I have an old story and a promising new one in the same story cycle. Both WIP, as everything is, these days. :-S
Both stories involve the same cast of characters and the same big trouble. They happen 7 very eventful years apart.
In the new story, which happens at the ramp-up of the conflict, the characters involved work out a strategy, and the sketch of a fall-back should the strategy fail for lack of resources or unity.
Of course, the resources are unavailable, and lack of unity delays implementation of the fall-back plan -- it should have been set in motion after two years, but they cannot get the pieces into placeā¦
... until the old story, which happens seven years after the first, and marks the turning point of the conflict. As in, the fall back plan will now be set in motion.
And -- major inconsistency -- many of the characters are shocked, shocked to the point of rebellion or just walking away, that they are going to have to do something so crazy, reckless, counterintuitive and (possibly) evil. It's one of the points the plot hinges on.
But, if I write the earlier (newer) story as planned, they were the ones who agreed on it before, or even came up with it!
20 years ago I'd have scrapped the earlier story for being beyond repair from the get-go. Today, knowing more about people, politics, and self-delusion, I feel that even with competent and fairly wise characters, this kind of selective failure of memory is more likely than not.
But the readers, of course, will notice. So, what makes the characters react shocked about the implementation of a plan they themselves helped make (and how those who stay "on track" appear a great deal crazier than those who do not) will have to become a central underlying theme in the narrative.
I wonder (and I would be glad for pointers) if this particular, what, heel-face-heel pirouette is on TV Tropes, or if anyone has examples where this has been done in fiction, well or less-so. (Real world -- not so much. Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.)
Both stories involve the same cast of characters and the same big trouble. They happen 7 very eventful years apart.
In the new story, which happens at the ramp-up of the conflict, the characters involved work out a strategy, and the sketch of a fall-back should the strategy fail for lack of resources or unity.
Of course, the resources are unavailable, and lack of unity delays implementation of the fall-back plan -- it should have been set in motion after two years, but they cannot get the pieces into placeā¦
... until the old story, which happens seven years after the first, and marks the turning point of the conflict. As in, the fall back plan will now be set in motion.
And -- major inconsistency -- many of the characters are shocked, shocked to the point of rebellion or just walking away, that they are going to have to do something so crazy, reckless, counterintuitive and (possibly) evil. It's one of the points the plot hinges on.
But, if I write the earlier (newer) story as planned, they were the ones who agreed on it before, or even came up with it!
20 years ago I'd have scrapped the earlier story for being beyond repair from the get-go. Today, knowing more about people, politics, and self-delusion, I feel that even with competent and fairly wise characters, this kind of selective failure of memory is more likely than not.
But the readers, of course, will notice. So, what makes the characters react shocked about the implementation of a plan they themselves helped make (and how those who stay "on track" appear a great deal crazier than those who do not) will have to become a central underlying theme in the narrative.
I wonder (and I would be glad for pointers) if this particular, what, heel-face-heel pirouette is on TV Tropes, or if anyone has examples where this has been done in fiction, well or less-so. (Real world -- not so much. Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.)