Pacing- How The Heck Do I Do It

[evolution_rex]

Everything posted so far has been extremely helpful and thanks to you guys I think I've nailed down my issues:

With both my scene/sequel and MRUs, I've been mixing the character's reactions with the descriptive/disaster/event. For the MRUs this causes confusion and a fast pace even when I'm writing with extra detail, and for the scene/sequel this causes large structural issues that severely hinder the overall story. When I write, I'm not giving enough time for the setting to sink in, the problem to become understood, and the character's actions to become clear.

I've researched but never paid too much attention to story structure formulas when it came to the story as an overall whole because I've read and seen many things in which show that it isn't necessary (though, when it comes down to it, almost everything fits into the three act structure), and I think I can make a pretty decent overall story on the top of my head as long as you don't ask to see the finer details, the individual scenes and paragraphs within those scenes. And that's where my troubles are. But I definitely think the formulas in place for those finer details are convincing, and it beats what I'm doing, so I'm going to adhere to those formulas.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Eh, I'd have quibles with that, pacing a story without understanding the character wouldn't be that big of a deal. What I need to understand is the story as a whole. Diff'rent strokes, diff'rent folks.

Nothing ever "comes out naturally" for everybody, what is intuitive for one person is not for another. And pacing can be manipulated by what you feel you need rather than simlply being organic. If I had never heard of scene-sequel or MRU's my writing wouldn't be changed. What I do as a storyteller here is intuitive. The modern 3-act was nearly intuitive (beaten into the brain by decades of movies and stories) but it was useful to know the details. Certain sentence structures I intuitively like! Well, those are not so good, they're complex pretzels, LOL. That I have to keep an eye out for, while other folks just don't use them. What comes natural and what doesn't goes on and on, both good and bad.

You're not going to pace the story well if you don't understand your characters. This conversation is getting more complicated than it needs to be. Really, the pacing is going to depend on what type of scene it is, the purpose of the scene, how many characters are in it, and what their goals/flaws are. Everything else comes out of that naturally.

 

[Helen]

I wrote a short story recently and I had a lot of fun writing it, but when I reread it so I could revise it and I knew I'd messed up. I let my brother read it and he confirmed by fears. Although it had some structural issues, the main problem why nothing worked was in pacing. I've ran into this issue before, and now I realize that it's a problem I heavily suffer from.

I understand that more detail added to less eventful scenes can create slower pacing and that quicker sentences added to more eventful scenes can create faster pacing, but I still feel like I'm failing somewhere. Everything comes off as either monotone or confusing with too many things happening.

I think part of the problem to is that pacing is not something I notice in other people's work and thus I have a hard time identifying it in my own. I've not read something and thought 'woah, that pacing was really off.' I hardly ever see other writers discuss it or have problems with it too. But it seems like such a huge part of writing because it makes or breaks a story, and I just do not know what I'm doing when it comes to it.

tldr; how do I improve pacing or get a better understanding of it?

You can use change to pace it. You know who the characters are in the beginning, you know who they are at the end and you stage gate it.

 

[FifthView]

You're not going to pace the story well if you don't understand your characters. This conversation is getting more complicated than it needs to be. Really, the pacing is going to depend on what type of scene it is, the purpose of the scene, how many characters are in it, and what their goals/flaws are. Everything else comes out of that naturally.

@Chessie:

I think I understand part of what you are saying here.

MRUs and sequels involve reaction to external events or stimuli, and a significant portion of the reaction is very dependent on the inner life, personalities, and histories of the characters. If you don't know your characters well, you run a major risk of either skipping over the Reactions or Sequels or, if not, writing those bits poorly. This tendency can lead to herky-jerky or nonsensical transitions from scene to scene or from event to event within a scene. However, if you have a deep understanding of your characters, these portions of the narrative may more naturally flow and actually be instinctive. There's an organic, natural reaction to events and stimuli; your characters can't help but react according to their natures. If you already have in mind a beginning and end for your scene (a goal you want to accomplish) then knowing your characters well can lead to a sensible, organic pacing for the scene.

Eh, I'd have quibles with that, pacing a story without understanding the character wouldn't be that big of a deal. What I need to understand is the story as a whole. Diff'rent strokes, diff'rent folks.

@Demesnedenoir:

I'm not sure you'll be able to successfully argue that an author doesn't need much understanding of his characters! Maybe this knowledge of your characters is so natural, you don't notice how this affects the way you pace.

Probably, the difference is in how much of that understanding we convey to the readers directly rather than leaving it behind-the-scenes, so to speak, or indirect. Actions and reactions are guided by the characters most of the time, whether consciously or subconsciously, regardless. So whatever happens in the sequels and MRU reactions is greatly shaped by who the characters are.

I've noticed that a lot of online tutorials/articles on using MRUs have a bias toward third limited, particularly an intimate limited third, in their explanations. The third intimate narrative probably does require a more deeply conscious understanding and connection to the character; this understanding will influence how one goes about writing those reaction units and sequels.

But I think your quibble is worth exploring. Understanding the story as a whole seems extremely important for knowing how to pace it; this thought is behind my little mental illustrations of "lines" to describe pacing. The reader must feel that she's experiencing progress in the story, every step of the way. There are times I've thought a book was failing, or at least the pacing was off, because it was getting lost in the inner life of a character written in third intimate; the story itself seemed to have been lost along the way, for those durations.

So I wonder if it's a matter of execution, and that there are two levels of pacing. Understanding the story is absolutely important, and a lot of the pacing involves the superstructure, like the different acts and plot points. But the bits and pieces that make up scenes, chapters, acts are also important for the pacing.

 

[Chessie]

Yes, but it's virtually impossible to figure out all the little details when outlining. We have to be in the drafting process in order to understand much of what's going on...and I feel like this conversation has a lot of potential but is also getting somewhat complicated. The OP asked how one learns how to pace a novel and really, the only answer is to keep writing. Eventually, after a certain number of stories under your belt (whether those be novels or shorts), you'll start to understand how YOU function as a writer, the kinds of stories you write, and the pacing is a natural side-effect of just becoming a better/more efficient writer in general. Like with all things, practice is important. Pacing is one of those parts of the writing process that's more intuitive, I think.

 

[skip.knox]

I echo Chessie here, but would go further. I think most writers also need an editor, at least early on. I don't think we are the best judge of what works and does not work in our writing, we're merely the best judge of what is most comfortable. Going forward without objective eyes can mean we simply repeat our shortcomings, and never see them.

What's interesting is that experienced writers nearly *always* recommend having an editor, even for themselves. I doubt they are talking about proofreading. It appears that each of us have blind spots and weaknesses and habits that stay with us. My analogy would be that even professional athletes still have coaches.

So yes, do keep writing. You will improve. But you will improve your improvement if you can find editors. Start with beta readers. These not only bring fresh eyes to your work, but you'll have to read their work as well, and the exercise of beta reading another's work is in itself educational. It also has helped me, at least, to get a better idea of what I want from a professional editor. And editors are *expensive*.

 

[FifthView]

Yes, but it's virtually impossible to figure out all the little details when outlining. We have to be in the drafting process in order to understand much of what's going on...and I feel like this conversation has a lot of potential but is also getting somewhat complicated. The OP asked how one learns how to pace a novel and really, the only answer is to keep writing. Eventually, after a certain number of stories under your belt (whether those be novels or shorts), you'll start to understand how YOU function as a writer, the kinds of stories you write, and the pacing is a natural side-effect of just becoming a better/more efficient writer in general. Like with all things, practice is important. Pacing is one of those parts of the writing process that's more intuitive, I think.

Often enough, in my experience at least, the learning process requires a little chaos from outside. Getting trapped in a rut, writing from "inside a box," can last longer than it needs to last without input from others. So finding editors or beta readers, as Skip suggests, can be a big benefit during the learning process.

I view "Writing Questions" on Mythic Scribes in a similar light. Anyone can post a question, and anyone can respond to the question with suggestions, advice, and whatever insight, and this can help to move the mental gears along.

This forum isn't as focused as interactions with beta readers and editors might be; they can offer insight better informed by a writer's actual writing and more direct back-and-forth discussions about that writing.

Perhaps the nature of this forum is to be complicated. I.e., the effort to offer insight is complicated by the fact that we don't have the actual writing in-hand, don't know where any poster is on the learning curve, and questions and answers/insight might often be offered in vague, abstract, or very general terms! In contrast, beta readers and editors could help to move the mental gears and levers in a more constructive way. (But this isn't a given for every beta reader or editor.)

Sometimes all we can do here is to offer what we can or what seems most important. If a writer is best advised to just write, write, write and learn through her own ability to work out what is best for her writing—well, such a writer ought to be able to sift through the various responses she receives here, also!