I belong to a writer’s critique group, and the story/proto-novel I’m writing has two interrelated plotlines. One is the major plotline, and the other is the minor plotline.
Well, while these folks in the group have been encouraging so far, there’s one thing I find annoying. And that is they seem far more interested in the minor plotline than in the major plotline. So much so that they’ve begun suggesting I switch the focus to developing the minor plotline into the major plotline and vice versa, so to speak.
I realize that a writer must please their audience, but come on. Were I to take their advice, I would not be writing the story that I want to write. My way, the story is a skewed perception, breaking the fourth wall kind of thing. Their way, the story is a sort of slice of life tale. Nice, but not my thing. In fact, I think it would kind of bore me writing it that way.
If I finish this thing, it would be my first ever non-fan fiction novel. I want it to be mine, what I want it to be. But I realize that I might not see my writing as others see it, and it might be a better read their way. Still, to shift the whole focus of the story at this stage is not what I want to do.
There are like five billion slice of life stories out there. There aren’t too many stories the way I want to write this one. I know I’m free to ignore their well-intentioned advice. But am I being arrogant if I do that? Or am I just true to my style of writing?
Write 'em both. I don’t see anything to lose by doing it that way, and you might find new aspects to the story you really want to tell. If you end up wasting time on a horrible abortion of a novel, that’s okay. That’s 80,000 words you’ll never type in that order again, and your skill as a writer is much improved just by the practice.
Try to figure out why the minor story is so attractive to the readers. My guess is that your writing suffers from the “more is less” and “less is more” syndrome. By mentally thinking about it as the “minor” story, you don’t overwrite or get wordy and let the reader fill in details where appropriate. Is the major story wordy, plodding, overly long, etc.? How did you develop the characters in each?
My guess is that you did a lot of things right in the minor story, but you did them because you were thinking about it as the minor story. Ask your group what they liked and then figure out how to bring that quality to the major story.
When I was in a writers’ workshop years ago, we had a code word for this situation: “noted”.
When a participant said “noted” after a critique, what that meant was “I hear and understand what you’re saying, however, I’m not going to change it.”
“Noted” tended to be used pretty rarely. After all, there’s not much point in belonging to a writers’ workshop if you’re not going to listen to critique. However, we also understood that everyone had the final say over his own work. “Noted” was a way of saying “Don’t keep harping on this. I get your point, but I’m not going to change it.”
One other note – the fact that you find something fun to write does not mean that others will find it fun to read. And, ultimately, if you want to be a professional writer, the latter is more important than the former.
Writers’ groups are often very good at pointing out problems, but less good at pointing out solutions. The fact that your minor plot is more interesting than your major plot is an identified problem, and you’d be foolish to just ignore that. The advice given to and exchange the two plots is a proposed solution, but not necessarily the best one. Focus on why your critiquers like the minor plot, or what bores them about the major plot, and then work on addressing those issues in your own fashion.
Agreed. More writing is better than less writing if you want to be a writer. Get your novel out of your system then come at it their way…see what it can open your mind to…
Either way, do what keeps you writing and best of luck.
