posted
Okay, okay, it's the first 20 or so, but the 13th line is a crappy place to stop .
This is the beggining of the Part 1, which takes place way before what I posted earlier. Enjoy (I hope )
Karen Helmholtz floated weightlessly in the center of a large chamber at the heart of the ISA docking center. She had her eyes closed and was listening to soft music playing in the background. The air flowed around her as images of a summer field surrounded her- long flowing grass below her, blue sky and white clouds above her, and seeds and flower pedals dancing around her as if the fan-blown air was a summer breeze.
The image of her husband, Joseph, appeared in the grass below. She heard his voice below her say, “Come down Karen, I want to say goodbye.” She opened her eyes and flipped herself around to face the “ground” where Joe was standing. She thrust her hands out as if she could fly, and sure enough she seemed to soar down to him. He reached his hands out to her, and she passed through him as if he was a ghost.
She hit the soft wall of the chamber and bounced back. “Lock environment to me,” she said in a flat voice that told the computer she was talking to it, rather than her husband, and immediately the “ground” followed her around the room- and Joe with it. She was locked so close to Joe that, were he really there with her, they could kiss. They looked into each other’s eyes and floated together through the room.
The environment around them changed and they seemed to be floating in sunset clouds with hues of pink. “I think the operators are watching us,” Karen said.
“At least they have a flare for romance.” They floated there for a moment, then Joe broke his gaze as if someone was talking to him. “Alright, Karen. Time’s up. You have to go now. Goodbye.” Karen looked sad, then sighed and turned off the environment so she could see the door. Joe’s image disappeared and she soared toward it- toward the cold sleep of her cryonization chamber to be loaded into her ship, the Ithuriel. She would be a lot older before she could see her husband again.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 09, 2004).]
posted
Hmm, interesting, but you need to watch your tendency to describe things as you see them rather than the way your POV character sees them.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
I would like to focus on the second line, if I may...
What kind of music is it? Even angst-ridden, hard-core, punk metal could be playing softly in the background. Tell us what type of music it is... soft jazz? Classical? Elevator? Tell us.
One little touch like that will speak volumes about your character -- making her far more alive and real to me, and far more interesting overall. You could even go so far as describing why she had chosen that particular music, or better, a particular track... her husband's favorite, maybe? A song her mother liked?
And again with the soft wall? Why is it soft? What makes it soft? What is it padded with? Even "the soft, padded wall" would be better than soft alone.
Otherwise, I like it... but there is that POV issue Survivor mentioned...
posted
I'll work on the music and wall suggestions, but the POV isn't Karen's. It's 3rd omniscient. I think you guys are trying to get me to write more in OSC's style. He gets much more personal with the character in his writing style to get you to feel connected with the characters. I'm trying to connect you with their actions... maybe when I get further you'd be able to see that, but I'm trying to get more personal, I just don't want to get too personal. Meh, I dunno...
Edit: I just noticed, I didn't say music playing softly, I said soft music in the background. I'll still add something to it though...
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 10, 2004).]
posted
When you say "soft music," I automatically think of soft jazz or music being played very softly, thus my comment about it's ambiguity and a need to clarify. Because when I started to read your first lines, I stopped there and thought about the music and asked myself, what kind of music? But, I'm a musician, so that would be my natural inclination anyway... So, it held me up and prevented me from getting much further until I had decided for myself what she would listen to while floating about... I settled on New Age, by the way.
Sorry if I mislead you there... I certainly wouldn't ask you to write like OSC does. Everyone has their own voice.
I was listening to Led Zeppelin's Going to California when I wrote that, but it's in the futre, and only one character in this story listens to Zep. She's listening to a future musician playing some acoustic guitar. I'll add that in there in a sec (after I add it to the master file on my comp ).
quote:It's 3rd omniscient. I think you guys are trying to get me to write more in OSC's style. He gets much more personal with the character in his writing style to get you to feel connected with the characters. I'm trying to connect you with their actions...
This definitely isn't 3rd Omni. 3rd Omni, by definition, is quite impersonal and your 13 lines draw me into the heart of this character too much for it to be 3rd Omni. This segment is about a mood, not actions, not scene. I am so far into Karen that my heart aches for her when he reaches out to her and he passes through them, at the moment I realize he's not really there.
Totally so UN-3rd Omni.
Giggle. Hubby just caught a glimpse of what I was typing and thought we were discussing the Book of Mormon. 3rd Omni.
posted
Thanks, Phanto. POV is just from where you're telling the story. It has nothing to do with how you tell the story. The inverse of this POV would be the Sherlock Holmes stories. It's written in 1st person, but it doesn't get personal with Holmes, or even Watson...
Edit: and thanks, djvdakota. That was a nice compliment in a roundabout way...
(great, now I'm going to have Yes stuck in my head...)
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 10, 2004).]
quote: toward the cold sleep of her cryonization chamber to be loaded into her ship, the Ithuriel. She would be a lot older before she could see her husband again.
I thought the point behind freezing is that you wouldn’t be a lot older, everyone else would.
posted
1st- I haven't gotten to it yet, but this isn't actual freezing, as that would destroy brain cells, etc. The subject is put into a state of hibernation in a cold tank. The point isn't to keep the body as is, but to keep the body at a low-resource consumption rate, and unconsious, so that they reach their destination w/o consuming too many resources, etc. They still age, just not consiously.
2nd- she isn't going to be "frozen" when she does her work, now is she?
And, of course there's a 3rd omni. Just read a history book if you want to see a good example of 3rd omni.
posted
Disagree, disagree. 3rd omni has much to do with how you tell the story, since you are choosing it for a specific purpose. And 3rd Omni is too broad a focus, IMO, to believably get into the heart of a single person as deeply as this passage does. When you dig in that deep to one person you're straying away from 3rd omni and entering 3rd limited. Not that that's troublesome. Stray all around if you want. And really, stories seldom stick to just one POV, though scenes should.
Like Archer says--you want 3rd omni, read a history book. Even then, you might go into great detail on a particular person, but you generally don't dig deeoly into their heart, into their own personal views except in the form of quotes. Because the focus is so broad there just isn't the time or space to do it. That's why you use 3rd omni, isn't it? You do it to provide as broad a perspective as possible, to show as much as possible to your reader, but without the deeper penetration warranted by 3rd limited or 1st.
So I guess my objection isn't so much that you want to use 3rd omni. That's fine with me. My objection is that this passage so deeply involves my in the protag's heart that I have a hard time wanting it to be 3rd omni. So, the POV for the book is 3rd omni. Cool. But this passage, to me, is 3rd limited.
If I am completely up in the night I will await correction from the Great Guru of POV--Survivor.
And hey, Survivor. I think we confused poor Archer. True, there is no 3rd Omni. Not in the Book of Mormon anyway. That's why I put in the . There IS an Omni 1:3. Now how confusing will that be if people still think I'm talking about POV?
posted
Yes, well, I didn't say there wasn't an Omni 1:3 (that would just be plain silly).
Just a note, non-relativistic Newtonion travel between stellar systems is usually one the order of centuries, and still takes decades for very near stars. So I'm guessing that she's just traveling in-system...but at those distances, video messaging would still be reasonable. And she isn't really seeing her husband now, she's just viewing his image at a lower-lag than will be the case for a long time.
Anyway, really do consider whether you have a good reason to use Full Omniscient. Even history books aren't written in Full Omniscient, they're written in Third Person Limited (if the historians are being honest, at any rate).
I dissagree about history books. If you read a good history of WWII, for example, would show what was happening on both sides of the conflict, and wouldn't be restricted to one side, or one person.
If you want a good example of 3rd omni in movies, watch Tora Tora Tora. This is the best example I've ever seen of showing both sides of a conflict.
posted
Not sure what you mean ArCheR. The history texts that I have been digesting on WW2 cover every single point.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted
Movies are never in Full Omniscient, because they can't show us what any character is thinking except by their actions (with the exception of voice-over--just a movie attempt to do what books do better). Likewise, written fiction that attempts to do what movies do is written in cinematic viewpoint, which, generally, is as much a mistake as voice-over. History books are written with a narrative voice. They can't get into anybody's head, but the narrator's ideas and opinions can come through just fine.
If you want to write in full omni, then--as stated by others--you're not going to be able to afford the depth of mental penetration into your characters as in 3rd person limited omniscient. For example, you would not only describe Karen's setting, you would also describe her husband's. You'd be showing us something of what's in both of their heads--but not so much that it would be jarring for the reader when you switched.
Full omniscient is more difficult than 3PLO to write well, which is why it's so often trashed on these threads. But even if it weren't intrinsically more difficult, the problem is that 3PLO is more common, thus the reader expects it, thus if you do something else you have to do it even better than you would 3PLO.
Nothing in the passage you've given us would keep you from writing this in 3PLO. There may be other things later in the story (though it seems unlikely, since you can change viewpoints after a break), and if there are, then that's the way you have to write it. But understand what you're getting into.
posted
Have I reviewed anything of yours yet? If not, I'd like to. Not that I won't review for those of you I've already done. I'd just like to read as much a variety as I can--interesting for me, valuable for you to have as many different opinions as possible instead of relying on the same old crowd. But it depends on the length. No, I don't want to review it if it's 12 chapters. Sure, I'll take a look if it's around 5000 words.
(Edit) Wasn't it me who thought it a good idea to get into the habit of stating sending preferences? I prefer an MSWord document sent as an attachment.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited July 13, 2004).]
posted
RF has hit on an essential point that distinguishes FO from other types (which is also the reason FO is never used in writing history). Another point is that often FO also must provide information is isn't ever known to any of the characters and may not even be knowable to them in a purely epistemological sense.
Historians do not have access to the thoughts and feelings of historical figure except through their known actions. Even though these known actions may sometimes include the writing of autobiographical accounts, we only have access to the third person limited perspective on what motivated those accounts, some of which are notoriously inaccurate and downright mendacious. But it isn't the historian's job to pretend direct knowledge of all events, only to present the story told by evidence. To the extent that an historical account falls into FO, it becomes a fictional account (assuming here that the historian is not actually omniscient).
POV is not everything, but it is much of how you tell a story. Do make an effort to figure out what POV you're using.
posted
Keely and djvdakota: No prob. But I'm not really far into the first part (I started the 2nd part before the 1st. See the other Raziel thread for details). So you'll have to wait :/
I was always told that 3rd omniscent means you use "he" "she", never use "I", and you know everything that happens. That's what this is. I switch perspectives, etc. Maybe not in the first section, but it's still 3rd omni.
posted
I know all about POV, I just don't know which name goes with which. Help is great, but somehow everything you guys say sounds condescending... It's weird...
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 19, 2004).]
posted
Sorry about that, ArCH. The various difficulties in defining POV in neat little terms is just one of those things.
Still, Full Omniscient is a pretty hard POV to write effectively, and if you're writing in standard 3PLO with multiple viewpoint characters, then every passage should read like 3PLO. Right now, this doesn't feel like either, it feels like slightly sloppy wandering POV.
Combined with the fact that you don't seem to know exactly what the correct term is for the POV you're using, it probably got everyone thinking the wrong thing.
Also, since you didn't specify that you had any more material (or how much more) that you wanted read, it is likely that the general presumption was that you only wanted feedback on these 20 (making a point of posting more than the guidelines allow also tends to suggest that you're only asking for feedback on the posted fragment). So it may be that everyone is simply critiquing what is posted rather than asking to see the entire thing.
For myself, I was just explaining why I wouldn't be interested in reading more. Then people started the POV discussion (and the "I thought you meant 3rd Omni in the Book of Mormon" joke), and you know I can't stay out of one of those conversations.
posted
Well, I think you guys are a litle confused on the POV I'm taking, in that you want to place the POV on a character. My evidence:
quote:Hmm, interesting, but you need to watch your tendency to describe things as you see them rather than the way your POV character sees them.
I AM my POV character. That little floating point in space from which movies are seen. That's why I'm saying it's 3rd omni.
And please don't give me all of that high art BS about how books shouldn't be written like movies, etc. I'm not saying you were going to, but if you say that, I'm going to have to assume you're an intelectual snob.
But I'm going to assert that if your intention is to write in FO, then you are not the POV character, because the POV in FO is omniscient, which you are not.
posted
Um... I said I'm not the POV character. There is no POV character in this. The fact that I'm only showing you one side of the communication says nothing about the POV.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
Archer, if you are using what is essentially a camera eye as your point of view, then you are cheating yourself of one of the main advantages of written fiction (showing the reader what the characters are thinking).
OSC has pointed this out in his workshops, so we don't feel that we're being intellectual snobs to argue in favor of it.
You can do whatever you want in your story, though. We just want you to be aware of the problems that a camera eye point of view involves and we want you to have VERY GOOD reasons for doing what you're doing.
Writers can go against convention, break the "rules" and so on, but they should know why the "rules" are there, and they should have VERY GOOD reasons for going against them.
posted
Who says you can't show a character's thoughts with the camera eye? If movies can do it with the camera eye POV, why can't books?
And I wasn't contradicting myself there, Mary. Those were two ways of trying to describe the POV. My point in the post you quoted was that the narrator is the POV, but the narrator isn't a character in the story. The narrator is just some guy describing what happened in this story's world.
Edit: I said the intellectual snob bit about people who think books are better than movies as forms of art.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 21, 2004).]
posted
I almost hate to jump in here, but I can't resist. If you have to defend your position this vehemently against the many people who have expressed their opinion. Wouldn't you think twice or ten times that what you are doing isn't the best way to go about it?
I guess if you are writing this story for yourself, and yourself only, then go for it. Our collective opinion doesn't matter at that point. But, if you expect to get this thing published eventually. You had better take a long look at convention before continuing. Especially if you are a new writer. Publishers have a very hard time "taking risks" with new, unconventional writers. Now I am not published, but just take a look at your options in the publishing world and that will tell you everything you need to know. Alot of houses won't even accept new writers without an invitation or recommendation, and definately don't want to risk anything on a story that "doesn't fit the mold" so to speak. That may not be the right way of saying it, but I think you get the idea.
I think you would be setting yourself up for a big letdown, if you continue with this line of action. Make your story inventive, colorful and well balanced. Add a few twists and turns that will really shake up your audience, but keep it within the confines of what everybody is used to reading. Especially in this genre.
I am just trying to find my way as well, so do what you will with my advice/opinion. -BA-
posted
How movies (a visual medium) show what a character is thinking:
Voice over (considered hokey)
Character says what s/he's thinking (but can you believe him/her?)
Actor uses body language (works if you can believe the actor, and if the actor is good at acting)
Movies don't actually say what a character is thinking the way the written word can. Movies can only imply (unless they take the hokey option, above) what the character is thinking, and if the viewers don't "get it," the best acting in the world is wasted.
posted
That's not my point. My point was that a camera eye POV in written work can show thought just as well as any other POV.
BTW, voiceovers aren't hokey if done right. Adaptation is the best example of this (even if it is making fun of voiceovers, Kaufman wrote it so well, and Cage's work is so brilliant, all the hokiness is gone).
TruHero, I just don't think what you're saying applies. It's mostly a case of too small a sample to determine the value of the POV right. Also, half the discussion isn't about my actual work, but what POVs are what, and what the right name for it is...
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 22, 2004).]
posted
Yes, well...if you want to make a movie, then do that, don't muck about pretending you're writing a book. Bonus points for getting Cage to star in it, I suppose.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Screenplays are notoriously difficult to write and extremely limiting. I love movies for what they are, but I don't believe I'll ever be able to write a proper screenplay because I'd have a rough time keeping to the strict format.
Archer, it's your story -- write it however you want. I don't think you should take offense to what anyone says here on hatrack... Keep in mind that they only wish to help you acheive your goal -- even if it appears otherwise.
posted
After the last post ArCHeR made, I actually think we are missing his point about showing thoughts. I think what he saying is that, just because the camera is outside the characters head, doesn't mean it can't dip inside for thoughts occasionally. And he's right. There's scads of work that do that.
For me, the thing that would make it clear that this is 3O POV is if there is clear narrator voice before we get to Karen. Some larger establishing thing, like a "once upon a time" but not that, obviously.
I'd also suggest, that rather than jumping on him saying, "3O POV is hard to do well, so if you do it you're wrong," that we help him do it well, since that's what he clearly wants to do.
I don't think it's necissary for the reader to know it's 3O yet. When they get to the next section (which is explaining a little more about this universe's situation), they'll see that it's outside any character's... well... POV.
Then when I get into the small groups and ship crews, I'm going to be giving thoughts from several characters in one section, to help keep the POV "outside" any one character (I'm just thinking this all up off the top of my head, but it sounds good to me).
quote:I don't think it's necissary for the reader to know it's 3O yet.
I think you might want to reconsider that because it will jar the reader when their perception of the Voice changes. Whatever narrative voice you are using is another character for the reader, because that's who's telling them the story--even if it isn't a literal character. So if you don't let people know, right up front, what voice you are using, then they will decide for themselves. Which means that anytime the narrative voice does not follow the rules that fit whatever voice your reader thinks you're using, it will look like a mistake.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
Hello. No offense, but I disagree on all but one of those changes.
She's closing her eyes, meaning she's making a decision to. Saying "Her eyes were closed" implies sleep, whereas "She had her eyes closed" implies relaxation (at least in this situation).
The last one is about mood. They didn't float for a moment, they floated there for a moment. It takes a beat away from the rythm of the sentance too.
But thanks anyway.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 24, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 24, 2004).]
posted
I don't think so Archer. I think people have said what they thought was helpful and are waiting to see what you do next with the piece, or with other work. After all, it is your work, not theirs, and your right to present it as you wish. Of course, you also live with the consequences of your decisions, as we all do in our writing.
Me, when I get into a place like where you were, with many voices telling me what I do not agree with, I tend to set the piece aside for a while and work on something else. This is to give myself the necessary objective distance from my own work. If, later, I come back to the piece and my opinion hasn't change, then I go ahead with it as I planned. That might work for you, or you might have a better way. If so, please let me know so that I can use it.
posted
Oh, I just forget to work on it for a while (still thinking of ideas for it when they pop in my head, of course), and never get around to it until I get bored and decide to write. I think you're saying the same thing, but just don't want to admit it
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited November 28, 2004).]
posted
It is interesting we are talking about something that has already been published. You seem to already be publisihng your work on your website.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
Well, it's been quite a while, and I just now realized that I promised a few people that I'd send them more of my progress, and completely forgot about it in all the above POV discussion. If you still want it, let me know.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
.
)
(Edit) Wasn't it me who thought it a good idea to get into the habit of stating sending preferences? I prefer an MSWord document sent as an attachment.
