The Regent pulled open the heavy curtains with a frail hand. The warm breeze that blew through caressed his wrinkled face, and he drew in the fresh air. He felt a rare moment of pleasure as he looked out across the vast city. The vantage point of the fortress afforded him a spectacular view of Graziano. The river Grazi shone a pale amber in the evening sun, as wound its way from below the fortress, through the city to where it finally mingled with the endless sea beyond. As he watched, and with unnamed shades of crimson and gold accompanying it, the sun slowly extinguished itself in the distant, glittering sea. “Day is done,” a voice whispered, “and Night is here.” A sudden chill rippled through air. The Regent spun around, and lifted a claw-like hand. A writhing ball of flame crackled into being between his pale fingers.
posted
The 1st paragraph is…okay. Not great, but…what? The next two paragraphs show what he’s seeing. What is it? A city (I assume, but that is not clear at first mention) with a river flowing into the sea. The sun poetically setting. The fourth paragraph has a bit of story happening with the ball of flame. As an interior opening this might work. Here, it is too little. I doubt I would reach paragraph 5. Hmmm…it is that the details are generic? “Spectacular view” et al.
The Regent pulled open the heavy curtains with a frail hand. The warm breeze caressed his wrinkled face. He felt a rare moment of pleasure as he looked out across the temples and markets, the blocks of apartments with lights winking on. The smell of roasting applefit and baking bread filled him with longing for the past when he could eat such solid foods. Down below where he stood in the fortress the river Grazi carried pleasure craft home, clearing the way for heavy barges waiting upriver. All night long they would come to unload at the city docks. As he watched, first the river, then the buildings faded into shadows as the sun set. A cooler breeze chilled him. “Day is done,” a voice whispered behind him. He spun around. “You!” His hand curled. Between his arthritic fingers a ball of flame cracked into being.
Admitedly, not the details of your story. I just wanted to show you what I meant about using specific rather than more generalized details. The specific details help a reader visualize the setting. Generic ones, don’t work so well.
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited October 24, 2007).]
quote: The Regent[Name?] pulled open the heavy curtains with a frail hand. The warm breeze that blew through caressed[PoV?] his wrinkled face, and he drew in the fresh air. He felt a rare moment of pleasure as he looked out across the vast city[Why? What city?]. The vantage point of the fortress[What fortres?] afforded him a spectacular view of Graziano[What's this?Person, place, or thing: Robot? Giant? Spaceship? City?]. The river Grazi shone a pale amber[This "pale abmer" liquid struck me as something not to drink.] in the evening sun, as wound its way from below the fortress, through the city to where it finally mingled with the endless sea beyond[This gets into a cinematic PoV and away from what the protagonist sees.]. As he watched, and with unnamed shades [Uh, don't you name them:] of crimson and gold accompanying it, the sun slowly extinguished itself in the distant, glittering sea.[Since when has the sea been visible from then Regent's window?] “Day is done,” a voice[Whose voice? Male? female? from where?] whispered, “and Night is here.” A sudden chill rippled through air. The Regent spun around, and lifted a claw-like hand[Way different from the "frail hand" described in the beinning.]. A writhing ball of flame crackled into being between his pale[this words is used already in thsi thirteen lines] fingers.
It seems that this introduction is just a stall.
You set no characterization; no established PoV. It seems to go from the unnamed Regent's PoV to a distant Omniscient cinematic--and for no apparent reason. Naming the Regent gives us a character to follow.
Though you have detailed descriptions, you don't really establish the setting. I have no idea--from this--how far the city sprawls; whether it hugs the banks of a river or beach of the sea; what type of architecture (indicative of the era). The onlything I'm left with a picture of is a river, the sunset, and a sea. All of these are not yet relevant. Until I have someone to care enough to read about, I don't care where he lives.
IMHO - expand this from the last two sentences. Name the regent (if he's the protagonist, it'll make him easier to follow and relate to; if he's the antagonist, perhaps this is the wrong PoV). Intenionally withholding cheats the reader. Many will be offended. If you're story is good, just jump right in--we'll follow.
Strange..I thought this was better than the other one!
The Regent's name is important because, and it is established in the next few lines, he is known by a few names (A very important fact). It seemed easier to point this out in conversation with the intruder than to name him specifically from the outset and then change when the intruder comes.
The scene setting establishes an important detail (for later) which is the river flows from beneath the fortress.
I don't understand your POV issues with this piece. Everything that happens is from the Regent's POV. He can see everything I describe, much like standing on mountain near the coast, and being able to see all the way to the sea. In 3rd person limited you can describe anything the POV character can see, with having to ascribe it to the character.
>The warm breeze that blew through caressed[PoV?] his wrinkled face.
Obviously the regent can feel the warm breeze as it caressed his wrinkled face, therefore it's his POV. If there is something I am missing I'd like to know.
The voice is neither male nor female...therefore not specified. The location at that point is not specified as the POV character, the Regent, doesn't know.
In Orson Scott Card's book "Characters and Viewpoints" he states that third person limited can vary in penetration from deep to cinematic without violating the POV. I have re-read the piece and am certain it remains within 3rd person limited. It moves from light penetration to cinematic and then back to light within these 13 lines.
I agree it does feel a little generic, but if any one wants the rest of the scene I will email so you can see how it fits together. The whole scene is only 414 words. Its more of a prologue scene.
Apart from my query regarding your comments on POV you have made some good points
posted
Again, the questions aren't so much addressed to you, as about what I feel from the story.
quote: I don't understand your POV issues with this piece. Everything that happens is from the Regent's POV. He can see everything I describe, much like standing on mountain near the coast, and being able to see all the way to the sea. In 3rd person limited you can describe anything the POV character can see, with having to ascribe it to the character.
He can feel the breeze, but he can't see his wrinkled face. I wouldn't think of it as my wrinkled face; I'd think of it as my face.
You wrote:
quote: The vantage point of the fortress afforded him a spectacular view of Graziano.
What in that implies that the view that he can see is all of the surrounding terrain? And, even with this detailed description of the surroundings, it's never impled that the rivers flow from the fortress.
quote: The Regent's name is important because, and it is established in the next few lines, he is known by a few names (A very important fact). It seemed easier to point this out in conversation with the intruder than to name him specifically from the outset and then change when the intruder comes.
He thinks of himself as something. And, this begs the question: are you starting in the right place?
quote: In Orson Scott Card's book "Characters and Viewpoints" he states that third person limited can vary in penetration from deep to cinematic without violating the POV.
I'll have to reread my copy, but I think he defined 3pl vs cinematic. Cinematic can't be 3pl, it's, by its very nature, omniscient. Hot(deep) and cold penetration are a separate matter than cinematic and limited.
Ultimately, if I misread your intentions with the PoV, you did not achieve them.
BTW - Characters & Viewpoint, IMO, is brilliant, and it gets more so each time you peruse it. As applied, section-by-section, it clarifies and defines many basic terms--it does this more so than instructing what to use.
quote: I agree it does feel a little generic, but if any one wants the rest of the scene I will email so you can see how it fits together.
This is the anti-hook. Why would anyone read on if it's too vague?
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited October 24, 2007).]
The copy I have states three different levels of penetration for third person:
1. LTD: Light penetration. 2. LTD: Deep penetration. 3. LTD: the cinematic view.
I am not trying to say that you are wrong in claiming that I have handled the POV wrongly in my intro and your point re: the wrinkling of his face may be a point in fact. However re: the cinematic element of 3rd person you are mistaken. The cinematic element of 3rd person is merely to present what the POV character can see without stating that he can see it or what his reastion to that sight may be -- you still have to observe the rule regarding that it must be something they can see.
Regarding the Regents wrinkled face, he knows it is wrinkled, the same way he may know he has bald head, or dark hair. You have to be able to describe a POV character without resorting to the mirror trick, and so the use of knowledge the POV knows about themselves is regularly used. If something fell on his head and he didn't know what it was, to describe that would be an obvious flaw.
I don't wish to sound argumentative, however I do like people to clarify what they, say so I can clearly grasp the point they are making. Without it I learn nothing. Your point re: POV is in contradiction with the book (p.167) and clarity is required, so I will know in future which way to jump! Are you saying he is wrong?
posted
Since I don't carry a copy of Characters and Viewpoint around with me, I'll have to clarify my reply when I have the information before me. (And which point, exactly--speaking of clarification--condradicts page 167?) However, if you can quote OSC telling you to describe the PoV's face (as it might be thought of by others) I will bow to your superior knowledge and application of the teachings of OSC.
I don't think of myself by imperfections. There are a plethora of ways to describe the PoV character without having him describe his long,wavy white hair blowing in the breeze.
I think the basis of this argument is about exposition not PoV. Your voice could say "your age is catching up with you" or any number of snide comments to get that point across. Are his wrinkles that beneficial to the story?
quote: I don't wish to sound argumentative... ...so I will know in future which way to jump! Are you saying he is wrong?
This sounds argumentative.
Writing is not a science. There are many ways to achieve a goal. I'm not saying he's wrong--or for you to jump any way, for that matter--I'm telling you how I feel about your thirteen and what I get out of it. You can't change a first impression. If you don't like it, ignore it, as you probably will anyway.
posted
Okay, I assume that you're talking about the bottom paragraph of page 167. It says that this can be an alternative of 3rd person limted. But, and this is what stuck me as problematic, you're not supposed to hop freely about between those three forms of 3pl. This is an alternative to the hot and cold--light and deep penetration--not an addition. It says, and I quote for everyone's benefit:
quote: Figure 5 shows another alternative: the cinematic point of view. In this version of limited third person, we only see what the viewpoint character is present to see--but we never see inside his or anyone else's head. It is as if the narrator were a movie camera looking over a viewpoint character's shoulder, going where he goes, turning when he turns, noticing what he notices--but never showing anything but what he can see, never hearing anything but what he can hear:
What follows the colon is two pages of figures and a written example. What precedes is a description (similar to the quoted) of 3pl Light Penetration and 3pl Deep Penetration. (I don't like presenting an argument out of context.)
I want you to focus on OSC's use of italics to emphasize never seeing inside the PoV character's head or anyone else's in Cinematic 3pl.
So, while admittedly I was wrong about it not being possible for 3pl to be cinematic, you were just as wrong in the (unnecessary) defense of not violating PoV, because you can jump around in 3pl as much as you want. Cinematic is an alternative to the hot and cold technique that OSC uses (switching--but not randomly--from light to deep penetration).
This seems to support the fact that he wouldn't see OR think of his wrinkles, unless he looked in the mirror.
I am sorry, but I still query what you are saying.
I accept that the view of his wrinkles is WRONG and represents a POV violation.
However OSC in his book states on p.170 "...The dividing lines between cinematic, light-penetration, and deep-penetration are not firm. You can drift along with light penetration, then slip into deep-penetration or a cinematic view without any kind of transition, and readers usually won't notice the process. They'll notice the result, however."
On the same page he repeats the same argument that you can switch between the three types of third person limited in the same story -- without any kind of transition.
And no, while I may dispute points you have made, regarding POV, I found your critique insightful and useful -- I will certainly not ignore the points you have made. It is merely that you said something about POV generally that I disputed, and needed clarity on. I hope you will continue to critique my work in future.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
