Chapters (and the Destruction of the Ryan)

[lathany]

The Cambridge Dictionary defines a chapter as "any of the separate parts into which a book or other piece of text is divided, usually numbered or given a title".

After three books, it's pretty clear that I have different ideas about chapters to most published (real) authors. To me, a chapter is a specific scene and when the characters have had their say (or, specifically, the narrator has) then the scene is over. With Mourn's Gift I subdivided chapters into parts, usually based on narration (eg. there was a big celebration which I narrated from nine viewpoints, each viewpoint was a different part). However, the net result seems to be far more chapters than in published books (where authors will often switch between voices and events all under the same part or chapter) and I wonder about the differences.

Do people care about chapters and how long they are? Or think that there is a "right" use for them? Also, should they have names or only consecutive numbers (although some authors make a deliberate effort not to follow this convention; eg. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time)?

Toddler-wise, Ryan is expressing his destructive nature. A lot. He's ripped up six books and left a lot of scratch marks on Beatrice. Hopefully this will be a short phase.

Comments

[al-fruitbat.livejournal.com]

Dunno if it matters, but The Da Vinci Code - the recent publishing phenomenon - has exceptionally small chapters. One or two pages I think is the norm. I've just checked, and it finishes on chapter 105.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

I've read The Da Vinci Code. frax lent it to me (amusingly enough, after saying how little she liked it!). Certainly it's closer to my own taste in chapters (and I similarly approve of the early plot pacing).

[wimble.livejournal.com]

Short chapters give a convenient point to put the book down, when interrupting for other activities, such as going to sleep.

Conversely, short chapters give rise to the "just one more" syndrome before putting the book down.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

You like to have your cake and eat it, don't you?!

[wimble.livejournal.com]

Oh yes ;-) I think my point is I prefer short chapters because I can choose to put the book down at a moment's notice, or alternatively, carry on reading in the knowledge that I will still be able to put it down, honest.

Conversely, Pratchett doesn't use chapters at all, and it's always a wrench putting a book down, because it never feels like he's allowed for a convenient break. And Quicksilver (my current nighttime reading) has to get put down almost mid-sentence, becuase by that state of exhaustion, and that level of involvement, I just can't cope with a full chapter (but if I only want to read full chapters, I won't get started).

[lathany.livejournal.com]

A short chapter lover? My kind of reader!

[dr-bob.livejournal.com]

The David Brin book I'm reading atm is also very short chapters (<1 to 10 pages), each switches from character to character, usually a single scene. He has then subdivided it into larger sections of 1-5 chapters. I've no idea why, but then I've only read a quarter of it.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Let me know what you think when you finish it. Whether he seems to have an overall structure or just likes playing with his chapters!

[cuthbertcross.livejournal.com]

I do think that some published authors prefer their chapters tidy (or maybe their editors do), and it's quite refreshing to read work that doesn't subscribe to the x000 words = 1 chapter religiously. What interests me in a book is narrative, plot and readability, and originality (for maintaining my desire to keep reading).

Let's face it, books are similar to pop songs; what gets a song released usually has very little to do with the talent/musical standard of the song and far more to do with publicity/PR/status of the author/group in question and the oh-so-fickle perceived view of the public by those who make publishing decisions. Plus luck.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

(or maybe their editors do)

Which is definitely a good point.

What interests me in a book is narrative, plot and readability, and originality (for maintaining my desire to keep reading).

True enough. I doubt anyone thinks that their chapter structure is enough to keep the reader occupied. Although, possibly, somewhere, someone has tried this!

[ealuscerwen.livejournal.com]

To me, chapters represent the way the work was made to be read. Chapters in Dickens, for instance, reflect the way his books were serialised and each chapter has its own focus, its own beginning, middle and end.

Those modern authors who prefer shorter chapters imply to me that they want a complete break of the reader's attention and a refocusing of attention prior to the start of the next chapter. On the other hand, I would take works in which the scene is changed within a chapter without that type of break to want me to bear all those scenes and events in mind and link them together with the other events in that chapter.

I don't think it matters in the slightest how long chapters are. It's easier to have shorter chapters or clear scene breaks if you are writing purely in order to be pre-sleep reading matter. Otherwise, chapter length should suit the material and the way you want the material to be linked.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

It's easier to have shorter chapters or clear scene breaks if you are writing purely in order to be pre-sleep reading matter.

Does anyone set out to write purely in order to be pre-sleep reading matter?!

Otherwise, chapter length should suit the material and the way you want the material to be linked.

Which is interesting commentary on Pratchett. As wimble says, he doesn't have the chapter breaks at all. Possibly because he writes one long story where all the events constantly keep being referred back to.

On the other hand, I would take works in which the scene is changed within a chapter without that type of break to want me to bear all those scenes and events in mind and link them together with the other events in that chapter.

I like that way of looking at it. That chapters are mini-episodes which should be regarded as at being complete (sub)units in themselves.

[Continued]

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Of course, if the mini-episodes were only (eg.) four parts, then I guess the book would be divided into parts not chapters. Or has anyone written a three or four chapter book?

Those modern authors who prefer shorter chapters imply to me that they want a complete break of the reader's attention and a refocusing of attention prior to the start of the next chapter.

Which, I guess, is slightly different from the mini-episodes approach. This, to me, seems more like the structure you would want for a crime or mystery novel where the reader might need time to mull over clues and events and relate them back to the overall plot.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

My preference is for medium-sized chapters, i.e. longer that four pages, shorter than lots. Enough that if I want to read just one more chapter, I can do so without falling asleep.

The very short ones take some getting used to, perhaps because the rapid change of focus is distracting to me.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Four pages of what size? Normal paperback?

Also - is before bedtime the only time you read?

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Four paperback pages? Yes, I suppose. I guess my ideal chapter length would be approximately 10 pages (20 sides) of paperback sized text, though actual observation of my behaviour might contradict that.

Most of my reading occurs on the tube, with occasional pre(or post)-sleep reading and recently some actual weekend reading.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

PS chapters should have numbers for sure, since otherwise its hard to remember which one you read last (I've only recently "discovered" bookmarks, and live in fear of the day that I relapse to the old crack-the-spine method of page-marking). While chapter titles are a fun innovation, they don't make any impact on my reading - I don't remember them for more than a couple of minutes.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

You'll only confuse people if you say 1 page = 2 sides, because they're used to talking about "page 22", not "page 11, side b".

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

And your point?

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

I have to have one?

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Did I say you did?

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Er... what was the question again?