What? No, I actually use Wikipedia way more than I should. I googled and found that someone named Dwight Swain wrote a book, Techniques of the Selling Writer, where he uses this scene-sequel technique. My point was that before we worry about a writing technique, let's first make sure we're talking the same language. So when I tried to offer an idea about Star Wars, wondering if it's a good example of what he's trying to get at, and he said no, I was still left unable to understand him because...we're not talking the same language. Anyway, I hope he comes back and gives us more details, especially if this technique is helpful for people.
Okay, let's all take a breath. Firstly, I am not about to sit here and write an essay on this technique. If you want to know more, research it. If this is too difficult for people or they are too narrow-minded or ignorant to accept the ideas of certain authors and writers, then just don't bother commenting in this thread. The person who began the thread didn't want unhelpful comments about how his views and techniques didn't make sense or comply with definitions. He wanted people who had heard of the technique to make helpful and valid comments on the subject. If you look at the title and first post of the thread you will see that it is a debate about whether or not it is a good idea to begin a novel with a scene or a sequel. It does not say "let's all put down the thread maker by saying his technique don't make sense". It's the good old "Put your hand up if you've done your homework" scenario. People shouting no and giving excuses is not what the teacher wants to hear. So please, for the pete's sake, if you don't have anything helpful to say, then just don't say it.
With all due respect, Robert, if no one has encountered the terms in that context, it looks as though the poster was confused. I am glad that you had encountered this context before, but without that context, who would expect that there WAS something to research? Many times, the most helpful comments that can be offered is, "You aren't making sense with the information provided. Are you sure you know what you are asking about?" How is your condescension any more helpful? If you have information to offer, then fine - share it respectfully. We don't have the advantage of knowing everything.
As you can hopefully see on the first page of this thread, I clearly explained what he was referring to when he said scene and sequel and offered my opinion. But still, two pages of "you're not making sense" followed. I'm surprised that when somebody did know what he was talking about, you, didn't take the initiative to do some research rather than offering pointless comments. With all due respect Cogito, I'm thoroughly disappointed with your ignorance on this subject.
Enough. This bickering isn't helping anything. The OP was about as clear as mud, and whilst it's wonderful you knew all about it, not everyone did. Still, thank you for your helpful information. Let's leave this pointless arguing now.
'good'?... consider the fact that just about anyone can get his/her stuff included in the wiki, whether or not they're knowledgeable on the subject... something just being seen there does not make it 'authoritative' to those who've been around long enough to really know a thing or two...
This is advice to be taken seriously. Also note that the link provided by the OP leads nowhere--not even to information of a dubious nature. But it does offer the person viewing the page to start their own article on it. Maybe if you were so inclined robert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scene_(fiction
Hey guys. I've heard of what robertpaine is describing before. However, the terms "scene and sequel" are a little confusing. The way I've seen it before makes much more sense: "Scene" and "sequel" are actually both types of scenes. "Scene" refers to an action scene, in which the viewpoint character strives toward a goal, meets a conflict, and handles it. I'm not quite sure what the "disaster" above stands for... maybe someone with more knowledge could clarify? "Sequel" is a reaction scene, which kind of makes the name "sequel" make more sense. In this type of scene, someone other than the viewpoint character has already taken an action, and the viewpoint character now must react to it. That said, I found a handy little link that may further clarify: http://workshopwriter.com/writestuff/2006/03/seeing-scene-waiting-for-sequel.html Hope this helps. And anyone: please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Too bad you didn't broach this subject in the first place Milady. Now it makes perfect sense. And a valid link! Now we can discuss this folks.
Lol... I fixed the link an put it in one of my earlier posts. It's just that there is a parenthases missing. Like so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scene_(fiction) But of course, Milady has clarified rather nicely, I think.
The link problem is a bug in this bulletin board system. I didn't paste it as a link; simply as raw text. The automated link-maker script didn't include the ending parentheses as part of the URL embedded in the link. The exact same thing happened over at the other writing forum where I posted this exact same question. Anyway, it's not so much a technique as a way of describing how plot works. All storytellers do it, even if they don't do it on purpose. This use of the word "sequel" is very unique, unfortunately, which is why I found it so useless to simply type in a google search to find other discussions on the same topic. It is, however, not entirely unique; it's an established term in this context and I'm not making **** up. I knew you guys would figure that out eventually. --- Now, that's NOT how Star Wars begins. Star Wars begins with Luke Skywalker all excited about the fact that he's supposed to be off to the Academy soon to become a star pilot. His plans and dreams are crushed, however, when Uncle Owen says, "Maybe next year, kid." The scene following that--when he's all grumpy and despondent--is the sequel. Would Episode 4 have been as good if it had begun with that second scene (the sequel)?
I've been looking at some different links associated with the scene and sequel terminology. One reference keeps turning up: Scene and Structure, by Jack M. Bickham, part of a series(?) Elements of Fiction Writing. From what I have been able to gather so far, sequel is the glue that binds scenes together, arising from the assessment of the outcome of a scene by the character. The sequel collects new tensions arising from the consequences of the scene's action, which become the basis of conflict in a subseqeunt scene/ With thyat understanding, I don't see how a sequel can be constructed without a preceding scene to feed it. Also, my sense is that this approach to writing is predicated on the writer constructing scenes and then tying them together to build plot, as opposed to beginning with plot fundamentals, and using the plot to drive scene creation. I could be mistaken, because I have only read scattered articles, not the Bickham book. It may be an approach for the writer who starts off with a scene and wishes to expand it ubto something larger. From what I know of it so far, it doesn't appeal to me, because I work from Actor through Conflict toward Goal to define plots before resolving it to individual scenes.
I just found this - a long explanation of it: http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/art/scene.php I get what you're asking now: if anyone knows of any books where it starts with the protagonist having already gone through some big event that ended in disaster, and is now reflecting on it/reacting to it. I'm sure it's been done, but I can't think of any. It would seem to take all of the excitement out of the story, though. Basically, your story would be starting at the end and going backwards?
Interesting topic. I can see potential for opening a story from the "sequel" perspective, but without the "scene" to provide emotional context for the aftermath, a writer would have to: 1) select a "sequel" to a widely understood "scene" (for example - beginning a story in the aftermath of the World Trade Center terrorist attack. The "scene" of the actual attack and collapse of the buildings is over and can be general public knowledge that is assumed by the writer. The actual story would then begin with a main character's experience during the immediate aftermath...i.e. the "sequel".) 2) develop a "sequel" which incorporates powerful conflict to capture the reader's interest. (For example - a story could open with a woman bleeding on the floor after getting shot during a bank robbery. Her ten year old son is with her in the bank and the story opens with him clinging to his dead mother's body after robbers surrender to police. He watches with confused emotions as they are led away alive...could even have one of the handcuffed bad guys smile at him for effect. This "sequel" to the unwritten bank robbery "scene" would set the tone for the son's (MC) growth into a vengeful cop who steps outside the law in dealing with criminals.) I like this concept of scene & sequel, although, like most things in writing, the dogma associated with "proper" terms smacks of arrogance as there are so many other ways to describe the same relationship.
So you are suggesting starting with an implied scene, rather than an explicit one. Sequel, in the context as I understand it, still must have a scene context to anchor it. The problem, as I see it, is that a scene takes place in the context of an actor (character) and a goal, so your implied scene would have a lot of loose ends unless you at least abstract the scene for your own reference. This could work, because it isn't necessary for the writer to supply every scene in chronological order. A scene can be revealed in bits and pieces, or even only revealed indirectly. But does the scene and sequel mthod facilitate thinking of nonlinear delivery, or does it hinder it? I'm not sure.
No. For the reasons Cogito and the others have mentioned. But this does not mean that starting out with a sequel will never work. If you start with a feeling, and have the character keep it in context of the "scene" that has just happened, then perhaps it will work. In fact, I just realized I am starting my newest WIP with a sort of sequel: my MC attends breakfast with her father, who has recently attempted suicide. Her feelings of guilt, awkwardness, and fear of losing her only remaining parent provide the sequel to a scene I would rather imply than write. Still, the conversation seems to say that it would be very hard to start out with an aftermath scene. Maybe at some point along the line I'll put it in the review room, to see if it works.
Just as there are many ways to write a story, there are equally many reader-styles. I am a linear reader who prefers stories to unfold in a logical and chronologic order. When a story skips around, I lose interest. My wife, on the other hand, is a "global" reader who appreciate a wide variety of writing styles. She tends to speed read large quantities of information and digest the story in "global" chunks. I asked for her thoughts on this scene:sequel question and she responded that it wouldn't matter much to her as long as the story line interests her. For my purposes...I've concluded that to begin a story on the "sequel" side of the equation, strong writing skills will be needed to capture reader interest without relying on the "scene" to explain the MC's reactions. I plan to experiment with this a little...maybe try opening a couple chapters in my current manuscript with this method and see how they read. Cogito said "...so your implied scene would have a lot of loose ends unless you at least abstract the scene for your own reference." Cog, I'm not sure I agree. It may be that the MC's reaction to the unwritten "scene" is the critical plot device for the story. In the mother-killed-by-bank-robber example above, the child's reaction to the taunting smile by the robber as the killer is walked out of the bank in handcuffs might be all that is needed to establish the foundation for the MC's future actions within the plot. As far as a "hook", I believe the child's myriad feelings associated with his mother's death (rage, fear, loss, confusion, questions of faith, revulsion at the blood on his hands, his impotence to protect her - guilt)) would make for some compelling reading at the start.
I'm not a fan of this "scene / sequel" terminology. It seems to have no advantage over simply saying "action / reaction." I'm not against using words in new ways, but this seems rather silly. There is nothing gained in rewording a well-known and well-understood concept. But, for the sake of lending something to the conversation, I'll say that beginning with a sequel is very popular. Every character has something that shaped him/her into the person we see at the story's opening scene (which is actually a sequel). In a way, character development is the creation of scenes (often unwritten) to which the story itself is a sequel. A good writer will trickle a few of these scenes into the story itself to give us an idea of how the character(s) came to be the way they are. Life itself is a chain of actions and reactions; it's virtually impossible to write a scene that isn't a sequel. You would have to start at the beginning of time itself. To the OP: there's nothing wrong with opening with a sequel; it's almost mandatory to do so. Just make sure the scene(s) leading up to that sequel are explained at some point, so the readers aren't confused. I myself am a huge fan of beginning in medias res.
To be honest, what I've read about this subject seems to make an already difficult task all the more confusing. I can see having guidelines to go by when you are new to writing, but I'm very new to this--like only a few months experience--and I don't follow any such guidelines. So far, I haven't had any complaints about the order in which I present the story--no suggestions that I make the plot more complex. Which I will certainly do as I gain experience of course.
like all jargon, i find this bit of same doing what garmar noted... making things more complicated and confusing than they need be... which is why i never recommend any such stuff to those i mentor... that old army axiom still says it best: K.I.S.S.!
I can personally recommend creative writing courses in general... I've taken creative writing classes from multiple teachers, and though there were good and bad teachers, I got something even from the worst. And if you get a great teacher, all the better. I think one of the biggest points that all creative writing teachers should stress is a creative environment. I feel more creative and do better as a writer in and out of class, during a semester where I have a creative writing class. It's because during class it's such a creative atmosphere, it's not like a class at all. I'm rambling now, sorry
I'm dragging this thread back to the front page because I found a pair of posts by Jim Butcher (of "Dresdan" fame) on lj that talk about it it in depth. Links: Scenes Sequel I know I found it interesting. I think it makes the distinction much more clear.
I think he means like Tarrantino does in his movies Like "Kill Bill Part 1" that started to Chapter 2 of the story and then backed up to the wedding, the coma, etc etc. Possible that's what he's meaning, and yes I've seen stories do that before. They start with something from the end and then work forwards. Just a thought, I could be totally off base.
