I first noticed this technique with Patrick O'Brian (author of a memorable series of sea tales). There it was with battles. He would narrate the ship engagement, which often entailed going right up to boarding the enemy ship (or attacking a port). At the moment of victory, the chapter ends. The next chapter picks up some time later. Not hours later but days or even weeks later, and we learn the details of the victory second-hand.
Now I've noticed a similar technique, this time with John Le Carré, specifically in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. There aren't many battles in a Le Carré novel, but he jumps even more than did O'Brian. As an example, the MC George Smiley goes to meet a fellow who is key to his investigation. But we never see them meet. Instead, with the next chapter the two are already together, maybe even already engaged in conversation, and we find out what transpired in between during the dialog (occasionally in narration).
Obviously these two are far too good at their craft for it to be a mistake. It's a technique. What's it do? In O'Brian's case, I *think* he's figuring we don't really need to see the opposing captain surrender, or go through the mechanics of taking command of the conquered ship, etc. Plus, learning the details later introduces a small element of tension, as we discover some surprise (good or bad) that entailed. In Le Carré's case, I think the aim is similar. Cut out unnecessary narrative, with the bonus of being able to drop in a small surprise here and there.
I bring this up because we fantasy writers are often being told to cut, to tighten narrative. This struck me as a specific, practical technique. Thought I'd share.
Now I've noticed a similar technique, this time with John Le Carré, specifically in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. There aren't many battles in a Le Carré novel, but he jumps even more than did O'Brian. As an example, the MC George Smiley goes to meet a fellow who is key to his investigation. But we never see them meet. Instead, with the next chapter the two are already together, maybe even already engaged in conversation, and we find out what transpired in between during the dialog (occasionally in narration).
Obviously these two are far too good at their craft for it to be a mistake. It's a technique. What's it do? In O'Brian's case, I *think* he's figuring we don't really need to see the opposing captain surrender, or go through the mechanics of taking command of the conquered ship, etc. Plus, learning the details later introduces a small element of tension, as we discover some surprise (good or bad) that entailed. In Le Carré's case, I think the aim is similar. Cut out unnecessary narrative, with the bonus of being able to drop in a small surprise here and there.
I bring this up because we fantasy writers are often being told to cut, to tighten narrative. This struck me as a specific, practical technique. Thought I'd share.