|
Post by scintor on Jan 4, 2009 20:02:54 GMT -5
I think you just need to keep the story going. If that means that your major supporting charactors change over time, that fine, as long as it fits the story.
Scincerely,
Scintor@aol.com
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jan 5, 2009 1:35:25 GMT -5
A question just slightly off what you were discussing: If you have multiple POVs in your novel, is it necessary to retain them in sequels? The MC remains so throughout the series; but if you have spent time in other major characters' POV in the first manuscript, would the reader feel cheated if you don’t return to all of them in the second or third novels? Or if you introduce other characters in their stead? I hope not. One of the pivotal (though not main) characters in my first novel is not given a POV in the second. I've added another character that more or less serves that purpose. Stories evolve. I can think of several examples where the author does not retain all of the original POVs for the sequels.
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Jan 5, 2009 4:47:42 GMT -5
I like how Stephen King handles POV in The Dark Tower Book 2: The Drawing of the Three when Roland enters into the head of each character he has to pull into his own world through these doors. The first door he enters scares him so much that......well, just read it and see.
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Feb 5, 2009 10:47:00 GMT -5
Thank you for the clarification. To me, any omniscient POV is evil and must be destroyed. (Unless of course we're speaking theologically, and then I love the Omnisicent One!) Jeff Granted this is an old comment to be resurrecting like a long dead cylon from its birth vat, but I have to ask, why? What is wrong with Omniscient POVs, done well I rather like them. Omni POVs permit a more storytelling (close your eyes and listen to a told tale) voice rather than a TV script voice. If I'm not mistaken a lot of great literature is written Omni-pov. I would think that a wholescale abandonment of the Omni-povs would be tantamount to surrender to the forces of twitter-fictiondom....5 cents a word for a clever bon mot of 140 characters or less. ick.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Feb 5, 2009 11:27:44 GMT -5
You're always welcome to write in omniscient POV, seraphim. Go for it! You will probably encounter the "no omniscient POV" feedback from virtually every agent and editor you approach, however. One of my tips ( #86) talks about going ahead and writing the way you want, even if it flies in the face of what the industry is calling for--so long as you're either willing to change it if a publisher pro asks you to or you're willing to simply not get published for now. That holds true for omniscient POV. It's true that much of our great literature from yesteryear was written in omniscient POV. However, that's not an argument that holds any weight when publishers are deciding whether or not to publish a novel today. Literature shmiterature. They want to give their audience something the audience wants, not something audiences from another era wanted. It's true that a few well-known novelists today use omniscient POV. But again, that's not usuaully a compelling argument in publishing committee (PubCo) meetings. Omniscient POV is like modern art. Anybody can splash paint on a canvas and call it modern art, but usually it is only trained artists who have devoted years of work and discipline to learning the fundamentals of art who can make modern art that resonates with art lovers and commands high prices. Paint splattering is the easiest form of painting. It's cheap and quick and requires no skill or training. But without the artistic fundamentals underpinning it, it will most likely be perceived as the work of a pretender. So it is with omniscient--though I'm overstating for impact. Omniscient POV is the easiest POV to write in fiction. It requires virtually no training, experience, or self-discipline. You dip into everyone's head so you have not restricted yourself to any particular viewpoint. It's very often associated with telling (as opposed to showing), which can be another mark of a beginning or undisciplined novelist. The novelist just dumps all the explanation onto the reader so there is no confusion. But this is less professional fiction, in my opinion. This is sometimes the fiction of someone who has not bothered to learn any of the disciplines of his or her craft. As such, it will likely be perceived as the work of someone not yet dedicated to craftsmanship. In that scenario, that author's work is usually not published. I know I'm coming on pretty hard on this, and I don't mean to be nasty about it. But I'm here to tell you that omniscient POV is one of the main craft reasons novels get rejected by Christian publishing companies. (The other two main reasons are telling instead of showing and undifferentiated or unrealistic characters.) I agree with you that omniscient (like telling) allows for a more storytelling approach to fiction. You're like a storyteller sitting by the campfire spinning your yarns. However, modern fiction is more like a film or TV experience. That's what readers are expecting. I personally believe it results in more engaging fiction requiring a more skilled writer, but that's just my taste. I argue (in Tip #92) that modern novelists should seek to not be a storyteller and to instead change their metaphor to that of filmmaker. As I say in Tip #30, omniscient POV is problematic even if you leave aside the fact that it's something publishers don't want right now. For one thing, you remove all suspense about certain characters' motives. We might be thinking that Joe Black is really plotting to kill the hero. We might be getting that delicious angst about him when he comes near. But in omniscient you're quick to hop over to Joe's head and inform us that he's really a nice guy. That fizzling sound you hear is your suspense going away. Another problem with omniscient POV is that it does not allow the reader to connect with any one character. Your reader wants to have one special person to root for in this book: the protagonist. She wants to know this person, get inside this person's head, and feel what this person is feeling. She wants this person to succeed. Ironically, when a novelist hops into every character's head and gives us everyone's thoughts, intimacy is eliminated. It's ironic because the novelist thinks she's creating more intimacy by zooming in close to everyone on the stage. But by asking us to care equally for twelve people, she dissipates our engagement with any one of them. We care a tiny bit for everyone, but not a lot for anyone. In the name of added intimacy, omniscient POV ruins intimacy for the whole book. Again, I've come down hard on this and I don't mean to sound that strident. You should always feel free to experiment with your writing, and POV is a great area of experimentation. These are just my opinions. ;D Jeff
|
|
|
Post by morganlbusse on Feb 5, 2009 13:08:09 GMT -5
To add to Jeff's words, a friend of mine (Randy Ingermanson) says that the reader wants a Powerful Emotional Experience. In other words, have you ever read a book where it just grabs you by the heart and runs you through its story, and even afterwards, your thoughts are still on the character(s)? That's because you were deeply moved by what you read. And most of the time that can only happen when you are entrenched inside that character's mind: feeling their emotions, seeing their thoughts, experiencing the pain, joy, or heartache they are going through. And that's what most readers nowadays want to read. Something that will move them. Now, as has been pointed out, there are authors in the past who have done that with omniscient POV (Jane Austin comes to mind, absolutely loved her characters and felt for them). Anyway, those are my thoughts
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Feb 5, 2009 13:30:00 GMT -5
Dear Jeff
I understand your objections with regard to current markets, modern reader expectations, and the dull thud of novice Omni-povs. And on the whole I would agree with you...but not entirely.
The value of the storytelling voice is precisely its lack of intimacy with respect to the story. It provides distance, and to me certain types of stories work better when given this distance. Take classical fairytales and legends. The telling of these type stories are diminished by modern conventions of reader intimacy. We loose the voice of the teller...and a good teller's voice is a thing of beauty in itself. Modern conventions of intimacy destroy the patina of agelessness, of the handledness of a story...its formalities...its ritual if you will.
No doubt such sentiments do not move most agents and editors an iota. But whether they do or not does not speak to the issue of their artistic value and propriety, but rather only to questions of marketabilty (certainly not to be utterly disdained either). If I recall correctly, C. S. Lewis opinned that a story should have the form that is best suited to it, which is why he chose SF conventions to tell his Out of the Silent Planet stories. So while I grant that Omni-povs are not suited to all stories, maybe even most stories in this day and age, I'm not willing to see a blanket renunciation of them for the simple reason that they are the best voice for the telling of some stories where the patina of time and distance are part of the desired overall tone and effect.
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Feb 5, 2009 13:40:45 GMT -5
Hmmm...the only thing Jane Austin's books ever moved me to do was to go find a freshly painted wall so that I could watch it dry.
Now if you had picked Hawthorne for an example I might be on board with that.
I don't disagree that many readers are looking to make a vicarious emotional connection with a particular character. That's fine I suppose. But those readers who instist on only that miss the particular auricular joys of the "told story" voice.
|
|
|
Post by metalikhan on Feb 5, 2009 23:44:25 GMT -5
Tossing a couple more cents in on the discussion:
Although the omni-POV has great literary tradition behind it, even the most exquisitely crafted omni-POV story is bloody hard to market. Nowadays, it elicits as much suspicion (and/or revulsion) as writing in 2nd person or in 1st person plural. I've also got the impression that a few editors regard the omni-POV not only antiquated but also the lowliest possible version of experimental fiction.
This doesn't mean that we as writers have to give up on that particular POV; but we may have to be prepared to face a mountain of rejections or to allow the story to gather dust in a file while a more fashionable revision of it reaches publication. Fashions change and the cycle may come again when omni-POV is back in vogue.
Occasionally, a novel with an omniscient narrator reaches the market — the Stephen King/Peter Straub collaboration, Black House, has an omniscient narrator that is a character unto itself, acting as tour guide for both scenes and characters' POVs — but it is usually by authors so well established that nearly everything they write becomes published or it is by less well-known authors whose main forte is experimental fiction. John Barth comes to mind as an example of the latter; and I have to admit my brain felt bruised after getting Lost in the Funhouse. That has one story in which the character is a story telling itself. Another story in it is filtered through so many quotes within quotes within quotes it's difficult to tell who each speaker is and who is actually telling the story. I don't mind a challenging read, but some books like that take more Herculean effort than I want to dedicate in my often limited reading time.
Regardless of the POV we use, as followers of Christ we write primarily for God and His glory. Whether He sees fit to bring our writing into the public arena for His purposes or reserves our works to enjoy as private praises to Him (and creativity is a form of praise), we write to the best of the ability He gives us and we trust Him to do with our stories what He wills.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Feb 6, 2009 8:22:19 GMT -5
Well said, metalikhan. The (approving) audience of one. (Which is also Tip #1, as it happens.) Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Teskas on Feb 13, 2009 21:59:15 GMT -5
I've been mulling over this topic since the thread started, and especially since Jeff gave his full comment a week or so ago.
It is true that there are successful writers who have crafted some great fiction using multiple,1st, and 2nd person POV, but that 3rd person POV remains the predominant form. Staying in POV has been a hard thing for me master, so I've been reading some books to see how other writers have handled it. My three authors have been CS Forester (the Hornblower series), AJ Cronin (The Citadel, Keys of the Kingdom), and Stephen King (Misery). Each author in these books has stuck with 3rd person POV.
What I noticed about these books is that they stuck firmly to the 3rd person POV model throughout, and with rare exception had their PC appear in every scene. In other words, there were hardly any scenes in these books which were written without the protagonist's POV.
My question is this. If everything is being written from the protagonist's point of view, why would these authors not have picked 1st person POV instead? Doesn't 1st person POV keep the reader more closely involved in the story?
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Feb 13, 2009 23:44:44 GMT -5
One thing 3rd can do that 1st can't is infer some emotional distance. It can make the narrative a bit more accurate, if the POV character is in a state where that's questionable. Or it could add something about the setting without having to have the POV specifically think about it--something the reader needs to know that the POV already knows well enough they wouldn't dwell on it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Feb 15, 2009 10:05:07 GMT -5
Good observations, you guys.
I think 3rd person is simply what readers expect. It's more comfortable--and thus less jarring--than 1st person. I think you should default to 3rd person unless you have a good reason for using 1st person. But when you do have a good reason, or you just want to use it, go for it!
There's also the ability to use 1st person for one viewpoint character in your book and 3rd person for all the other viewpoint characters in your book. I did that in Operation: Firebrand--Deliverance. And the character in first person was not the main protagonist. But she was the character I wanted the reader to most connect with.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Teskas on Feb 15, 2009 18:31:34 GMT -5
"I think 3rd person is simply what readers expect. It's more comfortable--and thus less jarring--than 1st person."
This is a good point. After I posted my question on The Anomaly, I received an e-mail from a friend who was reading a book I had recommended, Raymond Chandler's The Long Good-bye. I asked him how he was getting on with the book, which he started the first week of January, and his exact words were....
"I can't believe it's taken me this long to get through it. First person is just hard for me, I think. Chandler writes it well, but a reader yearns for a different point of view every now and then. "
Because I enjoy 1st person POV, and like getting inside the skin of a character, it never occurred to me that it might make some people uncomfortable. So, your advice is sound, Jeff. Thank you for posting it.
|
|
|
Post by tris on Feb 16, 2009 11:10:03 GMT -5
I've been trying to wrap my brain around this thread all week and I find I have more questions about applying it practically than merely understanding all the pros and cons. Since most of my favorite authors use multiple 3rd person POV (Aaron Allston and Michael Stackpole) and the last three Christian authors I read (including Teri Blackstock, Dee Henderson and Karen Hancock) used at least two (the hero and heroine), I'm more confused than ever.
I'm trying to pay more attention to when authors use it and the way in which they use it in order to strengthen my own manuscripts. But when mine fall in between the two examples above, it makes it difficult to determine if I should just stick to my guns or modify.
I really appreciated what metalikhan said about the Lord being in charge of our writing and determining it's success or failure. It just strengthens what my high school English teacher once told us...'a writer's job is to write.'
|
|