Gee, I wonder if these stories are related somehow?
July 3, 2007 1:38 PM Subscribe
There's a literary device, normally seen in genre fiction, where a novel starts with several seemingly unrelated unrelated stories, which become more and more intertwined as the plot resolves. Where did this originate? When did it get popular?
I feel like this is something I've been seeing more of in the past 10-15 years or so, is this a relatively new devlopment or am I just reading more novels like this? These days it seems like every other genre book I read is told this way.
I feel like this is something I've been seeing more of in the past 10-15 years or so, is this a relatively new devlopment or am I just reading more novels like this? These days it seems like every other genre book I read is told this way.
Dickens' Our Mutual Friend also unfolded in relatively similar fashion, if I recall correctly, and that was published around 1865. Couldn't tell you the name of the device though, sorry.
posted by saladin at 2:10 PM on July 3, 2007
posted by saladin at 2:10 PM on July 3, 2007
This is very old. Shakespeare did it. (e.g. in "Midsummer Night's Dream") and I'm sure it predates him.
I'd wager that that opposite trend -- of having one unified story with few subplots -- is more recent (at least in being a popular mode of storytelling). I can't be sure, but I bet it stems from people trying to imitate classical (e.g. ancient Greek) modes.
Shakespeare and co. were criticized for being all over the place, not enough like their classical models.
But even the ancient Greeks had their subplots. In "The Oresteia," a temple priestess suddenly takes over the stage an delivers a monologue, even though she hasn't been a character up to this point. Cassandra does the same.
posted by grumblebee at 2:30 PM on July 3, 2007
I'd wager that that opposite trend -- of having one unified story with few subplots -- is more recent (at least in being a popular mode of storytelling). I can't be sure, but I bet it stems from people trying to imitate classical (e.g. ancient Greek) modes.
Shakespeare and co. were criticized for being all over the place, not enough like their classical models.
But even the ancient Greeks had their subplots. In "The Oresteia," a temple priestess suddenly takes over the stage an delivers a monologue, even though she hasn't been a character up to this point. Cassandra does the same.
posted by grumblebee at 2:30 PM on July 3, 2007
Victor Hugo's Les Miserables does this too, and wikipedia tells me it was published in 1862. It's also the first book I remember reading with that gradually-intertwining-separate-plot approach, and I loved (and continue to love) it.
posted by vytae at 2:32 PM on July 3, 2007
posted by vytae at 2:32 PM on July 3, 2007
As a rule, if you think something you've found a literary innovation, you haven't. I'm sure there are exceptions, but in general, storytelling hasn't become more sophisticated for hundreds of years. Everything -- from naturalistic devises to "experimental" tricks -- has been tried, lost, found, lost again and found again.
Shakespeare did almost everything: raw naturalism, cartoon characters, "post-modern" devices like breaking the fourth wall, linear stories, non-linear stories....
posted by grumblebee at 2:33 PM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]
Shakespeare did almost everything: raw naturalism, cartoon characters, "post-modern" devices like breaking the fourth wall, linear stories, non-linear stories....
posted by grumblebee at 2:33 PM on July 3, 2007 [2 favorites]
Let's try again: "...if you think you've found a literary innovation, you haven't."
posted by grumblebee at 2:34 PM on July 3, 2007
posted by grumblebee at 2:34 PM on July 3, 2007
One good search term is converging narrative (or convergent). As noted, examples are strewn throughout literature, although I found some claims that it's recently popular (I don't read enough new books to say).
I suspect that the modern run of historical mysteries, which all seem to have their root in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, could be seen as a contemporary origin. (1980 Italian publication)
posted by dhartung at 2:54 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
I suspect that the modern run of historical mysteries, which all seem to have their root in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, could be seen as a contemporary origin. (1980 Italian publication)
posted by dhartung at 2:54 PM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
One writer I knew called this "River-plotting," where the stories work their way towards each other like river tributaries.
posted by Miko at 5:25 PM on July 3, 2007
posted by Miko at 5:25 PM on July 3, 2007
And recent movies - Crash, Magnolia, etc - get called hypertext movies.
posted by A189Nut at 5:41 PM on July 3, 2007
posted by A189Nut at 5:41 PM on July 3, 2007
And recent movies - Crash, Magnolia, etc - get called hypertext movies
[shudder]
posted by poweredbybeard at 6:31 PM on July 3, 2007
[shudder]
posted by poweredbybeard at 6:31 PM on July 3, 2007
I agree with grumblebee in general (few literary innovations are new), but not specifically in this case. In the Oresteia, these characters are emphatically part of the same storyline, and they have no independent narratives surrounding them (except as backstory). Admittedly, I am not an expert on classical literature, but I can't recall a single example of this device. (Mythology is a whole other can of worms--the level of intertextuality in Greek myths is actually quite amazing)
I would wager that this form of convergent plotting originated with Arthurian romance or its saga antecedents. The basic form of an Arthurian romance--my example is Le Morte d'Arthur--is that its heroes gather around the Round Table, which functions as the narrative center of the story. The first part of the book is devoted to the quests of the individual knights, who are nominally unrelated but contain elements in common of which the characters may or may not be aware. Gradually, the quests begin to outline the central quest of the book, Arthur's search for the Grail--a vital character may be introduced in one, Lancelot earns his wings in another, and so on--and then the rest of the book is the straightforward account of the main quest, with most or all of the other characters directly involved. The role of the Round Table is crucial, because it holds the characters together within the frame of the story.
posted by nasreddin at 8:10 PM on July 3, 2007
I would wager that this form of convergent plotting originated with Arthurian romance or its saga antecedents. The basic form of an Arthurian romance--my example is Le Morte d'Arthur--is that its heroes gather around the Round Table, which functions as the narrative center of the story. The first part of the book is devoted to the quests of the individual knights, who are nominally unrelated but contain elements in common of which the characters may or may not be aware. Gradually, the quests begin to outline the central quest of the book, Arthur's search for the Grail--a vital character may be introduced in one, Lancelot earns his wings in another, and so on--and then the rest of the book is the straightforward account of the main quest, with most or all of the other characters directly involved. The role of the Round Table is crucial, because it holds the characters together within the frame of the story.
posted by nasreddin at 8:10 PM on July 3, 2007
I didn't mean to imply that Greek drama was subplot heavy. I just meant that the Greeks didn't keep their plots as neat as people tend to think they did.
The Priestess episode, while connected to the main plot, is definitely an aside. It's there for exposition. It explains some aspects of the main plot. But while doing so, it also creates a character who is not part of the main plot. If I was helping Aeschylus keep his story more unified, I'd tell him to give the Priestess's lines to one of his main characters (they could easily have been given to the chorus).
The Cassandra section, while connected to the main plot, is also a big aside. From a pure, unified, story-telling perspective, it could have been cut to about a fourth of the length. It really interrupts the main plot.
I've directed the trilogy, and these asides are a big challenge. Many directors cut them way down (or out). I like them, so I didn't. But we had to work really hard not to lose the audience during them.
Again, I'm not pretending these asides are the same as the subplots in Dickens or Shakespeare, but I do think the glimmerings of subplots can be seen with the Greeks.
My guess is the Western subplot trend goes back to Canterbury Tales. These aren't really subplots. They're connected short stories, but it's not a huge leap from that device to the subject of this thread.
posted by grumblebee at 9:49 AM on July 4, 2007
The Priestess episode, while connected to the main plot, is definitely an aside. It's there for exposition. It explains some aspects of the main plot. But while doing so, it also creates a character who is not part of the main plot. If I was helping Aeschylus keep his story more unified, I'd tell him to give the Priestess's lines to one of his main characters (they could easily have been given to the chorus).
The Cassandra section, while connected to the main plot, is also a big aside. From a pure, unified, story-telling perspective, it could have been cut to about a fourth of the length. It really interrupts the main plot.
I've directed the trilogy, and these asides are a big challenge. Many directors cut them way down (or out). I like them, so I didn't. But we had to work really hard not to lose the audience during them.
Again, I'm not pretending these asides are the same as the subplots in Dickens or Shakespeare, but I do think the glimmerings of subplots can be seen with the Greeks.
My guess is the Western subplot trend goes back to Canterbury Tales. These aren't really subplots. They're connected short stories, but it's not a huge leap from that device to the subject of this thread.
posted by grumblebee at 9:49 AM on July 4, 2007
See also, "The Decameron" (1350) and "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights" (circa 800 - 900 AD).
These are both collections of stories within a frame story. (Like "Canterbury Tales". I think it's a short leap from this idea to Dickens.
posted by grumblebee at 9:55 AM on July 4, 2007
These are both collections of stories within a frame story. (Like "Canterbury Tales". I think it's a short leap from this idea to Dickens.
posted by grumblebee at 9:55 AM on July 4, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:54 PM on July 3, 2007