I'm curious- what are everyone's views on having a novel with "Part 1, Part 2..." etc. in it? Anyone do it? Anyone know what publishers prefer to see/not see? And so on.
I don't mind them. I kind of find the breaks arbitrary in some of them I've read. In those cases, they felt like place-holders the authors inserted for themselves to denote a change in tone, or tempo. Similar to the act structure in a play. In other ones, though, it denotes a shift in narration, you know... part one is Steven telling the story, and part two is Keith.
It can also work if each part is abstractly different. All the events before X are part one, after are part two, one is the childhood of a character and one is the adult years. Stuff like that.
I feel like it can make a good jump in time too. It can be a little jarring, but if the writing is good, you jump right back in, and it saves reading a long stretch that's only in there to show the passage of time. Sort of the "commute" to the story, if you will.
I couldn't care less what literary agents prefer. I write based on what my stories need. Often they need multi parts.
I agree with L.W. Flouisa. A writer must follow her own heart even if it leads her over the edge of a cliff. As Ray Bradbury stated on jumping off cliffs: Build your wings on the way down.
Sometimes dividing a novel in parts makes perfect sense.