In another thread about switching across multiple pov, Emma talked about establishing rhythm of pov changes, implying (I think) that readers expect character and pov in a fixed order once the writer has introduced them. Not sure I agree as I'm not convinced that anyone but a writer or critic is even aware of structure and even then not always very aware.
But, I have no cogent arguments to support my opinion, so I am wondering what the rest of you think; does structure on a macro level really matter beyond building the plot in a suspenseful manner?

I don't think it has to be a 'fixed' order, but a coherent one. As long as it makes sense for the story and for the reader, then I think you can do what you like, really.
Susiex

Emma talked about establishing rhythm of pov changes, implying (I think) that readers expect character and pov in a fixed order once the writer has introduced them.

Heavens, did I really come across as thinking that? I certainly don't think. In fact I remember someone saying they were worried about changing the order of discrete sections of different narrators, and my saying that I don't think it matters in the least, as long as you make it clear and take the reader with you.

Are we thinking about PoV switches within continuous prose, or separate sections? In continuous prose I think it's purely about being careful to take the reader with you. In sections I think it matters even less: what's important is that the plot works, and the right things rub up against each other for all your other purposes.

Emma

<Added>

I think macro structure matters enormously, in that it's all about pace and balance, which fundamentally affects how readers experience the book: how many have you read which sagged in the middle, or scrambled to hastily at the end. For my own purposes I therefore think about and work on it very hard, but I do know that most readers are only aware of it subliminally. Having said that, I do use lots of levels of structure: parts, chapters, sections, single-line spaces, thematic echoes... which express the larger structure in a way which I hope readers pick up on at some level.

Heavens, did I really come across as thinking that?

Hmm. I withdraw my assertion! (I'll admit it does seem out of character for you and I can't now find the comment I was thinking of when I posted.)

No argument about:

As long as it makes sense for the story and for the reader, then I think you can do what you like, really.

what's important is that the plot works, and the right things rub up against each other for all your other purposes

I certainly don't think.

But I question the above.

Which leaves me in a quandary about:

macro structure matters enormously

As I am still not convinced that most readers are even:

aware of it subliminally

Or, rather...

The story has to flow, the characters have to grow and the scene has to be set in a way that involves the reader and makes them hungry for more, but I wonder:

parts, chapters, sections, single-line spaces, thematic echoes

The list above (I would add, but rarely use, metaphors) feel to me like tools for the writer rather than for the reader. EG: When faced with a blank sheet, it helps to have a concept in mind to help you to imagine how to fill it (like the plans for a house), but once written (like the plans for a house) they become utterly redundant.





<Added>

(Exposing my ignorance, perhaps, but am not conscious of ever encountering or benefit from a thematic echo. Does such a thing really exist outside of a lecture theatre?)

I would add, but rarely use, metaphors

Yes, I would include sets of recurring imagery - including metaphors - and the metaphoric use of elements in the plot (In TMOL photography is part of the plot and an extended set pf metaphor and simíles).

(Exposing my ignorance, perhaps, but am not conscious of ever encountering or benefit from a thematic echo. Does such a thing really exist outside of a lecture theatre?)

Ummmm - in my fiction? I doubt if there's a page which doesn't have one the five or six big themes cropping up, at least by implication. But then, I'd think I was falling down on the job if they didn't.

It's true that people who don't get what I do are usually the people who don't get the threads and themes that are woven through, because they read purely for plot, and much of the time the plot is a carrier signal for what I want to explore - the stuff which is really interesting to me.

I certainly don't think. But I question the above.

Emma

I am currently reading Snow Falling on Cedars which uses a multi-pov technique, because there is no one main character, but ten or so main secondary characters, and it works well within the structure of the 'who-dunnit' plot.
However, I have seen more mss ruined by multi povs than by anything else, so if you don't understand it, don't do it, and if yuo use it - eg, for two main characters, then it is best to stick with the tried and trusted technique of alternating them (eg, Nick Hornby's About A Boy).


- NaomiM

As I am still not convinced that most readers are even: aware of it subliminally

Multi-pov often fails because the writer underestimates his/her readers. It is used by writers trying to be too clever, and revealing too much to the reader, shoe-horning in backstory, giving alternate view points of something that would be best handled by an unreliable narrator, and - most importantly - allow the reader to make up their own mind about what is going on.

This is where I get massively out of my depth and begin to question my basic understanding of writing terms.

the five or six big themes cropping up,

I have a premise and a specific question that I wanted to answer when I set out with the current novel... but is that what you mean by theme? It sounds like you have so many of the bloody things that, if so, I would need a compendium of supporting documents to understand your work! (I have visions of that B&W Heineken advert from years ago where Russian speaking actors in a communist era bedsit discussed "cathartic transcendentalism", every word laden with hidden meaning.)

Or are the themes more to do with characterisation, with each character representing an intellectual or emotional position so that what you call thematic is what I would consider as tension and character interplay?

Or are the themes the social mechanisms within the world you have conjured, what I might consider to be mere scene setting?

the plot is a carrier signal for what I want to explore - the stuff which is really interesting to me

Maybe it's just a different approach. For me, the stuff I want to explore has provided a carrier signal for the plot.

Either way, once the book is written, does it matter?

GC - I think of the structure of my books as a pattern. Not rigid like in knitting but there's certainly an overall order in the chaos.
Each character gets their 'turn' when it feels right ( though never leaving too much of a gap so the reader loses the thread) but all roads lead back to Rome so that the MC is clearly the MC and gets more air time.
I think this is comfortable for readers even if they're unaware of it.
When you get it right it's one of the easiest ways to ramp up the tension. You build, build, build, then cut away to another character, pretty soon you're back again, but then cutaway again.
I am a huge student of structure and can get into raptures over something that's clever.
HB x

I'm not really here, I'm supposed to be getting a reading ready but...

TMOL is about: photography and, relatedly, voyeurism; transgressive love/sex; lost children; memory and time; idealised and real love; what war does to people; history in the sense of the relationship of 'now' and 'then'.

ASA is about: marriage; storytelling; craft; printing and books; secret loves; fiction vs history and therefore the making of historical fiction; memory and time and the fact that 'we are storied creatures'; history in the sense of the relationship of 'now' and 'then'.

Each of these ideas (I prefer calling them that, than themes) crops up in different forms, illuminating it from different angles, as it were, in differe (which is one of the chief reasons I keep finding that only parallel narratives will do). Some are reflected in the structure: it sounds horribly up-its-own-arse to say that ASA is about writing historical fiction, but it is. Others - like memory/time/history are inherent in the story: Margaronis says that fiction 'is the memories we don't have'.

But you don't have to see any of those to read (and I hope enjoy) the story: they do work at the level of 'what happens next' too. My whole project is to write fiction which works at both levels - hence the obsession with storytelling.


<Added>

Crossed with you, Helen. I agree - structure is one of the things which turns me on, as a novelist.

I'm not a novelist, but me too.

Structure is essential for a plot to run smoothly, and a delight if its complexity reflects and amplifies the main themes of the book. Maybe readers don't look for or find thematic and structural patterns consciously but I'm convinced they appreciate them subliminally. If you dissect your favourite five novels and then five bestsellers or classics you don't care for, but others love, looking at structure and theme, you'll find the degree to which it has been painstakingly planned not just by lit fic authors, is breathtaking. Looked at for structural ability I have huge respect for authors like Jodi Picoult whose work is dismissed as heart-tugging book club fodder. Sorry if this sounds teacherly but before you dismiss the idea I'd examine it closely. Can't hurt to have a command of structure when you're writing.

I like structure that works as smoothly as clockwork. I'm very rigid about structure and I 'balance' chapters often, making sure they are more or less equal in size, equal in number etc. Can't stand odd numbers in a book for some reason. Couldn't have 13 chapters in part 2 so I wrote another one. What you've said is interesting, as my present project - which is pretty much an 'opus' rather than a novel novel - is really 5 books sliced and diced to make one. Different PoV's are a-go-go! Hopefully, the 'mosaic structure' can be seen as the whole by the end.

What I found truly challenging was discovering which was the more dominant PoV when they all came together. I was worried I'd have a crowded stage but it seemed to work itself out organically, just like it does in life I suppose. You get your leaders, you get your thinkers etc... If you're aware of that and in control, there's nothing to be scared off.
Time spliced retrospective PoV (the 1st novel) was a hell of a lot harder, believe me. This one, I get to move around so I don't get bored, and I hope that translates to the reader.

JB