Rotating PoV?

[reiver33]

I've been plugging away at a three-part SF storyline, all written in first person, in which the principle narrative character in the 3rd part ends up playing host to the characters from the 1st and 2nd parts, if that makes sense (viral personality transfer). Thereafter there is a struggle for dominance, for control of the physical body all three now inhabit, but I can't think of a realistic way of representing the background bitching each 'foreground' character would have to put up with.

In effect I'm almost trying to portray a form of mental illness and would appreciate any pointers towards novels which have tackled multiple personality disorder.

Cheers,

Martin (it's weird being me, sometimes).

 

[Pyan]

Amazon's advanced search function's quite useful sometimes...

Amazon.com: Multiple-Personality Disorder - Science Fiction & Fantasy: Books

 

[reiver33]

Thanks! I never imagined it would be a seach tag on Amazon though...

 

[The Judge]

I think one of the problems you may have is immediately signalling to the reader which of the three is thinking at any one time - it will be like having dialogue between three people and no attribution tags. This is particularly the case if the other two interrupt the thinking of the third in any way. Obviously the usual tricks of word use or sentence rhythm will be important, but even those will only get you so far I imagine. It might be an idea to use different thought identifiers, perhaps -- either something like very different fonts, or symbols like dashes and tildes to front the thoughts.

J

 

[reiver33]

This is the problem I anticipated - signalling who is the dominant voice at any given moment without resorting to something like 'named abuse' as in 'Lang, will you shut the f*** up!".

My problem is that the two 'passengers' are not merely back-seat drivers, which would be bad enough, but can take control of the host body. I started with this idea of the triumviate but the practicalities of it may prove too awkward. Visually you could show it with different stance, gestures, quirks as well as speech, but on the page I may have come up with a real lemon.

Oh well, back to the drawing board!

 

[HareBrain]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in MPD the personalities do not interract. The "everyday" personality is not aware of the others at all, but experiences passages of amnesia when they take over. Then there is a hierarchy of personalities, each of which is aware of what the lower ones do when in control, but not the higher.

Doesn't mean your story has to follow these rules, but it might mean that MPD isn't necessarily the place to look for ideas.

You might want to think about using three fonts, not only for the dialogue between them, but for the narrative, so you use Character B's voice-font as the main typeface when Character B is in charge. I think this would end up being less awkward than attempts to unobtrusively indicate who is speaking or possessing. OTOH my brain is stuffed up with snot at the moment so this idea might be rubbish.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm agin the use of different fonts and specific attributions. (Well, in theory, at least. )

You mention "background bitching". Why "background"? As far as I can see, there are only two differences between what you describe and normal dialogue. The first is that only your POVs can hear their conversations with each other. Is this different from the situation where the POV character can hear a voice in an earpiece while talking to people who can't hear that voice? The second difference is that the voices have (at different times) control of the same body.

So, for the first case, why not write the voices as if they are dialogue? You perhaps ought to trust your reader to know that some voices are heard only internally while other characters are heard by anyone in earshot.

With regard to the physical side of this, I'm assuming in the above that control of talking does not shift on a second by second basis. If my assumption is correct, you could keep to a "rule" that the POV character is the one in control of talking and that POV would shift - in the normal way, with a blank line in the text - as this control shifts. (After all, there's no rule that says a POV has to last for pages at a time.) If you don't want to stick to this "rule" - and I can see the benefits of this: Gah! Fred had grabbed () control of my arm and my peaceful handshake had become a test of strength - you only need to say who's in control for the reader to get the gist of what's going on.

 

[Gary Compton]

I've been plugging away at a three-part SF storyline, all written in first person, in which the principle narrative character in the 3rd part ends up playing host to the characters from the 1st and 2nd parts, if that makes sense (viral personality transfer). Thereafter there is a struggle for dominance, for control of the physical body all three now inhabit, but I can't think of a realistic way of representing the background bitching each 'foreground' character would have to put up with.

In effect I'm almost trying to portray a form of mental illness and would appreciate any pointers towards novels which have tackled multiple personality disorder.

Cheers,

Martin (it's weird being me, sometimes).

Nice one, I'll have a word with me split personallity and get back to you.

Must go Gary's shouting for me..."Coming!!"

 

[The Judge]

Writing the internal voices as dialogue when the character is on his own is one thing, Ursa, but if there are others in the room speaking, then you have a minimum of three people 'talking'. I agree you can trust the reader to understand that some is audible to everyone and some is not, but it's a question of identifying who is speaking at any given time which is the problem. I can foresee that becoming confusing without explicit tags of some description -- and you can't have 'said X' or even 'thought X' for the voices. For a conversation of any length, continual attribution can be very wearing at the best of times.

I actually have a situation where someone is talking through an earpiece and only two of the four characters in the room can hear him, in which event instead of using quotaton marks I show his dialogue by a long dash and italics which serves to make it clear. But Martin is faced in addition with another thought-interloper, so he also needs a way to distinguish that third 'speaker', even if he doesn't have to worry about the main character's own thoughts if the whole is written in first person.

I can't think of the correct name for it, but I've seen the symbol that looks like a V lying on its side used to enclose dialogue for certain characters in an Iain M Banks novel (ie one sideways V at each end in place of " "). Off the top of my head, I can't recall why it was needed, but it served to differentiate the speaker very clearly.

J

 

[Ursa major]

That novel may have been Look to Windward**. (I know those characters as 'greater than' > and 'less than' < symbols. There are also those Continental symbols, « and », which Microsoft calls left- and right- pointing 'double angle quotation marks').


I'm still a bit dubious. There may be the odd section of narrative where it becomes very confusing and perhaps rightly so. The rest of the time, the aim should be both to avoid confusion but allow the suspension of disbelief. perhaps it's just me, but textual shennigans (different fonts, odd uses of symbols) tend to pull me out of a story. There may be occasions where clarity trumps submersion, but to do this for the whole third of a story sounds wrong to me (unless the story is quite short.



** - This is probably my least favourite Banks novel, but not because of the punctuation.

 

[The Judge]

I know those characters as 'greater than' > and 'less than' < symbols.

That was the only thing I could think of calling them, but it didn't seem literary enough.

... perhaps it's just me, but textual shennigans (different fonts, odd uses of symbols) tend to pull me out of a story.

I didn't think of this, perhaps because it doesn't affect me. As a matter of interest, do you have the same objection to ordinary italicised thoughts? And what if those italics continue for pages at a time by way of a flashback or letter or something of that kind?

I've been thinking about the use of different fonts. Terry Pratchett plays around with fonts for the letters in 'Going Postal' which I found very effective, but they are simply short extracts, so not at all similar to this situation. And the need to immerse oneself in the novel isn't so important with Pratchett, either.

J

PS Not Look to Windward, as I've not read that. It was The Algebraist. It seems this might be a standard trick of his though.

 

[HareBrain]

I know those characters as 'greater than' > and 'less than' < symbols.

Also called "right arrow" and "left arrow". (I wonder if sci-fi writers tend to go for your version and fantasy writers for this one?)

perhaps it's just me, but textual shennigans (different fonts, odd uses of symbols) tend to pull me out of a story.

Surely it's just what you're used to? Quote marks might appear to be "textual shenanigans" if you'd never encountered them before. The difficulty would be to get the reader used to them without annoying them too much.

 

[fkatona]

I love the concept here....

Definitely have the different personalities affect the actions and the dialogue. I would not put out the idea to "title" each section depending on who is in control. Then if someone else talks, use italics and lead in with the name of the personality and a colon. Example, maybe:

James​

I walked into the bakery. The urge to buy a cupcake was just too great. Ooh La La Lemon, Chocolate Explosion, Vanilla-licious - my senses were overwhelmed by the scents of the flavors that lingered in the air. Maybe I'd get one of each.​

David: No! You'll give us some weight, and we're to see the family in a month.​

Shemp: Quiet, you. Give us a cupcakes.​

David: Nobody will keep the man down!​

I struggled with the bills in my wallet, feeling the numbness spread through my hands, a sensation I knew meant I was losing control. My world descended into blackness.​

David​

I ran out of that bakery like a bat out of hell. A man has to watch his girlish figure, I say. Now for that dress.....​

 

[HareBrain]

Well, that works for me ...

 

[Ursa major]

I didn't think of this, perhaps because it doesn't affect me. As a matter of interest, do you have the same objection to ordinary italicised thoughts? And what if those italics continue for pages at a time by way of a flashback or letter or something of that kind?

Sometimes it does.

I've just been reading Joe Abercrombie's The First Law trilogy. One of the points of view character's (Glokta's) thoughts are placed in italics whereas the other five POV characters' thoughts are built into the narrative. It took me a while to get used to it, even though I saw a benefit in that Glokta is in continuous commentary mode and so the italicised thoughts are built into "his own" paragraphs and those where other characters are speaking. The technique saves a lot of space and Glokta is a most entertaining fellow: entertaining , as long as you don't have to actually meet them. To be fair, the other POV characters push themselves into others' paragraphs as well. (I did wonder if they all were italicised but the italicisation was removed from all but Glokta's POV.**) By the end of the thrid volume, it had all become natural to me, but that was after (536 + 584 + 695 =) 1815 pages. (I should say, though, that even Mr Abercrombie's irritating use of commas where there should be a semi-colon did not stop me from thoroughly enjoying his trilogy; and it's Fantasy, not SF, so that's high praise from me.)

I've been thinking about the use of different fonts. Terry Pratchett plays around with fonts for the letters in 'Going Postal' which I found very effective, but they are simply short extracts, so not at all similar to this situation. And the need to immerse oneself in the novel isn't so important with Pratchett, either.

As with many things, it all comes down to how well it's done (and, on the other hand, whether the story allows the reader's mind to wander).



** - On an Aspiring Writers note: Mr Abercrombie's use of different textual styles (on top of other things) has further convinced me that, if used well, different approaches with different POV characters can work in practice.

 

[reiver33]

Some interesting ideas here, people - thanks! I've used italics to represent an 'inner voice' being heard by a character before, but I saw problems trying to use that for two out of three concious personalities inhabiting the same body.

I think the prefix idea might work, coupled with a 'formal' section heading indicating which character was in the foreground. However, the degree of animosity between the personalities may be too pronounced, to the extent of one contemplating self-harm (or even suicide) as a way of getting back at another, for this idea to hang together and appear credible.

I started off with this idea of the triple-conflicted character drawing upon different strengths and abilities from each of his personas (the analyst, the rogue, the soldier), but as I'm writing the developing backstory makes it increasingly unlikely they would co-operate to any meaningful degree without making the 'common enemy' a real monster, which wasn't my intention.

 

[dreamhunter]

Nice one, I'll have a word with me split personallity and get back to you.

Must go Gary's shouting for me..."Coming!!"

Question is, which one? The good Gary, the bad Gary, the Gary in the middle, or the Gary who isn't so sure which one he is?

 

[dreamhunter]

I started off with this idea of the triple-conflicted character drawing upon different strengths and abilities from each of his personas (the analyst, the rogue, the soldier), but as I'm writing the developing backstory makes it increasingly unlikely they would co-operate to any meaningful degree without making the 'common enemy' a real monster, which wasn't my intention.

I's just wondering ... what's going to happen if Soldier receives an instruction, from no less than the Supreme Commander himself, to hunt and kill Rogue ... for turning traitor against the state ... which he had to to do in order to save his kidnapped wife and kids ... and Soldier turns to Analyst for his sage advice ... on the ethics and shmethics of his do-or-die mission.

 

[reiver33]

If this helps; the Analyst persona was 'frozen' twenty years before the events in Rogue's narrative, who was himself then suspended for ten years before the Soldier's story line kicks in. The first two are then piggybacked onto the unwilling Soldier ("What the hell is a genetic escape system?") who finds himself hunted as an inconvenient witness to recent events.

Confused? It all makes some kind of terrible sense to me (which might be worse)

 

[dreamhunter]

Sort of 'The hunter is now the hunted ...'. K.

Or perhaps 'Judge Dredd meets Universal Soldier'.