Any ideas for the structure of the climax?
Hi, I have a book idea and already have a more detailed idea of how the book will unfold. Without giving too much away 😉
It's about someone who has a poor start in life and, through hard work, fights his way up to become an idol. However, fame causes him to lose everything (and I don't mean material things, but people).
I'm having trouble describing the part about the rich man. I'm not sure how to explain it. The missing chapters are just meant to show that he's out of touch with reality and has forgotten his former values. But how is that supposed to be expressed in actions? It's hard to write something like, "Chapter 10, XY buys a Ferrari," and Chapter 11, "XY buys a Rolex." I just don't know how to make the buildup to the climax (which is supposed to be my ending) interesting while still conveying this loss of down-to-earthness.
Before my climax, the protagonist has (character) similarities to Ronaldo in terms of arrogance and greed. Maybe that will help you.
(2 votes)
Loading...
There is no conflict, so it’s hard for you.
The conflict of your history is basically “figure against poverty”. But as soon as it is rich and poverty has left behind, the conflict is over. The climax of history is also over because this would be the last hurdle before wealth.
What you’re still writing is the end of history. It is clear that you no longer have a climax, because there is no conflict anymore.
In the end, you can still describe how the figure stands for its wealth and how it affects its acquaintances and friends, but that is then nothing more that would bring much change and the longer you pull that, the more your readers get the feeling “was that finally? The story was over before eternity, what is this?
In order to work this story at this climax as you imagine it, you need another conflict.
The other option is to focus on another climax.
Okay, maybe I’ll write it a little different. It is about an orphan, which was left alone from birth. He fights up and is known for his ground and friendliness. However, as he enjoys the fame of success for a long time, he loses his positive qualities. The whole thing ends that he becomes a victim of an attack and one of his friends from the time before his glory saves his life, but himself dies. The end should be that he realizes how money and glory have corrupted him.
Where is the conflict?
No one likes such a moral lobe. This is annoying and anti-climate. Such a thing only works with a credible Charaker development in the course of history and not with a sudden event that is supposed to bring the turn at once.
Stilzer Scrooge will not be a positively adjusted man at once at the end of “A Christmas Story”, but learns throughout the whole story even if he tries to deny it. Every lesson touches him somewhere and the climax where he is confronted with death is just the trigger for being able to finally admit and be grateful for what he already has.
If you think “end well all good” is an excellent time for an end. Then there’s a little final word.
The culmination of a story is the culmination of the gratifications between the polarising interest parties.
The main character wants something and does not give up despite all obstacles and overcomes some or all of them even. But also the opposite does not give up and increases the effort to make the main figure fail until it eventually reaches the most extreme means available to it. And when these means are used, that is the climax. The last battle, so to speak.
Maybe the conflict should be that you want to prevent him from becoming world-class in what he does. When he does it, you think. All right. Book out.
And then the moral part comes…
ok. (although not to be 400 pages now, but okay).
Do you have a tip about the actual question?
With musicals, it’s the same if you want to tell a story. With musicals like “Cats” it can seem as if there is no conflict and no history, but not every musical can work that way. These are more the exceptions in which this works than the rule.
And no, you obviously don’t understand what I mean. Straightening or not, it doesn’t matter.
It’s just that the figure has to want something and that someone or something doesn’t want this figure to achieve it.
Most classic example: Romeo and Julia. They want each other, but their whole families want to prevent it.
And you don’t need to write a whole book for a musical. A play would be enough.
Nevertheless, I recommend the books “How to write a damn good novel” and “The most common mistakes in script writing and how to avoid it”.
Actually, the story was planned as a musical. However, I am not so far with the pieces of music. That’s why I thought to write it for the first time as a book and then, if necessary, make the pieces. I was thinking about musicals. Is it different?
I understand what you mean, a story can’t be too straight. But that’s not necessarily that idea. At the beginning of his career there are still serious doubts that such an orphan child can bring it to something and he is repeatedly rejected. Isn’t that conflict enough?
Then the story becomes boring and has no climax.
What brings tension to a story is the conflict. And this is composed of the goals, wishes and dreams of the main characters and at least one figure, a circumstance or a force that directly counteracts the achievement of these goals, wishes and dreams.
Without such a conflict, no tension, no climax and only teeth at the readers.
Well, there is no conflict in the sense. On the one hand, it should be a “conflict” with itself. On the other hand, morality and indirect criticism. Orphan children have very bad basic conditions in the USA. There are also (smaller) conflicts about the behaviour of the protagonist shortly before the Klimax (the part on which the question goes).