Macrostructure in Serialized Fantasy Novels

I finished reading the most recent Fablehaven book (4th in the series). It's still a solid series and I'm looking forward to the next, and final, installment.

But, when I finished this one I felt a bit let down. Not that the book itself wasn't a good story but the entire point of the story was to set-up the next book. Now, granted, it was better than when I read the 6th book in the Harry Potter series -- but I won't get into that here.

However, I did reflect on issues of structure that I commonly see in Fantasy trilogies.

Book 1: Set-up the hero, conflict, and villain. Hero defeats the villain and saves the world.

Book 2: Expand the world setting. Show how saving the world left it in peril. Show how the world is on brink of collapsing to darkness. Train hero in special powers revealed in first book. (Optional: Reveal hero's family relation to villain.)

Book 3: Show allies of the hero unable to overcome their various conflicts. Place hero's love-interest in danger. Hero hovers on verge of defeat -- except villain underestimated something and hero exploits that for final defeat. (Optional: Hero's motivation is more aligned with saving love-interest than world.)

That format works fine in a trilogy because even though the second book doesn't typically resolve its own storyline, the focus on expanding the world typically leaves the reader interested in seeing how the new conflicts will be resolved. The author has still provided us with something we hadn't seen before and we're eager for more.

By contrast, in serialized Fantasy the books become more episodic. Book 1 and 2 follow a similar structure as above, the world gets saved (book 1) but then... On No! it's not really safe (book 2) and we see the broader world framework.

The succeeding books just start filling in the blanks. We already know the world is bigger, so fleshing out additional aspects don't carry the same sense of wonder. (And at worst are just expositionary exercises in which the author shows off how much they've thought about the minutiae of their story.) Which necessitates a strong storyline -- but one that is serving two purposes.

First, the story must be interesting on its own. There must be a conflict that is real, with real consequences for failure (even though we know it won't likely happen we suspend our disbelief). And, for most of the books I've read, the intermediate books do a reasonable job with this.

Second, the story must drive the over-arching plot towards its conclusion. Again, the episodic nature of the books tend to do a reasonable job of this with a well-defined overall goal (defeat the villain) being pursued in steps (collect the artifact, defeat the sub-villain, travel to the mentor). But where the second-to-last novel tends to fail is that its storyline is too closely tied to setting up the final conflict that it cannot be adequately resolved without lessening the tension the author wants readers feeling when they begin the final book.

In essence, the entire story must be rising action leading into the final novel. There is typically still an episode-conflict that needs to be resolved but cannot allow for a true denouement because the author can't let the action fall. The climax confirms the final novel will happen but the author cannot move the characters into their next positions, leaving the ending of the book weak.

And, as with any novel, if the storyline has been good throughout but you are given a weak ending, it is frustrating.


P.S. Does a pretentious sounding title make the post more impressive? ;)

Narrative vs. World Building

I just finished 'Ender in Exile' the new book from Orson Scott Card (that Mia got for Christmas). If you haven't read the book yet but plan to (Mia) you might want to skip reading the rest of this post.  Also, if you are a huge fan of OSC and cannot bear to hear any criticism of him, you might want to skip reading this post.

But for the rest of you that know one of my erstwhile hobbies is literary criticism, I invite you to join with me in examining the text, meta-text, and author.

First, the text itself is worth reading. OSC is an excellent writer and his ability to develop dynamic characters -- even in supporting roles. I use the word dynamic in the deliberate literary sense. His characters show growth through the course of the narrative.  And his main characters are well rounded (again in the literary sense).

The main thrust of my critique is that this book is not a narrative but rather an exercise in world-building exposition.

(SPOILER ALERT!!!) The main plot can be summed up thusly: Ender does stuff.  And if I wanted to be verbose about it, I would say: Ender does stuff really well.

My sense reading through this book is that OSC wanted to flesh out more of the universe now that he's had more years to explore it in his own mind. My first clue were the exaggerated chapter intros. Typically these were short emails or other documents that provided some context without being part of the main story. When I was reading 3-page chapter intros, I knew something had changed. He used them to expound on points that couldn't be worked into the main storyline. Then, the book is littered with internal monologues that details an arcane point that doesn't really fit into the main flow of the story. But fortunately, his characters are all so introspective that he's able to use them to voice the tidbits of knowledge he's had tucked away.  And, other scenes seem entirely constructed to give him a platform for retrofitting new information about the Formics that expand on their telepathic/hive structure. I won't even comment on his moralizing.

This is coming out much harsher than I mean it to. It's not that I think OSC is a poor writer, he's proven many times over that he is not. (And who would I be to judge him as one anyway?) But he does seem to have fallen into a style that I've seen many times in my work as an editor for a magazine that published world settings for role-players. He's put so much time into the details of the world that he needs to push them all out to the audience, fill in all the cracks, show us just how intricate his vision of this alternate universe is.  

And when that happens, the narrative suffers.  It has to because it takes a back seat to the exposition. The clever insights and cool details that aren't really relevant to the storyline but can't be left out because... because... because!

I have a second criticism as well. Related to what I felt was a lack of plot, was a lack of action. Part of what made Ender's Game such a seminal piece of work was the action. Ender was constantly moving, one challenge to the next, one game to the next, one army to the next, one war to the end. And through it this incredible tension of whether or not he could handle it physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Was he going to win the war? Yes, of course, that's a given. But was he going to be emotionally and mentally broken after he did so? Quite possibly. The 'happy ending' of the book still held (still holds when I re-read it) the terrible thought that even in victory the hero might be defeated. It's a wonderfully delicate tension and would be nearly impossible to re-create.

In this book, the storylines are all about manipulation and who can do the best political maneuvering in order to achieve the outcome they want. And of course we already know that Ender's skill is in understanding people so thoroughly that he can crush them. We know what the outcomes will be but there is no tension about the consequences.  We are simply along for the ride as Ender continues to out-subtle his various (but rarely nefarious) antagonists.

And the minor antagonist characters (as they all must be minor in comparison with Ender) are what I would have to describe as 'collectively flat'. The definition that I would provide is that they all share the same characteristics of being both willing to overtly manipulate the people around them to reach their goals and they are cognizent and introspective about doing it. This turns everyone into a psuedo-narrator when we are shown their perspective because rather than seeing their actions, we are also privvy to their thoughts about why they are taking those actions, what outcomes they hope to achieve, and who they are either hurting or helping by doing so.

Again, my feeling is that OSC enjoys orchestrating these encounters because if he's describing the most brilliant children in the world and how they overcome the overwhelming odds against them ergo he must be a step above to conceive of the entire scenarios from start to finish. Again, I don't blame him, it's a wonderful position to be in and I should like to try it sometime. But, on the level of the meta-text, it feels as though he's using the auspices of narrative to show-off.

Now, since I've disparaged the book so thoroughly, let me also say the good things about it. First and foremost, it is an engaging read. I finished the book in 2 days.  Secondly, it does add depth of some of the loose ends surrounding the end of the war and questions raised about how would Ender really deal with the knowledge of what he'd done. And, as Mia likes to say, he writes great characters. The most compelling reason to keep reading is because you do care about Ender. Just like the people within the story that almost immediately find themselves caring about him, so too as a reader it's nearly impossible not to admire Ender. Even when you know he's going to come out on top, you want to be there with him, to have some of his glory shine out through the pages and illuminate your own life.

Ender is one of the most enduring characters in modern science-fiction because we both see ourselves in him and we admire the traits in him we cannot imitate.