Jumbo - thanks, yes, well put, that's it ... a causal chain. There is a possibility, of course, that the 'dialectic' process will result in a sort of 'consequences' or 'whispers' so that where you end the book may seem a long way from the start ('send reinforcements we're going to advance' becomes 'send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance'.) Not necessarily a bad thing, because (I assume) we want change over the course of a work. (And the dialectic is both a way of describing and explaining the fundamentals of the process of change ...and also an engine which generates it... help, any Hegelians out there? I'm not a philosopher.)

'V' the novel by Thomas Pynchon, in my opinion, exploits the 'dialectic' quite deliberately (most of us use it without thinking about it, it's as natural as breathing.) 'V' is a most remarkable book, whose ending ...well, if you haven't read it I won't take the 'dairy' off it..

The question is, as you say, whether the writer takes the reader along, and manages the process so that the process keeps the reader engaged; and if the reader gets to the end, so that the end doesn't appear like a 'let down', with the reader disconnected and disappointed (bad career move, that is). And I've heard both reactions from readers of 'V'.

Of course, fiction is infinitely more complex and can't be reduced just to this simple structural element.

It's quite possible, I think, for the process to be managed so that you achieve a circular, rather than linear, process, and so end up where you started (Finnegans Wake, by Joyce). And Tristram Shandy by Sterne strikes me as a narrative which is constantly trying to get the 'dialectic' process going, but suffers constant interruptions (which in themselves may be the antithesis ...!)and that this is quite deliberate on Sterne's part - the disruption is a major source of the fun. And the synthesis is always over the horizon.

Genere plots probably come with certain elements built into their dialectic, sort of 'ready-mades', like pieces of a prefabricated house - you know, like in the Da Vinci Code you just know at a certain point that in 8 pages the hero's female sidekick will turn up. But 'literary' (and incomptetent) fictioneers, are out on their own (of course, what passes for 'literary' may be just as full of 'ready-mades' as any genre piece ...and not just knowingly borrowed genre tropes, but Booker-prize type 'literariness'.)

Oops, what was I saying about disappearing up my own blow-hole? Thar she blows, cap'n, thar she blows!

Joe

<Added>

Try 'Genre' not 'Genere' .

'Building believable Characters', Marc McCutcheon.

Good descriptions of face, bdy types, clothes etc... even has a little on dialects.

Brian.

Interesting quote on the subject:

"It begins with a character, usually, and once he stands up on his feet and begins to move, all I do is trot along behind him with a paper and pencil trying to keep up long enough to put down what he says and does." - William Faulkner

Brian.

Anything by Ian Rankin. He is a master of breathing life into characters with absolute minimal effort. It's a technique well worth learning.
Luke