Chronological order of scenes

[Warren_Paul]

Hey, I'm looking at my manuscript, in particular 3 1000 or so word scenes that all happen around this one event at the same time from different characters perspectives.


Basically the gist of the event is a meteor falling from the sky.

First Scene:

Two characters are watching it in an observatory, then after it crashes to earth they leave to go investigate.

Second Scene:

Character wakes to the impact of the meteor and starts to investigate until she is distracted by another character.

Third Scene:

Before the meteor hits, character is waiting to welcome home her son. They witness the crash, are joined by the characters from the first scene and investigate the crash site. Afterwards she goes to check on character from the second scene.


I'm questioning myself if I have scene two and three in the right order or not. Or if it doesn't matter. I personally prefer it the way it is, but wonder how the reader would take it.

 

[Mouse]

I don't think it matters. I'm sure the reader will understand what's happening when. I've got a short story where the end's at the beginning, the beginning's in the middle and the middle's at the end, along with the end again. (I hate using myself as an example, but I can't think of any books which do it of the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots.)

 

[Warren_Paul]

I don't think it matters. I'm sure the reader will understand what's happening when. I've got a short story where the end's at the beginning, the beginning's in the middle and the middle's at the end, along with the end again. (I hate using myself as an example, but I can't think of any books which do it of the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots.)

Had to read your example twice, Mouse. To make sure I understood it right.

Thanks. I know Ian Irvine does it in his 'A view from the mirror' series but he didn't actually do it well, gave away important plot twists before he should have.

Fiona Mcintosh did it in her first book, started at the end, but I felt that ruined the book for me as I knew what was going to happen. Granted I was finding out how it did, but that wasn't the same. Of course she did make a twist at the end which changed the whole way you look at the prologue, but it was kind of predictable.

I can't think of any examples where I felt it had a positive effect.

 

[Mouse]

I'm not sure how well it would work for something novel length - not done the whole way through. But your few scenes would work fine I reckon.

 

[Gumboot]

I'm writing a book that cross-cuts between two storylines running two years apart... it poses unique challenges, but as long as it's clear to the reader that you've jumped around in time it shouldn't confuse them. With an event as spectacular as a meteor strike it should be pretty obvious.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Great, thanks. I'll leave it as it is then.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm questioning myself if I have scene two and three in the right order or not. Or if it doesn't matter. I personally prefer it the way it is, but wonder how the reader would take it.

The scenes should be presented in the order that best suits the telling of the story, which may or may not be in time-and-date order.

I've got a short story where the end's at the beginning, the beginning's in the middle and the middle's at the end, along with the end again. (I hate using myself as an example, but I can't think of any books which do it of the top of my head - I'm sure there are lots.)

I seem to recall that the first part, The Gunslinger**, of the first book of Stephen King's The Dark Tower series, also called The Gunslinger, has three scenes which are in reverse order (i.e. the last scene comes first and the first scene comes last). I think I've read somewhere that King wrote it this way as an exercise to see if it would (or he could make it) work. (The rest is history, as they say.)



** - This was written as a stand-alone novella before being collected together with some other stories to make the novel.

 

[Interference]

First, I'm getting awfully tired of stories that begin at the end and proceed to regress until we get to the beginning. It's become a serious cliche in a relatively short period of time.

Having said that, and cogniscent of the fact that that ain't what you mean, as long as you have solid reasons for sequencing it this way, and manage to maintain a level of anticipation and drama, and provided it wouldn't work better if you inter-cut the scenes in natural and more traditional sequence, it sounds ok to me.