Hello Everyone, wanted to drop in once again to thank you for sharing your opinions on the last feedback request. As voted on by you guys, Zeno and Markos's romance will continue, but it was definitely a learning experience in terms of what went wrong and what I can improve as a writer.
One other thing that stuck out to me was one of the comments on the pacing and structure of the second book, and how it differed from the first. There are plenty of differences between the two books, but I think one of the main ones I can pinpoint that has led to the slower pacing and less felt stakes in book 2 is the scope.
This is natural in a sequel, as the character roster grows and more and more plot threads are introduced. One of the main reasons for the increased scope is simply the simulation I have to run in my head and the branching consequences of the story. As Theodorus becomes more involved with more characters and different events happen, it's only normal that things get complicated; it is realistic.
For example, at the end of book 1 Nur Devlet is defeated, so in book 2 it's natural that we have to explore what happens in that aftermath, after all he didn't just die or disappear. I could skip over him until it becomes relevant again, but then I would have to info dump everything that happened, and it would feel rushed and his character progression meaningless. So a few chapters have to be dedicated to that.
Zeno is another character that will become relevant soon, so the same reasoning applies. And a whole host of characters were introduced in Suyren and each have their own journeys.
All of this to say that it is slightly inevitable that the tight pacing of book 1 is hard to replicate without sacrificing some of this complexity, although the structure I have planned for book 3 will more closely resemble the first book in terms of concrete goals and crisis for Theodorus to overcome.
I wanted to get your opinion on this topic since it is something I think about a lot. How much level of detail should I get into things?
I wanted to use the latest Siege mini arc as a case study. I could have summarized the events much quicker and spent maybe one chapter on it, but a lot of the character moments and growth would have been lost, like Kratos and Christos's spat, Georgius's decline, or the layers of thought that went into the siege. Additionally, one of the things I strive for in my book is showing how it happens. Not just saying it does. If I just write a brief summary of how Theodorus defeated Georgius, we miss a lot of details about how exactly he did it, and why the strategy works. It's easy to write that Theodorus convinced Cassandra to repeal the mercenary deal Adanis did, it's harder to think through how he can go about doing so in a realistic manner.
But I am aware that the end result of this thinking is the siege mini arc I had planned for 2 chapters ended up being double the amount. That was 4 chapters where the 'main plot' seemingly didn't move forward because I wanted to dive into the nitty-gritty of the military tactics.
So my question to you readers is this: would you rather I skip a bit over the how, and focus more on moving the plot forward? Or keep things as they are?
As always, be sure to drop your thoughts down below. And Merry Christmas to you all🎄