I've been working on this story for years, and it's taken a lot of changes lately. For the better, I hope. From the very beginning, it's been a story that focused on two different generations in a family line. I was planning on the start from doing a series, but I thought more about what cog said lately, about just trying to get one book published, and that made sense. But, I still want to keep it open for sequels...I mean, that's what the past 5 years of my writing has been about, I refuse to just abandon all that work. Nevertheless, I've been trying to combine as much of the two different stories between the generations into one story, but some of it just can't be done, and they're two different stories. My real question is, do you think it works better to show what has happened, or what will happen first? Meaning, if it's a one story about a grandfather, and one about a grandson, do you find it more powerful to show the grandfather's history first, or the grandson's? And I know that a lot of you will say it depends on the story, but I'm just looking for opinions. I can see the benefits of both. To do the grandfather's story first, I can bring back characters and problems from the past that people thought had been long resolved. To do the grandson's story first, I can open up questions as to what happened in the past that have caused things to turn out this way? I'm trying to make it so I can do all of this together. Maybe through flashbacks. Thoughts? Other advantages/disadvantages to both?