Inconsistencies in one's work

[Mirannan]

My current WIP (far too little work done recently, must get to it ) is written in an episodic style with several narrators. However, looking at the whole thing one chapter after another, I have found a fair number of inconsistencies between the different points of view.

A few questions: Is it reasonable to leave some of them in, as the sections are narrated by different people who might well remember things differently?
If not, is it the general opinion that it's better to clean them up now or concentrate on getting the thing written, leaving the errors for the editing stage?
And if some differences between the different narratives is acceptable, how many? The sections are each about 2000 words.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I would definitely get it done first.

Then you will be able to look at it as a whole and see what needs to change.

I would expect there to be a reason for the discrepancies in remembering things, whether just as an unreliable narrator thing or for a plot point. I would be frustrated if there was no reason for it.

 

[tinkerdan]

Some of the questions you have, only you will know the answer. A lot depends on the character, their reliability, their accuracy and even some traits specific to that character. You want the whole narrative to have some consistency and as mentioned you will need some explanation for any inconsistency that remains.

But wait until it's finished and some of the character's might surprise you as to just what they do recall.

On another note; it might depend on what you mean by consistency whether it is plot consistency or consistency in your writing. Consistency in writing is good, but when using several points of view you want to be careful that the writer's voice doesn't begin to make everyone sound the same.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The conventional wisdom is to go on ahead and fix all your mistakes at the editing stage. In my experience that approach just as often as not creates unnecessary problems and actually slows your progress. There is no one answer that fits every situation

Whether to fix a problem when you first notice it, or to wait until you have finished the draft you are working on, in order to get the big picture, depends on whether it creates huge plot holes that you have to keep stitching up, or makes the foundation of the characters' actions so wobbly that you are frantically shoring it up. In that case, you can save yourself a lot of extra work by just fixing it, which could give you more time for forging ahead.

You are the one who knows everything in the book and everything you plan that is not written, so trust your own gut instinct on this.

 

[The Judge]

If the inconsistencies were deliberate, on the basis that character X really does believe character Y was aggressively threatening, while Y thinks he was only being gently persuasive, then clearly they need to stand, to show POV and character. But unless that inconsistency is a vital part of the plot that is never resolved, or only at the very end (eg of a "Did she consent or was she coerced" variety of legal drama) you'll need to ensure the reader knows which is the correct version**, otherwise it will be horribly confusing. And the more inconsistencies there are, the worse that confusion will be, which can be intriguing, but more often is simply frustrating.

Personally, I'd clear up the inconsistencies so everyone is saying the same thing, and since I'm an edit-as-I-go person, I'd do that immediately, so that the plot is strong and clear all the way through on this first draft. Then when revising, when the plot is fixed and I've ironed out any bugs, I'd perhaps go back and alter one or two of the character narratives to allow some small inconsistencies back in if I thought they might help plot, foreshadowing, theme or character development. If they don't do anything of that kind, though, why bother with them? Yes, witnesses never tell the same story, but this isn't real life, it's a novel, so there's no need to adhere to reality there, in the same way you don't have your characters speak as we all do in real life, with lots of gaps and repetitions.


** as a lawyer, my rule of thumb when faced with conflicting witness statements was that there are three truths: his, hers, and the real one which is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Toby Frost]

Yes, I think that’s right. If it’s going to hamstring the book, I’d sort it out now. If it’s just going to provide colour by making the viewpoints different, you might want to leave it in.

I think you the writer need to know what is actually happening or at least whose view is the most likely to be right, even if you never say it. That way you have a sort of yardstick by which to measure the other viewpoints. Presumably, the further from the “true” version that a character is, and the more biased they are, the more likely they are to give an inaccurate version of events.

That said, if one character sees a dragon attacking a castle and another sees a group of men, someone is wrong. The difference is too great. I’ve never seen it, but this sounds a bit like Rashomon.

 

[Mirannan]

The sort of inconsistency I've noticed is (so far) of this sort: In one section, an assortment of knives is scattered all over the pavement and a policeman picks them up in evidence-preserving style; in the next from a different POV, another character (who was involved in the fight that scattered the knives) hands them to the policeman having picked them all up. (Preserving the fingerprints, probably, by accident because she is wearing heavy gauntlets.) It's just sloppiness, probably caused by having written the two sections weeks apart.

 

[The Judge]

Ah, those kinds I'd put right at once and not give it a second thought. (I'm never sure how fragile fingerprints are by the way, so you might need to check that point, in case her handling the knives rubs them off.)

 

[J D Foster]

I have the same thing in one of my stories, where one narrator remembers something lasting an hour, and another remembers it lasting two hours. Every time I read it I think, "Will the reader not just think I made a mistake?" I haven't made up my mind yet, but I think the distinction of them each remembering the event differently (which isn't explicitly explained) is too subtle, so in all likelihood it will not make the final.

 

[tinkerdan]

I have done this::

The conventional wisdom is to go on ahead and fix all your mistakes at the editing stage. In my experience that approach just as often as not creates unnecessary problems and actually slows your progress. There is no one answer that fits every situation

Whether to fix a problem when you first notice it, or to wait until you have finished the draft you are working on, in order to get the big picture, depends on whether it creates huge plot holes that you have to keep stitching up, or makes the foundation of the characters' actions so wobbly that you are frantically shoring it up. In that case, you can save yourself a lot of extra work by just fixing it, which could give you more time for forging ahead.

You are the one who knows everything in the book and everything you plan that is not written, so trust your own gut instinct on this.

::and would add that you should mark all the waffles when you see them lest you go back through and miss them the next time through and then find yourself scratching your head wondering what it was you know you were supposed to look at.