Forum: Author Hangout

I might be totally wrong here, but to me, everything after 'Chuck gaped' in the "better" version was internal thoughts of the POV character.

As she said, they're both telling, but the second one is telling in the character's voice rather than looking at the room through binoculars. The reader is living the story through the POV character.

As to omniscient, one of the problems with omniscient is it's so much telling. The first one would probably be done with omniscient.

It seems most on this forum prefer the omniscient narrator and have the story told to them in detail. That's fine. That's the way many of the classics were written. I just find it boring.

So, do you agree that authors should prefer a closer POV when the content of the plot allows it, but when that is not possible they must accept they'll be obliged do much more telling?

Yes. Absolutely.

I would call them Showing Nazis.

That would make them socialist flashers. :-)

As to omniscient, one of the problems with omniscient is it's so much telling.

Handling that in the right way is where you separate the author's skills. the fact the author uses omniscient point of view doesn't mean he has to tell all. The author can also show a lot of the story and restrict what he does display to the reader. The real key in the show/tell issue is to get the balance right for the story itself.

It seems most on this forum prefer the omniscient narrator and have the story told to them in detail. That's fine. That's the way many of the classics were written. I just find it boring.

Perspective isn't a matter of which is more 'boring', instead, 3rd Omni allows you to show what happens from a variety of perspectives, including revealing the motivations of secondary and tertiary characters, as it relates to the story. 1st or 3rd Person Limited only allows the story to capture things that the protagonist is aware of, so no insights into any other characters, unless the protagonist TELLS you about them!

If you're bored writing in 3rd Omni, that's fine, but don't downgrade everyone else for their choice in how they tell their stories. If you're bored, that's on you, not on every other author's writing skills.

If you want to write a that 'close' to the MC, why not write it in 1-POV?

There's always 3rd person limited, which is a story, told in third person, but which deals with ONLY the things that the MC is aware of (i.e. told from their perspective, but in 3rd person).

If you want to write a that 'close' to the MC, why not write it in 1-POV?

You may want to switch POV characters. Very hard to do in 1st-person.

You may want some distance between the reader and POV character. My WIP novel is told from a single POV, but in a very close 3rd-limited.

In 1st-person, the narration is in the character's voice. You don't do that in 3rd-limited.

It's certainly less overblown than most articles I've read on the subject, but the technique would still be tiring if used relentlessly. But I was amused by 'We don't see Bob shoot the zombie, or even decide to soot it'. Isn't it racist to black-up a zombie?

AJ

to soot it'. Isn't it racist to black-up a zombie?

That was one of several typos. But she's an author, not an editor.

From her Amazon listings, she seems to have given up writing fiction and reinvented herself as a creative writing expert.

AJ

reinvented herself as a creative writing expert.

Could be, hence Fiction University.

She has a book for sale on Show don't Tell. I read as much as the "Look Inside" allowed. It was interesting.

From her Amazon listings, she seems to have given up writing fiction and reinvented herself as a creative writing expert.

The inevitable fallout from launching a blog. In the ever-demanding requirement to constantly keep new material to keep readers coming back each week, you surrender your own ability to write on your own time. I've seen countless 'authors' revert to mere 'bloggers' simply because they thought blogging would help 'sell' books.

The inevitable fallout from launching a blog.

I don't think it's her blog. She now writes books on writing instead of novels and speaks at writing conferences. She may do other stuff too. That's what I saw on her site.

The Sound of

Warning Words: The sound of ... Bang! Bang!

Sorry to continue to dump on you, but just as "when" and "in" distance the reader, so to does an overly broad, unspecific sound effect. Rather than having an explosion, or even a "Crack!", you have a signal word "Bang!", which doesn't really sound (or feel like) the sound you're recalling. Instead, you're relying on the reader to substitute the gunshot sound effect of their choice. In other words, you're forcing the reader to do your work, as an author, of creating your scene.

Nothing distances a reader more than asking them to do work, it's akin to asking someone to 'Take out the garbage' during your most exciting scene.

you have a signal word "Bang!", which doesn't really sound (or feel like) the sound you're recalling. Instead, you're relying on the reader to substitute the gunshot sound

BANG! might not sound like a gunshot to you, but it does to me and a lot of people.

There's someone shooting at cars in Detroit. One driver got shot in the leg. He went into a gas station and asked the guy to call the police. On the video, he says, "I heard a loud bang and..." The police believe the shots are from a speeding car so it must be a gun.

On another forum, some gun enthusiast was giving the sounds of gunshots. He said a 9mm is pop. A 45mm or magnum is bang.

BANG! might not sound like a gunshot to you, but it does to me and a lot of people.

On another forum, some gun enthusiast was giving the sounds of gunshots. He said a 9mm is pop. A 45mm or magnum is bang.

All right, let me modify my complaint. While "Bang!" might be appropriate for a 45mm, the word itself doesn't evoke the perception of gunshot the way something like "Crack" does, with the hard "k" of the beginning "c" and ending "k".

The same with "eXPloTion". The hard "x", followed by the "Plo" sounds like a quick explosion, followed by the soft whistling of the debris following it.

The word "Bang", however, just doesn't feel very exciting.

Now, the old-timey "Rat-a-tat-tat" of the 40's gangster stories does.

BANG! might not sound like a gunshot to you, but it does to me and a lot of people.

I heard a Bang! the other day - two cars collided. The word only reminds you of a weapon being fired because the writer tells you the sound is from a weapon being discharged. It could also represent the noise of a weapon being slammed onto a hard surface.

And it could be the noise of dirt being removed by a cleaning fluid ;)

(Non-Brits: Google 'bang and the dirt is gone'.)

AJ

To be minimalistic, why use "Bang!" when a sole "!" should do? ;)

And !!!!!!!!! is a gang bang ;)

AJ

And !!!!!!!!! is a gang bang ;)

until they get caught and have to undergo an interobang by the cops. :-)

It could also represent the noise of a weapon being slammed onto a hard surface.

That's part of the beauty of it. The reader hears the "bang." The women scream and stampede away from the door to the bar. The reader is alert of danger. Then Steele peeks into the bar and sees the dead woman in a pool of blood. Then the bartender's head pops up and he fires a shot that splinters the wood in the door jamb.

I could have used another "bang" when the bartender shot at Steele, but that was overkill. I simply said a gunshot rang out.

So back to the reader. They hear the "bang"s and see the women screaming and running. Some might know it's a gunshot. Others might not. But they all know of the danger. And for those who didn't recognize the "bang" as a gunshot, they'll know it when they see the dead woman.

That's the way I changed my writing over the years. For me, that's "showing" — letting the reader interpret the story. It isn't for all readers. Some like every little detail spoon fed to them. I used to be that way. And that's how I used to write.

When I wrote that way I would have told the reader the bartender wasn't dead and that he shot the woman three times. And that he was waiting for the next person to appear.

To me, the above paragraph removes tension. That's what I meant about poorly written omniscient — giving the reader too much information.

I doubt whether many of the glue words you are eliminating are being used in the way this "expert" would consider telling. I think they are mostly simple conjunctions. I note that many of your savings require an extra comma.

I never aim to reduce work count, instead, what I aim for in eliminating words, is to remove the frequent verbal tics which get between the reader and the story, those phases which distance the reader from the action. Thus my frequent use of -ing verbs more often is an attempt to switch from 3rd person omni in past tense into present tense. "Sitting" feels more immediate than "and sat". "He stood" is more immediate than "he stood up". In effect, it's an attempt to push the limiting words away from the underlying story, hoping the story will shine through.

That said, it's not for everyone, as many here are adamant about trying to eliminate words from their stories. But for those of us trying to find ways to bring stories out of 'telling mode' into 'action' or 'immediate' mode, it's a way of propelling the story forward, even when you are telling otherwise boring details on occasion.

And no, I didn't see it as a personal attack at all. You're simply expressing a worry that I'm playing fast and loose with the English language, which I'll admit to. Hopefully, once I finally learn how to incorporate all these ideas into my writing, I won't need to go searching for individual words and phrases to eliminate, but for now, it's a way for me to identify the words which do inhibit the story.

It's also like the dreaded filler word "that". I struggle to eliminate any "that" which isn't absolutely necessary, but my editors keep slipping them back in. Sometimes I decide, in my zeal, that something isn't needed, or can be eliminated, when in fact it's essential.

Sometimes, when you try to be 'cutting edge', you cut the corners too sharply and end up running off the edge of the read. :(