Helical Construction in the Work of Ken MacLeod

by Jo Walton on May 14, 2015

There’s a technique that MacLeod uses in several novels which I call helical construction. In helical construction, the story is told in two interwoven strands, each strand entirely separate from the other, both progressing forward in time and joining at the end. Chapters alternate between the two strands. If you consider the events of the book chronologically, the events of the past strand all take place before any of the events of the future strand, but the reader encounters the two strands in tandem. This casts shadows in both directions in terms of plot, foreshadowing, reader knowledge and expectations, and subverts a lot of the traditional ways stories are told.

Apart from MacLeod I can only think of three other genre examples of helical construction, Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed (1975), Iain Banks’ Use of Weapons (1990) and Alison Sinclair’s Legacies (1995). Sinclair has said that she was influenced by Le Guin. We know that MacLeod suggested this structure to Banks, and as MacLeod has certainly read The Dispossessed, I think it’s reasonable to assume that Le Guin is the vector of influence here.

The Dispossessed is a story about a man inventing a kind of physics, and issues of simultaneity and sequence are central to that. The book is about much more than that—indeed, it’s about so much more than that that almost nobody would talk about it in those terms, but those are the terms which the helical structure reinforces and supports. Each strand of the story ends with the protagonist moving between planets, so the end of the book has him both setting out and returning, fitting his home planet’s proverb of “True journey is return.”

It’s a fascinating structure, but rare, and one that only works for certain kinds of stories, so it’s interesting that MacLeod has returned to it so often, using it for The Stone Canal (1996), The Sky Road (1999) and Cosmonaut Keep (2000).

The reason it’s rare is because stories, by and large, “begin at the beginning, go on until they reach the end and then stop” as Lewis Carroll puts it. Whether or not they do that, we find stories unsatisfactory unless they have a climax, and we want that climax to come at the end. Victorian readers liked to have a long denouement after that climax, but we rarely have the patience for a short one these days, we don’t really want to read through what Patricia Wrede calls “Rewards and weddings” (think of the Star Wars medal scene), we want a story to end on the climax. A helical story isn’t two stories, though it may appear that way at first, it’s one story wound around, in such a way that the climax falls at the end of the book but in the middle of one strand of the story, which thus feeds back into the other strand. The middle, then, has to be the climax of both strands, and has to be satisfying that way. There’s generally a double climax, all happening at the end of the book but only half of it happening at the end of the chronologically viewed events of the story.

This description makes it sound more complicated than it is, but even so there are all kinds of problems with making this work at all, let alone with making it satisfying to the reader. There are problems with making both strands interesting, with having the events and information in the future strand not spoil the past strand, and with keeping both strands in tension with each other. It asks the reader to do a lot of work, to invest in two stories, even two sets of characters, keep them both straight and additionally figure out how they connect. The payoff really has to be worth it for this level of reader investment. Naturally it lends itself best to stories where there is a great deal of revelation, and where the details of how something could have happened are more interesting and more important than the fact that it did—the fact will already be evident to the reader from very early on, from the other strand.

It’s worth noting at this point the difference between a helical structure and a ratcheting one. A ratchet, like Connie Willis’s Doomsday Book (1992) or Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Heritage of Hastur (1975), has two points of view which alternate and may be widely separated, but they are taking place at the same time, with the story progressing in each in turn, and although you might go back to an earlier point with the character change, the story progresses with normal internal chronology. The reader doesn’t know anything ahead of the characters, and there is generally one climax as the characters come together. This is what MacLeod does, very effectively, in Learning the World (2005). With a ratchet, as with a helix, adding one chapter means adding two, and the pace in each strand has to be kept in tension. The distinction is not to do with separation of the strands, but with internal chronology. The particular beauty of the helix is that it twists and winds and wraps back, the second strand takes place after the first. A ratchet generally comes together and has one climax, or if it has two, they are consecutive in time.

Helical structure is rewarding but initially challenging for the reader. There are several potential issues that have to be dealt with. First is distinguishing the two strands. Macleod makes it obvious by having one of them always in first person and the other in third. In The Stone Canal and Cosmonaut Keep the future strands are in multiple third, in The Stone Canal close to omniscient, while the past strands are in first. (I’m using the term “past” for the strand set earlier, though it is of course also in our putative future!) In The Sky Road, the future strand is in first while the past strand is in very close third. Using this unmistakeable marker of point-of-view helps with chapter switching, you know where you are immediately. These books also all have very clearly marked chapters, with chapter titles as well as numbers. You’re not going to turn the page without noticing and be confused.

Secondly, there’s the issue of connecting the strands. If the strands don’t at first seem connected in any way, the reader is going to start asking why they’re in the same book. If it isn’t obvious (as it is in The Stone Canal) then there have to be some connections, parallels, and themes to hook them up.

The Stone Canal begins in the future strand, and introduces Jon Wilde, in the far future on another planet, and then in the second chapter gives you the same Jon Wilde in university in Glasgow in the 1970s. The thrill this gave me when I first read it can’t be overestimated, and it’s hard to see how this science fictional sucker punch could have been delivered in any other way—if I’d started with Wilde in university and gone slowly forward to him waking up next to a robot on New Mars it wouldn’t have been anything like the same. The science-fictional jolt of connection there is conveyed entirely through the structure. We just saw him waking up with a robot on another planet in the far future, and here he is talking about the Singularity in a student bar! I don’t think I’ve ever been so strongly hit with the feeling of “this is a future that could have me in it”. Besides, it’s only half of the punch, as will be described below.

What we have is the story of one man—two men and a woman, really, but essentially one man, Jonathan Wilde, libertarian, anarchist, and artificial intelligence. In the past strand we see him as a post-grad in the seventies, and follow his life and relationships with Myra, Reid, and Annette, in jumps throughout the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century, from Earth to Space to New Mars, and through the setting up of that strange society. In the future strand we follow him and Dee, a “gynoid”, a possibly conscious possibly sentient hybrid cyborg woman whose body is that of Wilde’s wife Annette, as they escape across New Mars. The future strand has much more action and much less realism than the past strand. It also has an alien planet in the process of being terraformed and a very odd society. Because Wilde is one man in both strands, the whole thing can be seen as the very long process of his growing up—insofar as he might be considered grown up even by the end.

We know from the beginning—from the first line of the book—that Jon Wilde died, and we slowly gather that Reid killed him. Our questions are how and where and why, and the answers, when we get them, are not all that satisfying, because the book has something more interesting to do than a murder investigation. The past strand doesn’t end, as we’d expect, with Wilde’s death or with changing planet (as we might expect, seeing two planets, and from the examples of The Dispossessed, Legacies, Cosmonaut Keep) but goes on in first person to his first post-life life, as Jay-Dub the robot. (So we only thought we saw the same person waking up next to a robot…) This switch is brilliant, and it’s most especially brilliant by giving us the end of the book—the most future part of the future and all the resolution—in first person. The past has unexpectedly overtaken the future and there is only one climax, because Wilde’s life bifurcated. The end of The Stone Canal subverts not just traditional story expectations but also our expectations of a helical structure. And if it ends with changing planets, it’s not with the central voyage of reaching New Mars, but with the final one of a return to Earth.

The Sky Road has a strand set in the near future and one set in the far future, both on Earth. They have completely separate characters and plots, and a lot of the tension between them arises out of trying to discover how Clovis’s world grew out of Myra’s. We learn early on that Myra is the Deliverer, and how she became that is one of our persistent questions as the book continues and which is answered only at the last moment of the past strand. The main connection between the strands is that Clovis is researching Myra, planning to write a biography, and his investigation of her life, so different from his own.

The book begins in the future strand, a future that has a strangely historic and pastoral feeling to it. OK, these people are building a spaceship, but they’re welding it out of boiler plate. And there’s an engineer caste of tinkers, who have their own very strange computers. But they drink beer and whisky, they’re in Scotland, they smoke, like all MacLeod characters, they fall in love and fall into bed. Clovis is doing a PhD. They may feel claustrophobic at the thought of light pollution, but they’re people much like us, and they’re used to having a three day weekend.

The protagonist of the past strand, Myra, who was a student in Glasgow in the seventies and who is much closer to us in time, feels much further from us. It’s partly her post-Communist cynicism and attitude, and partly her age. Myra is a great example of that rare thing in genre a genuinely old character—she’s been around a long time, and despite the various rejuvenations she’s genuinely different because of the length of life she’s lived through.

The climax of the book is the “deliverance”, how Myra became the Deliverer. We’ve gradually been learning how this world grew out of that—and of course the reader will also have read The Cassini Division and be aware that this is an alternate future, but I believe the book works without that extra layer. The moment of the deliverance is the revelatory climax, sealing what we have learned, but the end of the book is denoument, the vision of a green terraformed Mars over the shoulder of the statue of Myra. The resolution of the future strand is in Clovis beginning his new life as a tinker.

There are parallels and contrasts given us by the helical structure—old cynical woman and young naive man, wide world and narrow world, both of them experiencing work, romance with somebody far different in age, and a train trip south to/from Glasgow. The structure makes us notice these parallels and contrasts. Our questions mostly arise in the future strand and are answered in the past strand—why are people living longer, what happened at the deliverance, what’s up with Merrial, what about Clovis’s religion, who are the tinkers? This echoes the theme that Clovis states early on about the importance of history to the present and the future.

In Cosmonaut Keep the two strands at first seem to have come not just from completely different books, but completely different kinds of science fiction. The past strand is near future communist Scotland, lots of computer tech, a first encounter with aliens. The future strand takes place on a planet called Mingulay with light-speed spaceships, calculations painstakingly done on paper, and four kinds of aliens—none of them the ones humanity is encountering for the first time in the past strand. Apart from the co-incidence of surnames of the characters, there’s nothing at first to connect them, and it takes a lot of the book before it starts to fit together, before we even have the right questions. By the time we get to the end, to the revelation that Matt wasn’t the First Navigator but that Gregor is, we know or can deduce everything.

The main thing that’s great about Cosmonaut Keep is the worldbuilding. The very idea of the Second Sphere is awesome—worlds settled by intelligent squid and dinosaurs (which happen to be the “greys” of ufology) and other hominids, all living and trading at light speed, hundreds of years away from Earth and disconnected from it. The culture of Mingulay is fascinating, with its cosmonaut caste with their Great Project, programming without computers, and their thoroughly worked out Lucretian non-religious religion. The past strand world is less fun, instead of hooking us with details it hooks us with fast moving plot and an engaging narrator.

The past strand is told all in first person from Matt Cairns “an artist not a technician” hacker. He comes from Communist Scotland, he’s a Webbly (The International Workers of the World Wide Web) and his strand of the book moves at lightning speed, from Edinburgh to the US and then into space, liaising with the aliens, building a starship.

The future strand concerns his descendants in Mingulay generations later, after more than two hundred years on the planet, and is told in multiple third person. We spend most time in the point of view of Gregor Cairns, but we also visit the head of his grandfather James, his friend Elizabeth, and a trader from Nova Babylonia. This strand is slower—the world takes more explanation and exploration, it’s full of fascinating detail.

The helical structure causes us to ask questions—firstly, how do these two strands connect, secondly, how did Matt get to Mingulay (which evolves into the question of navigation), thirdly, how have Matt and the other cosmonauts kept young, fourthly, what’s up with the Great Project? The answer to the first two questions are the climax to the early strand, the other two are answered by Matt as the climax to the late strand. Both strands end with Matt and other people getting into the Bright Star and going somewhere, not entirely sure of their navigation.

The helical structure gives us other parallels. Gregor falls in love with Lydia, then realises he really loves Elizabeth. Matt does the same with Jadey and Camila. Gregor’s romance ends happily, Matt ends without either woman—though as Gregor is his descendant, he can’t have lived celibate! Then there are the old computers—the legacy geeks in the early strand, and the legacy code with nothing to run it on in the late one. Computing resouces are a major theme in both parts, as is the question of negotiating with mysterious aliens, and human groups with their own ideological motivations.

All three of these are excellent books, and using this unusual structure makes them stronger and more effective than if they’d been told conventionally. And that’s really nifty.



Anderson 05.14.15 at 3:33 pm

Apart from MacLeod I can only think of three other genre examples of helical construction

Count Zero, by William Gibson – a triple helix.

And in Use of Weapons, one strand was going backwards not forwards.

(Roadmarks by Zelazny comes to mind; can’t remember it at all, but the chapters alternate between “Two” and “One,” with “Two” coming first, which caused me to wonder at first was my copy defective. Anyone recall the plot(s)?)


Anderson 05.14.15 at 3:34 pm

(Oops, I somehow read past the past/future part, which doesn’t apply to Gibson.)


LizardBreath 05.14.15 at 4:47 pm

Would you call that the same structure that’s going on with Ancillary Justice? I’m not sure that it is, but at least the first part of the book does alternate flashback chapters with the main plot taking place in the book’s ‘present’.


Matt 05.14.15 at 5:34 pm

Alastair Reynolds likes to use this structure too. He uses it in Chasm City and Pushing Ice to connect events separated by large but comprehensible timespans. There’s an extreme example of it in House of Suns where the past and future strands connect a woman and her many clones, separated by ~6 million years.


Robert 05.14.15 at 5:35 pm

Maybe I was being doctrinaire when I read it, but does The Stone Canal work if you do not think a propertarian society could endure?


SimonH 05.14.15 at 6:21 pm

I must say Robert I had the same problem as you. Frankly I found the wormhole more believable.


Tim Walters 05.14.15 at 7:03 pm

Apart from MacLeod I can only think of three other genre examples of helical construction

Mindbridge by Joe Haldeman is another, I think.


stevenjohnson 05.14.15 at 7:23 pm

Robert@3 “Maybe I was being doctrinaire when I read it, but does The Stone Canal work if you do not think a propertarian society could endure?”

For me, no. I think it is very much a riff on Ayn Rand. A single city blessed with the final society, aka libertarianism, naturally advances past moldy old Earth and its solar colonies. Reading it is very much like reading Atlas Shrugged. The characters make sense in their cockamamie universe but what happens seems incredibly arbitrary. As a missionary tract for anarchism, I felt it much less attractive than the Gands in the last part of Eric Frank Russell’s The Great Explosion. But his vision was further left than MacLeod’s I think.


Plarry 05.14.15 at 10:24 pm

Steven Brust’s Taltos uses this helical effect between the epigraphs of the chapters and the chapters themselves. I’ve always thought it was quite interesting.


Robert 05.14.15 at 10:48 pm

I appreciate some of the connections some have made above. But the last seems to be reaching. Are you going to include chapter epigraphs from Princess I’s histories in Dune as an example?

I think of this helical structure as akin to Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying. Haldeman, as I understand it, was riffing off Dos Passo’s USA trilogy.

I guess all of these styles present material for the reader to construct his own understanding out of. Pale Fire would be another example with the chronology not in sync with the linear order of the text. But there’s no reason to read that text in any particular order.


Richard M 05.14.15 at 11:09 pm

New Mars is just a futuristic North Korea; an outlier that uses technology to prop up a bizarre political system that absorbs the surplus produced by that technology.

I don’t think there is any obvious limit to the inefficiency of such a political system, so technological development alone can never end it. It’s basically a political black hole.

The tricky thing is that despite being a thousand time worse off than their technology allows them to be, they are probably still overall better off than us in the here and now. Similarly, North Korea is presumably better off than medieval Korea, but that’s not really the right point of comparison…

Which comes down to the general point that the interesting part of Ken’s fiction is not merely working out which _meant to be_ dystopia and which utopia, but which is actually _is_.


Plarry 05.15.15 at 1:33 am

I would argue that the Dune example isn’t helical because the Irulan’s epigraphs are told from a future point beyond that of book itself. The Taltos epigraphs, however, have a definite insertion point into the narrative structure of the novel, at Chapter 17, the final chapter of the book. Thus the events of Chapter 16 have occurred before the epigraph of Chapter 1. This is like The Dispossessed where the events of Chapter 12 occur before Chapter 1. I’d agree that using chapters to support the narrative strands is richer, but the temporal intertwining is the same.


Plarry 05.15.15 at 1:34 am

Sorry for the lost html tag…. :(


Henry 05.15.15 at 1:50 am

Jo has written lots of good stuff about the Taltos books at Tor.com and in her What Makes This Book So Great. I’m mildly grumpy, for where’s-my-free-ice-cream-varieties-of-completely-unjustifiable-but-yet-my-inner-five-year-old-still-wants-it-now-now-now-mildly-grumpy – that she’s not written up Hawk yet.


Mike Schilling 05.15.15 at 5:15 am

The first two Godfather films form a three-stranded helix, with the first film being the middle strand.


Mike Schilling 05.15.15 at 5:19 am

There’s also something like this structure in William Goldman’s Control, but that book is such a muddle that I can’t recall the details. Suffice it to say that a book that seems to be about telepathy turns out to be about time travel.


pnee 05.15.15 at 6:54 am

Just a pet peeve of mine, but you are not the first person I’ve seen make this mistake. Helical means like a helix. A helix is simple spiral in three dimensions like a spiral staircase or a slinky.

What you are describing is a double helix. The image of two stories following the same path while being out of phase and distinct from one another is a nice one, but that kind of intertwining is a property of a double helix and is not implied by the word helical.

I admit double-helical or multi-helical are awkward, but words mean what they mean.


ajay 05.15.15 at 10:10 am

The first two Godfather films form a three-stranded helix, with the first film being the middle strand.

But it’s not a helix because you watch the first one first and then the second one. The second one is a helix.

I think Look to Windward has a helix structure in that you alternate between the present-day story and progressively-later flashbacks that gradually illuminate what the main character’s wartime past is and what his mission is. The Crow Road, too. And The Bridge. Though I suppose those aren’t genre.

Stephen Baxter’s Voyage tries this by cutting from the account of the Mars mission’s outbound flight to flashbacks to the story leading up to it, but it suffers because very little happens during the outbound flight so what you actually get is a very good story interspersed with short chapters in which three people sit in a can. And there’s no real thematic link between the two.


Zamfir 05.15.15 at 12:46 pm

@pnee: but is this about a double helix? The analogy makes more sense as two 360 degree turns of a single helix. Two story lines that follow a similar trajectory in parallel, and one story line is the continuation of the other.


mds 05.15.15 at 1:49 pm

Maybe I was being doctrinaire when I read it, but does The Stone Canal work if you do not think a propertarian society could endure?

Endure for how long? If I recall correctly, New Mars hasn’t been settled all that long, local time. And there are several noticeable flaws in the facade.


Josh Jasper 05.15.15 at 2:05 pm

Does Cat Valente’s Orphan’s Tales count as helical? If you’ve not read them and like contemporary adult exploration of fairy tale tropes, read them ASAP. They’ll knock your socks off.

I have no idea how many threads Cat wove into that one, because you lose count as people start telling tales about people who told them tales, who in turn are being told to someone else, and the whole thing loops in on itself beginning to end.


Mike Schilling 05.15.15 at 4:49 pm

If Brust hadn’t already won my heart, the introduction to Hawk would have done it: it’s Vlad giving a note-for-note adaptation of “My name is Michael Weston. I used to be a spy…”


pnee 05.15.15 at 7:51 pm


If there are two independent strands, then I think it is a double helix, yes.

A helical work, IMHO, would be one that showed a cycle repeating over the progress of time, like each generation making the same mistakes/choices as the previous one, in their own time, and adjacent generations bearing witness to each other. Unfortunately, the best example of that I can think of is a made up one, the classic Cardassian novel The Never-Ending Sacrifice



Matt 05.15.15 at 8:20 pm

A helical work, IMHO, would be one that showed a cycle repeating over the progress of time, like each generation making the same mistakes/choices as the previous one, in their own time, and adjacent generations bearing witness to each other.

This sounds close to A Canticle for Leibowitz, though the generations are not all adjacent in that work.


Zamfir 05.15.15 at 8:22 pm

That’s what we’re looking at, right? Two stories told in parallel that move through a similar story arc, with one story starting where the other ends. Two twists of the helix.

Its been a while since I read The Stone Canal, I can’t remember how close the storylines march. It doesn’t have two generations, but it does have a kind of incarnations of the same people, repeating their old relations.


Zamfir 05.15.15 at 8:23 pm

Intended as direct reply to pnee…


Josh Jasper 05.15.15 at 10:58 pm

@pnee: Right then, you definitely should read Valente’s The Orphan’s Tales. If anything counts as helical, it’s those two books.


Shatterface 05.16.15 at 2:47 am

Aren’t most traditional detective stories helical?

They begin with a murder or a robbery, then the detective’s investigation frames the parallel narration of the events leading to the crime.


Shatterface 05.16.15 at 2:54 am

Helical storytelling is common in comics. Watchmen has both the detective structure I mentioned above, plus flashbacks to an earlier generation of heroes and an entirely separate story about pirates.

Bryan Talbot’s Luther Arkwright has flashbacks and premonitions.

Also, the TV series Lost had dozens of stories running parallel, some in the past, some in the future; and Arrow does something similar though to a lesser extent.


Andrae 05.16.15 at 9:54 am

I would suggest that Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson would also qualify as ‘helical’ by your definition.


xaaronx 05.16.15 at 5:00 pm

Would you not consider Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon an example of helical construction?


pnee 05.16.15 at 9:45 pm

@zamfir I understand what you are getting at with the turns of the helix, and how they resemble each other and follow the same course but displaced in a third dimension (which can represent a difference in time).

I still don’t find it compelling as a metaphor, because a helix is still a single simple curve. When I progress up a spiral staircase, I make steady progress, I don’t jump from turn to turn and back again, as the original description of the narrative structure says. I am aware of the turns above and below me, but I only experience them one at a time, and in sequence. So, I don’t see it as a good metaphor for two intertwined narratives, and I wonder if Jo did or didn’t really have a double helix in mind in the first place.

I do think that Jo had in mind something more specific than just a story that has flashbacks, premontions or other nonlinear techniques. For example, Oryx and Crake has an intertwined narrative, but it’s really just a story of a few days in the life of Snowman, intermixed with flashbacks over the course of many years in the past of Snowman’s former life as Jimmy. The flashbacks inform the other narrative, but they don’t reflect each other in structure or type of story. I don’t think this is what Jo means by helical.

Another example that might be closer to what I think Jo means is Benford’s Timescape where we do have parallel narratives displaced in time but similar in pace and structure, though one is high stakes (fate of the world) one appears to be relatively low stakes (fate of one man’s career). The narratives do depend on each other, though that’s because they are communicating, so maybe that’s cheating.

Here’s another attempt at a metaphor. I walk on a beach, at the very boundary of water and sand, so that one foot (say the right) is always wet, and the other always dry. Looking back at my progress, one foot has left a straight narrative trail of a walk on dry sand, the other a straight story of a walk through soggy muck. But the real story of my walk alternates between the two. The two lines of footprints, so different in character still reflect on and support each other. To make progress, the real story depended on the careful interweaving of both.

Wet vs. dry could mean a year apart, or told by a different person, or some other element of difference, but the strong similiarites of the the two lines of footprints, and their close interdependence and alternation is prominent.


xaaronx 05.17.15 at 3:10 am

Sorry @Andrae. I could have sworn I did a page search for “Stephenson” and “Crypto”, but apparently not.


pnee 05.17.15 at 3:50 am

@Josh Jasper. Thanks for the recommendation. The Orphan’s Tales look very good.

Another example of what the helix metaphor makes me think of is the 1999 film Sunshine (not the 2007 sci fi one). It concerns three men from successive generations of a Jewish Hungarian family who each try to assimilate into first the Austro-Hungarian empire, then the (eventually fascist) Hungarian preWWII government, then the communist regime. All three are (mostly) played by Ralph Fiennes. It’s very good, especially if you like Fiennes as an actor, which I do. The narrative is linear, I don’t recall any use of flashbacks, but with one actor playing the three parts, the intention for each story to comment on and contrast with the others seems clear.

It is by no means as repetitive as The Never-Ending Sacrifice is purported to be, but we can’t all be Cardassians. :-)


JakeB 05.17.15 at 5:01 am

@Josh at 21–
I’ve heard a lot of good things about her writing so I thank you for finally pushing me over the edge to getting the book, but have you read the Saragossa Manuscript? To keep with the biology lingo, I would say it goes beyond helical structure to frank chromosomal aberration!


Josh Jasper 05.17.15 at 10:36 am

JakeB : No, but thanks for the recommendation. I think I’ll get it! The Orphans Tales are actually two books, In The Night Garden, and Cities Of Coin and Spice.


Jo Walton 05.17.15 at 1:50 pm

Sorry for the delay in response, I was finishing a book.

Cryptonomicon does qualify by my definition, though it’s more diffuse, having three POVs in WWII and one in the (1999) present. But it does bring the strands together to have a climax in both times, so I think yes.

Most of the other things I either haven’t read or don’t think fit. Taltos is more complex and the stories are not separated. Most of the others that I have read are just using flashbacks or other alternation without doing the thing with time and connections. There may be a lot of things I haven’t read that do it.

As to whether it should be called a “double helix”, yes, indeed it should.

Comments on this entry are closed.