Arcs and Branches

Big stories ... epics ... sagas ... trilogies ... have arcs and branches.  Arcs are sub-tales with their own beginning, middle and end, which start somewhere, develop in various ways, peak and work to some kind of at least semi-satisfactory conclusion.  Branches are points of divergence or departure within a story, where things which have developed up to the current point split and go off in different directions, with the reader not knowing where that particular new thread of the story will go. Branches and arcs are the ways writers introduce new currents of their tales, where branches may or may not find conclusions and become arcs or supporting parts of arcs, while arcs themselves, small or large, always find some kind of end.  Within a big arc ... the story of Character X ... there can be and usually are sub-arcs and even sub-sub-arcs that support the arcs above them, and give a sense of nested structure to a larger tale.  

That being said, I'm coming to notice in some of the serial novels I read that what I had imagined as the "arcs-within-arcs" structure of something like a trilogy was somewhat self-contained.  There was the (I assumed) BIGGEST arc of the trilogy itself, and the smaller arcs of each book in the trilogy, and within each book the arcs of the sub-books.  But it's not that simple.  In book two of a trilogy I'm reading now, near the end, they launch a branch that clearly won't be addressed within the trilogy itself, but most likely by a trilogy of its own.  Even this, I might have thought, could be part of a larger set of arcs making up something like a 9 volume "Saga", where each trilogy is 1/3 of a larger tale, all coming to conclusion by the end of the 9th book.  As the reader completes the 9th volume, all the arcs have found conclusion ... so I suspected.

In this, my initial sense of how things might be structured in such books, there is a delightful "beginning-middle-end" structure to the larger 9 book Saga, the constituent 3 book trilogies and each individual novel.  

But ... 

Some writers are very prolific, and their books number in the dozens.  Some such authors launch interwoven sagas, where one branches off another, not in a linear way, but perhaps more resembling a tree, where a core of characters and situations gives rise to multiple spin-off trilogies and sagas, until it would take quite a deft act of mapping to just keep track of how all the various bits of each tale relate to one another.  Such is life, so why not fiction, yes?

Why does all this matter to me, you ask? 

I'm about to launch a new world of story telling, with new places, people, things and events, and I know from past experience it will have many branches and arcs before too long, and I'm pondering how these various bits of the new world I'm creating will relate to each other.  Am I telling one long linear tale with many layers of matryoshka like nested stories and sub-stories, or am I launching a more tree-like reality, where each branch will eventually find its own end, but not necessarily by returning to the trunk? At this point, I can't certainly KNOW for sure, but my best guess is the latter.  

Life is ever-branching off in new directions, and I see no reason to think my stories won't do the same. Now that I see that, I understand how the introduction of some new branches will lead to entirely new sagas and epics, while others will remain within a given primary story line. 

How does seeing this help me?  

By understanding that some new branches may depart from the central "trunk" story arc and form more-or-less self-contained tales of their own, I can feel free to introduce within the trunk story different kinds of branches, knowing that not all of them need to be woven back into the initial trunk story. This also leaves the reader with a more open ended sense of these branches, not knowing which ones will reappear later and which ones may not.  All in all, this perspective leaves me feeling more relaxed about creating this new story telling universe and its many different tales. And I always write better when I'm relaxed.  Do you?

Story First

Well, I've pondered it over and I've come to the decision that I'm going to focus on the story first.  Why?  The biggest reason is that my number one passion is for the story ... what I have to say and how I want to say it.  Gaming the story is a big thing to me ... but not as big as the story itself.  And the way I see it now is this: writing the story and focusing on that moves me closer to the day when I can game the story.  Gaming someone else's scenario, especially on top of working 60 hour weeks, just draws away more of that precious commodity of which I have so little already, not time, but mental energy. It takes a lot of inner energy, mental and intuitive, for me to write well.  Days cluttered with tons of activities and weeks filled with busy days don't allow for a lot of extra inner energy for writing. Creative writing isn't a mindless activity like watching TV or playing a video game that one can do when your inner resources are depleted, and which may actually help recharge your batteries. While writing does energize me when I do it, it also takes energy to do it.  

Story design, here we come. :)

Story vs Game

I'm on the horns of dilemma ... part of me wants to focus on doing what I must to get ready to host an RPG (role playing game) using a combination of some story ideas I have and the new D&D Next system.  But another part of me wants to focus exclusively on a more novel-like project, where I focus exclusively on the story and leave any thoughts of hosting the story as a game for another day.  And just when I think I've convinced myself "Aha! I've got it ... I'm going to X first ..." the next day comes and I start thinking perhaps I'd be better off to go the opposite direction.

Why is this so hard for me?  Because no matter which path I choose, I'll have fun doing what I'm doing, I'll be creating something I enjoy and can share with others ... BUT ... I'll also know that I'm missing out on advantages to having chosen the opposite approach, no matter which way I pick.

Logic seems to argue for focusing on my story first.  The guts of D&D Next aren't going to change any time soon, and when I'm ready to run my story through it, I can do that.  Tons of the material I generate while writing a book will serve as great extras to share during an RPG of same.  The only REAL downside to focusing on the book first is that I wont' be playing D&D again as soon. But, logic reminds, I don't have the free time in my schedule for both creation and play activities, so focus on story creating and writing.

Logical, right?

But the dice ... they call to me. :)

I COULD join a game hosted by someone else, minimize the time commitment, get my toes wet with D&D Next and focus MOST of my time on writing.   Would I lose much time playing in someone else's game?  Probably not.

Hmm ... it's worth a thought.

What would you advise?

Greetings

Welcome to the grand opening of Fantasies, Antiquities and Crypticities ... a blog whose name deserves a little explaining, don't you think? :)

My interests span a lot of topics, including fantasy fiction and role playing games, ancient and not-so-ancient history and archaeology and a wide assortment of topics that I can only describe as "the secrets of existence". Here, in this blog, I'll be writing about all of these things, but not right now, as it's past my bed time. Setting up blogs is hard work.