posted
All right, I've just run into something that I wonder if you guys wuld like to comment on. Let's say you're writing in normal, third person limitd omniscient (like we like so much on this site ). Let's say your point of view character would not speak in the most sophisticated of manners. He might say, "I seen that movie." Outside of dialogue, what would you think of a narrative style in which the language continued in that vein? Would it be ok to use poor grammar and, essentially, a dialect outside of dialogue?
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
A continuous stream of that sort of thing would turn me off. I'd guess an occasional reminder would suffice, as with accents.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
There are plenty of fine examples of the narration reflecting the POV. Clockwork Orange. The entire Alvin Maker series. Any of the cyberpunk writers.
I usually prefer the narration to be a milder form of the POV, sort of as a bridge from me to the POV character.
posted
I think the narrative should be normal. People don't "think" using poor grammar. Most people never realize they have poor grammar, it isn't evident to them. If it were, they would most likely change their pattern of speech. I would keep it to the dialogue only and perhaps any internal dialogue. But this could just be a preference of mine. -BA-
Posts: 471 | Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted
I remember, Scott. It's actually one I thought about when I started this topic, but yours was a more extreme example than the one I ran across more recently.
MaryRobinette, I think you've made the best point so far. I hadn't actually formed an opinion on this when I posted, I was just reading someone's work and wondering about the use of less-than-perfect grammar that was almost exactly like the way the character would speak.
But now, unless someone's got a better idea, I think I do have a good idea about what works best. If a chraacter is ill-educated and speaks poorly, writing the narrative in high style would not work. It would need to be somewhat informal. on the other hand, it should be a comfortable read (and poor grammar is not comfortable).
So perhaps, use simpler prose to compliment a less-rephine speaking style without making it seem like the POV character is actually talking the entire time.
posted
In 3rd POV the reader knows it is an author telling the story. When I see bad grammar in the author's portion I tend to think the author has poor grammar and wonder how they got published.
In first person I would think you could get by with this much easier--in fact good first person is told in the character's grammar and wording all the way through.
posted
I think that you have to decide whether writing the narrative in a particular voice helps your story.
Certainly, if you have decided to tell the story in first person, then it is highly likely that the story will be best served by maintaining the illusion that the FP character is the author of the story (which is why I prefer artificial document style first person).
But if you are writing in third person, it is far more likely that the reader will demand that you be an author. The grammatical tense you are using constantly reminds the reader that you are not the character.
Jargons are a special case. A jargon is a special language designed to indicate membership in a group (like cyberpunklish). If you wish to present the author as a member of that group, then the narrative should be in the indicated jargon. This rule also applies to what we might call fantasy and future jargons. Where the author doesn't use the jargon of the characters, it implies a separation between them. If you look at comic SF/Fantasy one of the dead giveaways is that the author doesn't use the jargon (sometimes, important characters also don't use the jargon--but most will, even if all the really important characters don't).
Sharing a jargon (rather than a diction level) with your characters helps to show that you identify with them. So if your book is about southerners, you should write using enough southern expressions to show that you are also a southerner, even if you are better educated and more cosmopolitan than your characters. As an additional benefit, using jargon also indicates that you believe your readers are also members of the group. Of course, you don't always really believe this, but it shows that you intend the reader to identify with the characters.
Anyways, your diction should always be the best diction of the author of the work (if it is a first person story, then the diction should be how he would write, not how he would speak). Your idiom (jargon) should be that from which you want the reader to view the story.
The thing is, in third person you (the author) are constantly dipping into the character's thoughts. Sometimes you dip deeply, other times you back out completely. The deeper you dip, the more your diction, vocabulary, everything, should match that of the POV character. I agree with Survivor that, in first person, you should write the way that character writes, not speaks. However, in 3rd person, that's not true. You want to write the way the person thinks (which certainly can be ungrammatical!).
The problem with all of this, of course, is that it is totally impossible to imitate successfully the way a person thinks, except for those rare occasions when he thinks an entire sentence. But given that we have an accepted set of conventions for approximating that thinking, and those conventions work by describing those thoughts in sentences, it's important to match the style of those sentences with the character's style of speaking.
At the risk of being repetitious, let me put it this way. If you are minimally describing the location in which the POV character finds himself (he's not staring around looking at it, you just have to acquaint the reader with where it is), you should probably use your best writing English, except that your vocabulary should remain that of the character. If you start dipping into his thoughts, start dipping into his diction. And if you actually quote a thought (by using italics, or saying He thought) then it should be exactly the way he talks.
posted
Yes, nearly vocalized thoughts should be exactly what the character would have said if it had be a vocalized thought rather than only an slmost vocalized thought.
And the vocabulary should be pretty much what the character would use. I said "idiom" and "jargon" to make the point that the meanings should also match the meanings familiar to your characters.
I disagree that you want to use a variable level of diction between your narration and any direct thought quotes, though. I think that you should make it really clear when the character is consciously framing a thought and when you are just relating general impressions and thoughts. But that's probably off the subject (and we would get stuck arguing the merits of italicized inner monologue in no time).
posted
There's a difference between "consciously framing a thought" and consciously verbalizing a thought. In my opinion, both should take part of the character's vocabulary, diction, etc., though the non-verbalized thought (which must nevertheless be described verbally by the author) should do this to a lesser extent.
Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted
Ah. I actually use a diction below that of the character when I have the POV directly thinking about something without really putting it into words. I don't do that very often, though.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
I'm for dialect in the narrative. If you want to see an example of it masterfully done, read "The Education of Little Tree." Fantastic, and the dialect is a big part of what made it that way.
Now that I think of it, though, that book is in 1st person (I think) so I guess it doesn't really count. Anyone got any examples of dialect used well outside of dialogue? (that includes thoughts and such for the purposes of this question).
Mary, Clockwork Orange is in 1st person, isn't it? That disqualifies it. (Great book, though.) Was there really much dialect in the narration in Alvin Maker? I'll have to pull them off the shelf and look to see.
You know what? I'm posting something in Fragments and Feedback about this. It's the segment that initially started this topic with Christine.
[This message has been edited by wetwilly (edited June 24, 2004).]
posted
I wouldn't do it because in his own head, the narrator's, he doesn't especially realize he is making a mistake. So in his mind all of his thoughts are neat and orderly, plus I'd drop a book like that--it would be something I'd have to really work myself through.
Posts: 295 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
Hey, wetwilly, I think someone's already mentioned a perfect example of this done in third person--OSC's Alvin Maker series. The narrator definitely has a down home, back woods way of speaking.
Posts: 1672 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
). Let's say your point of view character would not speak in the most sophisticated of manners. He might say, "I seen that movie." Outside of dialogue, what would you think of a narrative style in which the language continued in that vein? Would it be ok to use poor grammar and, essentially, a dialect outside of dialogue?
