posted
I received a critique over a work and one of the comments mentioned that the reader didn't think the protagonist would use that word. This wasn't dialogue, but straight up exposition. I get that in a close 3rd person narrative that information generally should be given and revealed as the protagonist knows and thinks of it. However, I'm thinking if I wanted the narration to be in the protagonist's voice, I'd have the story be first person instead of third. So if I have a young male protagonist look across the room, does he see the woman in the gossamer gown with the rucked sleeves or does he see the girl in the nearly see-through dress with bunched up sleeves?
Posts: 823 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my, a range of complex and related topics. Seymour Chatman surveys a large amount of the central topic in Story and Discourse, the discourse part. Each of the above topics relates to the show and tell paradigm.
Tell, essentially, summarizes and explains events, settings, and characters from an external voice, typically a narrator persona's perspective, perhaps an implied and/or real writer's perspective. Tell's function in show mode is to summarize information or explain when needed, when events and etc., of less though relevant significance would bog down pace and flow. Tell abbreviates narrative time and speeds through story time. Tell opens narrative distance. Tell is narrator or other external persona voice.
A way to defuse open distance from tell is to strongly and clearly develop a narrator's identity, the scene, so to speak then of the narrator's person, time, place, and situation rather than of the depicted action's scene.
Show mimetically imitates events, settings, and characters as perceived in the moment by an internal-to-an-action reflector's personal perceptions.
Melded show and tell seamlessly merges narrator and viewpoint reflector perceptions such that the viewpoint persona is perceived as the narrator, regardless of grammatical person: first, second, or third.
Chatman explicates these matters more comprehensively.
An overtly narrator narrated narrative reads like fairy tale, fable, and the like, in an indirect discourse voice. Grimm brothers' folk tales, Aesop's fables, and the One thousand and one Arabian Nights tales are that traditional voice of indirect discourse.
An example of indirect discourse, note the static voice: //He saw the woman seated upon her vanity table settee, dressed in a gossamer gown with rucked sleeves, a nearly see-through dress with bunched-up sleeves.// The narrator describes, tells the action statically, indirectly; distinguishable by the verb "saw."
Direct discourse describes the reflected visual sensation of the woman as perceived and emotionally felt by the young male observer. I imagine he'd see her more nude than dressed or at least be drawn to nude features more than clothed features, and feel perhaps lust or embarrassment or ideally both for a contentious clash of emotions. In other words, he barely, if at all sees -- notices the clothes and instead sees -- stares and emotionally reacts to the bare nude displayed before him. "Emotionally reacts" is a key to differences between show and tell, that and dynamic verbs instead of static sensation verbs like to see.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify and focus the question, should an author choose words for a work's exposition written in 3rd person that the protagonist would use and know? The example provided above is a generic example, not actually something I'm using right now. We're looking at diction, not syntax.
Posts: 823 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might depend partly on how much of the rest of the exposition is clearly from the protagonist's point of view.
If you had the rest of it from the protagonist's point of view, and then used words that the protagonist wouldn't use, then you've caused a point of view shift for the reader.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Third person narration categories discussed by Chatman, above, and Damon Knight's Creating Short Fiction span detached or intimate psychic access, depth degree and type of thought access between those extremes, overt or covert narrator or at times estranged narrator, single viewpoint or more than one viewpoint access, and factors of degree of selective omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Multiple possibilities, any group of which may suit a given narrative for artful and persuasive variety, and such a host that a near infinite possibility set in application is possible.
Diction, then. Is not a verb choice a matter of diction as much as noun or modifier, and word or phrase or clause? And though diction is distinguishable from syntax, to a small degree divisible, the two are as closely related as are form and function.
Narrative distance is a topic Dave King specifies to a stronger and clearer degree than any essay on the topic I've read. King's explication specifies narrative distance is the degree of closeness between a narrator's voice and viewpoint and an agonist character's voice and viewpoint, whether exclusively one or another or blended, and whether close or remote.
John Gardner glosses over the core topic in The Art of Fiction, which he labels psychic distance; that is, aesthetic distance, which is the degree of closeness spatial, intellectual, psychic, and emotional an artwork's receiver feels to and from an artwork. Chatman also discusses narrative distance and other distance features. Wayne Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction drills deep into aesthetic distance topics, the main set of distance and all other distance area subsets of the main set.
Diction and related syntax and other language arts skills are a large portion of each of the above's discussions.
Of note, Chatman discusses a metaphorical concept of figurative language, so-labeled an "estranging metaphor": a diction choice of word and words that estranges a narrator in favor of a viewpoint character.
Grammar handbooks advise figurative language uses abstract reasoning to persuasively develop an otherwise generic and neutrally emotionally charged, concrete concept's concise meaning, a matter of diction. My Little, Brown uses otherwise emotionless buildings as symbolism and imagery examples. Chatman uses emotionally charged personal language as examples. Both matters of diction.
Narrative point of view, as aesthetics texts define the term and as I understand the concept, is the overall perspective of a narrative. Grammatical person is one of multiple features of a narrative point of view. Attitude toward a topic is another, as in approving or disapproving, for example. Degree of objectivity and subjectivity is another. Psychic access is another: degree of narrator access to character thoughts mostly -- limited to one character, multiple characters, or none. Degree of omnipresence is another, a narrator's ability to be present at event scenes. A first person narrator usually cannot be intimately aware of events the narrator doesn't personally experience, with exceptions.
The abbreviation POV is used in many different ways and sometimes mutually exclusive from one or another. Some writers use the term to mean a main character or protagonist's or narrator's viewpoint., some to mean solely a central character. Some writers use the term to mean an incidental viewpoint of one particular persona who is on point at one given time, whether a narrator for one passage and a character for another passage and another character for another passage, as if the POV were a single camera recording multiple viewpoints one at a time or, otherwise, pointed at any given character at any point in time.
I surveyed the gamut of distance properties above, and diction to a degree. Deeper appreciation for "POV, distance, and diction" -- I've offered texts for consideration.
quote:Originally posted by babooher: To clarify and focus the question, should an author choose words for a work's exposition written in 3rd person that the protagonist would use and know? The example provided above is a generic example, not actually something I'm using right now. We're looking at diction, not syntax.
I think narrator's voice sets the mood. Steampunk writers often use an imitation Victorian narrator for the purpose. If it's too erudite or modern it'll keep breaking immersion by clashing with the character dialogues, I imagine.
"So if I have a young male protagonist look across the room, does he see the woman in the gossamer gown with the rucked sleeves or does he see the girl in the nearly see-through dress with bunched up sleeves? "
My opinion: if he's a fashionista he sees the first; if he's like me he sees through the dress with his imagination. So the narrator tells us truly what he sees. I think there's more to the first person choice than this, because I suspect close third person gives you more flexibility in telling the story, e.g. you don't have to be close all the time and might choose to go omniscient when it suits -- as long as it's a smooth transition.
Hope this helps, Pat
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really depends on POV in my opinion, regardless of narrative distance. First person narrator would only use words known to that character, it would be anachronistic to have a Saxon warrior talking about fractal geometry. A second person POV would also operate under those same constraints, I believe. For third person narration, I think it all depends on the flavour of the piece you are trying to capture.
When writing fantasy, my prose tends to be of a slightly archaic nature; deliberately. Probably influenced by reading Tolkein, Lewis and Tennyson. For Sci-Fi, modern usage and parlance is the go.
posted
Lest Percy Lubbock's The Craft of Fiction be left out of the above informal narrative annotated bibliography related to narrative point of view, distance, and diction topics -- the book-length narrative deconstructs a brace of novel examples from a narrative point of view approach.
Ms. Dalton Woodbury, TaleSpinner, and Grumpy old guy's responses, insightful and accessible and relevant as they are, give a fish: food for an instance. A writing aesthetics annotated bibliography cites sources for learning to fish and from which to develop equipment for fishing: food for a lifetime.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I just get a slap on the wrist? Time to search out the law books on the validity of opinion. Anywho, I've a new e-book to read--Percy Lubbock's The Craft of Fiction.
posted
Not a criticism of the response or the responder, an additional perspective. The conversational and limited nature of Hatrack writing discussions and number of participants creates an impression of a small-ish active group. However, many more people, I don't know, dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands, read and perhaps study the content without participation.
This is akin to writing conference sessions, some sessions are panels presented in auditoriums to a mostly silent spectator audience, panelists speaking together from a stage's dais, some are smaller group breakouts, like focused critique or subject workshops, some are pitch-to-an-agent or editor or publisher sessions, some are specialized topics, like world building, some are perhaps more social or fan-based interactions with celebrities than dynamic writing discussions, some are participant events, like cosplay, some are pure and direct "happy-hour" socials.
An annotated bibliography on writing topics offers external-to-a-conference sources for further, independent investigation.
Lubbock is one of the more dense pieces of writing aesthetics I've read, though the value of his discourse is insight into discernment of narrative point of view features and how other writers manage the subject differently from one another and for individual narrative types and individual passages and seamless or at least non-disruptive transitions between different narrative persona voices.
The text doesn't cover every contingency though does give an analyst's perspective of how to deconstruct narrative point of view and distance features from other works and, ideally, a writer learning to develop and apply her or his own methods.
posted
Oh, I'm not complaining--really. I've read the first chapter to test the waters and savour the aroma and I like what I've read so far.
Despite the archaic language and grammar and, should I dare suggest it, the punctuation, I found him to be insightful and yet plain speaking--in a manner of speaking.
I'll probably give it a one-time read through to get the salient points and then examine his observations in a more studious manner at my leisure, if I ever get any in the near future, that is.
posted
I think these discussion forums would lose their learning value if we only traded references to books on writing. While they're valuable, I think the value of a discussion forum is to learn by sharing what one has learned and getting feedback all of which helps consolidate and validate one's new learning. It would be bad for these forums if one had to read lots of books on writing before being able to contribute without fear of being slapped on the wrist. My understanding is that Hatrack is a "learn by doing" place where books on writing are regarded as valuable but not an essential pre-requisite. Please don't inhibit discussion, extrinsic, by appearing to slap wrists. My post was the best I can do and I feel no need for my writing, poor as it is, to comb the literature for material on narrative voice, distance and whatever. we're surely here to help each other, not mould others to our ideals.
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: It would be bad for these forums if one had to read lots on writing before being able to contribute without fear of being slapped on the wrist.
It's interesting, because Extrinsic is *very* sensitive to criticism, while at the same time laying it on pretty thick on views he opposes. And believe it or not, I say this in a well meaning way. You can be knowledgeable, which is fantastic, but if you have no people skills, you really are wasting a lot of potential and a lot of opportunities. Which is a shame.
Ah well, c'est la vie. To what could be but isn't.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: Not a criticism of the response or the responder, an additional perspective. The conversational and limited nature of Hatrack writing discussions and number of participants creates an impression of a small-ish active group. However, many more people, I don't know, dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands, read and perhaps study the content without participation.
We aren't trying to deliver to an unseen massive audience a comprehensive analysis of the writing craft are we? I thought we were learning by doing (writing) and by reviewing each other's work and by discussing points of interest. I do not think it is right to expect every post to be an in-depth analysis complete with bibliography though such may interesting to some. I don't think we get to test our own ideas without discussion.
"Ms. Dalton Woodbury, TaleSpinner, and Grumpy old guy's responses, insightful and accessible and relevant as they are, give a fish: food for an instance. " That makes me feel patronised not to mention lectured.
The OP clarified the question for this thread thus: "To clarify and focus the question, should an author choose words for a work's exposition written in 3rd person that the protagonist would use and know? " To my mind the question is specific and to use extrinsic's metaphor, I think only a fish is required to answer the question. When I ask for a fish I do not want a dozen books on fishing. Nor do I plan to answer every post posing a question with a fishing lecture.
posted
Isn't it great that we all approach discussion in our own ways? We all have something of value to contribute.
Please, let's not critique each other's comments. We can respond to them, and even disagree, but we don't need to pass judgment on the way they are expressed.
Let each reader decide that for themselves.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm here to learn and, in some small part, repay that privilege by passing on what small pebbles of wisdom I encounter.
Every one of us is here for our own, personal reasons and we will use what we find here in our own unique ways and pursue our own purposes.
extrinsic is a student of writing, as am I, but I have not devoted the same level of time and commitment--I have, and have had, more pressing concerns. In my search for understanding and in my struggle to improve my writing, I will choose those things that I find are best suited to achieving those goals, be it books, blogs, or boggles.
As for the discussions on this site, who among us knows what others will find valuable or enlightening? So, in my opinion, bring on all comers and all manner of discourse, ignoring the things that do not help you while understanding that some may find gold where others find only spoil.
And, just to stay on topic, that was written in the first person, immediate point of view, and not as a third person narrator.
quote:Originally posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury: Isn't it great that we all approach discussion in our own ways? We all have something of value to contribute.
Please, let's not critique each other's comments. We can respond to them, and even disagree, but we don't need to pass judgment on the way they are expressed.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
