Subplot & Secondary Characters: Keeping Them in Line

Words - so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.  ~Nathaniel Hawthorne

I've decided to counter my last post, Les Miserables and Plot Focus, simply because I love secondary characters, subplot, and the opportunity for humor, depth, and humanity substory can bring. The trick is to find the right balance.

Some of my favorite characters I've written are NOT main characters. They are vibrant, quirky, loveable, or morose. Could the story have been written without them? I'd like to think the answer is no. They are integral in supporting the main plot, but keeping them in their place is important. Maybe that's why they are who they are, to pack a punch in the little spotlight they get.

I think of subplots as a webbing, running under, around, and through the main storyline, moving things along and coloring it up a bit. It's so great when the main story gets to intersect with a subplot in an unexpected or only hoped-for way, shifting the story into overdrive.

But I can't let the webbing get in the way and gum up the storyline. I'm not talking about conflict. Subplots are great for building up conflict, and that's a good thing. I'm talking about causing problems with pacing, flow, getting the story where it needs to go. This is where charts and outlines are extremely helpful, and I've seen some impressive organization by fellow authors.

This is not my plot outline. I find it comforting Ms. Rowling uses lined notebook paper.

So, I'm still studying, still learning, and I'm still trying to find that balance. Any tips?

Les Miserables and Plot Focus

I just finished watching Les Miserables. The one with Liam Neeson and Jeffrey Rush, and no singing. I have seen the musical, twice, and have been listening to the "story" told in song for almost 20 years. Sheesh, I'm old. I saw this version in the movie theater when it came out in 1998. That was when my 2nd son was born, and he just turned 13 this weekend. Holy shnikeys. But I digress.

What I'm thinking about after this viewing (on INSP, whatever that is, with TONS of commercials, mostly about an egg cooker and a Waltons marathon) is that even though the singing is gone, Eponine is almost non-existent (a little fall of rain could hardly hurt her now), Marius is minimized, and the Thenardiers are little more than a grumpy couple who drive a hard bargain, I still love this telling of Victor Hugo's hero, Jean Valjean.

Why?

Because his story is still boldly portrayed, nearly completely intact. And Javer's role, the "villain" if you must, is no less diminished. This is the story we most care about, and in making a movie from a very long novel, and a very long and beloved musical, this is where the time, money, and emotion is spent. From his prison flashbacks, to the priest who offers Valjean a new life, to Javer's commitment to bring his parolee to justice, to Valjean's love for Fantine, to his rises to success and need to escape, it is his struggle, it is his fight.

So, why am I blogging this? Because I tend to be like Hugo. No, I'm not comparing myself to a master and his quality of writing. Only in that I like characters. I like subplot and weaving and layers and if I allow myself, my books could be as long as Les Miserables. Which might be all right if I were a famous author with a few published books on the NYT Bestseller's list. But I'm not.

This is not me.

 
When I find myself wandering too far down Side-Story Lane, I'm going to think of this movie, and try to keep the reader's focus where I want it. I love my subplots and characters, but I've got to make sure my (and my reader's) time, money, and emotion are spent in the right places. In the best places, so the most important story can be told in the best way.