In my novel, I'm finally at that chapter where I talk about the facts of the case in detail, and from here on out we have good old framing and scheming, whatnot. Anyway, the truth of the case is elaborated much later towards the end of the novel, in which the first-person POV switches from the protag to the antag, and in words of the antagonist we learn about what really happened. Now, I usually write chronologically, never have tried to deviate, but I was just wondering; would it be better if I left the current chapter alone, and first wrote down the antagonist's account of what actually happened? Would it influence my quality of writing, or some other feature of it?
I would imagine you will need to tweak many aspects of the novel and plotting so as to avoid revealing too much information too early. However, one of my pet peeves with anything from Agatha Christy to Murder She Wrote is the endless monologue from the guilty party at the end, in which they explain in excruciating detail how they carried out their dastardly deed. Actually, the thing I hate most about Murder She Wrote is how every murderer manages to drop either a broach or a cufflink next to the corpse. Are these people all fucking idiots, and why are the Police so inept?? Shit, I could train my dog to solve a Murder She Wrote murder. However, Columbo, I could happily watch that all day long. The moment where the murderer realises they have been outwitted by the bumbling detective and can only doff their hat to his superior intellect.
I see. There's not really a monologue...at least, not how I intend it to be. It's hard to explain, but nonetheless, it wouldn't be like Agatha Christie's monologue explanations. In either case, I see your point; I do think monologues are the boring and convenient way out, the detective arriving to the conclusion is definitely much more interesting and remarkable. Anyway. That wasn't really my question. XD I'm just wondering if I should work on the antagonist's narration of what really happened, or just keep working in the sequence of events (the current investigation). Like, what should I write first?
Do you think the 'truth' might change as you go through your story or is it set in your mind already and unlikely to deviate? If it's the latter, write your ending and then build the rest of the story around it. If you're open to changing the antagonists 'truth' though, write it last as it would be a shame to reject good ideas you develop along the way because the ending is already set in stone.
I don't think it'll deviate, but since I haven't written an outline (and I never do) I can't be absolutely sure. And, like you said, it's open to change and isn't set in stone simply because I've written it down. But I think changing the antagonist's version of events is easier to change than is changing the investigation itself, so I think I'll write that first.
Good thinking. I don't like to plan too deeply but I can see the need for you to have a firm anchor in your case.
