Fantasy novel Outline

Outline of the fantasy novel

All three books I started outlining their common characteristics below. This first book I wrote had a very detailed overview. As an overview and current guideline for the imagination, the following overview is given: This structure divides a novel into three acts: a beginning, a middle and an end. I have chosen a video for this article that explains how to sketch a story.

Plot a fantasy novel, part 1

The general saying is that you can't just go straight into the plot, that you have to show how dull / false / simple the character is before you show why she's leaving the city with a pile of accidental aliens, or why she's willing to agree that she's the heiress of Bloodline Whatever. I' m saying begin as near as possible to the very beginning of the film.

So if this means a set section first, because it presents the characters that will be important later, or because the protagonist is not going anywhere and the fantasy tale stays in the same scenery - which is very rare - then use a set section.

Unless it's really a conspiracy, you' re gonna truncate it. That' s one of the reasons why typing expositories can be so dull, especially if it's typing expositories about everything that went on in the character's previous history. This is Stephen Donaldson's The Mirror of Her Dreams, this is cross-over fantasy (to bring a personality from Earth to a fantasy world).

It works despite the heroine's passiveness and the confused conspiracy that confuses many and many. Yes, fantasy backup stories are complex. It is another place where the action comes to a standstill. It' a fantasy conventions, but a chunky and shitty one, and worthy of leaving.

Hold the history bound to the movement. It' s a speed issue, but a storyline can also be brilliant elsewhere and still have one of those moments. There is simply no need for one of these talks, except that folks follow other writers - usually Tolkien - and incorporate it into the plot.

They may be peasants without the hopes of ever becoming anything more if they are not the main character, but they should not stand helpless on the plank while the storyline follows the heroes. That' s one of the reasons why many imaginations felt poorly planned for me. Heroes are the sources of everything in the game - morality, interest, drama and the actions of other people.

Though a multi -perspective storyline may have fewer issues, even there the writer often resorts to one personality and makes it the centre of everything. All the other protagonists are spending their days thinking or telling about the protagonist's activities or the reaction of other persons who are important to the other.

When the stories and reflexions are not events in themselves - for example, when they do not really develop the story's personality or provide new information - then they are reduced. They will probably still be necessary to indicate that the heroes are not alone in his own universe, but they should not give the illusion that the other players are just there to be heroes' fan.

{\a6} (Fantasy has enough trouble with it already). 4 ) Insert slot items that depend on each other. A ( (legitimate) critique of great epoxy fantasy, or actually any fantasy novel with more than two sub-plots, is that the sub-plots don't seem to be relying on each other. A is traveling the north of the Yadda Yaddas and is studying to be a secret Yadda shepherdess.

Charakter B learns how to beat King Aveddiwhoop in the North. Charactor C doesn't do much but sit around in a rook and ponder (see point 5). Characteur D received a crystalline follower and said she was the mystery of the free state. Do the authors do the easy, healthy thing and bind them together so that, say, characters D can use the associate characters B, or characters C is pulled from her rotten butt and abducted by the clandestine Yadda-Yaddas?

Sub-plots should annotate each other, and some fantasy writers are good at doing that; something that happens to character B is also mirrored in what happens to character C. When Character B King Aveddiwhoop falls and his troops besiege the caverns of the Yadda Yadda Cave, do you not think that they would finally be summoned home or into the wilderness or choose to go marching somewhere else when they heard the message of their monarch's deaths?

However, the writer forgot that this message will affect other human beings in the film. It is only considered as B and perhaps D character owned if it is to govern the King Aveddiwhoop Empire. Other storylines can continue in their insanely lonely solitude for pages (chapters, volumes, years, Robert Jordan novels....) alone, without a damn hint that something should have connected them.

Remember how every big incident - or even the waves of incidents that may seem small to the protagonists - will influence other human beings in history. Because your protagonist doesn't think the incident is so important doesn't mean it isn't. 5 ) Thinking, fear, chomping on one's own fear, and looking out the windows doesn't make much of an action.

Yet studying how to get out of the recuperation phases and get on with the story is things that fantasy writers in particular (although I've seen them in other books) have a beef with. They' re taking the heroe to the holding room, and they can't choose how to get him out.

This is one of the reasons why so many saviours are feeling unnatural (well, that and that the writer did not bother to decide how the saviours found out where the main character was): The writer starts the tale from the outside, because it is too deeply absorbed in fear. But I think the best way here is to let the heroes make some plotsty choices, and/or combining that with an external one.

Simply because a character has enough to think about the impact of a weird magic wound on him, that doesn't mean he'll be quiet about it. Imaginists often handle an exil before the tale as if you weren't going to solve all the hero's issues, so why should you do it in the midst of the action?

I' ve seen a few moments in which the writer seems to believe that the main characters "reflect" on the game. No it isn't, unless the heroe actually comes to a conclusion he hasn't thought through before. 6 ) Characters and actions cannot be separate. That' s why fantasy stories do not work for me as "character studies" or as " vignettes" or anything in the storyline that seems only to "illustrate" a figure without actually adding to the whole of history.

If she stares out the romantic windows, I don't think that the one who Princess Carlotta is at the beginning of the tale is the same one she is when she goes down the steps and thinks about escaping, or the same one she is when she is cutting her own head briefly and leading an Army.

It is not if the writer knows what she is doing, at least, and lets the acts arise out of the characters and also influence the them. Place your heroe into separation from the action, and it's very difficult to alter him without being force. A" sheet of characters", in which the player is learning or changing a teaching, is only possible through interacting with the universe, not through action.

When the other protagonists and the settings themselves aren't vibrant, you can have a heroe who trades and trades and still looks like a windup game. You use things that are happening to your personality to make him feel different, and then let him hit or hit back or cruelly walk in the directions of liberty from those things, and more things will do.

Then, other folks will affect the action, act in reaction to the heroes and do things to which he must respond. It is certainly a preferred way of "putting one man at the centre of history and concentrating on drawing him in rich colours".

It is about moving the action forward in ways other than battle or great destructible things.

Auch interessant

Mehr zum Thema