Losing Grip On POV? Part Deux

[Jo Zebedee]

@Jay Greenstein - this is practically a copy of the crit you gave me (and the last three paragraphs are close to identical iirc). Do you bespoke the critique given or simply reiterate the same advice to all?

 

[Jay Greenstein]

@Jay Greenstein - this is practically a copy of the crit you gave me (and the last three paragraphs are close to identical iirc). Do you bespoke the critique given or simply reiterate the same advice to all?

II don't record who I do a critique for, and I do a fair number per week, so I didn't remember that I'd done one for your work. But think about it. What I said was based on the approach. and since you're writing with those same techniques, my response was the same.

Pretty close to 95% of the manuscripts I received for critique read pretty much the same. The words and the plot changed, but the fact-based and author-centric approach was the one we all spend twelve years of our schooling practicing till it feels intuitive. So the critique I gave this piece reflects that for the same reason the first one did.

As I said, it's not a matter of talent. And your English teachers would probably praise the writing. But an acquiring editor or agent wouldn't see it as being in her viewpoint because it's presented by an external voice focused on what's happening in the scene they're visualizing. You, the narrator, are reporting what happens from the viewpoint of someone watching the film version. You tell the reader what happens, and then explain the significance.

Think of yourself being in her position, in her moment of "now." A puff of air causes you to turn, to find a stranger in the kitchen—a well dressed and attractive woman. Jenn would evaluate the woman very differently than you do in the scene. For example, she wouldn't compare their height because it's irrelevant to what's happening. Her first decision-making would focus on deciding why she was there and how to respond. But she doesn't do that, as presented, so the viewpoint is yours, not hers. But...she's our protagonist. Right? It's her story. What interests her is what matters because it's her story. You, though, focus on cinematic details, and talk about events and what can be seen. The only senses used are sound and sight. But in life don't we use all five? Aren't our decisions made based on the entirety of our perceptions and evaluations? Remember, she has to live the story in in real-time, and handle what comes at her as it comes. So, any time you stop the action, and leave her waiting politely for you to finish while you discuss the situation; anytime you step on stage to talk about the scene and thigs she's ignoring, it's a POV break. The trick is that if it matters to the plot, to setting the scene meaningfully, or developing character, the way to keep it real is to give her reason to notice and react. Anything else renders her a plot device, who sees what you want her to see, instead of what, in reality, would attract her attention enough to respond.

Think about it. You have her notice the woman. The reader expects her to respond, as they would in that situation. If, at that point, you stop the action, stride on stage, and talk about the situation, why doesn't she ask you who you are, and why you're in her kitchen talking to invisible people?

Yes, I'm joking, but my point is that every time you, someone not either in the story or on the scene, talk to the reader you stop the scene-clock and kill any momentum that scene may have developed. Can that seem real to the reader?

Remember, storytelling on the stage is a performance art. How you tell a story—the vocal tricks of intensity, cadence, and more, plus facial expression, gesture and body language, etc. matter as much as what you say because half of human communication—the emotional half—takes place nonverbally. But is there nonverbal communication on the page? No. Can the reader know how you would read the words? No. And they can't guess until after they learn what a given line says, but then it's too late.

Your character, Jenn, is unique. You've heard, I'm certain, the old saying that there are three sides to any domestic argument: Her side, his side, and what really happened. And that matters a great deal. Jenn will react to events based on her background, her needs and desires, and more. That's the result of her unique viewpoint. And because her viewpoint is unique, and it's her story, be it right or wrong, her viewpoint matters because how she perceives what has her attention is what leads her to act. And how can we have context for what she does, and commit to her emotionally enough to care what happens to her if we're not privy to that as-we-read?

You, I, and everyone else, leave our public education years believing that writing is writing, and that we have that taken care of. We also believe that we've learned by doing, so far as our own reading. But were that true—were we taught the techniques we need, it stands to reason that teachers, who know writing better than do the students, would comprise the majority of new writers. But they don't.

As for reading fiction teaching us to write it, try this test on a dozen friends:

Ask them what's different about the first paragraph of each chapter in half or more of the fiction in the library. It's simple and obvious, and we've seen it all our lives. But not one in ten can tell you without looking. And if we miss something so obvious, will we have noticed the subtle things, like short-term scene goals, M/RU's, and scene and sequel? Those are things you'll find discussed early in most books on fiction-writing technique but not mentioned in our schooldays English or Creative Writing class.

I know this is hard to accept, especially given how hard you've worked on the story, and your writing in general. But doesn't it make sense that if we want to write like a pro we should know what the pro knows? Doesn't it make sense to invest a bit of time and a few coins on our writer's education? Given that the rejection rate is 99.9% it might pay to know what triggers a rejection in both the publisher's office and the bookstore.

I often suggest a reading of Dwight Swain's, Techniques of the Selling Writer, an older book, but still the best I've found. You could do a lot worse than giving it a read. A few years ago I had someone pick up a copy, certain that the advice it gave was useless. His goal was to point out why it was. Instead, he ended up mentioning me on the dedication page of his first sale. And given that out of 236 reviews 186 are five star and the rest four, it might be worth a few minutes of your time.

Hope this helps

 

[The Judge]

Long-term members will know that we do not critique critiques, no matter how dogmatic and overly prescriptive, fatuous, muddle-headed, or just plain wrong such critiques might be. This can be a very hard discipline to learn, the more so when we are worried that newcomers to writing who might chance upon the threads here might not realise the advice is wrong, with the result they warp their own prose in an effort to comply with poor or illogical suggestions.

In recent weeks we've had to remove posts from critiquing threads which went too far in criticising a critiquer -- the same critiquer as it happens. We've also done something which is practically unheard of in Critiques which is to lock two threads so no more responses can be given. We do not like removing the posts of long-standing and thoughtful members. We never want to lock another thread in Critiques.

So, a reminder:

• Critiques are one person's opinion, and no more. They are not gospel truths. Accordingly, we prefer all critiques offered to take the form and/or use such expressions as "in my opinion" and "to my mind" to make that clear.
• No critiquer is infallible but some are very much more fallible than others.
• Some critiquers have axes to grind, agendas to pursue, self-interest to advance, in which case their advice is likely to be tainted.
• Self-praise and self-designated expertise and profession of writing/critiquing credentials offer no guarantee of intelligence, insight or ability.
• Just as a lie does not become truth by virtue of being repeated, poor advice does not gain legitimacy by constant repetition -- do not confuse noise with substance.
• If there are many critiques saying one thing, and only one saying something completely at odds with every other commentator you have ever read, think very carefully about whether that one is likely to be right.
• Look at other critiques by those critiquing. See how they react to different pieces and different writers, and assess whether they are genuinely interacting with members whom they truly wish to help or they are simply peddling the same thoughts regardless.
• Look at work created by those who are critiquing. If you can see merit in their prose and story-telling, chances are their opinion might be worth something; if you think their work to be poor, then chances are their opinion isn't likely to be one you want to hold in much regard.
• If you are the person receiving a critique, even if you think something is wholly wrong, try not to respond, no matter how annoyed the critique makes you. If you can't thank the critiquer for his time, since he's patently not spent any time looking at the work and thinking about it, just ignore it altogether. It is acceptable to ask for clarification of the critique, but frankly that's unlikely to be of any use if the advice is wrong, since the critiquer will simply repeat the error and his ignorance without shedding any actual light on the issue.
• If you are not the person receiving the critique, you have more leeway:
  • If something written is manifestly wrong and can be corrected shortly, feel free to do so eg if someone asserts "was" is always passive, point out this is a fallacy and explain why. However, try to avoid saying "You are wrong". Play the ball, not the man, no matter what you think of him.
  • If something written is a matter of opinion -- whether or not the critiquer has used the courtesy of expressing it as such -- and you disagree with it, then give your contrary opinion, though in that case there's no need to refer to the first critique at all. Everyone reading the thread will know who/what you're talking about.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And with that last word by The Judge I'll close this thread, and move additional posts into a new thread here: https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/572049/