: Re: Are chapters with a single character inherently more difficult for an average reader to connect with? (And do you have any tips.) On the topic of keeping a reader engaged: Dialog is a great
I think you may be trying too hard.
If you really want to keep flashbacks in there, go ahead, but in general, when people are put into a survival type situation, their focus becomes very immediate, very concrete, and very practical for obvious reasons. I spent 3 years in combat without an ounce of time for reflection as an example. You just don't have a lot of time and energy for flashbacks when you are trying to survive.
I would recommend the novel Hatchet as a great way to describe a wilderness survival type situation. The majority of this novel takes place with one character alone, trying to survive in the wild.
Spend some time just being in nature. I think a lot of people are so urbanized and hyper-socialized that they think life is a giant sitcom. There is actually a whole lot going on in the quiet places that have no dialogue whatsoever. Many novels have captured the beauty of the wild, the bloody taste of striving to survive against the odds, the inner growth that can come from solitude. These things are part of human nature just as much as social interaction. You can use the "quietness" of the wilderness chapter as a juxtaposition from the busyness of the chapters with lots of characters in them. Try reading Hemingway. Not only is it always a good idea to read great writing when trying to write good writing, but he was a master of capturing man versus nature and man versus himself and juxtaposing wild pursuits in nature against complex social drama (Sun Also Rises comes to mind).
Focus on using simple descriptions of the character's actions to convey what they are feeling and thinking. It is challenging but incredibly rewarding if you do it right. Think of a 1970s naturalist movie: we have a wild expanse, we have a protagonist portrayed very realistically, we gain no artificial insight into what they think or feel except what we can directly observe. This kind of storytelling requires patience but can be very powerful.
Imagine putting this kind of thing into prose:
Character has survived plane crash but clearly can't walk.
Spends an hour crafting a splint from a sapling with a pocket knife.
Crawls down a steep ravine with an empty jerry can.
Fills the can at a stream, then slowly, agonizingly starts crawling back up the ravine wall.
Gets to the top, collapses, grabs the can, and pulls himself back toward the wrecked plane.
Character reaches toward plane where some baggage is still hanging in the upside down fuselage.
Character dislodges the plane and it suddenly slides down the ravine, setting off a minor avalanche that buries it in rock at the bottom of the ravine.
Character puts his forehead to the ground and gently cries.
You don't need to be told what is going on in his head. You can imagine it. It becomes that much more powerful because the reader goes through the agony and the frustration with the character. Again, there are many, many ways to convey things without using two characters in dialogue to explain them to your reader. Even if you don't want to go to the extreme of staying firmly "external" to the character's thoughts, you can use a different pace of storytelling intentionally as a bridge or counterpoint in the story as a whole. This is a great way to have character development and maturation take place and make it believable.
More posts by @Hamaas631
: Should I let my hero die with the villain? I'm writing my own fantasy novel and the way I want it to end is with the villain showing his humanity to the hero, begging for mercy, and when
: What is the correct way to switch dialogue between two or more characters during a conversation without it being confusing for the reader? When I use dialogue within the stories I write I have
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © selfpublishingguru.com2024 All Rights reserved.