Visit Karla Stover's BWL Author page for book and purchase information
I just finished my 4th book with a split timeline and dual sets of characters and I'm not sure how I feel about this way of writing. This most recent mystery was divided between World War 11 and the 1960s. It started with a prologue ( for some reason, the first page was number 10 ) and 35 pages in had gone back and forth six times. Getting to know the characters took some time and I often had to reread a couple of pages in order to be reoriented. There's so little time and so many books, I find this aggravating and I wondered how other readers feel. Here are two comments from a book called The Alice Network: "I enjoyed one part of the book but not the other. There are two storylines going on. I absolutely loved the story in 1915 but the story in 1947 was just OK for me." and " It's difficult to like a novel when it has different story lines going- there are always things you love about one but not so much about the other - which rings true for the one I'm reading now!" On the other hand, here's what one person said about The Dark Isle. It "moves seamlessly between two timelines spanning the intensely hot summer of 1976, and the political unrest of 1989, with the poll tax demonstrations firmly rooting us in this particular period. Likewise, the story pivots between London and Orkney within both periods of time."
Someone on netgallery.com wrote, "I'm a sucker for books with split timelines." The Perspicacious Bookworm has a list of 10 Great Books with Split Timelines and Amazon has a section labeled "Dual Timeline Novels." I find all these opinions very confusing so I asked two librarians what they thought. One liked a dual timeline and the other said they liked it only in time-travel books.
During the 1960s and 1970s I read books by both Mary Stewart and Phyllis Whitney. No split narratives but lots of different locales. Little Women had separate sections, one each for Meg, Jo and Amy. Anne of Green Gables occasionally drifted away from Anne, but Nancy Drew was only about Nancy.
According to Hank Phillippi Ryan, "In a linear book, the author must insert explanation and backstory into the manuscript’s “now” timeline. But multiple timelines let us be immersed in what could be called a “past present.” To feel the importance of events the main character did not know would matter — because when they’re happening, “later” hasn’t happened yet. A dual timeline develops the same way our own lives do. Every decision we make and every action we take is based on our history and our experiences — even though the other characters in our life story may not know that."
What Mr. Ryan doesn't say is how confusing it can be for the reader to go back and forth and how skillful a writer has to be.
Right now I'm reading, Where the Crawdads Sing which is really sad in both timelines but doesn't have a ton of characters to keep track of. There is also a book by Tomasz Witkowski called Fads, Fakes, and Frauds: Exploding Myths in Culture, Science and Psychology which I won't read because I'm pretty good about knowing when pop psychology is trying to do a number on me.
But no matter who we write for, a reader or ourselves, I guess a split timeline doesn't really matter.
.jpg)
.jpg)
I've read some great split time books. I remember one that I didn't feel comfortable with until I read it again months later. I often re-read books
ReplyDeleteAll readers have their own preferences. To me, as long as there aren't too many characters, if the writer is talented, it's okay. But some readers get easily confused. Clarity is still number one for me. If the reader gets confused, you lost that reader.
ReplyDelete