Forum: Author Hangout

SB, was that the last sentence of its paragraph? I think it should be. (The reason I ask is I'm not sure what the full stop then an ellipsis meant in the quote in the OP.)

No, it wasn't. This is the entire paragraph:

A man towering over the children pressed them against the front of his legs with a hand large enough to hold both in place. A second man leaned against the wall with his knee bent, the sole of his foot flat against the wall. His hands hung at his sides, knuckles bloodied. A lit cigarette dangled from the corner of his mouth. The handle of a semi-automatic pistol stuck out of the waistband of his pants. One eye squinted from the floating cigarette smoke making him look that much scarier to the woman.

No, it wasn't. This is the entire paragraph

Okay. I retract 'I think it should be.' Instead, I'll say that a very short sentence like that can be very effective as the final sentence of a paragraph.

That was my inclination too, when I read Ross's statement, but the rest of your paragraph is a natural extension of the description. In order to break at that one sentence, you'd need to insert an action, which doesn't really fit. But as Ross points out, short summary statements after work best at the end of a dramatic paragraph—and then don't need to be explained in detail—as you actually want your readers to fill in the blanks about whose blood it was without you're having to nail down every detail. (See, now that's an example of a bad ending paragraph!) 'D

Instead, I'll say that a very short sentence like that can be very effective as the final sentence of a paragraph.

My style is to write short sentences. They're not all short, but I often break a long sentence into multiple shorter sentences so it's easier to read. Originally,

A lit cigarette dangled from the corner of his mouth. The handle of a semi-automatic pistol stuck out of the waistband of his pants.

was

A lit cigarette dangled from the corner of his mouth, and the handle of a semi-automatic pistol stuck out of the waistband of his pants.

In fact, it didn't originally have the comma before the "and." But it sounded better to my ear with the comma, so much so that I changed it to a period.

Of course, who knows what this will look like when I'm done with my final edit.

Actually, it's not the "most expressive sentence" that warrants careful placement. It's the most expressive word, bloodied, that should be saved to the end.

Moreover, if you're trying to get readers to fill in the blanks, you'd want to leave a questionable phrasing as the last line, so they have to consider whose blood it is.

If you instead rush straight away into the next sentence, you don't leave them sufficient time to contemplate the question.

place the most expressive sentence at the end of the paragraph.

I actually did. "One eye squinted from the floating cigarette smoke making him look that much scarier to the woman" is the important sentence. Well, the "scarier to the woman" part. The next paragraph is (even though she's not speaking to the man with bloody knuckles):

"Please don't hurt them," the woman said, wringing her hands in her lap.

It's all to show the danger she's in and her fear. Her beaten up husband. The man who did it. He has a gun. The man threatening her children.

And a little while later:

Marco brushed the little girl's cheek with the back of his fingers. "And you have a lot to lose if you don't."

The man against the wall snickered. The woman turned to see his smirk. He cupped his crotch, thrust his hips, and winked.

So it's the fear that's important which is how I ended that paragraph. The bloody knuckles are no more important than the pistol in his waistband.

And in my Lincoln Steele stories, the bad guys have to be monsters so it's okay for Steele to kill them.

I think "... making him look that much scarier to the woman" is telling.

I'm writing the story in 3rd-person omniscient (which I haven't done in a long time). There is more telling in omniscient. And in omniscient, the only POV is that of the omni narrator's so I can't get into the woman's head. I can only have the omni narrator tell the reader how she feels.

the only POV is that of the omni narrator's so I can't get into the woman's head

Why? Omni knows all.

Why? Omni knows all.

And he can tell the reader all, even stuff the characters don't know. But everything is told by the omni narrator. Which is why omniscient is more telling.

In omniscient, you can't write: I wonder where they are? Joe thought.

You have to write: Joe wondered where they were.

If you do the former, it's head-hopping (hopping from the narrator to Joe).

Here's a short article on omni and head-hopping using Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" (written in omniscient).

ETA:
I forgot to include the link to the article: https://thewritepractice.com/head-hopping-and-hemingway/

A true omni narrator can "hear" what the characters are thinking.

And the narrator can tell the reader what the character is thinking.

So it could be argued that from the narrator's perspective, their thoughts are no different from spoken dialog.

Read the article.

The article seems to contradict itself more than once. For example, it claims that head-hopping the way Hemingway did isn't head-hopping.

I doubt the authority of the article.

AJ

The article seems to contradict itself more than once. For example, it claims that head-hopping the way Hemingway did isn't head-hopping.

That was the "cute" way the author said it's not head-hopping.

That was the "cute" way the author said it's not head-hopping.

The author might well have a valid underlying point about what sort of head-hopping is acceptable to readers, but throwing in Hemingway and blurring the definition of head-hopping in my opinion detracts from that point.

AJ

It offers no justification for the way Hemingway did it being the ONLY right way to do it beyond argument from authority and the author's own personal opinion.

Not his personal opinion. That's like saying your instructor in school who tells you 2+2=4 is his personal opinion. It's the rules for head-hopping.

Now is it the ONLY way to do it? Do you have to follow the rules? Of course not. I once sampled the beginning of the first Harry Potter book to see how Rowling wrote. It was written in omniscient yet she got into Harry Potter's thoughts. So she broke the rule. Is she wrong for doing that? Of course not. She's now a billionaire.

It was written in omniscient yet she got into Harry Potter's thoughts. So she broke the rule. Is she wrong for doing that? Of course not. She's now a billionaire.

I don't understand why you think she broke the rules. Every definition of omniscient narrator that I've read says that the narrator knows the thoughts of all of the characters .

A story in this narrative mode is presented by a narrator with an overarching point of view, seeing and knowing everything that happens within the world of the story, including what each of the characters is thinking and feeling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narration#Third-person,_omniscient

As I understand SB, an omniscient narrator can tell you what someone is thinking but it's not allowed for the characters to 'voice' their thoughts directly.

Yes

A story in this narrative mode is presented by a narrator with an overarching point of view, seeing and knowing everything that happens within the world of the story, including what each of the characters is thinking and feeling.

That is a good definition. But what does it say?

1. The only POV of the story is that of the omniscient narrator's ("is presented by a narrator").

2. The narrator can tell the reader everything and everything about the world and the characters ("including what each of the characters is thinking and feeling"). But it's the narrator who is telling the reader what each character is thinking and feeling (#1 above).

I don't understand why you think she broke the rules.

Rowling's omniscient narrator knows everything that is going on in all of her characters' heads.

You are saying she broke the rules. What rule(s) did she break?

You are saying she broke the rules. What rule(s) did she break?

She went from the omniscient narrator's POV to Harry's (or maybe it was another character).

Are you saying she had the narrator provide Harry's thoughts and then had Harry express them in dialog? Or did you mean something else like the narrator and Harry expressing different thoughts?

Also, where do I find this rule? I have never heard of something like this.

Also, where do I find this rule?

It was obvious the beginning was an omniscient narrator providing information about characters and their thoughts. And then it jumped into a character's thoughts rather than have the narrator tell the reader what those thoughts were.

I don't know where the "rule" would be defined. Where are any rules for fiction writing defined? The article I posted said so. I've read it in other places. Authors who I trust at wattpad say so.

I sounds to me like you are saying that Rowling presented the story in a way you didn't approve of rather than her breaking a rule.

How can a story line jump into a character's head if the narrator or the character isn't telling what is in the character's head. If it isn't the character or the narrator providing the thoughts, then who is providing the thoughts? The only way that could happen is by Rowling talking directly to the reader and I doubt that is what you mean.

You and others have quoted many rules for writing fiction over the years with citations, so they are written down. If Rowling's transgression broke a rule then someone should be able to cite the rule. If you can't cite the rule, then she didn't break a rule.

How can a story line jump into a character's head if the narrator or the character isn't telling what is in the character's head. If it isn't the character or the narrator providing the thoughts, then who is providing the thoughts?

Because the narrator did not tell what the character was thinking. The character basically told what he was thinking.

1. Harry wondered what his aunt wanted.
2. What does my aunt want? Harry thought.

The first is the narrator telling the reader what Harry is thinking (narrator's POV).
The second is getting into the character's thoughts directly (Harry's POV).

So she jumped (head-hopped) from the narrator's POV to Harry's.

It could work. Most people wouldn't even notice. In fact, I once read that a skilled omniscient writer can do that seamlessly. But don't do it well and it's annoying to many readers.

ETA:

Don't confuse the narrator with the author.

Now I have a better understanding of your complaint.

In earlier threads, we seemed to reach an agreement that an author did not have to maintain a single POV throughout the story. The consensus was shifting between POVs was acceptable as long as the author made it clear that the POV had shifted. The recommended means of accomplishing the transition between POVs was at a scene change.

Personally, I see no problem with Rowling changing POVs. I would have more of a problem with an author shifting a single narrator's account between 1st and 3rd person.

Creative writing is not a science, it's an art form and there are no laws of nature in art.

But there are principles (don't want to call them rules). Unlike math, they can be broken. But there are rules. I was simply stating the rules for POV. I'm not saying they have to be followed.

I'm writing the story in 3rd-person omniscient (which I haven't done in a long time). There is more telling in omniscient. And in omniscient, the only POV is that of the omni narrator's so I can't get into the woman's head. I can only have the omni narrator tell the reader how she feels.

On the contrary, with 1st-person narrative the character themselves (the 1st-person narrator) tells the reader precisely what he's thinking, while in 3rd-person omni, the author has to show those reactions by focusing on the other characters' responses. You're conflating "showing" with "telling".

Granted, many times 3rd-person omni does contain a lot of telling, but the nature of 1st person is that ALL the observations are literally being dictated by the 1st-person narrator.

Granted, many times 3rd-person omni does contain a lot of telling, but the nature of 1st person is that ALL the observations are literally being dictated by the 1st-person narrator.

From a scale of telling to showing (1 = most telling), I believe it's:

1. omniscient
2. 1st-person
3. 3rd-limited

That's simply my experience writing in the 3 POVs.

From a scale of telling to showing (1 = most telling), I believe it's:

1. omniscient
2. 1st-person
3. 3rd-limited

That's simply my experience writing in the 3 POVs.

I agree with that assertion, but that doesn't mean that simply putting what 1st-person narrator THINKS in quotes suddenly makes it "showing". It's still TELLING the readers what he's thinking.

Showing isn't how something is told, it's instead showing how the actions impact the characters. The easier way to do that is in dialogue, as the characters themselves relate how they feel. But if someone thinks "I'm feeling hungry today", then that's ALL telling, despite the quotation marks!

I think "... making him look that much scarier to the woman" is telling. I think you should show extra details about the man, such as a scar, a broken nose, facial hair, an item of clothing, ...

You should be able to make the readers scared of this guy.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. You're suggesting that Switch make the character a physically deformed Monster (through the use of disfiguring scars) in order to scare the reader, rather than focus on his actions, which are the basis of his protagonist's reprisals. The protagonist isn't hunting them down because of their looks, he's hunting them down because of the pain they inflicted on innocent people!

Your suggestions focuses entirely on literary 'cheap shots', shortcuts designed to trigger a response without putting in the necessary development. Switch is putting in the necessary work to create a scene which plays to the readers emotions. Thus he doesn't need such shortcuts.

Just my opinion, though, as many people thoroughly enjoy graphic violence—like the man with the blood on his hands.

Facial hair and/or an item of clothing would show choices a character makes about their appearance.

I'd agree that mentioning both a scar and a broken nose would create a ham-fisted caricature, but one, within a list of details about his appearance, would imply a history of involvement in violent conflicts.

I agree, including personal details about a character nearly always makes them more relatable. But here, Switch isn't interested in making the character 'relateable'. At this stage, the bad guys are simply the 'strong silent' types, and the characters are simply responding to the violence, not specifically to how the bad guys appear. That would come later, once the protagonist first meets with and sizes them up.

WTF? Surely he wants to make this character un-relateable.

My point exactly. But he's doing that through their actions, not via their physical characteristics (aside from their being big and menacing).

'knuckles bloodied' clearly describes the knuckles, but fails to identify whose blood.

Doesn't matter whose blood. What matters is he beat up the husband.

What matters is he beat up the husband.

I understand what you are attempting to convey to the reader. The opening paragraphs imply but do not state the man beat the husband. By identifying the blood as the husband's you create the link telling the reader the man beat the husband.

The opening paragraphs imply but do not state the man beat the husband.

Exactly. That was why I asked the question.

Of course I knew it, but I wanted to know if a reader would know it without explicitly saying so. Everyone said they would.

Is the blood on his knuckles the husband's or did he cut his knuckles hitting the husband or is it both men's blood? That doesn't matter.

What matters is he beat up the husband.

Oh well, since the nit-picking has started ...

Why don't you show the man beating up the husband? The scene you've painted is rather static.

The cigarette smoking would get the movie of your story an 18+ rating, so there's no reason to eschew showing explicit violence.

AJ

Why don't you show the man beating up the husband?

I guess it's like explicit sex or sex behind closed doors. Replace sex with beating up the husband.

Who knows, I may eventually come back to this chapter and start it with the beating. For now, I was interested in introducing the head of the drug cartel and how he forced a woman to do stuff.

Why don't you show the man beating up the husband?

I guess it's like explicit sex or sex behind closed doors. Replace sex with beating up the husband.

For everyone else, it's because Switch is more interested in the family's reaction to the beating than he is in the actual violent act.

That's the whole 'show vs. tell' argument, rather than explicitly telling the reader how the husband was abused, you 'show' the abuse by focusing on the reactions of his devastated family. Graphic violence only pleases those who gravitate towards violence, turning other readers off. Showing the grieving and worried family, that touches everyone's heartstrings, as they can relate to the emotions shown.

And this statement is simply wrong. You can show or tell regardless of the POV the story is written in.

You can 'show' what someone feels by how they express themselves in dialogue. But, when a 1st person narrator expresses something in thought, they are explicitly telling you how they feel, only it's masked in single quotations.

I never stated that a decent writer can't show in a variety of different formats, I was merely countering Switch's declaration that 1st person narrative is all show and no tell. Instead, it's all the narrator relating how he feels, with less of the reader observing how the other characters respond to events.

Switch's declaration that 1st person narrative is all show and no tell.

I never said that. I said that omni is more telling.

I never said that. I said that omni is more telling.

You asserted the reverse: that 1st person is more showing because the narrator is relating how he "feels" in thoughts, rather than in an omni-narrator relating those details.

Why has the author in a 3rd-person omni story to show what someone is thinking? He can also simply tell what someone is thinking or feeling.

That was Switch's point: that in 3rd-person Omni, authors typically tell more than they show. My counter argument was that simply having a character think something in a 1st person narrative is just as telling as it is in 3rd-person Omni.

That's doesn't mean an author can't show whenever he wants, I'm just arguing with the assertion that 1st person is always more showing, by default, than 3rd-person Omni is.

Doesn't matter whose blood. What matters is he beat up the husband.

@REP

For the original sentence, I would expect the husband's blood to cover more than the knuckles. Perhaps knuckles and fingers.

As Switch said, it doesn't really matter whose blood it is, only that the men are violent. As for the knuckles, fingers and toes, that's an example of an unnecessary detail which only minimizes the impact of the statement. Essentially, the extra detail only lessons the import by making the entire thing seem ... trivial. It's the literary equivalent of a 'death by a thousand cuts', or in this case, 'death by a thousand trivial details'.

P.S. I'm a little frustrated with the topic, as my editor keeps adding this niggling little details to many of my sentences.

As Switch said, it doesn't really matter whose blood it is, only that the men are violent.

As Awnlee said, it is a static scene. SB hasn't shown the men to be violent. There is nothing in the OP that clearly defines the two men administered the beating and the results of the beating are far less than what I would expect of a violent beating. Although there may be more details in subsequent paragraphs. My point is that by stating the blood on the second man's knuckles is the husbands, SB would be insinuating the second man beat the husband without specifically stating it.

As a reader, I would probably just read the description with little thought to the things that bother me when I look closely at the description. What I get out of the paragraph is a man is tied to a chair who has been beaten by an undefined assailant. There are a woman, two scared kids, and two additional men in the room. The bloody knuckles of one man is supposed to tell me at least one of the two men administered the beating. It is a reasonably safe assumption the woman is their mother. Is she standing or sitting in the chair? I would expect her to be trying to hold and comfort the kids. If the kids are scared, they would be crying and trying to get to their mother, but SB has them placidly standing in front of a man who is holding both kids against his leg with one Big hand.

The description just doesn't read right to me.

I would expect her to be trying to hold and comfort the kids. If the kids are scared, they would be crying and trying to get to their mother, but SB has them placidly standing in front of a man who is holding both kids against his leg with one Big hand.

The woman is scared shitless. The kids are 4 and 6. Not knowing what's going on. They saw their father beaten. Mother crying. A large adult is holding them in place and their mother isn't taking them from him. What are 4 and 6 year old kids going to do in that situation? Probably freeze.

As to the beating, there's an expression in fiction writing about scenes: "Enter late and leave early." I could have entered the scene earlier with the husband beating, but why? How they beat him isn't important. Only that they did and his wife saw it. "Enter the scene late."

As Awnlee said, it is a static scene. SB hasn't shown the men to be violent. There is nothing in the OP that clearly defines the two men administered the beating and the results of the beating are far less than what I would expect of a violent beating. Although there may be more details in subsequent paragraphs. My point is that by stating the blood on the second man's knuckles is the husbands, SB would be insinuating the second man beat the husband without specifically stating it.

Relating to my Scott Westerfield quote (though I tend to dislike any author blaming authors for their choice in literature), you're essentially catering your writing to those selfsame 'lazy readers', rather than engaging the more active readers by forcing them to make the connections themselves.

Yes, you may lose a few slow readers who want all the dots connected for them, but by engaging the readers, you make a more personal connection with your readers, and they'll care more about the story than if every single detail is spelled out.

According to James Richardson, in his On Writing: Aphorisms and Ten-Second Essays: "Only half of writing is saying what you mean. The other half is preventing people from reading what they expected you to mean."

Switch, in keeping the source of the blood in question, forces the reader to step back and question "whose blood is it?" Thus instead of giving them exactly what they expect, Switch is purposefully making them question their own assumptions.

You may want to pay attention of Richardson's next point:

19. Believe stupid praise, deserve stupid criticism.

Personally, I prefer #20:

20. Writing a book is like doing a huge jigsaw puzzle, unendurably slow at first, almost self-propelled at the end. Actually, it's more like doing a puzzle from a box in which several puzzles have been mixed. Starting out, you can't tell whether a piece belongs to the puzzle at hand, or one you've already done, or will do in ten years, or will never do.

it implies a particularly violent beating

Yes! Thank you!

Presuming that it is the man's blood and that the injury occurred during the beating

I look at it as, if you want the reader to walk down your garden path, you need to guide them to the path. Letting the reader make assumptions isn't placing them on your garden path.

Granted SW's wording paints a vivid picture, but two black eyes, a bloody nose and mouth, and 'some' blood on the husband's shirt isn't the results of what I would consider a violent beating. But perhaps SW didn't want it to be a violent beating.