Okay, before I get into the actual topic, I'll make note of my own misconduct in my last thread. I had dismissed an argument against my own position for no solid reason, and I just feel like it wouldn't be appropriate to post again without addressing it. I will make a conscious effort to be more open-minded from now on. I'm worried about having a timeskip in my story. You see, there are two characters in my story that go through some heavy emotional things, one of them gets better, then I have a two year timeskip, and, finally, the one that got better goes back to make the other one better. Okay, I think the first line was kind of misleading, because I'm not unsure about actually having the timeskip, I'm unsure about whether or not the timeskip will be inside of the same book. At this point, I'm torn between having the timeskip be in the middle of a larger book, or have both halves of the skip be separate, smaller, books. I have no idea which one is more preferable here, so I can't really make a decision until I can get advice from people who actually know what I should do here. Right now, however, I'm leaning towards making them separate, smaller books, selling them at the same time, and slashing the prices to match what I think would be fair. But, again, I really don't know which course of action is the correct one. The Question: Is it proper to have a timeskip in the middle of a book, or should I make two separate, smaller books instead? Question Part II: Could I separate both halves of the story into parts? Like, could I have "Part I" before chapter 1, and then have "Part II" after the timeskip happens, just to show that something significant has happened?
Even when self-publishing, I think that it's important for a book to have a satisfying ending. If you split into two books, does each one function as a story with a satisfying ending?
I think so. At the start of "Act 2", the two who stuck together are forcibly split up by their enemy. The problem is, they blame each other and kind of start to hate each other. The middle point of "Act 2" ends with one of the characters getting over this and resolving to fix their mistakes and become strong enough to save their other friend, then the timeskip happens. If the books were split in two, then the first one would end with a strong emotional victory for one of the characters, while the other one would still be in the clutches of the enemy. It would set the tone of the second book as "character A will now go on a journey to save character B." If it were only one book, then the emotional victory would just be another point in the set up for the climax of the book, but I really want to sell the emotional victory. This character is the naive, child-like, teddy bear character of the MC squad, so I really want to make it clear that this emotional victory is very important to this character. Especially since they completely give up near the end of "Act 2", where the character, for a very short period of time, completely reverts to their child-like demeanor when their rescue attempt falls apart. You see, I really want to sell the fact that this character has been effectively "lying" to themself so that they can save their friend, and that this "lie" doesn't stand up when they think they can't save their friend. So, I guess what I'm really asking is, which one should I go for so I can really make this work right. I actually had an idea while writing this. I've seen this in a couple of books before, but I can't remember where. Could I have both halves in the same book, but separate them into parts? Like, at the start of the book, I would have "Part I" before chapter one, then, after the timeskip happens, I would have "Part II" and then start from chapter 1 again, just to show that something important has just happened? Would that work?
I have no qualms with a book having a Part 1 and Part 2, and in fact I've read and enjoyed several books with these. A time skip is certainly acceptable in the middle of the book, but just because there's a large time skip doesn't mean there has to be parts 1 and 2. It sounds to me like your book would work just as well without a Part 1 and 2; just mention the time you've skipped over at the start of the next chapter. If the book's written well the readers will be attached enough to these two characters to feel the emotional victory.
I don't see any reason not to have the timeskip in the middle of the book; unless to fit all the plot you need to make your book absurdly long. In fact, for me at least, the more I try to compact the story the better, don't write two books if the story can be told in one. Good luck !
I vote for PART I, PART II, and so on... I do like books that take this approach. I wouldn't really know how to do something like that with the novel I'm working on right now, but if you have an opportunity to use this format with your story, I say go for it. I'm an avid reader, and I imagine there are many other readers like me who find this kind of layout appealing. Every time I've seen it used, it always seems to really fit the story. I like this technique a lot.
A time skip can be useful to get to another season of the year or see someone grow up, but I would be very confused if the story later had to go back in time because something important happened during the missing chapters. I really don't like reading long flashbacks where it isn't clear that it is a flashback.
