Can Writers Of Thriller Novels Learn From Film Directors?

Last night I watched Pulp Fiction, again, and it struck me that maybe as a thriller novel author I could learn from the director, Quentin Tarantino. I don't know how many times I've seen the film, but every time I uncover another subtlety. I wouldn't rate the plot as deep, but the way the scenes are labelled and stitched together like a patchwork quilt is really engaging. I'm certain that there are other films whichhave adopted this structure, with a fractured and re-circulating timeline, however they don't spring to mind right now.

Certainly, a title scene which presages action later in the film is fairly commonplace, but killing off one of the main characters halfway through, and then bringing him back (not from the dead) later - even the final scene - struck me as a tad unusual.

When I wrote the thriller 'Gate of Tears' I used flashbacks (well they were more akin to chapterbacks, in fact) to build up the characterisation, and there was careful interweaving, as the plot is 'intricate' (as one reviewer described it); but there were several 'crimelines', each following an individual character. However, the overall flow of time was forward.

With Pulp Fiction, though, there were major temporal disconnects, and whole (connected) plot scenes were not in a serial time sequence. It certainly didn't spoil my enjoyment - some viewers (and readers) like to have to work to figure out the puzzle of the plot, timeline or other details. Solving those little puzzles that the director sets for the viewer forms part of the enjoyment for some 'consumers'.

Film directors obviously have a great advantage - they can use two of our senses, whereas authors have to produce for one sense. Directors also have an obvious disadvantage - they have to tell the story in 100 minutes (in general). Not only that, the film watcher cannot refer back - excluding of course the rewind button (maybe that could affect the way in which directors edit for DVD releases)?

If a film is to be a success, the viewer must enjoy it at first viewing. For books it may be different. Novels, however, can be enjoyed over an infinite amount of time (well, no more than one lifetime maximum, as far as I know). Replays and back-checking are straightforward for the reader.

So, what can thriller authors learn? Would the patchwork quilt approach work? Obviously, killing off a main character in the middle removes some of the plot hook, but then a reader will know that there's a good reason the author has structured it in that way. I'm sure that the quilt approach (with temporal disconnects) has been tried, though I don't recall reading a book structured in that way (though science fiction is an obvious possibility).

These days we have ereaders, and massive sales of digital reading material, some of questionable quality. Even 'pulp fiction' (aka the penny dreadful) is making a comeback. As these devices evolve, we are surely going to see the inclusion of sound, stills and even film clips in ebooks. I already include hyperlinks in my own ebooks.

Maybe thriller novelists need to start seeing their stories from the perspective of screenplay writers and film directors?