When a story takes too long to develop and telegraphs exactly what's going to happen but not how, it can get boring. How soon does an author reveal the connections to future actions in the story? When it's done, how long do you as a reader want to wait? In the meantime that crisis dangles there in the background while the forefront of the story carries on without that knowledge and the reader knows all you-know-what is going to erupt and send everyone reeling into pain and suffering before it's all resolved.
I can't tell you how long the lapse between events should be. I only know when it's boring to read because I'm tired of waiting for the chaotic moment. The sad revelations, the offense and deep hurts, the "what should I do?" foolishness. I'm bored. Timing is everything as "they" say, and clearly some books don't have it. Much like many intangibles in writing fiction, there is no firm answer or directive. What works for one reader doesn't come close to satisfying another.
What I do know is if the author takes too long, stalls the crisis, I'm not good with it. Experiencing that now . . .
Father, it's hard to write well and create good stories, even those you give to us to tell. We try to honor you and do what you've called us to do. Help us, Lord. Apart from you, we can do nothing. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.
Into the Fire 
Leave a reply to Nicole Petrino-Salter Cancel reply