Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
What we're reading

Find your new favourite book or recommend one on our Book forum.

Original poster

Anyone else's heart sink at yet another "split narrative"?

36 replies

gaelicsheep · 23/10/2011 22:44

I shan't reveal the book for fear of spoilers, but I am now finding this an increasingly irritating and lazy device. I think it nicely avoids the author having to actually engage in character development and in this case it has really spoiled the flow of what was a very promising book.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
valiumredhead · 07/11/2011 19:06

Just finished The Slap and my heart sunk as I realised it was ANOTHER 'spilt narrative.'

TwoIfBySea · 02/11/2011 19:27

Reason for asking this:

So a story told from the perspective of different family members - each with their own piece of the jigsaw to add - would be too much? Four too much?

Not interrupting the story but mixing in their own ingredient creating a picture of events for the reader rather than "they did this, then this, then end."

???

Original poster
gaelicsheep · 30/10/2011 22:44

Yes, so would I now. Smile

OP posts:
racingheart · 30/10/2011 22:41

Gaelic, that's really interesting. I'd not thought of it that way before. (That a single story continues uninterrupted, whoever it's told by, whereas a split narrative tells unrelated stories. Though I'd say A Thousand Splendid Suns is definitely one story.)

Original poster
gaelicsheep · 30/10/2011 21:36

To be honest when I started the thread I was thinking mostly of books where the actual narrator changes. Then I realised that this wasn't what actually happened here, it was just a different viewpoint about a different character (don't ask - tired, stressed, easily confused! Grin).

I think I mean I'm fed up with books that do it badly and clumsily and by doing so interrupt the story. Books like Wuthering Heights are entirely different because the book itself is a coherent whole, not like two or three different books stitched together. And of course books that focus on more than one character are the norm and that's totally fine, and generally the "narrator" is one-step removed from the action and you get a common tone and feel throughout the book.

I think it's like Oakmaiden said - if the story continues uninterrupted then that often works fine. But when the story itself gets interrupted that is irritating beyond belief.

OP posts:
Oakmaiden · 30/10/2011 21:11

I think it depends. Some books I don't really even notice it, but more often it REALLY bugs me, as I hate to have to wait for the next part of that character's story... I guess it is OK when the same story is still moving along nicely (Jeffrey Deaver does it like this - focuses on one of a few central characters, but it is always still moving the same story in the same direction), but all too often you are flung halfway across town to a barely connected subplot and I end up skipping PAGES to follow the part of the story I am involved in. I do then go back and read the bits I have missed, but it just bugs the hell out of me.

racingheart · 30/10/2011 21:11

Hang on. Novels have always done this. Wuthering Heights has lots of different viewpoints. Jane Austen jumps from character to character, in third person, true, but she doesn't focus solely on what happens to one character. I'd find that unbearably narrow in most books. I like the variety and layering you get with different voices.

Have you read any Jackson Brodie books by Kate Atkinson, OP? She flits in and out of viewpoints brilliantly. Is it just first person multiple narratives you don't like or are you looking for books that stick with one person throughout. Those are pretty hard to find, I think.

Trills · 30/10/2011 21:08

Are you sure you're not just fed up of books that do it badly?

Trills · 30/10/2011 21:06

Yy, to Game of Thrones having multiple point of view characters and being amazing (and having a lot of character development).

Original poster
gaelicsheep · 30/10/2011 21:05

I should imagine it's popular because it doesn't demand any kind of attention span from the reader. In the case of a crap book that's quite helpful. I have to say I do like books with fairly short chapters so my attention span probably leaves a lot to be desired much of the time too. Depends on the book though.

I've nearly finished A Thousand Splendid Suns now and it is really very good. It also harmonised again after the blip at Part 2 and became a coherent novel. Only criticism is it is whizzing through the story too quickly!

OP posts:
clagger · 30/10/2011 13:49

I'm reading one like that at the moment Sophie's secret I think it's called. It's really pissing me off. I'm just getting into a bit and then it switches. Very annoying.

OneHandFlapping · 30/10/2011 13:46

A lot of published books seem to use the device, so I would say, no. I don't like it as a reader, but seeing as it's most prevalent in popular literature, I'm probably in the minority there.

James Patterson is a multi-millionaire, so you'd be in rich good company.

ImperialBlether · 29/10/2011 21:15

Oh fuck, does this mean I have to rewrite the book?

OneHandFlapping · 28/10/2011 11:28

I hate this. It's cheap device to add pace and suspense to a story that doesn't have it. James Patterson is a proponent of the technique.

I find it's a wrench to move away from one character's narrative, invariably at a cliff hanger point, to someone else's point of view.

GothAnneGeddes · 28/10/2011 11:24

Meeeeee!

I hate it! All too often it's a way of padding out a very average book.

Isla Dewar and Marian Keyes in particular have become buggers for doing this.

As someone who likes to read a book in the minimum of sittings, it just makes me so impatient, I don't need to know what x, y AND z thought of things, just get on with the story!

JajasWjolef · 27/10/2011 21:18

It's a brilliant book so there [hsmile].

Original poster
gaelicsheep · 27/10/2011 21:14

I have said what the book is and I don't want you lot to spoil it for me! Grin

OP posts:
VeryStressedMum · 27/10/2011 20:10

What book is it? You haven't said anything about the book, plot or ending so giving the title won't spoil anything for anyone.

RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie · 26/10/2011 21:57

It would make the mum's work in Dr Seuss' 'Too Many Daves' feel easy!

ImperialBlether · 26/10/2011 21:45

Imagine having a thousand sons!

RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie · 26/10/2011 21:41

Suns not Sons! :)

Original poster
gaelicsheep · 26/10/2011 21:41

Well I've not finished it yet so I'm reserving judgment. Smile I haven't read The Kite Runner but I mostly like what I've read of A Thousand Splendid Suns so far (my complaints notwithstanding).

OP posts:
RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie · 26/10/2011 21:39

I didn't like A Thousand Splendid Sons but not because of the split narrative, rather because it just wasn't very good. It just felt like cartoon good women and bad men to me and the characters were really superficial. Did like The Kite Runner though.

ImperialBlether · 26/10/2011 21:32

I agree with you there. I don't like half a book on one character, then the rest on another, with the previous hero/ine being just a bit player, if they're there at all.

Having said that, I did like A Thousand Splendid Suns, but I think that was as much because it was such an eye-opener reading about that way of life.

Original poster
gaelicsheep · 26/10/2011 21:27

I guess it's when you're just getting into the flow of it and then suddenly, end of Part One. Part Two - all change. Different characters, different tone - a bit unsettling. Although maybe that's part of the intention. Just would be nice to read a traditionally written novel for a change, but not one that bores me to tears!

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread