Seemed/ looked like etc.

[ctg]

There are many reasons for not going the 1st person route; one is where there are a number of PoV characters: it might be rather confusing if they all were narrated as 'I did this' and 'I did that'.

I agree. Multiple POV's in first person are very difficult to achieve if you don't have a plan to fit them together, but it certainly doesn't mean that you cannot mix in close third person POV's if and when they are needed.

What comes to Hex original question I'd say that sometimes you're allowed such lapses in the prose as long as you're prepared to defend your choices, when the editor comes back with red lines. Sometimes in order to get it right you have to bend the rules. And to be honest, English language is rich, but it's also quite restrictive in these terms as sometime the prose you write is absolutely brilliant, but in the eyes of the law, its banned cos "you* don't know what you're doing."

* Not you ursa, you know what you are doing.

 

[Ursa major]

Knowing is one thing**, doing is another....









** - Assuming I do, that is.

 

[Mouse]

I know that writing from first person is often frowned upon -- Bards and Sages Quarterly, for example, rather depressingly say they accept fewer than 1% of the first person stories they receive. The explanatory blog piece brings up a lot of interesting and excellent points but foxed me with the last one: "WHO is the narrator talking to? And, more importantly, how is your narrator narrating?"

Hex, in my experience, the woman from B&S is a bit of a wally. And if she's a member here, sorry about that.

It's not that good a magazine so I wouldn't get too hung up about what they're talking about.

I submitted something to them once, got a deeply snotty response which showed clearly that she had not understood the point of the story at all. I made no changes, submitted it elsewhere (to a paying market) and it was accepted without question.

I've also submitted first person stories to places which say they don't like first person stories and had them accepted.

So long as you are completely in your character's head when you're writing first person, I don't think you can go wrong. If she (your character) is thinking it, then you write it.

I love first person - reading it and writing it, and would defend it to the death! (I'm not specifying whose. )

As for 'who they're talking to.' Who cares? They're talking to the reader. Or the reader's an eavesdropper.

 

[Ursa major]

Ursa, I agree with the point you're making, and quibbling over the technical definition of "narrator" seems a bit pointless. (But I'm still right about that)

Well you're right in one respect: the writing. Most close third person does (or tries to) restrict the narration to what the PoV characters knows, senses and guesses. However, one doesn't often see the style of writing change between the PoVs.

In my WiPs, I've tried to tailor the writing style - the degree to which contractions are used, word choice (does a character write 'maybe', or 'perhaps'), sentence complexity, that kind of thing - to the PoV character, in the same way as one would treat the characters' dialogue (though slightly more formal). My worry is that this takes a lot of effort to get right (even though my characters are not hugely different in terms of education and background), but could make an agent or editor worry that the writing is simply inconsistent.

 

[David B]

What puzzles me is why stronger standards of explanation seem to be needed for first person POV.

IMO first person POV looks for total reader empathy, identification and immersion. This works while the reader suspends their disbelief. Anything that throws the reader out of the character's head undermines their adoption of and association with the character 'I' and sours the whole deal.

The shopkeeper ignored me, staring out of a window at kids playing across the street, until I climbed on a crate and hammered the counter. Like most people, she expected giant's to be taller.

Without the heels, that put us on the same eye level yesterday, she looked down on me.

 

[HareBrain]

However, one doesn't often see the style of writing change between the PoVs.

In my WiPs, I've tried to tailor the writing style - the degree to which contractions are used, word choice (does a character write 'maybe', or 'perhaps'), sentence complexity, that kind of thing - to the PoV character, in the same way as one would treat the characters' dialogue (though slightly more formal). My worry is that this takes a lot of effort to get right (even though my characters are not hugely different in terms of education and background), but could make an agent or editor worry that the writing is simply inconsistent.

I don't think you need to worry; wherever I've noticed it done, I've always admired it as a way of enhancing the character POV, and I'm sure any agent or editor would see it the same way.

In my opinion, it can be taken too far -- see Coragem's recent thread on the subject -- in which case it can seem like very different narrators (in my sense of the word). That's when it can feel inconsistent. But yours sounds more subtle than that.

I used to try to do something similar myself, but I found it too restrictive. There is one particular POV character of mine who seems to have his own style -- not through any effort on my part; it just seems to happen naturally. Otherwise, although I try not to use vocabulary alien to the POV character, they probably read much the same.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Been thinking about this topic, I try to avoid seemed/looked as much as I can, but was wondering if other ways of writing it were just the same. I'll make a quick example:


He was holding out his hand, like he wanted to touch the object but believed it might hurt him.

Is that better, or just the same as saying:

He was holding out his hand, but looked like he was afraid to touch the object

 

[Ursa major]

Why not:

He held out his hand tentatively, as if afraid that by touching the object he might be harmed.

This way we get a straight description of the action, followed by a guess at the reason for it.

Both, the description - I think an observer can see hesitancy in an action - and the guess at the reason are well within the capabilities of anyone and so don't require the ability to read minds.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Why not:

This way we get a straight description of the action, followed by a guess at the reason for it.

Both, the description - I think an observer can see hesitancy in an action - and the guess at the reason are well within the capabilities of anyone and so don't require the ability to read minds.

ok, thanks for the example. So guessing at the reason is okay? That is really what I think I was wanting to know.

EDIT: 200 posts! Getting there... 1,000 post club, here I come!

 

[Hex]

Surely most of what we're doing when we write is guessing at the reason people do stuff?

(I think Mouse has probably identified the confusion over first person POV -- I suspect B&S have particularly strong feelings about it).

 

[Ursa major]

Surely most of what we're doing when we write is guessing at the reason people do stuff?

Yes. But the reader might like to know the difference between what the PoV characters - not we, the authors - know, or are aware of, and what they're guessing/surmising/concluding, particularly where it's key to how the story develops.

Which is not to say that the narrator must never say something as if it's fact when it isn't. Even without considering characters that are deranged or deluded, someone can become convinced of something that turns out not to be true. Where would Othello, or Romeo and Juliet, be without these little misunderstandings? (A good deal happier, as it happens, but that's beside the point. )

The narrator in first person** (or very close third person) can be as flawed and mistaken as any real person. Indeed, wouldn't a perfect PoV character be rather boring?



** - I haven't considered the unreliable (as in deliberately so) narrator. But as with all things, any false trails should be be left on purpose, not because of carelessness, or misunderstandings of what the narrator could and couldn't know/see/hear/etc., on our part.

 

[Gumboot]

Back to the OP, I always resolve those sort of problems relatively easily several ways:
1. Show instead of tell - describe the behaviour that reveals the non-POV character's thoughts
2. Dialogue - this is my preferred method because it not only reveals the pertinent thought, but can reveal character too. If we take the "expecting someone taller" remark, if a character abruptly blurts "I thought you'd be taller!" and your POV character wearily replies "Yes, I know, everyone does" you've just got across that the character expected someone taller but you've also established that A) the non-POV character is somewhat impulsive/rude/speaks their mind and B) your POV character is constantly encountering people who expect them to be taller.
3. Internal dialogue - I don't think enough books actually have enough internal dialogue personally. We think constantly, and having the POV character's thoughts playing out like dialogue is a handy way of getting information across succintly without having to force characters into clumsy speech.

Bob walked into the room, and the girl stared at him. 'Oh, hello,' she murmured.
Expecting someone taller? Bob thought bitterly. Typical. 'Hello,' he said aloud, forcing a smile.

That's how I deal with it, anyway.

 

[Gumboot]

** - I haven't considered the unreliable (as in deliberately so) narrator. But as with all things, any false trails should be be left on purpose, not because of carelessness, or misunderstandings of what the narrator could and couldn't know/see/hear/etc., on our part.

George RR Martin is a master of using the unreliable narrator.

 

[Ursa major]

Very true. (Although some of the big secrets are there to be seen once you know, which is why we get so exercised by people posting spoilers in GRRM's sub-forum.)

But even he doesn't trust himself with characters such as Littlefinger and Varys, who will never get their own PoV chapters. They'd be far too revealing.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I've only read the first one and doubt if I'll read on (although I might have a sneaky peak to see what happens to Jon, I liked him*) but you're absolutely right, you daren't have their unclouded point of view.

I decided not to show my antagonist's pov at any stage for that reason (except the opening chapter which I think it going to become the prologue for that very reason) it just kept giving away too much and rely on the protagonist's response to them to tell us about them andit seems to work better for me.


*although given the spoilers in the forums I might just go and read them instead.... save me all that work.

 

[Hex]

I agree that showing, dialogue etc. are better when you have space. The issues were a couple of very short statements in the middle of lots of other things happening. One of my problems, I think, was that I described someone's hands as 'strong and capable', when I meant 'his hands looked strong and capable'.

Anyway, thank you for the replies -- I will avoid 'seemed' even more assiduously than I have been.

 

[Ursa major]

George RR Martin is a master of using the unreliable narrator.

Very true. (Although some of the big secrets are there to be seen once you know, which is why we get so exercised by people posting spoilers in GRRM's sub-forum.)

Thinking about it, it's the overall narration that seems unreliable (and deliberately so), but this is not because the individual PoV characters lie in their thoughts and descriptions; it's more a case of so much going on that we forget that other players, ones of which we've temporarily lost track, are changing events in their favour (they hope).

It's more like the behaviour of a magician than, say, that of a pathological liar.

 

[Gumboot]

Thinking about it, it's the overall narration that seems unreliable (and deliberately so), but this is not because the individual PoV characters lie in their thoughts and descriptions; it's more a case of so much going on that we forget that other players, ones of which we've temporarily lost track, are changing events in their favour (they hope).

It's more like the behaviour of a magician than, say, that of a pathological liar.

I was thinking more in terms of his work really employing perception as a major theme, and his narrative voice reflects the perception of the current POV character which often contradicts the POV of another character.

One of the best examples is probably how Jaime is portrayed in every character's POV except that of the three Lannister siblings, and even then how differently he's portrayed by his own POV compared to Cersei and Tyrion.

 

[Ursa major]

That I do agree with: the PoV character's views are very personal and are influenced by many things other than the bald facts, not all them them bad in themselves.

An example of a virtue that distorts reality would be Ned's view of Jaime, which seemed to stem from Ned's belief that honour and duty should be placed above all**. Ned just couldn't bring himself to see that those actions of Jaime's that gained him his nickname could be anything but ignoble and the breaking of an oath. It was that same virtue-driven blindness that later led to Ned's, and his family's, problems in A Game of Thrones.

(I think that's suitably spoiler-free.)



** - Give or take the odd rebellion against your (former) king.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

** - Give or take the odd rebellion against your (former) king.

I think that's considered par for the course in these sorts of books.

I specifically picked up his books because of my meandering point of view issues. I was pleasantly surprised and felt, in particular, his intro to Jon Snow was very well done and certainly left me taking a few crib notes. I did find so many pov's difficult (this from me! I have 9 POV's in mine) and the number of characters and interweaving exhausting, but I had a notion I would, that's why I've avoided them so long.*

But yes, and interesting use of close 3rd person POV and as you both point out, interesting in how they counteract each other but still bring the plot along.

*(Still suspect that's me finished with the series, though, apart from a speed reading of the Snow bits, or if anyone wants to PM me and save me the trouble....)

It also reinforces my belief that it's different ilk for different folk and somewhere, out there, there is a whole coterie of readers who don't like physical ie geographical description but close character work across a small range, and lots and lots of dialogue. I hope.