|
Yes a book should have unresolved things that drive the reader forward (otherwise it's just a series of short stores). You could opt to do something like ERB with regular little reminders: "hey, don't forget Tarzan is in deep doo-doo". But what struck me, and inspired me to open this thread, was the realisation that - despite my own preferences - the trick of cutting mid-scene actually seemed to be working on me. I'd just turn over to see what it was she saw in that damn photo ... and then I'd keep reading because the author hadn't left me any convenient place to stop*. These weren't really climax areas, just the ongoing investigation. This was quite a different tactic to what I'd seen in the clumsy action novel, where it seemed obvious that the chapter had had a bit tacked onto the end to raise the stakes.
I agree with Mr Ploppy that - to me - chapters should be a convenient place to stop. But I can also see the side that says part of the object is to keep the reader reading ... and if that's the case then not giving the reader an easy-out seems like a smart tactic.
Am I the only gullible one here that falls for these tricks, despite not really liking or approving of them?
* Pratchett, for example, might not have chapters, but there are regular space-breaks between scenes.
|