Writing is a Mottled Beast

____________________________________________

Cartoon above (featured image). Please let me know if difficulty viewing, click drug as usual.

The regular work job is absolutely crazy for me right now. New management, troche new tasks, not bad, but not much time for kids and wife, much less writing and art. Hopefully things will calm down soon! In the meantime, enjoy… 🙂

The Electric Fan (or Third Person Limited Close Point of View)

An intermediate topic, so maybe I’ll start off with some basics, and work my way up:

  1. The Three Basic Points of View:

The three point of views (POVs) that we were taught in high school were: first person (“I” thought it was a good idea), second person (“you” didn’t stop me), and third person (“he” put us both in detention). These are pretty well understood.

  1. Limited or Omniscient:

First person is usually limited, in that the narrator can only talk about what the point of view character sees. (“I felt a wet splat against the back of my head and spun around, but Jessie looked coolly innocent”). It would be slightly jarring to go omniscient (“I watched the blackboard intently, determined to limit myself to one detention, while behind me, Jessie smugly wedged a cool saliva-soaked scrap of tissue into a straw”). Maybe you could get away with it, if it was a memoir and separated in time (so the author would know more than they did in the moment), but it’s not commonly done.

The choice is a bit more flexible in third person, though. It used to be quite popular to use omniscient in third person. One of my favorite books, as I understand it, Ender’s Game, was reportedly written with a bit of ‘head-dipping’ originally, switching from one character’s POV to another within a scene. But in recent years, especially in YA, it seems as if third person limited has become much more popular.

It should be noted, though, that switching POVs is not quite the same as omniscient. For example, many epic fantasy novels have different characters as the stars of different chapters, and a point of view character in one chapter may be distant and unknowable in another. (Chapter One: “Reggie stared with stomach-churning hate heart at the root of all his detention misery, the delinquent Jesse Jamone.” Chapter Two: “Jesse smiled smugly, one finger twirling her hair. She knew what it meant when boys stared at her. Her plan was working.”)

So just for the sake of completeness, what would a clear omniscient third person example be? (“The two fidgety lovebirds had no idea that a class A meteor hurtled at the roof of the school at 7,000 miles a minute.”) He he.

PS. Pretty much nobody uses second person, or should, so I’m skipping that.

Okay, enough of the basics. There’s a final dimension, especially relevant for the third person limited point of view choice, and especially in recent writing trends. It’s become quite popular:

  1. The Electric Fan (Third Person Limited POV).

The last dimension to consider in writing third person is how limited or distant your point of view should be. In other words, how firmly embedded inside the character’s head. Are you telling the reader how the character feels, or are you saying their thoughts out loud, as if the reader was sharing the main character’s cranial space? Are you describing the rain, or letting the reader feel it slap their cheeks? This ties into the ideas of “unpackaging your writing”, using all five senses, and “showing not telling”. All of which are post-worthy. But basically, you want the reader to be very close to your character, have them live in their skin, rather than watch from afar.

So let’s assume you think it’s worthwhile to attempt this. Which, by the way, is often easier for people to achieve by writing in first person. For some reason it just comes more naturally. NY best-selling author Jim Butcher says repeatedly that he has more success writing in first person than third, despite valiant efforts otherwise. But third person limited close might still be worth attempting, for example, if you want to write a multiple POV epic fantasy, while still keeping that emotional attachment.

But as I’ve found, in my efforts, easier said than done! And recently, I realized that my electric fan diagram, below, might help my efforts. It is intended to provide a range of ways that a character can react to a triggering event (a line of dialogue, plot setback, or emotional blow), using techniques that keep the scene in close POV. You don’t have to use every one, every time, but it’s helpful to think of what parts of the fan might work at different times.

In a recent short story, when I wrote the character’s reactions, I checked the fan to see what close POV techniques I could use and found it helpful, even though I edited some of the sentences back out later. It gave me a good place to start.

 

SONY DSC

The ‘Parts of the fan’:

  1. Internal Dialogue
  2. Narrative telling (emotion, consequences, significance, something that improves the scene through clarifying or amplifying)
  3. External Dialogue
  4. Physical Sensations
  5. Physical Actions (supporting emotional reaction).

Example:

(Continuing with our poor hero, Reggie)

Getting hit by a meteor hurts. A lot. And then it doesn’t. (Narrative Dialogue)

All around Reggie was darkness and stars. A small shimmer of light behind. He got scared. (Narrative Telling)

“Are you there, God?” he whispered. (External Dialogue)

Pain jabbed his back. Hard. Like a rigid finger. (Physical sensations)

His muscles locked. (Physical actions)

“Stop talking to God, jackass, and open your eyes.” (Dialogue)

Jesse. (Internal dialogue)

 

I hope the electric fan provides you some value. I found it to be a good reminder for me. The pieces of the fan help provide enough emotional insight to make your character feel human, with enough diversity in tools to keep the pace quick and the technique less heavy handed….

And what awaits Reggie and Jesse?

No idea. 🙂 But I feel a second meteor might bring their POV struggles to a worthy end…

 

We Writers are an Optimistic Bunch…

 

As always, just poking fun. Agents aren’t always thinking this.

Just sometimes. 🙂 Only sometimes…

 

__________________________

(The featured image is a cartoon. Hopefully you can see it reasonably clearly. If troubles, please let me know.)

The Holy Trinity of Writing

I can tell you the Holy Trinity of Writing.

But it may not help. 😀

Because execution is very hard, page as I can tell you from experience. But I think it’s still useful to know what you’re aiming for. A challenging map may be hard to follow, treatment time-consuming and frustrating, this but it’s still better than no map at all!

So where did this idea originally come from, to share credit where due?

I was watching TV a year or so ago, and I saw an interview with writer/ director Christopher Nolan on making Inception (I’m reasonably sure this is where the idea came from, at least). In the interview, Mr. Nolan talked about the necessity, and challenge, of a screen-writer having to put themselves into three completely separate mind-sets, or roles, while making a movie. I believe it’s exactly the same in writing a book.

Those three roles are:

1. God of the Story

The plot structure has to be well-structured, for the right events to happen in the right order, to create desired impact of tension and emotion. Mr. Nolan appears, from online interviews, to do this more through plot diagrams than a written outline. (“What I do is draw a lot of diagrams — particularly if there’s sort of a structural complexity. I’ll kind of stick stuff all over my walls.”*) But whatever the tool or execution, the god-like control of events has to be there, for effective story unveiling.

2. The Character Experiencing Events.

To write well about and consistently about the story, to have people subjectively and emotionally relate to the characters on the page or screen, you have to make them react and behave consistently, relatably. To do that, you need to put your mind in their body and understand what it would be like to actually experience the events that you put into motion during #1.

3. Your Audience, Reading for the First Time.

It is difficult, but even though you acted as the God of your story, then the Character of your story, you then have to wipe all that out of your mind and experience the story as if you’ve never seen it before, to make sure that your audience has the experience that you’re intending them to. This seems to match the concept of putting a work in the ‘freezer’ for a few months after you’ve written it, or gaining a fresh set of eyes for a story that you wrote a year or two before, and couldn’t originally see its flaws. This happens to me all the time, in both art and writing. Right after you finish something, it’s extremely difficult to see it objectively. It is one of the reasons, if you do want to put something out into the world fast, that a Beta reader, who is interested in your genre, is so important. Not necessarily even another writer, but someone who can tell you what works or doesn’t for them.

So now you know the secret of success. Let me reiterate, it is by no means easy to execute well. So best of luck to both of us!

Adrian.

 

*Source:

_______________________________

I’m feeling healthy, for a change, work has slowed down, and the kids are only marginally all-consuming. I’m feeling creatively restless as a result, a bunch of projects on the go, and I haven’t done much with them the last couple of months. Including blog posts and art. So here is one blog topic that I really think is important and not often discussed, and if I can ever truly master this, I think it will take me really far (if I ever have time to create stuff!) 🙂 Spring is here, enjoy!

The artwork is a quick charcoal and pencil sketch, more of a concept piece, that I think would look pretty cool in watercolor. If I ever have time to do stuff. 🙂 Have I mentioned my challenges along this line?

If you interrupt me, you’d better have a BLANK good reason! (Or ‘Dialogue Attribution)

I give and watch presentations on occasion, for my Mathy day job (I was at an industry conference as I wrote this, one I helped organize, in my hotel room late at night, trying to edit a recent manuscript). And it occurred to me that one of the most common problems in conferences or speaking events is that an audience member intrudes themselves on the conversation, unwanted. Usually this type of person likes to hear themselves talk, desperately wants to be the speaker, but wasn’t invited (I’ll leave aside the question of qualified). This type of person thrusts themselves into the lecture anyway, by asking a ten minute question (usually more of a statement of opinion than a question, actually) of a presenter that only has a 60 minute time slot. And that everybody paid to see. Grrr.

So, PLEASE, don’t interrupt unless you have a reason. Don’t speak up unless there’s something that would benefit the audience to clarify, or understand. And even then, do it in as few words as humanly possible. Otherwise, the people around you will get annoyed. Trust me!

And so it is in writing. Specifically, dialogue.

The most effective dialogue are conversational quotes without any attribution or action tags at all. Fast-paced, back and forth, thrust and counter thrust (conversationally). When it works, it’s great. Fast, powerful. Flies off the page.

But, unfortunately, it also often leaves you in white space (see ‘painting the set’).

So, okay. Failing that, you should only ever use ‘he said’ and ‘she said’.

But wait—now you’ve lost the tone of the conversation. Robots talking to each other aren’t so great either. What are the characters thinking, how are they taking these brutal stabs and ripostes (conversationally, again, despite my featured image).

Okay, so failing that, you should only use bare actions and adverbs that ground the characters, and sustain the mood and tone of the conversation (‘painting the set’, once again). Additions which improve the stakes and tension of the scene.

Okay, I think we’re good. So let’s stop there.

But have you noticed the trend of my comments?

The repeated word, you’ll notice, is necessary. Only include something in dialogue attribution when you cause harm by its absence. You don’t want anything that is unnecessary. It slows things down, takes away from the pacing and tension of your story. It annoys the audience.

So as a general rule, if it isn’t doesn’t cause more harm by its absence, than harm from its inclusion, remove it. Consistently.

In other words, when someone’s talking, only interrupt them if you have a damn good reason.

Unless, of course, I’m in the middle of a blog post. Then: SHHH!

🙂

______________________________

My household has been a bunch of sickies the last couple of weeks. And back and forth to the doctors for the kids on things that I’m hoping are only minorly serious, but still need to explore. So a cut out of an existing image will make do for the featured image (from the Angel and Devil War, which is great for zoom-ins as it is a pretty big original piece). And there’s lots going on at my day job as well, so I’m plodding along with my editing efforts, but at a slower pace than usual, sadly…