Narrative

Today I go back to old roots/routes. Narrative. How does an author compel a reader to continue on? Sure I have good role models – Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird literally rests inches away from my computer. And I know the words – foreshadowing, climax, plot points …. I wish I could write like Foucault and give up the very need for plot points – readers would just stay tuned in the expectation that on every page they would find a mind-blowing idea. Or like Harper Lee whose characters are so wonderful that reading her book (alas, she only has one) is like spending time with close friends. Or like J.K. Rowling (or Lewis Caroll) whose backstory and context are so fun that the narrative almost doesn't matter. Or George Orwell whose prose is so perfect that the words themselves compel the reader to keep on. Or Dashiell Hammett who leaves so much to the reader's imagination. Yet all of them use the standard plot points, cause and effect, conflict and resolution.

But somehow I feel that plot points and history-writing should not mix because the causal relationship that drives such a narrative is often psychological and getting to the psyche of a protagonist who has been dead almost 200 years is either not easy or impossible depending on who you consult. And the old teleological history has lost its luster – we can no longer say that we got to here because of there. Does unintended consequence propel narrative? Twas’ your idea Foucault, what say you? I think I'll go with the Rowling/Caroll model. History as dream-world.