The art of the story

I'm not sure why anyone would be interested in fictional history just for the sake of learning it.

I suppose there is the Silmarillion

 

Even if the big picture is you describing an event such as the battle of Stamford bridge, you could still insert characters without them entirely being the focal point. Or perhaps just showing how it effects people, not specific characters, would be enough to draw in the readers to see how it effected everyone and everything.
"The explosions left many screaming for their lives, others burnt to a crisp." That sort of thing might be enough to have the reader invested enough in what happened, rather than how some specific character ended up.

 

That's it! That's exactly it and I couldn't put it into words.

I want to write fictional history that's so interesting, in such an interesting way, that people want to read it. Boy, that sounds like a mighty tall order now that I say it out loud. Thanks a bunch @123456789

I love the idea of the Silmarillion. I really like the concept of a whole world full of happenings, as complex and yet strangely linear as our own, that create a world as we know it. I'd love to be able to do that one day.

Wouldn't we all, haha.

 

Well, you could start with Robin Hood. I've written some Robin Hood, it's easy & fun to do. Hundreds of Robin Hood writers out there, always the chance yours might be the one to bring him back to folk...

Or, prefering bad guy stuff you might become one of Bonnie Prince Charlie's foot soldiers, the six of you crammed in a dinghy row furiously away to Skye in the aftermath of Culloden. The King's men stand on the shoreline behind you, brandish their pikes and muskets...that kind of thing?

 

I have an idea: make sure some of it is blatantly untrue, or questionable at the very least. The winners write history, and how many times do we see the opposing side's numbers grossly overestimated? History can be propaganda. Make it biased. Some stories will get passed down through generations, like that kids game Chinese Whispers, getting distorted and further from the truth through each generation until you have a completely different story from the truth.

Do you know of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms? This is one real example that is done in a way that is less dry than you refer to. It's an epic account of ancient Chinese history, that is part history, part legend. No way I read the whole thing, since it's on the near side of a 1,000,000 words, but I've read through a few chapters out of interest. It's alluded to that commanders used spells to make the wind turn in their favour, for example, or tales of various good omens and other magics come to their aid on the battlefield. There are particularly fierce characters described in colourful ways.

I think it would be entertaining to write it in a way where the reader must separate the facts from the fiction, rather than a purely factual account. Parts of it of course, simply aren't true, but lend themselves well to the story. Even better if you already have your story to write a fictional account from, since it would be interesting, or even amusing if the reader knows what really happened. History is full of propaganda and exaggeration. Even in history that is fairly recent, I am sure that some of what we "know" is a lie, simply because we weren't there to tell it any better.

 

I, too, get what you mean. And like @Dr.Meow said, it's almost impossible.
I've read many dry, factual, boring History books of real History because I like History. When I read real History I want the facts, the numbers, the names, the dates. I don't need the author to be interesting but a well substantiated opinion is welcome. Would I be willing to read it on Fantasy? Not likely.
This said, I've read the Silmarillion, and I've read it with delight after I've read The Lord of the Rings because I just had to know more. But let's face it, Lord of the Rings is a powerful story. A very powerful story. I would not have read the Silmarillion if it were not for Lord of the Rings.
But it's not impossible. Some narrators still manage to make it interesting. How to make it interesting will be up to your writing skills, and it will be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. Many writers have mimicked the Bible's style. Do you really want to do that yet again? There are other ways, but your narrator has to shine. Your narrator has to sound like an interesting character telling a story.
I've read many 19th century classics and the narrators were as interesting, if not more, as the characters. The style has been abandoned long since, but I won't be the one to tell you to give it up. After all, I read many classics. I'll just tell you that it's very difficult. The classics I preferred would resort to humour and/or opinion about the events, "Then Anna thought about going back. She couldn't have thought worse!", turning the reader into an "accomplice" of the narration.
If this helps.

 

That's the dream, right there, friend! That's the dream...

 

I think the secret to writing 'history' is to inject a solid idea of what the stakes are. Right at the start.

For example, if you're opening with a battle, let us know RIGHT AWAY what's at stake. What will happen if Side A loses the battle? What will happen if they win it? Who stands to lose something even if their side wins? Does the fate of the battle hang upon some small thing? Aspects like this will immediately make your story matter, even if we don't know the individual characters (yet.)

In other words, ground the battle—or the history—in some great purpose. Just describing how the fur and feathers are flying, or giving us a long list of who begat whom on the throne of whatever (along with their eye colour and favourite dessert), doesn't make for good storytelling. We need to know what matters and what doesn't, before the story will grab us.

Sometimes I wish new writers would spend less time learning the art of 'writing,' and spend more time learning the art of 'storytelling.' Without storytelling sense, there isn't much point in writing novels or short stories, is there? No matter how skilled the writer might be at wordcraft, if the story isn't compelling, folks are going to lose interest in it—or feel cheated by a lame ending or essentially meaningless beginning.

You could do a lot worse than study fairy or folk tales, to get an idea of what readers/listeners expect from a story. We might think we're sophisticated, but I think some principles still hold. We want to be told what really matters.

 

The Silmarillion is not that bad, but you're right, people who read it will probably know what's at stake in the end.

And of course you're right again. But allow me to take this cue back to Infel's post. There are other ways to tell a story other than following a character' perspective. The "once upon a time" narrator in fairy tales did just that. So did the 19th century narrators I was talking about.
I get it that it sounds old fashioned. Nowadays it's fashionable to start a story with "His hair was wet from dew", or something, third person limited. But it's not the only way. It's the fashionable way. I read many classics with an omniscient narrator and I loved them. But it's not fashionable these days, and choosing that path makes the writer's job more difficult from the get-go.

 

@Infel I think I get what you mean. You want to tell of events, but not from a particular viewpoint. You want the reader to have overview (but not like as in omni, where individual MCs and characters are used to anchor the reader in the events). Now I don't know if the events you want to tell are emotionally challenging on their own. My own events are.

The way I'll tackle this problem is to retreat to a farther, almost academic style. Just describe with colorless words (not attempt to engage the reader emotionally) what happens. Who does what. Focus with minute detail on a specific setting (i.e. rubble and waste overflowing the sewers, a woman with a kid crossing a busy road at rush hour) to tell through the details I chose to focus on, the emotions I want the reader to have.

Does that make sense?

 

@Rosacrvx I love the "once upon a time" narrative! But you're right, it's a bit out of style. That said, I could probably do worse than do brush up on a few good ones. Do you have any favorite renditions?

@Lifeline Yes! That's exactly it. I'd like to try my hand at writing a few legends, or recounting some wars (fictional ones, of course) just to spice up and get a better view of the world I'm writing in. I guess I could just write them for myself whatever way I want, but that doesn't sound exciting! As for the academic style--oh man, I majored in Anthropology. Dry academic detailed recounts of bland objects only a handful of people find interesting is my specialty.

And after writing that last line, I'm noticing a trend...

 

@Infel Hah! Now you have set the cat among the pidgeons! Yeah, I'm also an academic, but writing in this style when telling a story, without resorting to emotionally charged words I'd normally use will be a challenge. I'm looking forward to it just the same!

If you want we could bounce these little scenes off each other to judge their effectiveness Note, it'll take me at least a month till I've written what I oh so boastfully talk about. Give me a shout if you want.

 

Sounds great!

 

Yes, but The Silmarillion was never meant to be published as a novel. It was made up of Tolkien's notes and precursor legends that led up to The Lord of the Rings, tied together by his son (I believe) and offered for sale. It was published after Tolkien's death to satisfy people who wanted to know more about Middle Earth, etc. I wouldn't say 'cash in' on Tolkien's popularity, because I never thought the motive was crass. I think his son really did want to give people more of what was his father's lifetime of work. But to judge it as a novel? Most people who loved LOTR (like myself) actually found The Silmarillion disappointing. Good storytelling it wasn't, really. It was just history.

 

That right there is a fantastic thing to keep in mind: people wanted it for the history, not necessarily to be entertained.

 

That's a tough one. Everything written in the 19th century?...
Romanticism narrators would go as far as talking to the reader. You don't have to resort to "dear reader, what would you do in this situation?", but you get the point.

By the way, I like @Lifeline's idea if you're describing war.

 

But I was entertained!

 

I know, I loved it too ._.

I think I just have to accept that I've got to EARN the right to write those kinds of things.

 

Is anyone else out there writing really long chapters? I'm kind of thinking of having about five chapters around 50 pages each. This is a little different than what I thought I would do. I've rewritten my beginning several times, but I think I can continue with what I have now. And I'm going for the long chapters. What do you guys think of long chapters when it comes to both reading and writing them? I think the structure of it alone is really going to help me out. But this is new for me. Do you guys have an idea of how long you want your chapters to be before you start writing? What sort of effect do you think chapter lengths can have on a story?

 

I usually shoot for about 2500-5000 words per chapter, with most of them coming in around 3500.

As a reader, I find long chapters can be a bit wearying. I like to stop reading at a pre-determined spot, not somewhere random, and chapters are good for that. I guess scene breaks would work if I couldn't use the chapters, but--they're not as tidy.

 

My chapters are usually 2000-3500 words in length. I don't plan out my story beforehand, but I do work the flow of the story to fall in this range while I'm writing. 5000 is probably my limit for a chapter. I start feeling like I'm droning on and making the reader as weary as I am. Going to back to edit long chapters wouldn't be fun for me.

 

Assuming 350 words per page, your chapters would be about 18K words, which I think would be two or three times too long.

 

My stories have chapters that are 5k words, and some that are less than 1k. I try to keep them more "uniform" in length, or at least not so wacky and different, but sometimes a scene or POV segment only needs 1k words.

There don't seem to be any rules for chapter length, only vague guidelines. I've seen chapters that are less than a page long, and in that same book, chapters that are 20 pages long. The only thing I think is universally agreed on is, if you're going to have long chapters, be sure to put some scene breaks in there. It gives readers places to slot in the bookmark and set it down and a new scene gives readers a fresh start when they (hopefully) pick the book back up.

 

I'd say most of my chapters are between 4,000 and 6,000 words. but I think the longest chapter I ever wrote (in the original, unedited version of UTK) was north of 12,000 words.

There's no real reason behind chapter length for me as a writer - it's just apparently how my brain tends to break the story up for me. And as a reader, I could care less how long a chapter is as long as I'm fully engaged in the story. With a book that I'm already feeling meh about , however, super long chapters will often lead me to lose interest in the book.