here to tell you what transpired in those days. Make of it what you will.

For our third great event we must again go east. But this time much much further than the castle on the Detz river. To a land that neither Taneric, nor his rescuer Kasmine, nor Queen Zantina, nor even the priestesses, with their ancient knowledge, can know anything of. There, on the very same day, a great emperor gazes across a green valley where morning fog is beginning to lift. He stares at the army of a rebel general. He was once loyal, this rebel, this traitor, this ‘Khan’, as he now declares himself. But now the lands are in rebellion, the governor in chains, his family enslaved, the garrison slaughtered. And so the Emperor himself has travelled north to face the Kahn, to defeat him and restore order to the empire. But he has miscalculated! Who could have known? The army that faces him is enormous. Other provinces have risen up and joined the Khan - he can see their flags - and they have cannon, many of them, appearing only now as the mist dissipates.

The Khan sends envoys to the Emperor with generous terms. He does not seek surrender. Instead, the army of the empire may leave the field, unimpeded, never to trespass upon these lands again. The Emperor’s advisors plead with him to accept. After all, can they not return the following summer with a stronger army, doing all that is possible to undermine the enemy’s alliances in the meantime? There will be no disgrace, at least none that cannot be erased by later victory. But their entreaties are met with silence. Reader, say what you will about this Emperor; that he is a despot, that he is cruel. But do not say he is a coward! He waves his advisors away, decreeing that the envoys be taken to the plain between the two armies and, once there, crucified.

And so, reader, I have guided you most elegantly to the beginning of our story, have I not? I told you that I crave your attention. Perhaps you will read on, curious to see what happens next. What is that you ask? Did these events really occur on the same day in history, so many leagues apart? Well, I like to think so. Close enough anyway. Grant me a little license and I will make the story of Taneric, Zantina and the Emperor interesting for you. You ask about Priestesses Hanja, Ashala and Ruta? You ask about Peto, Kamhet and others? Yes, they are here too, in these pages. Would I deprive you of them so early in our story?
 
Thanks @Christine Wheelwright , I can't give you a proper breakdown critique. There was a thread some time back about this 4th wall style (tried to find it but failed). I like it, and think it works in small doses -and I think it does here.
History, it can be said, is understood through the study of great events; battles, conquests, the destruction of nations, deaths, perhaps murders, and chance encounters that would later have profound results, even while they appeared inconsequential in the moment. Perhaps much can also be learned from the quieter periods, when realms were stable and peace prevailed. But such times are less well recorded, for it is strife and conflict and glory and despair that fascinate. And, indeed, throughout history there have been many such events, as any proud scholar will gladly tell you. But if, reader, you wish to challenge a great historian - perhaps one who has become smug in her wisdom - you should ask the following question.
I think you might get away with leaving this out so the prologue gets straight down to business.
And what of it? The Temple has many such slaves, it is well known.
The query and return works but I found it a bit on the heavy side -possibly this one could be trimmed.
have I not?
I don't think this is needed.

I'm no expert so take the above as random unqualified internet musings.
Great work, and well done on getting to book two. (y)
 
Thanks @Christine Wheelwright , I can't give you a proper breakdown critique. There was a thread some time back about this 4th wall style (tried to find it but failed). I like it, and think it works in small doses -and I think it does here.

I think you might get away with leaving this out so the prologue gets straight down to business.

The query and return works but I found it a bit on the heavy side -possibly this one could be trimmed.

I don't think this is needed.

I'm no expert so take the above as random unqualified internet musings.
Great work, and well done on getting to book two. (y)

Thanks for the comments. I'm thinking the whole prologue is redundant. This is really a wider question for me, as I seem to divert into this kind of writing three of four times in each novel. I'm not sure if it's an example of breaking the 4th wall, but I address the reader directly and dump info, provide context and historical background which would otherwise be difficult to integrate into the narrative. But I've had negative comments from otherwise happy readers. Sometimes they seem confused about what is going on in these chapters.
 
I have to confess that this didn't grab me at all. The opening paragraph was particularly -- and unnecessarily -- verbose and convoluted, leading to confusion, and the voice immediately came over as pompous and affected, by someone who thinks rather too well of herself, and it only got worse as it went on (and on... and on...). So if this were designed as coming from a specific, identifiable narrator who is bombastic and conceited, you've done a good job with characterisation! However, I'd be reluctant to spend much time in this person's company, and I'd only read further if (a) I was convinced the author knew what she was doing, and there was a good reason for the narrator to be like this and delivering this monologue at such length (probably unlikely, though, if I've picked up a book by a new writer with no proven track record) and (b) the narrator's appearances in the novel were very few and very far between.

Having read your response to ARU, it does look to me that this isn't a named narrator at all, but you as the author breaking the fourth wall. Frankly I'm therefore not surprised you've had negative comments about it, since as written it's more of a hindrance than a help to the story.

If you find yourself defaulting to this inflated style, I wonder if subconsciously you are looking for a narrator who is telling this story to someone. That could work, but you'd need to make it clear what is going on -- ie an historian who has pieced the story together from rare mansucripts and legends/folk tales and is now regaling her students with her findings -- and adjust these prologues/interludes as necessary. In effect, you'd be creating a frame story. But to my mind there needs to be a reason for a frame -- otherwise what's the point of having one? -- so it would be best if you could also turn it into part of the main story in some way. (For the kind of thing I mean, have a look at the serial I did for Kraxon last year which has an unidentified storyteller beginning and ending each month's tale, with the final story making things clear. The Tale of Shir Shaheen and the Caravanserai - Kraxon Magazine)

If the idea of a frame story doesn't appeal, then my advice is to drop the baroque style altogether. If you think you need a prologue etc then just relate whatever is necessary in plain prose and in particular avoid addressing the reader and asking rhetorical questions. Though actually I don't think you do need a prologue here. To my mind you'd be better off using this as a "Previously on..." page with a summary of what happened in book one to get new readers up to date and then something like "On the same day, hundreds of leagues to the east..." and either leave it there or very briefly fill in what's going on ready for Ch1 (most of the heavy lifting of the history for that episode ought really to come from the POV characters reflecting on the situation there.)

Sorry I can't be more enthusiastic about this piece. Good luck with it whatever you decide.


EDIT: As a by-the-by, you might be interested in a piece Dan Jones put up last year which to my mind shares some of the same issues you're confronting here, with a prologue and a cerebral narrator, though in his case there is (he assures us...) a good reason for it 3000th post! Something from the WIP
 
Last edited:
I have to confess that this didn't grab me at all. The opening paragraph was particularly -- and unnecessarily -- verbose and convoluted, leading to confusion, and the voice immediately came over as pompous and affected, by someone who thinks rather too well of herself, and it only got worse as it went on (and on... and on...). So if this were designed as coming from a specific, identifiable narrator who is bombastic and conceited, you've done a good job with characterisation! However, I'd be reluctant to spend much time in this person's company, and I'd only read further if (a) I was convinced the author knew what she was doing, and there was a good reason for the narrator to be like this and delivering this monologue at such length (probably unlikely, though, if I've picked up a book by a new writer with no proven track record) and (b) the narrator's appearances in the novel were very few and very far between.

Having read your response to ARU, it does look to me that this isn't a named narrator at all, but you as the author breaking the fourth wall. Frankly I'm therefore not surprised you've had negative comments about it, since as written it's more of a hindrance than a help to the story.

If you find yourself defaulting to this inflated style, I wonder if subconsciously you are looking for a narrator who is telling this story to someone. That could work, but you'd need to make it clear what is going on -- ie an historian who has pieced the story together from rare mansucripts and legends/folk tales and is now regaling her students with her findings -- and adjust these prologues/interludes as necessary. In effect, you'd be creating a frame story. But to my mind there needs to be a reason for a frame -- otherwise what's the point of having one? -- so it would be best if you could also turn it into part of the main story in some way. (For the kind of thing I mean, have a look at the serial I did for Kraxon last year which has an unidentified storyteller beginning and ending each month's tale, with the final story making things clear. The Tale of Shir Shaheen and the Caravanserai - Kraxon Magazine)

If the idea of a frame story doesn't appeal, then my advice is to drop the baroque style altogether. If you think you need a prologue etc then just relate whatever is necessary in plain prose and in particular avoid addressing the reader and asking rhetorical questions. Though actually I don't think you do need a prologue here. To my mind you'd be better off using this as a "Previously on..." page with a summary of what happened in book one to get new readers up to date and then something like "On the same day, hundreds of leagues to the east..." and either leave it there or very briefly fill in what's going on ready for Ch1 (most of the heavy lifting of the history for that episode ought really to come from the POV characters reflecting on the situation there.)

Sorry I can't be more enthusiastic about this piece. Good luck with it whatever you decide.


EDIT: As a by-the-by, you might be interested in a piece Dan Jones put up last year which to my mind shares some of the same issues you're confronting here, with a prologue and a cerebral narrator, though in his case there is (he assures us...) a good reason for it 3000th post! Something from the WIP

Thanks Judge. That confirms my feelings, more or less. The entire prologue is dispensable, and the story begins in a more conventional style with chapter one. I think a narrator might work well in some cases, but not when the narrator is the author (as in this case). The narrator should be a character in the book (written in the first person), perhaps speaking of events that were not directly experienced or witnessed.

And thanks for the links. I will take a look.
 
Hi Christine

I gotta say, I like this. There is a few short sentences, a few ! points, that I would suggest removing, and some paragraph separation, and a few tweaks, but overall...I really enjoyed this. I will do a straight fwd editing soon, without too many explanations, as I'm sure you'll figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Hey Christine! Good for you for posting something here. I've only ever done it a few times, in my eight years on the Chrons.

My feelings about the prologue would mirror TJ's. It's the bombast that distracts, instead of drawing me in. And I'm not sure about a prologue being so self-aware. The questions (14 question marks, I think) and exclamations (I think 7 exclamation marks) don't pull me in, they don't engage me as a reader; the reader is even addressed, a fourth wall thing, as ARU mentioned - 8 times. That didn't make me feel more intimately connected to the narrator, but rather pulled me out of the story a bit. It felt very old-fashioned to be addressed so directly; it didn't set the tone for me as I think - maybe - you were hoping it would. Or maybe it mirrors the tone from the first book, and someone who's read that first work would be more familiar with it all.

Your Challenge entries are so efficient and clever, without the extraneous verbosity of this opening. I know you are a good writer. I'd look forward to reading an opening from you that is more streamlined than this prologue. I hope that is the sort of thing you've been wondering about with this piece, and best of luck with this second book, CC
 
I'm really not sure about this piece. It is intended as a prologue to book two of a trilogy (the first book already written). Therefore it refers to two events that the reader may already be familiar with, along with a third that leads directly to Chapter 1. I worry that this may be somewhat overwritten (pretentious even?). Opinions welcome.

_____
So a // means new paragraph. [ ! ] means remove exclamation mark

History, it can be said, is understood through the study of great events; battles, conquests, the destruction of nations, deaths and murders of kings and queens; and chance encounters that would later have profound results, even while they appeared inconsequential in the moment. //
Perhaps much can also be learned from the quieter periods, when realms were stable and peace prevailed. But such times are less well recorded, for it is strife and conflict and glory and despair that fascinate. And, indeed, throughout history there have been many such events, as any proud capable scholar will gladly tell you. But if, reader, you wish one day to challenge a great historian - perhaps one who has become smug in her wisdom - you should ask the following question. Was there ever a time when three such events happened all at once, in three different places, where the protagonists know nothing of each other , not even their names? and with no apparent connection, leastways until later? It is a difficult question, is it not? [ best not to ask such a direct question and offer an answer which may be perceived as the wrong answer. It weakens the Narrator's authority, way too soon] But I will give you three such instances now, as a prelude to this story. And, yes reader, perhaps I wish to impress you with my knowledge, although I have never considered myself scholarly. But every author wants to be thought of as wise - every author craves the respect of her readers.

I will take you first to a
Upon his deathbed, in a castle by the Detz river Detz lies a stricken king lies dying in upon his deathbed. His physician is sent for and attends him in the bedchamber where family and courtiers have already gathered. This king has not been injured in conflict; his reign was peaceful, his subjects prosperous and benign towards their sovereign. we can at least say that for him. Rather Yet he is afflicted by illness and now lies gasping in pain, eyes wide, devoid of recognition when his ministers attempt to address him.

The physician leans close and detects an odor as his nose passes the old king’s lips. It is unmistakable. [ ! ] This man does not die a natural death! But now the monarch’s daughter, observing the physician's actions, puts an her arm around the healer’s neck and rests her head upon his shoulder. It is an act of affection - is it not? - to towards a well-loved servant of the royal family. Why, he that same loyal servant even had guided the girl into the world, twenty summers earlier; a difficult birth, by all accounts. But in this moment, rather than taking comfort from the princess’s embrace, the physician senses a chill in the room as she whispers to him, “I suppose his heart is weak. It is common among men of his age, is that not so?”

The captain of the castle guard stands close to the healer. Too close. [!] He is a large man. The A lover of the king’s daughter, so they say, or her plaything at least.

The physician makes a show of examining the king, prodding him, looking at his eyes and mouth, listening to his chest. At last he speaks to the room. Yes, it is his heart. Yes, the king will soon die.

And now, reader, let me take you eight days ride to the west. Here, outside the realm of the dying king, stands the City of the Goddess. It was the center of a great state once, ruled by a despotic queen, now long deposed. In recent summers the power of this matriarchal republic has waned, but still it survives, bordered by northern tribes with whom it shares an uneasy alliance. At the heart of the city sits the Temple of the Goddess, the tallest and most magnificent structure of all known kingdoms in the known world. And here, on the same day that the poor distraught physician attends his dying master in the castle to the east, on the eleventh day of the raven, in the fourteenth year of the Republic - as the Chronicle of the Temple will record it - a barbarian princess confronts the High Priestess in her state room. And what is the cause of this confrontation? The Temple has lately been keeping a young man of the north as a slave within its walls. And what of it? The Temple has many such slaves, it is well known. Those who hate the Goddess will shake their heads and murmur at the depravity of the priestesses. Others, perhaps more charitable in their opinions, will shrug; does a woman who has devoted her life to the service of the Goddess not deserve to be kept warm on a cold night? But this time the Temple has gone too far! The keeping of a northern man is against the treaty that binds republic and tribes together. The visitor the princess is angry, but the High Priestess charms her; come, sit and have wine, an honest mistake has been made. The princess is satisfied, but when she leaves she takes the slave boy with her.

{Yes, reader, you may know something of these happenings. They have been recorded in earlier stories. The princess in the castle, soon to be queen, is Zantina. The boy, you say, is surely Tak. Or Taneric the Great, as he is known to history. Or perhaps you prefer the name Taneric the Heretic if you are a follower of Wodh. It makes no difference to me, reader. I am merely here to tell you what transpired in those days. Make of it what you will.} [THIS IS CONFUSING. TWO STORIES PROCEED IT. BOTH HAVE A PRINCESS (THE CASTLE AND THE CITY) BUT ONLY ONE HAS A BOY - THE CITY, NOT THE CASTLE.]

For our third great event we must again go east. But this time much much further than the castle on the Detz river. To a land that neither Taneric, nor his rescuer Kasmine, nor Queen Zantina, nor even the priestesses, with their ancient knowledge, can know anything of. There, on the very same day, a great emperor gazes across a green valley where morning fog is beginning to lift. He stares at the army of a rebel general. He was once loyal, this rebel, this traitor, this ‘Khan’, as he now declares himself. But now the lands are in rebellion, the governor in chains, his family enslaved, the garrison slaughtered. And so the Emperor himself has travelled north to face the Kahn, to defeat him and restore order to the empire. But he has miscalculated! Who could have known? The army that faces him is enormous. Other provinces have risen up and joined the Khan - he can see their flags - and they have cannon, many of them, appearing only now as the mist dissipates.

The Khan sends envoys to the Emperor with generous terms. He does not seek surrender. Instead, the army of the empire may leave the field, unimpeded, never to trespass upon these lands again. The Emperor’s advisors plead with him to accept. After all, can they not return the following summer with a stronger army, doing all that is possible to undermine the enemy’s alliances in the meantime? There will be no disgrace, at least none that cannot be erased by later victory. But their entreaties are met with silence. Reader, say what you will about this Emperor; that he is a despot, that he is cruel. But do not say he is a coward! He waves his advisors away, decreeing that the envoys be taken to the plain between the two armies and, once there, crucified.

[And so, reader, I have guided you most elegantly to the beginning of our story, have I not? I told you that I crave your attention. Perhaps you will read on, curious to see what happens next. What is that you ask? Did these events really occur on the same day in history, so many leagues apart? Well, I like to think so. [You can't suggest an unreliable narrator this soon, or imo, at all in this particular approach. But definitely not at the beginning.] Close enough anyway. Grant me a little license and I will make the story of Taneric, Zantina and the Emperor interesting for you. You ask about Priestesses Hanja, Ashala and Ruta? You ask about Peto, Kamhet and others? Yes, they are here too, in these pages. Would I deprive you of them so early in our story?] This entire paragraph is dodgy, needs a rewrite. You've set the situation up well, so why start questioning your own creation, esp so soon?
You mention that this Narrator may also become or is an actual character? Not sure that would work, as it distances the reader from the events. However, as a means of INTRODUCING the worldscape and the main threads/ protagonists, I think it has real value.
There are issues as it stands, and I've gone through them above. What I like is the sense of the landscape, and protagonists of an epic are shown very quickly, and in an is easy to absorb way. Two princesses is a problem though, so you need to differientate between clearly, and the fact that they are of two different kingdoms, which took me a second reading, as 8 days from th city to the castle suggested two princesses within the same kingdom to me - even if those 8 days are walking days!
 
Last edited:
Thanks Judge. That confirms my feelings, more or less. The entire prologue is dispensable, and the story begins in a more conventional style with chapter one. I think a narrator might work well in some cases, but not when the narrator is the author (as in this case). The narrator should be a character in the book (written in the first person), perhaps speaking of events that were not directly experienced or witnessed.

And thanks for the links. I will take a look.
So, italic bit. The Narrator in a work of fiction, is a framing device. The narrator's function here is to introduce the events ( like in Dune, the novel, kinda) and that's it. They may well introduce each chapter or main section of a novel, and usually they close the novel, but not always. If they do, it's definitely a framing device.
Narrator as character, is a whole different animal. That's first person POV of an actual character, who will often EXPERIENCE the events around them. Think Catcher In The Rye, the most famous example, because the narrator was 'unreliable'. This narrator, is not the same as the 'introducing' narrator/ aka a framing device, as the 'introducing' narrator is not directly affected by the events within the novel.
So...worth knowing the difference.
 
Hey Christine! Good for you for posting something here. I've only ever done it a few times, in my eight years on the Chrons.

My feelings about the prologue would mirror TJ's. It's the bombast that distracts, instead of drawing me in. And I'm not sure about a prologue being so self-aware. The questions (14 question marks, I think) and exclamations (I think 7 exclamation marks) don't pull me in, they don't engage me as a reader; the reader is even addressed, a fourth wall thing, as ARU mentioned - 8 times. That didn't make me feel more intimately connected to the narrator, but rather pulled me out of the story a bit. It felt very old-fashioned to be addressed so directly; it didn't set the tone for me as I think - maybe - you were hoping it would. Or maybe it mirrors the tone from the first book, and someone who's read that first work would be more familiar with it all.

Your Challenge entries are so efficient and clever, without the extraneous verbosity of this opening. I know you are a good writer. I'd look forward to reading an opening from you that is more streamlined than this prologue. I hope that is the sort of thing you've been wondering about with this piece, and best of luck with this second book, CC

CC, yes this style is something of a departure for me. Usually my prose is more direct and economical. That's why I was unsure about this piece and decided to open it up to critiques. The intent was to remind the reader of timelines (from the first book) and to introduce a third setting (which forms the basis of the second), while trying to impart a sense of epic adventure within the reader. I've lapsed into this style one or twice before and been roundly slated for it. I still think it can be done, but it needs a high level of skill and a change of POV.
 
CC, yes this style is something of a departure for me. Usually my prose is more direct and economical. That's why I was unsure about this piece and decided to open it up to critiques. The intent was to remind the reader of timelines (from the first book) and to introduce a third setting (which forms the basis of the second), while trying to impart a sense of epic adventure within the reader. I've lapsed into this style one or twice before and been roundly slated for it. I still think it can be done, but it needs a high level of skill and a change of POV.
Just needs some thinkin', reflectin' n rewritin'...is all.
 
I like this. It is very old fashioned but I think you know this.

I sometimes have what I can only term an existential crisis when it comes to narration. Modern style likes to have the experience as immersive as possible, as supposedly this is more realistic.

However, I think there is something to be said for this kind of framing, like the idea that you are reading a chronicle, and you can almost picture the narrator sitting there putting the story down. I have always loved Dracula for a similar reason. The story is told through letters written between the protagonists. Is it less immediate, or does it actually make the story feel more real, as if you have stumbled upon a secret history no one else has.

George RR Martin did this with Fire and Blood, I love it there. Perhaps he did not go as old school as your example, but you always get the sense of the old Archmaester who we are supposed to believe wrote it
 
I like this. It is very old fashioned but I think you know this.

I sometimes have what I can only term an existential crisis when it comes to narration. Modern style likes to have the experience as immersive as possible, as supposedly this is more realistic.

However, I think there is something to be said for this kind of framing, like the idea that you are reading a chronicle, and you can almost picture the narrator sitting there putting the story down. I have always loved Dracula for a similar reason. The story is told through letters written between the protagonists. Is it less immediate, or does it actually make the story feel more real, as if you have stumbled upon a secret history no one else has.

George RR Martin did this with Fire and Blood, I love it there. Perhaps he did not go as old school as your example, but you always get the sense of the old Archmaester who we are supposed to believe wrote it

I also like the idea of a character narrating the story in retrospect, perhaps as an elderly person looking back. I'm thinking here of Robert Silverberg's A Time of Changes where the protagonist hides in a hut in the desert, struggling to get his story on paper before the authorities inevitably capture him. I missed this by a mile with my prologue - but it could be fixed.

It is interesting you should mention Dracula. Later in the novel, a unit of the Emperor's army takes the 'capital' of the North - little more than a village, deserted by the inhabitants who have apparently fled in fear. What happens over the following nights is described in journal entries by the commander of the garrison in much the same way that the Captain of the Demeter writes his log book during the ill-fated final voyage. I'm happy to copy from the classics.

I'm interested in these changing POVs and, now you mention it, Dracula has many. I do worry that - while they can make for powerful chapters - they can also ruin the wider novel. I'm still working this out.

This novel, and the one before it, are not intended to be polished products. I am really just experimenting with different styles to see what works and what doesn't. Also, frankly, they contain material which would be problematic, at least to a mainstream publisher. The idea is to refine the craft and then knock it out of the park with a future work.

Thanks for your comments.
 
Just to throw my couple of pennies in: I'm less antagonistic to the style than some, but I completely bounced off the first paragraph. I think this is because it's just generalities. If you're going to throw generalities at me, they'd better be really fresh and clever.

I would have much preferred it if it had started at the second paragraph. Here we have specifics, and because there's a suggestion of an actual plot to hook into, the unusual narrative voice becomes an intriguing possible asset rather than an outright hindrance.
 
It is interesting you should mention Dracula. Later in the novel, a unit of the Emperor's army takes the 'capital' of the North - little more than a village, deserted by the inhabitants who have apparently fled in fear. What happens over the following nights is described in journal entries by the commander of the garrison in much the same way that the Captain of the Demeter writes his log book during the ill-fated final voyage. I'm happy to copy from the classics.

I'm interested in these changing POVs and, now you mention it, Dracula has many. I do worry that - while they can make for powerful chapters - they can also ruin the wider novel. I'm still working this out.
For a recent novel that does this, perhaps have a look at Snakewood by Adrian Selby -- that starts with the son of one of the main characters explaining how he's pieced the story together and the chapters are a mix of letters, witness statements he's taken down, reports from spies/informers and his father's own account. (For myself, I didn't get on with the novel and dumped it about a tenth of the way in, but that wasn't the fault of the structure itself.)
 
I also like the idea of a character narrating the story in retrospect, perhaps as an elderly person looking back. I'm thinking here of Robert Silverberg's A Time of Changes where the protagonist hides in a hut in the desert, struggling to get his story on paper before the authorities inevitably capture him. I missed this by a mile with my prologue - but it could be fixed.

It is interesting you should mention Dracula. Later in the novel, a unit of the Emperor's army takes the 'capital' of the North - little more than a village, deserted by the inhabitants who have apparently fled in fear. What happens over the following nights is described in journal entries by the commander of the garrison in much the same way that the Captain of the Demeter writes his log book during the ill-fated final voyage. I'm happy to copy from the classics.

I'm interested in these changing POVs and, now you mention it, Dracula has many. I do worry that - while they can make for powerful chapters - they can also ruin the wider novel. I'm still working this out.

This novel, and the one before it, are not intended to be polished products. I am really just experimenting with different styles to see what works and what doesn't. Also, frankly, they contain material which would be problematic, at least to a mainstream publisher. The idea is to refine the craft and then knock it out of the park with a future work.

Thanks for your comments.
All sounds interesting. I don't know if it's my mental health issues maybe, but sometimes I find myself reading a regular novel and thinking "who's writing this?" I mean we just suspend our disbelief but I sometimes find myself thinking strange things such as "So this chapter is Bran. But Bran didn't literally write this, GRRM did. So how does GRRM know what Bran is feeling? Who is GRRM?"

I know this makes me sound weird but I really find old books comforting because in Sherlock Holmes it is Watson who is telling the story. In King Solomon's Mines, Quartermain narrates and cheekily points out he isn't a writer really so there s a good excuse!

Worth remembering that one of the reasons many people believed Holmes was a real person was because Watson narrating really does give it....history. It feels like history.

Particularly with fantasy I often find myself getting to the end of a series and imagining who actually "wrote" it. A la Frodo and Bilbo "writing" Lord of the Rings or even Samwell Tarly "writing" A Song Of Ice And Fire. Presuming the GOT TV show haven't completely made that part up ..
 
All sounds interesting. I don't know if it's my mental health issues maybe, but sometimes I find myself reading a regular novel and thinking "who's writing this?" I mean we just suspend our disbelief but I sometimes find myself thinking strange things such as "So this chapter is Bran. But Bran didn't literally write this, GRRM did. So how does GRRM know what Bran is feeling? Who is GRRM?"

I know this makes me sound weird but I really find old books comforting because in Sherlock Holmes it is Watson who is telling the story. In King Solomon's Mines, Quartermain narrates and cheekily points out he isn't a writer really so there s a good excuse!

Worth remembering that one of the reasons many people believed Holmes was a real person was because Watson narrating really does give it....history. It feels like history.

Particularly with fantasy I often find myself getting to the end of a series and imagining who actually "wrote" it. A la Frodo and Bilbo "writing" Lord of the Rings or even Samwell Tarly "writing" A Song Of Ice And Fire. Presuming the GOT TV show haven't completely made that part up ..


"I wonder why I am going to write this book: it is not in my line. I am not a literary man......" [from the opening to King Solomon's Mines]

I like it! It takes the pressure off.
 
"I wonder why I am going to write this book: it is not in my line. I am not a literary man......" [from the opening to King Solomon's Mines]

I like it! It takes the pressure off.
I love that character. And of course because it is well written I sometimes find myself going "well done Allan " or " good describing, Quartermain"
 
You definitely have skills with grammar.

I had to push myself to read it through. It seemed more reading a history textbook in which I am sitting at a desk, than sitting on a couch or bed, vegging while enjoying a story. Without knowing anything about the first book, I wonder if this would have been better as the first three chapters.

With the issue of having a prologue, I have no problem with that.
 
The short answer I'd give to this is that it doesn't work for me and I think it would be more offputting than intriguing to most readers. I have to say that this sort of intrusive "Come with me, dear reader" never works for me personally, so I'm at the far end of the scale. It just seems to place artificial barriers between me and the story.

The excerpt does raise various interesting questions, though. What's going on with the royal family and the priestess? Are these guys good, bad or more nuanced? Who is this slave and how does he become great or heretical? I have an image - a sort of Boris Vallejo picture, but very vague - but there's just not enough for my mind to latch on to, and the style is getting in the way. The last paragraph really amplifies all these problems and cements my feeling of "No", especially with the sudden influx of new names.

However, it is well-written, and it feels as if the author has a good (if vast and currently rather vague) story to tell. I think I would want the writer to lose the narrator and zoom straight in on a few key characters and tell their story. I think the answer is that I'm somewhat interested to know what all this is, but the way this is currently presented would prevent me going any further.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top