On Apr 6, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Nat Russo wrote: > Hi Ray, > > I'm still merrily revising my first draft (ok...sometimes not-so-merrily). I > noticed something in my writing that I wanted to ask you about, and it deals > with the subject of cause and effect. Paraphrasing a book on writing that I > recently read, the author suggested you should *never* reverse the two, as > this could cause some confusion in the reader. I hate words like "always" > and "never" when it comes to stuff like this, though. > > Here's a brief example of effect following cause, as the author of the book I > alluded to above would do it. > > ---Effect following Cause--- > "Bells began to ring throughout the city, indicating the alarm had been > raised. John knew he wouldn't be alone for long. As he rounded the corner > he got his first glimpse of the docks to the south. At least fifty guards > lined the street between him and his destination. There would be no way to > break through their line. > John swore." > --------------------- > > Yeah, that works and everything. You see the cause [oh crap there's a bunch > of guards] before the effect [John swears]. But I find myself preferring the > following in this situation: > > --Cause following Effect-- > "Bells began to ring throughout the city, indicating the alarm had been > raised. John knew he wouldn't be alone for long. As he rounded the corner > he got his first glimpse of the docks to the south. > John swore. > At least fifty guards lined the street between him and his destination. > There would be no way to break through their line." > --------------------- > > The latter version seems more...I don't know...cinematic? You see John swear > [the effect] a moment before you know why [the cause], but this doesn't seem > jarring to my ear. In fact, it reminds me of the countless times I've seen > such a sequence in action/suspense films. (But maybe that's the problem? > It's cliche?) > > I'm just curious about your take on this. Is this a situation of "whatever > sounds best to you", or a "for the love of God, man, never do that!"...or > somewhere in between? > > Thanks, > Nat > > -- > Sent from my Crappy Laptop (tm) using a poor excuse for a web browser. >
Trust your gut. The first is flawed, because you've lost your point-of-view. Your character's point-of-view correctly views the causality. EVERYTHING must serve the reader. Break rules to make it serve if you need to. Best, R.E.F. ---- www.crydee.com Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.
