Just becuase it's not overtly and intricately linked with the main plot doesn't mean it's not a sub-plot

Yes, it's a subplot but, I would maintain, a less satisfying one which will lead to a less satisfying novel. It gets interesting when the situation at work, or the dying relation, affects what s/he does in the main plot. Otherwise, as Sammy says, it's hard to see why it's in there, and readers do ask. As a card-carrying writer of true parallel narratives, I know that readers really want everything to connect up in some way.

Emma

<Added>

I find I think of each of my plots as threads, and they're webbed to each other many, many times, like the double-helix DNA model.

Emma

I think much the same. It's like threads on a working loom that make up the whole cloth. I agree with Jon about the definition of subplot, but it is satisfying when they add up - especially if they seem totally unrelated to begin with.

I can remember one story (can't recall the title) when the main thrust of the novel is interjected by scenes of a man chopping wood and his general life on a farm. At the end, the man was the villian and the farm the scene of the final showdown.

JB

Have just read the article by Susan Hill, from the longbarnbooks thread...out of 3741 submissions, she asked to read only 7 in full, and what did she like so much about the winner?

'it tells not one but a basketful of stories'

Hmmm.

Sammy

You could do a lot worse than study a few sitcom scripts to learn about subplots. In traditional sitcom style there has to be at least one major subplot - but often there are two - and these must bear some relation to the main plot and all the plots must come together in a grand climax at the end.

Well I wasn't really suggesting that the sub-plots didn't affect the MC or the main plot - just that they don't need to do so in a 'HERE I AM' style

Sibelius mentioned sitcoms and they are an excellent example of sub-plotting BUT in a very obvious and rather predictable fashion - pretty formulaic most of the time. Star TreK:TNG and the others of that era were great for this approach - a main theme (rescue people from a planet, deliver medicine, get lost, etc.) and a sub-plot (new recruit being trained, a love interest, someone getting stuck in the Holodeck). Normally these two elements did combine in the end - the new recruit proves crucial to solving the main problem, the love interest has to move away to appease diplomatic needs, the Holodeck provides the clues to getting home, etc. They were terribly obvious though.

I'd argue that any sub-plotting that involves the characters does affect the main plot or perhaps how you read it without it necessarily having to be the 'missing link' that brings it all together at the end. Sure - it's great if your sub-plot can arrive at the finale with the reader going 'AHHHHH! THAT'S why he does that,' or 'THAT'S where it came from,' but I do think it'd be terribly hard to conceal that coming revelation from an astute reader. Once the cat's out of the bag it just seems (to me) a bit like a magic trick where you can see the wires.

I guess I'm just suggesting that sub-plots can be useful for other things apart from just being another pocket to carry part of the main plot.

Re-reading that, perhaps it's also a definition problem. I'm talking about 'sub-plots' as small stories told within the body of a larger work whereas some sub-plots are 'subroutines' of the main work.

I dunno. However you do it, I think we can all agree they need to be there in some form - you can't just have a single story running from start to end.

J

Your traditional detective story is an interesting example of the process too, because the main plot is never in doubt - whodunnit?. But it's the other ramifications that make it worth bothering: two suspects in love warms up the story, two suspects in love and thinking the other dunnit so they lie to the detective and s/he goes of after a red herring is beginning to make things interesting.

Emma