For instance, in one chapter fron Nynaeve's POV where she spied on a meeting of Aes Sedea in Saldea, the last sentence reads something like (going by memory): 'She did not notice the woman watching her from the window.'
Just like fantasy tends to have a zoom in, from 3PO into 3PL at the beginning of a novel, so RJ seems to have a zoom out at the end of some chapters, only for a sentence or so.
He also doens't follow Card's suggestion for deep POV in relation to parents. It's usually the name of the parent, or his father, or his mother, or his Da. Never Dad, Mom, Da, ect... For instance, even before Rand knows Tam is not his real father, the narritive refers to him as Tam.
In a broader sense, Jordan has framed his entire work in omniscient, he follows the common pattern you note of zooming in from a non-character POV at the beginning of each book. He also zooms out to a semi-omniscient (or at least precognizant) epilogue at the end.
The POV's parent reference thing is only valid if you don't have multiple POV's each of whom has a different reference for "mom" and "dad". Since Jordan has a lot of characters with active characters for parents, he would get into trouble fairly quickly by trying to refer to all of them by familial relationship to the current POV. I think that Elaine is the only one that really thinks of her mother as "mother" a lot, for instance.
I've always enjoyed Jordan's writing, but I do have to say that I can't take his characters all that seriously. Even their most dire experiences strike me as entertaining rather than deeply compelling. So he is paying a price for the way he plays with POV. But it is a price that he's easily able to afford. After all, I only read WOT for fun, I'm not looking for deep insights into the nature of being or anything like that. Frankly, I'd find the books rather...untenable if he were trying too hard to make me take all these characters seriously. WOT is more like an action serial, it isn't Lord of the Rings.
For me, his characters feel amazingly real, either likable, or so dislikable they are likable. Not that they don't do things that sometimes don't make sense, for instance, Morgase getting herself captive by the Whiteclokes, that seemed unnatural.
At first I balked at Jordan's millieu because it took several books for him to explain the nature of it. Once I got the hang of that, I was pretty awed. Very cohesive and well thought out. Some series I've read, its obvious that the writer did not envision certain events or underlying ideas or histories. It feels out of place, made up. But with Jordan, I'm reading Book 8 and everything is knitted together as if concieved from Book 1.
Sometimes the results are tragic, often they're only amusing. But always a mistake.
I think, therefore I am, but am I what I think?
When done well, the technique works. Done well means that I don't notice the slipping in when reading through for pleasure the first time. I'll catch things like that (unless they are poorly done and stick out like a sore thumb) on subsequent readings.
To me, it's a valid writing technique that enhances the story being told.
The most common (and crudest form) is when the text ends -- This was the first time John had suspected something was wrong -- that sort of statement.
The old -- little did he know....
This can be handled in a classy way and work.
Another direction is to just switch pov for the last sentence/paragraph. One of my favorites was in Christoper Buckley's LITTLE GREEN MEN on page 120
....the scene is a speech by the MC in a meeting being broadcast on C-SPAN and ending with a rousing harangue and the crowd shouting back agreeing
I call upon Sen. Hank Gracklesen to hold abduction hearings now!
Gracklesen! Give us Gracklesen! Grrrrrr! Rip him to shreds!
A half continent away, a young aide opened a door and said, "Senator, you might want to turn on C-SPAN."
[end of chapter]
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited August 14, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited August 14, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited August 14, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited August 14, 2006).]
The idea is that there is, more or less, no single independent 'you' you've just got majority voting rights.
Think like a tree that clones itself by suckering. The original shoot may die out but the ring of suckers may keep expanding for thousands and thousands of years.
Though it may be that at some level, self is composed of primary compenents, its the overall functioning produces a self-aware mind with with free will. Self may not only exist in the synapses, but between. It might not be only composed of atoms, but in interlocking and entangled fields and quantum waveforms. The most fundemental parts of self might exist down on a level beyond the ability for human instruments to measure and even if they could, the uncertainty principle would render such measuring devices worthless.
quote:
So, the gap between what a person percieves themselves to be, what others percieve them to be, and what they actaully are?
I was making the distinction between them for the purpose of pointing out that, though we learn nothing about reality from fiction, we can discover the nature of being, both for ourselves and others. Our experiencial paradigm, after all, is just a more seriously contemplated fiction generated in response to an underlying reality.
Solid POV takes the character seriously as a person, albeit one who does not exist in reality. And that is a valid function of literature. It is true that it can also be a valid function of literature to simply entertain. The best literature does both, of course.
"Here, here!" invites the answer "Where? Where?!"