posted
I am rereading the Chronicles of Narnia. I enjoy the narrator, who is often distant from the action and in fact has an identity separate from the characters.
What is the general consensus on narrators? Do you prefer that the narrator is inside the mind of the main character? Is it wrong to have a distant narrator?
posted
Most people here seem to think that for "current" storytelling, a "distant" narrator is a big huge flaming no-no.
I personally disagree. As with most such stuff as far as 'm concerned it depends 100% on the type of story you want to tell. And how you want to tell it.
Supposedly "modern" readers "require" a character whose head they spend the story inside of. But I think it just depends. For myself, I'm usually more interested in the subject matter of a story (all of it...characters, events, setting) so it doesnt matter to me *how* you tell your story as long as its about something that interests me.
I think if your going for a "character driven" story, then yea being inside someone's head might be better (though not necessarily-a pure character study might work well from a distant objective viewpoint.) For stories that are focused on conceptual things, I think "distant" narrators are often more effective (again not necessarily though-showing the inner reactions of a character to those things can be quite effective.)
quote: Most people here seem to think that for "current" storytelling, a "distant" narrator is a big huge flaming no-no.
I wouldn't even presume to speak for "most people here", and I've been here a while.
You'll have a harder time selling an Omniscient-distant narrator than 3rd Person-deep penetration. One reason is Omniscient is closer to tellling a movie, which you can never get a clear enough picture of to compete. What a movie can't do is give you deep penetration of a character. Most selling works today are 3rd person-deep penetration. You'll notice much more telling in an omniscient tale than showing.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 27, 2008).]
posted
I seem to recall a discussion a while ago about this, can't find it though. IIRC JeanneT said something similar to IB: books compete, not only with other books, but with movies and TV. Only books can do 3rd person deep; only books can give intimate insights into a character's mind, and this can give them a competitive edge over movies and TV.
I often, but not always, find omniscient annoying, and increasingly so the more I see it. I enjoy Clive Cussler, for example, but his use of omniscient irks me. The stories often split into concurrent threads, and it's hard to immerse in a couple of characters having a good time when, just around the corner, one of their comrades is being tortured in a concurrent scene. "Go round the corner and save her," I'm screaming at them.
That said, I have used omniscient in one of my stories because it's the only way I can tell it. The story trades on the juxtaposition of the perceptions of different characters about events that are happening. According to IB that will make it hard to sell ... well, that's not a new problem!
So I suppose my answer to the question is that it depends on the story.
Cheers, Pat
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited June 27, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited June 27, 2008).]
posted
It's not just me who says. I'm not any autority, but I'll take the words of six or seven bestselling authors (and agents) as the word of an authorty. I'm not necessarily against omniscient--I like Cussler alright, and Cornwell, and Ludlum--but most authors who are published new are not writing in omniscient.
I have read instances of icredible omniscient, where the author takes you into the heads of many characters (I feel Robert Jordan was excellent at this), but they are few and far between.
posted
In narrative voice, choices of person dictate the amount of access to characters' thoughts, what's also known in the writing world as psychic access or psychic distance.
Perhaps the most remote perspective, third person objective, sometimes called the fly-on-the-wall perspective, doesn't access characters' thoughts, although in a looser objective perspective, thoughts might be accessed from verbal and nonverbal cues; dialogue, tone, expressions, and gestures. Unspoken discourse might be disruptive in the objective perspective.
Albert Mehrabian's 1971 study of facial expressions and spoken words yielded a generalization that 7% of in-person communication occurs in words, 38% from voice tone, and 55% from general body language. Translating that generalization into creative writing might show how potent nonverbal cues are in scenes.
posted
Current trends in fiction are toward deep third-person immersion. A few dozen years ago, that wasn't the case. I think it may have something to do with the the trends in film, too. Until Marlon Brando steamed onto the scene in - was it the 50s? with method acting (getting deep into character), the "presentation style" was the dominant form of acting for film, which shared a lot with stage acting - a lot of facing the camera even when it wasn't a natural position for the actor to be in, and otherwise playing to the camera rather than painting a vignette for the observer to take in/be a fly on the wall/experience vicariously.
What that evolution did, in my opinion/understanding, is to get filmmakers and actors to leverage the unique advantages of their medium. In movies, the camera can get in close, super close. We can see a thousand words in the twitch of Brando's eyebrow or the crease around Streep's mouth.
When people say that the trend in fiction today is toward that deep immersion, toward 3rd person, toward showing a lot of inner dialogue, they're saying that as writers we should consider taking advantage of the unique aspects of the medium we work in. I think this is a good thing.
posted
I have to agree with most of the above opinions. There IS no absolute no-no but there IS a strong trend and reasons for it.
The fact is that novels can show us into a characters heads and we can experience the world through their eyes. Movies can't do that. Television can't. Probably music can in a way. I'd say (oddly enough) it's the closest.
But since we are competing so strongly with other media, it's important to take advantage of our own medium's unique advantage. Hence, deep penetration (or what ever name you want to put on it) 3rd. There are times when it doesn't work. For instance, if your protagonist or main character is deeply psychotic--maybe not.
Is it great for showing ideas as opposed to characterization? No, but frankly most people don't read novels mainly for ideas. They read to experience someone else's life through a book. THAT deep 3rd can do extremely well.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 27, 2008).]
posted
In an alternative view, third person deep access to thoughts is a relatively recent trend in fiction that practicing two centuries ago might have gotten a writer burned at the stake for consorting with the devil by practicing witchcraft. Historically, omniscient journalist narrators were the norm probably because they didn't violate religious precepts.
The omniscient journalist narrator tells a story when all the relevant facts are known, after the fact. Though in first person, "The Stoker and the Stars" is an example of an omniscient journalist narrator.
posted
Well until I got here I was under the impression it was mostly just first person, or third person.
Now I find out people have come up with like 3 or 4 different versions or distinctions of each. I also think its another thing people are a little to fixated on...
As with most things, I say write the story as it comes to you. Chances are whatever way that is will be the best way to tell that particular story. Not always, but usually.
I also disagree with the idea that most people...or at least, most readers of fantasy, science fiction and horror don't much read stories for ideas. I think readers of those three "genres" are very interested in new ideas and concepts. If all they wanted was to be someone else, they could read just about anything...sci fi/fantasy/horror is, to a certain extent often inherently at least partially about ideas. And I think this is doubly true when your talking about short stories, rather than novels. Shorts, and especially genre shorts, are often glimpses into another world, or explorations of concept (or character, but both are common). Thats maybe less true in novels...of course in novels with multiple characters, your more likely to go around from one group to another in an "omniscient" manner anyway...
Personally, when reading, I don't often even see/feel much difference in 3rd person narratives as far as "close" or "omniscient." They pretty much feel the same to me. Now the difference between 3rd person and 1st person, or between present tense or past tense, thats a much bigger leap. But to me, if your not actually in the person's head, looking entirely through their eyes (1st person) then its 3rd person, and already "distant".
posted
You're of course perfectly free to write in whatever voice appeals to you. But I certainly find there to be a large difference in 3rd close and 3rd omni--a very large difference. And you seem to also or I suspect you wouldn't be arguing that 3rd omni should be used.
The fact is that if all you're looking for is ideas you can pick up a science tome. In a novel, one tends to be looking for characterization and a look into someone else's world and mind. The question is always how best to give them that. And if "the way you happen to tell it" is the best then you do a heck of a lot revising than I do. LOL
But no one is saying that no one writes in 3rd omni any more. Not many do. It's certainly not the trend, but it is still done.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 28, 2008).]
quote:You're of course perfectly free to write in whatever voice appeals to you. But I certainly find there to be a large difference in 3rd close and 3rd omni--a very large difference. And you seem to also or I suspect you wouldn't be arguing that 3rd omni should be used
I'm saying people should write how they are comfortable and in what way suits the story.
I'm also saying (again) that, to me, theres not a lot of difference between them. I am usually paying more attention to the story than the specifics of how its told, as far as those sorts of things.
quote:The fact is that if all you're looking for is ideas you can pick up a science tome. In a novel, one tends to be looking for characterization and a look into someone else's world and mind.
A "science tome" isnt going to give you ideas about different kinds of dragons or how magic works on three concurrent different dimensions. Fantasy/sci fi/horror especially in the short story form are often at least partially about ideas or concepts. Also they often tackle "morals" or conceptual things or convey messages.
Not to say that characterization isnt important, but it isnt necessarily the only thing. And good characterzation doesnt necessarily require being in the characters head either.
Also as far as novels...many fantasy novels involve multiple protaganists anyway...so your not necessarily going to get super in depth on all of them.
quote:The questions is always how best to do that. And if "the way you happen to tell it" is the best then you do a heck of a lot revising than I do. LOL
I just believe in telling a story in whatever way works best for that story rather than whatever way is supposedly more "marketable" just for that reason. Because usually the story will be better for it. Editors know there are many types of stories and many different tastes.
quote:But no one is saying that no one writes in 3rd omni any more. Not many do. It's certainly not the trend, but it is still done.
Of course it is. All forms of storytelling are still done, and published. I just feel a need to some times counterpoint the seeming (note I say seeming, not total, no absolute but seeming) belief of many here that certain styles, certain ways of telling stories are all but unpublishable, or even somehow "bad".
Stories are stories. Write the story, worry about the rest later (if at all).
posted
It's not even a question of what sells. Or what's best for the story. Good 3PO is hard to do. Even many pros fail at it. A budding writer might ask themselves if they've got the chops to do it. Otherwise, even if the story calls from omni, it might not come out that good--and that's why it doesn't sell.
Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC stated it well: Every decision we make as writers has a cost.
If you're willing to pay the cost, you can do anything. However, the cost may prove to be readers, editors, or a publisher.
Dave Wolverton also stated another point well, one that goes hand in hand with this (paraphrasing here): If you want to be successful, study the market. Know what sells and why. See what publishers are buying. Don't shoot yourself in the foot just because you can.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 28, 2008).]
posted
That's something that a lot of writers don't want to consider. Is that something I am capable of doing?
Let me give an example related slightly to PoV. I've been working (and working and working) on a certain short story. I think the story is good. But I have been questioning whether I'm telling it from the right PoV. It might be better told from the PoV of the rapist.
But I DON'T have the chops to tell the story that way. *shrug* I just couldn't do it and make it something someone would sit through reading. I see it all the time--new writers wanting to do something that can be done but takes a lot of skill. Trying can't hurt but you have to be realistic too.
We have to realize our limitations. Good omni is hard to do.
And Merlion, having many PoV characters and doing them well is darn hard to do. GRR Martin can do it. Most writer can't and frankly fail miserably at it.
And I still wonder, if you can't tell the difference in 3rd close and 3rd omni, why are you so vigorously arguing for people to write in 3rd omni?
Is 3rd close easier to sell? Darn right it is. And if you think that's not something to consider, then you and I write from very different places. That's also possible and something that happens.
Edit: And by the way, I think "comfort" has nothing to do with good writing. We have to push ourselves past the point of our comfort if we want our writing to improve. All kinds of things are comfortable for me. I love and am very comfortable sprinkling my prose with dozens of participial phrases. It's not comfortable getting rid of them. It also improves my writing.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 28, 2008).]
posted
Paraphasing Norman Friedman, the main purpose of a plot is to stimulate emotions in a reader. The narrative voice, person and tense, of a story idealy stimulates emotions as much as any other story feature. Choosing the right voice for a story enhances its potential to emotionally stimulate.
Remote narrators create emotional distance. When a story's topic is controversial or emotively powerful, a remote narrator creates objective distance between the writer's attitude toward the topic, the circumstances of the story, and the reader.
In Cold Blood (1965 serial in The New Yorker) by Truman Capote relates gory and horrific circumstances objectively by use of a third person omniscient journalist narrator. A nonfiction, true crime novel, some say the first of its kind, In Cold Blood garnered wide reader interest in its time even though most of the public generally knew the circumstances of the story. Tom Wolfe said, "the book's suspense is based largely on a totally new idea in detective stories: the promise of gory details, and the withholding of them until the end." My view of Capote's narrative choice is that the raw emotions of the circumstances were so powerful that any closer perspective would have been too brutal for most readers.
Market research has shown me that creative nonfiction currently outsells fiction. By and large, creative nonfiction occurs in first and third person omniscient journalist narration. On the other hand, contemporary fiction narrators are more often closer third or in first-person intimate. The default for published fiction, as I've seen it, is the conflict resolution action plot in third-person-limited, immediate past-present, external antagonist characters, and events occurring in chronological sequence.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited June 28, 2008).]
quote:And Merlion, having many PoV characters and doing them well is darn hard to do. GRR Martin can do it. Most writer can't and frankly fail miserably at it.
Well thats as may be (and is more or less totally a matter of opinion) but the fact is, the vast majority of (obviously published) fantasy novels/series I have read do this.
quote:And I still wonder, if you can't tell the difference in 3rd close and 3rd omni, why are you so vigorously arguing for people to write in 3rd omni?
I'm not. I'm not really arguing anything. I'm saying people should tell their stories in whatever way works best for the story. And I'm responding to the original post by saying, I don't think it is in any way "bad" to use a "distant narrator" if thats what works for the story.
quote:And by the way, I think "comfort" has nothing to do with good writing. We have to push ourselves past the point of our comfort if we want our writing to improve. All kinds of things are comfortable for me. I love and am very comfortable sprinkling my prose with dozens of participial phrases. It's not comfortable getting rid of them. It also improves my writing.
Thing is though, "good writing" and "improvement" when talking about creative pursuits is mostly subjective and a matter of opinion.
quote:If you're willing to pay the cost, you can do anything. However, the cost may prove to be readers, editors, or a publisher
See, thats what I'm talking about. The idea that "oh yes, its your story and you can do whatever you want, of course. But if you do this, or don't do that, you will probably never get past an editor or be published."
quote:Dave Wolverton also stated another point well, one that goes hand in hand with this (paraphrasing here): If you want to be successful, study the market. Know what sells and why.
There are many different people in the world, with many different tastes. This goes for editors and markets as well. Thats why I say-tell your stories. Tell them in whatever way seems to work best. Then, if your goal is to sell them, find the market where they fit best. Chances are there will be one.
All this idea that all editors or publishers or markets have the same views on everything (or at least, thats what a lot of people around here seem, note I say seem, to think) is strange to me.
Using a "distant narrator" isnt going to make your story unpublishable. It may just make it more appealing and less appealing to a different subset of markets.
quote:Don't shoot yourself in the foot just because you can.
How is telling your stories in the way you feel works best shooting yourself in the foot? If you have an idea and it screams to be in 3rd person omni, should you just not write it? or try to force it into a different mold?
posted
I absolutely disagree that most fantasy is written from numerous points of view. Maybe from a couple but most authors I read do NOT do write from a multitude and I can't even remember the last one I read that was omni.
quote:Then, if your goal is to sell them, find the market where they fit best. Chances are there will be one.
Oh? So most of our stories are snapped up? Really?
Or do most stories of all lengths never see the light of day?
The second is the fact.
There are literally millions more stories written than can possibly be published in any paying venue. there aren't even close to enough slots. It is a HIGHLY competitive publishing world out there.
Good stores, even excellent stories, get rejected from a market where they fit every single day of the week. Why? Because another story fit better. So IF you want your stories published, you'd do well to pay attention to what editors want.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 29, 2008).]
posted
According to Dan Poytner, six million Americans believe they have a story to tell that hasn't yet been written. Six million manuscripts are making the publishing house rounds at any given moment in time. Acceptance rates for unsolicited manuscripts are on the order of less than one percent.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh? So most of our stories are snapped up? Really?
You misunderstand me. What I am saying is, people here seem generally to be of a belief that certain things are universally hated by markets in general. And likewise, that certain other things are universally loved.
Right now we're talking mostly about the viewpoint/distant narrator thing...most people I see here seem to feel that 3rd person omni, and/or distant narrators etc should be avoided, and that you should more or less always try to get as deep "in the characters head" as possible.
I am saying...if someone has a story they wish to tell that works better in omni or with a distant narrator, they should do it as such! And it isn't going to make the story unpublishable. As I said...write what comes to you, what you want to write, and then find a market that fits. Not all markets look for, or shun, the same things.
quote:Why? Because another story fit better. So IF you want your stories published, you'd do well to pay attention to what editors want.
Yes. But editors are people. And they are all different, with different likes and dislikes. So as I said...write your stories, and try to find the best market for them. Rather than trying to force yourself to write what you or others think editors want. I already have a job where I have to do things I have no desire to do. Therefore, I have no desire to write things I dont want to write, or to try and force my stories into a mold that may or may not get them published anyway. unless that is how the story is naturally. I'm not advocating simply ignoring trends or editor prefernces (although I'm sure thats what everyone will say I am doing). I'm saying...write what is in your head, and try to make it the best it can be as what it is. And I'm saying, there are lots of editors and markets in the world, and they all have different tastes.
posted
You know I quoted people who have helped hundreds of authors get published.
How many have you helped get published?
They say study the markets to see what editors are buying. How does not help you?
You seem to think all of those who give constructive criticism are bullying others into doing it their way. Have you ever considered there is a group of Hatrackers who want to get published and better their craft? People who, rather than ignoring the pool of gleaned knowledge, would rather write better--in ways that they have to practice and learn?
As a matter of fact, how many constructive comments (other than pats on the back) have you offered? How many have you taken (or just accepted that someone's opinion was different from yours) without questioning them?
The day you publish a book, and help other in the process, I might take your opinion to be as valuable as OSC's or Dave Wolverton's--until then...
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 29, 2008).]
quote:They say study the markets to see what editors are buying. How does not help you?
When did I ever say it didnt?
quote:You seem to think all of those who give constructive criticism are bullying others into doing it their way
We're not even talking about criticism here, we're talking about views on distant narrators and points of view, and to a lesser extent the need or lack of need to base what you write on what is or is perceived to be most marketable.
quote:you ever considered there is a group of Hatrackers who want to get published and better their craft?
Obviously. But "bettering the craft" is at least somewhat (in my opinion almost entirely) subjective. And (and this is more or less my whole point here) getting published doesnt necessarily mean totally avoiding things like 3rd person omniscient point of view. Things with that POV DO get published.
quote:As a matter of fact, how many constructive comments (other than pats on the back) have you offered?
Again, this discussion isnt really about criticism...at all. That aside, again, people have different views and opinions. When I post, I offer my honest opnion, and it isn't always just a pat on the back as you say. We have a different aproach to things, but last time I checked, that was allowed.
quote:How many have you taken (or just accepted that someone's opinion was different from yours) without questioning them?
Well, seeing as how you've never actually read a complete story of mine, you really have no way to know.
and again...different ways of doing things. If I dont understand a comment, I'm going to ask about it. If I feel a person could give even more useful feedback with more information, I'm going to give it to them.
None of this of course has anything to do with the current topic, but rather your personal dislike of me and my way of doing things.
quote:The day you publish a book, and help other in the process, I might take your opinion to be as valuable as OSC's or Dave Wolverton's--until then...
I generally tend to consider everyones opinions valuable.
quote:I just feel a need to some times counterpoint the seeming (note I say seeming, not total, no absolute but seeming) belief of many here that certain styles, certain ways of telling stories are all but unpublishable, or even somehow "bad".
You are not the moderator here, Merlion. It's increasingly difficult not to feel insulted at your continued disparagement of the expertise and knowledge available at Hatrack in this and other threads. Please quit with your oversimplified summaries of what you mistakenly believe "people here" think. We're individuals, who happen to believe that sharing our differing views and experiences might help us get published in professional markets. Speak for yourself by all means, but not for the rest of us.
In an attempt to return the thread to more fruitful ground:
JeannT, Chris, you said that good 3PO is hard to do. Why is that? I have a suspicion it's to do with handling multiple POVs without confusing the reader or losing immersion, but cannot articulate it well.
quote:You are not the moderator here, Merlion. It's increasingly difficult not to feel insulted at your continued disparagement of the expertise and knowledge available at Hatrack in this and other threads. Please quit with your oversimplified summaries of what you mistakenly believe "people here" think. We're individuals, who happen to believe that sharing our differing views and experiences might help us get published in professional markets. Speak for yourself by all means, but not for the rest of us.
Ok. But, speaking for myself cannot include expressing or stating my experiences on this forum, or my views of how things are done here. Correct?
And, I've never disapparaged anything. Disagreed with perhaps, presented different views than certainly, but not disparaged. Other than to say I, myself have the personal feeling and opinion that some things are perhaps carried a little to far some times. But, oops, i forgot again, I'm not allowed to express my personal feelings. Sorry.
Duly noted. it'd probably be in my best interest if I simply stop looking at the "Open Discussions about Writing" forum, since the discussions are, seemingly, only open to certain points of view. And personal attacks of how people do things unrelated to the topic at hand, seemingly.
I apologize to the OP for where this has unfortantely been taken, and take my leave of the discussion then.
posted
I'm a firm believer in experimenting to improve your craft. POV is one of those story variables that a good writer should understand and attempt to master. I also believe that each genre of writing has a standard POV. In the speculative fiction genre it is third person limited. I think the majority of the people here understand that. It is not necessarily the only way, but if you are just starting out it is the best method to try to master. Mastering the basics first and then moving on to other methods sounds reasonable to me.
To answer the latest question, I think it's hard to juggle multiple personalities. Each POV character has to have his or her own voice. Character development can be tough enough when you just have to develop one or two main characters(protagonist/antagonist). The more POV characters you have, the more work you have to put into developing each character. Also, for me at least, I find that I have a favorite character that I empathize with the most and it is hard to develop the others to the same degree. I'm sure we've all read books where we skipped through chapters to get back to the most interesting character. If that's the case with a novel, then the multiple POV's didn't work so well and maybe it would have been a better story if it had been written in the POV of the dominant character.
[This message has been edited by Dude (edited June 29, 2008).]
quote:To answer the latest question, I think it's hard to juggle multiple personalities. Each POV character has to have his or her own voice. Character development can be tough enough when you just have to develop one or two main characters(protagonist/antagonist). The more POV characters you have, the more work you have to put into developing each character. Also, for me at least, I find that I have a favorite character that I empathize with the most and it is hard to develop the others to the same degree. I'm sure we've all read books where we skipped through chapters to get back to the most interesting character. If that's the case with a novel, then the multiple POV's didn't work so well and maybe it would have been a better story if it had been written in the POV of the dominant character.
I think this is a pretty good explanation of a lot of the problems.
It is hard to get people to stick with a story if they don't like the characters they are reading about. Getting them to care about one character is tough. Getting to care about ten? And maybe some of those aren't so nice? Heck even the masters have problems with it. The first time I read the first three of SoIaF, there was one character I invariably skipped--a major character. I didn't care about this character and didn't want to read about her. If it gives a multiple Hugo/Nebula winner problems, what kind of trouble is it going to give me?
Omni presents a similar problem. There is a strong tendancy these days (and I think this has changed from 50 or 75 years ago) that if the reader isn't interested in the character, they stop reading. Omni by definition distances the reader from the character and frequently shows into so many characters that you never start caring about any of them. The attention is just too divided. It can be done, but only by a writer with the skill to overcome these problems or who writes so strongly that they keep the reader hooked with other factors than characterization.
I've never written either. I probably will one of these days as an experiment and because I think that stretching strengthens your chops, but that's with the knowledge that I may not be successful.
posted
I don't know of any published stories that don't repeatedly and effectively shift voice. Person and tense vary in stories from the comprehensive level down to the clause level. Good stories have a parent or top level voice and multiple child or auxilliary voices. I've read a few workshopped stories that rigidly adhere to one voice. I think they're monotonous. They make me feel like I'm trapped in the present of the third eye of the narrator, be it a first person or third person narrator. I like when the narrator gets out of the head of the point of view character and takes in the landscape remotely. It offers a writer the opportunity to develop settings, secondary characters, tone, symbolism, and imagery separately from the viewpoint character without losing contact.
Take first person intimate, [I angrily watched my hand draw my knife from my sheath on my belt.] I know no one here writes like that, but I think it's too close and too possessive. Developing the context or mythology of the knife earlier on in the story allows for a simpler and more robust narration. [I drew the dirk.] Or, [He drew the pistol.] Chekov's gun can be a good thing if the mythology of the gun is introduced earlier on and the gun is used later on.
Third person objective omniscient is my prefered technique for physical description of the visual and aural kinds, and for dialogue. That way awkward constructs like [Larry watched Jim draw his knife.] [I heard Jim say the cannon was louder than he expected.] can be avoided. I like directness. Changing voice allows for directness. [I drew the dirk. Jim wielded the cutlass. The report from the cannon echoed off the courtyard walls. "That was louder than I expected," Jim said.] (First person dialogue clause, third person attribution clause.)
Budrys' "The Stoker and the Stars" ranges across the realm of voice possibilities. The narrator opens in first-person-remote present tense, switches in the second sentence to distant past, to third person more distant past in the third sentence. But I don't think it's jumpy. On the contrary, I think it's an effective method for setting the scene and the emotional mood of the story. Though the beginning isn't in dialogue it made me feel like an inteviewer had just asked the narrator a question that's implied but never directly stated. The beginning and thus the whole story feels like the answer to the implied question. Do you know the stoker?
I think Budrys flirted with the fourth wall in the story. The fourth wall is the audience. Directly addressing the audience is a technique of story and theater that can be to good or poor effect. In Stoker, the narrator addressing the imaginary interviewer made me feel like I was the interviewer and the audience of what reads like a journalist's biographical essay about the stoker. I felt involved in the story right away.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited June 29, 2008).]
quote:That way awkward constructs like [Larry watched Jim draw his knife.] [I heard Jim say the cannon was louder than he expected.] can be avoided.
Since there is no reason on earth to use those constructs like that should be used in 3rd close, saying to use 3rd omni to avoid them is a bit disingenuous.
I find it hard to believe that you actually believe that in 3rd close one has to say anything as absurd as Larry watched Jim draw his knife. If you are writing in 3rd close your reader knows that. There is no reason to tell them so in every sentence.
It is perfectly acceptable in 3rd close to say: Jim drew his knife. No one will thinking you're breaking PoV. If you want to argue for omni which you are perfectly welcome to use, do so. But please don't say it's preferable because 3rd close requires constructs that it doesn't.
And if there is anything I hate more than head hopping and going back and forth between PoVs without a scene or chapter change, I'd be hard put to tell you what it is. Generally speaking, that is guaranteed to cause me to put a book or story down.
Edit:
quote:I like directness. Changing voice allows for directness. I drew the dirk. Jim wielded the cutlass. The report from the cannon echoed off the courtyard walls. "That was louder than I expected," Jim said.
The only one of those that isn't acceptable in 3rd person close is the first. There is no reason on earth not to use any of them (except the 1st person) in 3rd close which is easily as 'direct' as 3rd omni.
And any supposed directness is easily off-set by a lack of insight into and a distance from the main character(s).
*shrug*
As far as the Budrys story, to me it has a dated feel and I can't say I care for it. That's a personal reaction. I find a story that was published 49 years ago a questionable choice for studying what is acceptable in today's market.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 29, 2008).]
posted
I don't see the correlation between my preference for varying narrative voice and what a writer considers the appropriate points of view. Voice and point of view are related to each other; however, I see them as distinctly separate features of story that enhance and resonate with one another.
I've stated a host of reasons why I believe "The Stoker and the Stars" is a good story for examples. From the top: it's an all-access free pass. It's universally accessible. It's short. The author has passed away. It's in the common domain. The copyright has expired. Ayone can access it, cite it, even publish it for fun or profit without consequences, and there's little chance of any hurt feelings if the author happened to see an unkind criticism of it.
On another level: it contains ample examples of many foibles that writers frequently profess to being no-no's, yet it was published. It's recently been published again at Gutenberg, eight months ago. I think Budrys did remarkable things with no-no's. Dated, out of touch, perhaps, but I think it's an exceptional story for exploring writing techniques; age, tastes, sentiments, and genre preferences notwithstanding.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited June 29, 2008).]
posted
The corrolation is that the subject of that paragraph which you wrote was PoV. Here is the entire paragraph:
Third person objective omniscient is my prefered technique for physical description of the visual and aural kinds, and for dialogue. That way awkward constructs like [Larry watched Jim draw his knife.] [I heard Jim say the cannon was louder than he expected.] can be avoided. I like directness. Changing voice allows for directness. [I drew the dirk. Jim wielded the cutlass. The report from the cannon echoed off the courtyard walls. "That was louder than I expected," Jim said.] (First person dialogue clause, third person attribution clause.)
That you prefer third person objective omnisicient is the first sentence. You specifically say that that PoV would be required to avoid: Larry watched Jim draw his knife. I am frankly baffled at where you got the impression that in 3rd close one would have to say something like: I heard Jim say the cannon was louder than he expected.]
Now if you want to discuss voice we can do that, but this thread has been about PoV not voice and your comments specifically referred to PoV.
As far as Budrys, he was an excellent writer. But what was published 49 years ago and what gets published today are not by any stretch of the imagination the same.
Anyway, this has come down to an exchange of fairly fixed opinions and I have nothing at stake in trying to change yours. I think it's pretty clear we don't agree on having to use omni in order to do physical descriptions or dialogue. So anyone who reads this thread can make up their own minds.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 29, 2008).]
posted
I seem to be having a problem in determining the differences in some of the terms here. For example: omniscient-distant narrator and 3rd Person-deep penetration.
Can someone give me an example of a piece---novel or short story---that I can read to see the difference? It would be especially helpful if the work was available online.
Also, is there a place online that lists the different voices and gives examples? I've read OSC's book on writing SciFi and some of Nancy Kress' work. I'm still wrestling with the POV and voice thing.
posted
You know, that's the third time--in recent discussions--that an older, already successful piece of literature has been used in an example when discussing the market today. I concur we should study the old works and appreciate what was great about them. JeanneT had it right saying that we--as writers--cannot compete with movies when being distant, and that our advantage lies in the deep penetration into the characters' heads. The state of the craft has evolved to this. I loved cars that ran on ethyl, but, try to run one today. Capote--in the recent example--capitalized on a well-known event. Much of his work was done for him, so he had to find what was left. How much better (scarier) would it have been with deep character penetration? Don't think that because Algis Budrys broke rules here and there that he wasn't a master of them first. Older books/stories didn't have to compete as much with movies and television--or the internet. Cussler, Jordan, Ludlum, Cornwell, King and Tad Williams are thought of as newer authors, but they've been publishing for at least twenty years. The market was vastly different for them--so imagine how different it was for Algis Budrys, Capote, Heinlein, Asimov, Silverberg, Wells, Verne, Burroughs, Hubbard, Lovecraft, MacDonald, Faulkner, Hemingway, Robert B. Parker, Orwell, Bradbury, Dick, Clarke, Shelley or Lewis. That said, what has been published can only show what was the state of the craft at that time--regardless of how "classics" sell today (because they have the advantage of already being known, and in many cases studied).
Stagecoach - OSC's Characters & Viewpoint shows examples of these. Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe books are written in omniscient.
He travels from character to character without warning to give you a complete view of the scene. He also describes what they look like and what tools/weapons they use.
OSC - writes in 3rd person with a hot and cold technique that goes fromdeep penetration to distant and back again.
Harper Lee wrote in deep penetration 1st person.
(It's late for me, but I'l try an give you more tomorrow--if someone else doesn't show better examples first.)
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 30, 2008).]
posted
Part of the confusion and source of misunderstandings over point of view and narrative voice comes from differing viewpoints about what constitutes point of view and voice. Many writers roll them together. I consider them as distinct but related. Voice, person and tense, I see as the narrator being a camera in proximity to and aligned with a point of view character. Staying in touch with the protagonist, the camera can change orientation and field of view, but remains in touch with a single point of view character. Moving the camera to a different proximity from the point of view character's location and shifiting the alignment to a different point of view character is what I consider changing perspective.
Genesis is in omniscient objective third person narrative voice.
posted
It lapsed under the pre 1978 copyright law. The term then was 28 years before renewal. Renewing it was probably overlooked during the grace period when pre 1978 publications could be registered under the new laws.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Talespinner, in omniscient the author generally does show what characters think as well as anything else they want to put in. They can write from inside anyone's head (and generally do) and tell about anything in the world -- the narrator is all-knowing as the name implies.
The "third person deep-penetration" is referred to by different names by different writers. Sometimes it's called Third Close. The link you gave refers to it as Third Subjective.
And why do I argue so vigorously against the "just write it and they will come" attitude?
I'm going to post a quote from an column in Baen's Universe by Mike Resnick about getting out of the slush pile:
quote:Ready for one final unhappy truth? A slush story can’t be as good as a story by a “name” writer; it’s got to be better. It is a simple fact that if Asimov’s puts Connie Willis’s name or my name on the cover, they know from past experience that we will draw a certain number of additional readers. Same as when F&SF runs Harlan Ellison or Ray Bradbury on their cover, or when Analog’s cover brags about a new Lois McMaster Bujold or Robert J. Sawyer story. If you’re going to knock one of these authors, or the dozens of others you can name, out of an issue, you’ve got to have written one hell of a story.
Bolding adding. But just give THAT a little thought why don't you--and for anyone who doesn't know Mike Resnick in addition to having been a selling author for some 20 years is one of the editors of Baen's Universe.
On the Budrys story, it is worth studying. I have it on my ereader and have read it several times. However, that doesn't mean that what Budrys did will work for us.
It's worthwhile studying classic works to increase our writing skill. But anyone who writes science fiction and studies Dune (and my prejudice against that work has nothing to do with this) thinking that's what is published TODAY in science fiction is going to end up sadly disillusioned. The same with Lord of the Rings and fantasy. What is accepted in publishing evolves and changes over time just like everything else does.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 30, 2008).]
posted
When Hugh Hapless dies alone in the desert, with nobody there to see, and the narrator tells us from a remote camera how Hugh finally collapses in the blistering sun and without being inside Hugh's head, is that too omniscient?
In other words, is there a "close" and a "distant" omniscient? (Not that it much matters, I understand omni in any form is tough.)
posted
Both exist. I've never heard a term applied to one or the other, I think because within a single piece someone can switch from one to the other with no question. Just as an omni narrative can switch from one head to another, it can switch from one head to no head. Or that's my take on it for what little it's worth.
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resurfacing, now that things have cooled off...
I'm wondering--couldn't we see Hugh die in third person limited? All those conditions, the collasping, the dying alone, the blistering sun, ect--wouldn't that be a more powerful scene described from the inside, with his thoughts and observations?
posted
In the breadth of my research on the Internet, in workshops, and in hardcopy writing compositions, I've found no majority consensus on the definitions of narrative voice, point of view-perspective, or psychic access (a writing term of art for qualifying the amount of access to characters' thoughts). Some writers merge them all into specific narrative qualifications, like third person, past-present tense, singular character point of view perspective, objective omniscient. Others are simpler. My preference is for the more complex qualifications. I feel I can avoid person, tense, perspective, and psychic access complications by defining and remaining aware of what the narrator's role is in any given story.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm wondering--couldn't we see Hugh die in third person limited? All those conditions, the collasping, the dying alone, the blistering sun, ect--wouldn't that be a more powerful scene described from the inside, with his thoughts and observations?
It would certainly be more powerful, though I can't recall seeing it done. As you know, just seeing him die without knowing his thoughts is quite a common technique in thrillers and it always annoys me, because I wonder how the narrator could possibly know. Is that being too anal?
quote:When Hugh Hapless dies alone in the desert, with nobody there to see, and the narrator tells us from a remote camera how Hugh finally collapses in the blistering sun and without being inside Hugh's head, is that too omniscient?
I believe that's called "camera eye" which can be considered omniscient in the sense that the camera can see what no point of view character can see, but limited in that the camera (in modern film, anyway) doesn't give any characters' thoughts. (Even if a movie gives a character's thoughts as "voice over," it tends to come across as "hokey.")
I hesitate to define point of view by the idea of a camera on a character's shoulder, because from that position, the camera only sees what the character sees. In order to "see" what the character is thinking, the "camera" has to be inside the character's head.
"Deep" and "light" refer to how deep (and even, possibly, subconscious) or how surface a character's thoughts and feelings are, respectively, as portrayed in the text.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
