Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Quick PoV Query

This is topic Quick PoV Query in forum Fragments and Feedback for Short Works at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000135

Posted by Phanto (Member # 1619) on :

A quick PoV question.
There is one little part that I worry is jaring, please tell me if you felt anything wrong of that sort.

That's all I really want, but I'd also appreciate other critique.

quote:
The person slapped her wrist with a piece of metal, just as she drew her weapon. It fell to the ground, with a clatter. As she grabbed for it, May got slapped her again, this time in the shoulder. "Come now. Do not try to escape, or you will be tortured and killed. The Duke only wishes to have a discussion with you."
Whatever that meant. Maybe a talk over a wheel of torture. Or perhaps one over some light disembowelment. No, the Duke was a mage--he'd torture her magically, just like what was happening to Silvia. "Where am I?" she slowly asked, backing away. "I think I may be lost." With that, she broke into a run for the window.
The person lunged for her; she nimbly danced away, and raced for the escape. May felt nervous elation; escape was great, but would she get cut badly going through the window?
A rope coiled around her feet, and she fell onto the blood-colored carpet, bashing her nose very painfully. Looks like I don't have to worry about that.

[This message has been edited by Phanto (edited December 18, 2003).]

Posted by GZ (Member # 1374) on :

Why use "the person?" Usually once you've heard someone speak, you have an idea of gender, and using he or she would flow better. Something like "the intruder" or "the thug" would be more interesting as well.

As long as the paragraph above it makes it clear the first she is May, I didn't have a POV problem. The use of the first person tense in the last sentence was jarring, however, since the other thoughts seemed to be in third.

[This message has been edited by GZ (edited December 18, 2003).]

Posted by Lord Darkstorm (Member # 1610) on :

quote:
May got slapped her again

Shouldn't this be

May got slapped again

Posted by Phanto (Member # 1619) on :

Lord Darkstorm

I editted it out--but, my stupid explorer reset it. Hard to explain.

GZ:

The points about "the person" are solved when looked at contextually.

Yeah, you caught the thing that I was worried about. Guess I'll have to edit it.

Thanks for the help.

Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :

How about, "It looked like she wouldn't have to worry about that"? Seems to me that would flow a lot better.
Was the rope magical or what? How did it tangle around her feet?
Also, I find it strange that she's worried about cutting herself on the glass of the window when she's escaping from extreme torture.
These are all issues that may very well be resolved when the paragraphs are read in context, but read as they are, those are the things that jumped out at me. And of course the last sentence jarred me pretty good, but that's already been covered.

Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :

quote:
Whatever that meant. Maybe a talk over a wheel of torture. Or perhaps one over some light disembowelment. No, the Duke was a mage--he'd torture her magically, just like what was happening to Silvia

quote:
...escape was great, but would she get cut badly going through the window?
....Looks like I don't have to worry about that.

Phanto, what you're worried about isn't a POV change, but a shift in type of thought. The first quote above and the first part of the second is deep thought, while the second part of the second quote, "Looks like....", is direct thought. Many writers (and I favor the practice) put direct thought in italics to differentiate it from deep thought.

Consider how you think to yourself. Do you use the pronoun "I" or "he" (or "she" if the gender fits)? "I'd better get moving," you tell yourself, not "He'd better get moving."

In wetwilly's example, he (she?)changed your direct thought into deep thought. Either would be correct. And you can use both in the same stream of thought.

For instance: The dog was coming up fast and she knew she had to get to the gate first. If only Paul hadn't left Bruiser outside. If only.... I don't have time for ifs. The gate was just yards away. She didn't have time for anything but pounding feet.

This could just as well have been: The dog was coming up fast and she knew she had to get to the gate first. If only Paul hadn't left Bruiser outside. If only.... She didn't have time for ifs. The gate was just yards away. She didn't have time for anything but pounding feet.

Does that make sense or am I babbling? (Two weeks of the flu does that.)

Posted by Jules (Member # 1658) on :

When slipping into a different style like that, I would usually be careful to actually attribute the thought, so that it is obvious what it is. So the sentence where you do it in your example, I would have written:

If only... I don't have time for ifs, she realised.

Of course, once you've established a convention of using italics, then you can leave the tag out. But the first few times, definitely best to leave it in to make sure it doesn't confuse the reader...

Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :

Actually, Jules, I would say use the attribution for direct thought to distinguish it from deep thought only if you don't use the italics, otherwise it seems redundant. I would generally assume the reader's intelligence, although that's a toss-up. You'll not be damned whether you do or don't.

Posted by Nexus Capacitor (Member # 1694) on :

quote:
The points about "the person" are solved when looked at contextually.

No offense meant, but I doubt that. If you have reasons to keep this character's identity a secret, that's one thing, but "the person" is too generic to be believed. Is this unknown person a man or woman? Is his/her face covered? Does he she have any distinguishing features?

How about "the smelly man" or "the fat girl" or "the guy with a stocking on his head" or even just "the woman?"

Give us something! Or is your POV character deaf, blind, and without sense of smell?

Posted by Phanto (Member # 1619) on :

Thanks for the comments so far.

The unknown person is a magical creation that has the shape of a human. It is wrapped in thick layers of cloth and is genderless.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

In that case, 'person' is an inaccurate and misleading term to use for it. 'The brutish figure' is a thousand times better at least, despite being rather...uninventive.

Posted by Nexus Capacitor (Member # 1694) on :

Maybe "the thing" would work for the beast you've created. Or your POV character can, wrongly, assume a gender and features to try to make sense of this unlikely antagonist.

Posted by yanos (Member # 1831) on :

Even for things with no gender we tend to mentally assumer gender. consider how people talk about their cars or boats for instance. And I am thinking that for a human shaped individual your character would naturally assign a gender to them, whether right or wrong.

Posted by ccwbass (Member # 1850) on :

I gotta agree with Survivor. "The person" doesn't work simply because nobody actually thinks that way (unless we're reading the pov of something non-human). We label and categorize everything, even in the heat of the moment. Or perhaps I should say especially in the heat of the moment. Giving something a descriptive title is a way our brain helps us deal with a situation.

Even if the person were covered head to toe in gender-hiding clothes, one would still attach a descriptive label, even if a temporary one, based on what the character could realistically be thinking - assassin, cop, jerk, thief, etc.

Posted by TruHero (Member # 1766) on :

How about:
The heavily cloaked figure, or
The shrouded figure. At least it gives it a form.

Posted by Phanto (Member # 1619) on :

The advice on changing that phrase is, while unexpected, fantastic. As usual with me, it all stems from a laspe in PoV.

Thank you.

**Blink**
[off topic]
Yes!
I've come up with a great way to start Sister of Deceit that establishes reader sympathy.