Interludes and asides

[Watcher55]

The climax of my WIP ends with the MC passing out and tumbling into a well. As he falls, things are going on inside his head and he slams into the marble floor of a temple.

Between his sudden stop and his slow return to consciousness, there is a 250 word philosophic/expository interlude and, so far, it works. The problem is that the interlude is unique in the novel as it is an aside wherein the narrator speaks to the reader in terms of “We”. I’m all for breaking rules, but I wonder if I’ve gone too far a field.

Is it fair to the reader to include such an interlude this far into a novel even if it draws from the MC’s experience and speaks to what comes after?

I could shorten it and use it as a chapter heading in the form of a "lost quote" but I'm afraid it'll lose impact.

[polymath]

I guess it could work if the setup and transition glides into the interlude. I assume it's a soliloquy or dramatic monologue interlude that transitions into the final outcome. The risk or challenge I see is crafting it so it's not coming from a disembodied mind in an infinite void.

Another concern I have is whether the first person plural interlude narration wants to be the narrative point of view for the entire narrative. Like William Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" first person plural narrator gossiping about Emily. The "we," "us", "our" voice comes across clearly as a collective, conspiratorial figment of the town's gossip. One person speaking for how everyone else supposedly thinks of Emily, like kind of situationally ironic how it reflects a one-sided attitude from a gossip and presumptively includes others' attitudes.

[Watcher55]

I guess it could work if the setup and transition glides into the interlude. I assume it's a soliloquy or dramatic monologue interlude that transitions into the final outcome. The risk or challenge I see is crafting it so it's not coming from a disembodied mind in an infinite void.

I'm not sure what you mean by "disembodied mind in an infinite void", but I can say it's the same narrative voice as the rest of the book and not GOD SPEAKING. The narrator simply addresses the reader as a fellow and provides his insight and perspective on a particular aspect of the human condition. It's almost as if everything that came before inevitably lead to these 250 words and everything else proceeds from them.

Here are the first three sentences in their raw form (this is literally what came out of the end of my pencil)

A curious thing about light is that it doesn’t expose darkness, because darkness runs from it. Too much light can blind us, not enough and we see only gloom; darkness clings to the edges and surfaces of hidden places and defines shadow. If we live in the dark long enough even gloom can be too bright.

[polymath]

A curious thing about light is that it doesn’t expose darkness, because darkness runs from it. Too much light can blind us, not enough and we see only gloom; darkness clings to the edges and surfaces of hidden places and defines shadow. If we live in the dark long enough even gloom can be too bright.

That's kind of what I mean by a disembodied mind in an infinite void. It comes from no one and no place and no time in particular. In isolation it feels like the "us" and "we" include readers and by extension the entirety of sentient beings for all time, where if I understand your intent the us and we are the narrator and the protagonist.

If so, consider voice and perception nuances to cue expressly the narrator and the protagonist collectively.

The curious thing, our light doesn't expose darkness. Dark hides from our light. Dark clings to our hidden edges and surfaces and defines our shadows. Too much of our light blinds us. Too little and we are only gloom. If we live near dark long enough, even our gloom can be too bright. For instance, but that's from my creative vision which I don't want to impose on yours.

[Watcher55]

A curious thing about light is that it doesn’t expose darkness, because darkness runs from it. Too much light can blind us, not enough and we see only gloom; darkness clings to the edges and surfaces of hidden places and defines shadow. If we live in the dark long enough even gloom can be too bright.

That's kind of what I mean by a disembodied mind in an infinite void. It comes from no one and no place and no time in particular. In isolation it feels like the "us" and "we" include readers and by extension the entirety of sentient beings for all time, where if I understand your intent the us and we are the narrator and the protagonist.

If so, consider voice and perception nuances to cue expressly the narrator and the protagonist collectively.

The curious thing, light doesn't expose darkness. Dark runs from our light. Too much of our light blinds. Too little and we are only gloom. Dark clings to our hidden edges and surfaces and defines our shadows. If we live in dark long enough, even our gloom can be too bright. For instance, but that's my from creative vision which I don't want to impose on yours.

Hmmm, I see your point and now I'm seriously considering switching from first person plural, but there's still that part of me that needs to defend my increasingly precarious position, because the intent was for the narrator to address the audience because it's an "everyman" tale and the guy just had some serious Brain Salad Surgery (I guess I shouldn't have buried the lead, but I'm still a little greedy when it comes to revealing things like that just yet).

I know that might come off as preachy and that's not my intent. My intent is to make the reader step back and think about the whole mosaic that defines our existence. I know, a book with an agenda . . . It was the first rule I broke. I guess my question is the interlude a bridge too far? I appreciate your perspective.

[polymath]

I was editing while you were posting. So your quoted version and my last version aren't in concordance. What I was projecting is the narrator channeling the protagonist's nonconscious meanders, thus keeping in touch while he's out of it, and thus avoiding overt preaching or agendas, that are nonetheless presented if subtly disguised.

A bridge too far? Maybe not, on such flights of possibility are great ideas conceived and born. Nor is a narrator's interlude a rule contravener. O. Henry's much acclaimed "The Gift of the Magi" wraps up with a narrator interlude addressing readers, inspirationally validating the body of the narrative and the final outcome of Della's complication after a profound reversal and recognition in the final crisis.

[Watcher55]

I was editing while you were posting. So your quoted version and my last version aren't in concordance. What I was projecting is the narrator channeling the protagonist's nonconscious meanders, thus keeping in touch while he's out of it. The protagonist is OUT of it and has no part in the interlude except that he's the one the narrator uses as portrait.

A bridge too far? Maybe not, on such flights of possibility are great ideas conceived and born. Nor is a narrator's interlude a rule contravener. O. Henry's much acclaimed "The Gift of the Magi" wraps up with a narrator interlude addressing readers, inspirationally validating the body of the narrative and the final outcome of Della's complication after a profound reversal and recognition in the final crisis.

Thanks for that. I'm not sure what form it's going to take but I know I'm going to keep it.