I have a few things that are bothering me, so I'll lump them togther. I have my novel divided into two distinct halves. The first half is Book One, the second, Book Two. The two together span ten years, book one covers cover six years rather quickly, each chapter or section starting with a month and year so the reader can keep up with the time line, and the second starts four years after the first one ends, and is flat out from there. I think it worked rather well, but I dont know if it's a common way to write. I havent read anything lately broken down like this. Plus, explaining to my husband that book one and two are the same novel and not seperate novels is like pulling teeth. Him: "So which are you gonna try and get published first?" Me: "It's all one book." Him (confused): "But it's two books." Me: "I saw Hemingway do it in a book and I liked it, it's normal." Him (shaking his head): "Then why call them books?" Me: "Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!" I like the seperation, because the first "book" leads us to a major shift in the novel, the main characters husband dies, and the second part picks up four years later. Is this okay to do, or will I get laughed at? I just havent read anything modern done this way. Secondly, do you think a novel can have too much tragedy? This novel contains 3 deaths, an almost drowning, a fire, and a mental breakdown. (I mean, come on, if you went through all that you'd have one too, that has to stay. haha) It flows well, and its the point of the book, but I dont want my readers going "Gee, another thing going wrong, how redundant..." I guess the only real way to test this would be to have some people read it, but if anyone knows other things I could read that have a lot of drama, go ahead and reccomend them. That way I can see if I think it's annoying in other books. Okay, enough rambles today, thank you all for your time!