In “The Wind in the Willows”, a children’s book that’s considered a classic and that I am presently reading, there’s the main action and we find out later what was going on in parallel to that action in a conversational scene. The author chose to tell what happened in parallel in just one scene. I found this worked perfectly, in this case. So, the question I have, is why would an author choose one lot of action first and tell the reader what happened in parallel later on, in just one scene? I think the author must know how this choice would effect the flow of the story. It may flow better that way. By telling two stories at once in parallel may lesson the effectiveness of the story as a whole. You may lose the gist of the story. Parallel plot lines — where two stories are told in parallel at virtually the same time — are the exception and one uses it only for the purposes of telling the story more effectively, without losing the gist of the story.
Sometimes, slight sense of irony in a sentence can add color to what would be a pedestrian line of writing and irony can brighten an otherwise flawed expression. It’s simply about the “art of writing” when one sketches art in a piece that seems flawed. Art of writing may be fused throughout the whole, ordinary, unexceptional flawed piece, to give it an air of mystery and aloofness. It is flawed prose in one sense, but how the piece is structured or designed gives an illusion of art through each line.
Ideas are written down, somewhere, somehow. The first idea I wrote down was pretty imaginative and ideasy, but I wouldn’t say the idea was ‘mature’. It had to grow somehow or be used in the appropriate way, be that I could make it in something good with the appropriate traditional publisher or if a script the right producer, or go the self-publishing route and all that entails for the author, or hit the delete button, if all else fails. But sometimes ideas just sit there and flounder and do nothing. This is good because they are left to grow as the writer grows as a writer and an author.
I haven’t done an extensive study on “narrative”, but a narrative is different to an outline or a sketch of events. One of my articles sketches or outlines someone’s career and vocation path, but I wouldn’t call it a narrative. A narrative would have embellished the sketch or outline by providing those things we call color, dialogue, what the person was thinking, the in-depth stuff of the soul condition on the journey, or however one frames the facts with flesh and blood. Narrative must go beyond the confines of a sketch or outline of events. It must substantiate it as much as the “narrator” knows.
It’s great to read an old article of mine. What somebody said in it are quite simply words of wisdom and even encourage me today. I think that anyone who enjoys reading, will find that the stories and articles that they look back on, can still resonate, years later. It’s like those pleasant surprises one finds in the attic and the basement; a long lost card or report that surprises one and causes a most pleasant feeling to come over you.