Forum: Author Hangout

I assume the "Double damn" is the character's internal thought. By not putting it in italics, it's probably (I hate to say it) Deep POV. Maybe back then it was considered experimental.

No, back then (I misquoted the illustrations as the original publication date, as the 2004 reprint doesn't even list the original pub. date), I suspect this was standard fare, as I imagine this reflects trends predating 1960, before everyone started insisting on separating things and first constructing the Third Wall.

The 'experimental' reference was in relation to the New Yorker showcasing a newer work doing the same thing, as separating the third wall is NOW considered essential, as it's a relatively recent argument. (Now we'll all run off and research they first third-wall reface!)

This predates Deep POV by multiple decades, at least.

Fiction is by definition an artificial construct. Personally, I think trying to call any approach to any aspect of it "natural" is akin to peddling snake oil medicine.

Let me clarify then, by 'natural' I mean does it improve the story flow, or does it cause readers to stop and scratch their heads, causing them to lose their places in the story? Is it constructive, or a narrative roadblock?

But, given the responses, maybe a better question is: has anyone EVER seen this is stories before? I was thinking it's been used (in the past) more than it seems. But then, maybe it's just a preoccupation of these two authors, trying to spark their student's creativity with 'writer prompts', tools to get author's thinking, rather than perfecting their final thoughts?

I haven't considered trying it, but I'm not particularly opposed to it.

Thanks. That helps. As I said, it seems to be useful for further embellishing fiction with character insights, but the idea seems to foreign to my modern perceptions, I'm having trouble evaluating it fairly as it just seems 'wrong'. :(

After all, this whole Deep POV fascination seems rooted in making literature MORE like movies, which they inherently aren't, any more than literature are comic books, requiring "Zip!" "Bang!" and "Pow!" exclamation points.

Literature is meant to go deeper than the purely superficial, otherwise, there's NO point in NOT watching movies.

2. If you really want to know about reader reactions, you should be having the conversation with readers, not with other authors.

3. As a reader, I think it depends on execution. The technique may work for one author but not another. It may work better for certain types of stories and less well for others. Well executed I don't think it would be a road block.

4. As a newbie author, I have a hard time avoiding head hopping with techniques that make character thoughts stand out more. I think this technique would make avoiding head hopping harder.

Excellent points. But ... the idea here is for us authors to kick the ideas around BEFORE we inflict new techniques on readers, getting a feel for what's generally productive, and what isn't. As always, the golden rule for authors is to BREAK the rules, just as it is to UNDERSTAND the rules, BEFORE you break them, so you understand the associated costs.

That's why I suspect the usage is merely a writing prompt, to get new authors to try new things, and expand their horizons. As I've noted in other discussions, the characters are typically MORE essential than the underlining plot, because if the character isn't sympathetic, no one will stick around, whatever the plot involves. Thus, Character is King, and getting newbies to better understand their characters is an essential tool as an author.

But ... as I noted, it seems ripe for overuse, and the book in questions outlines HOW much to expand it BEFORE is lessens the work.

But my question was, once again, has anyone noticed this technique before (i.e. is it still relatively common), or merely an outdated concept or overly simplistic teaching tool?

If nothing else, it's probably best for getting newbies started, when their still evaluating their basic story idea, before they crumple their first attempts and start their first REAL first draft of the finished work.

has anyone noticed this technique before (i.e. is it still relatively common),

I guess I don't understand the technique you're addressing because I thought I answered it.

I guess I don't understand the technique you're addressing because I thought I answered it.

OK, you think that it's essential to Deep POV, and by extension, getting past telling and more into Showing what's happening. But, I dislike the basic model of novelists attempting to emulate other media, as they'll NEVER equal them. Each media is unique, and offers strengths that the others simply can't equal. By making everything a movie, then nothing is EVER as good as the movie, rather than novels traditionally being deeper than the overly simplistic film adaptations.

Why do you think movie producers are always scouring the latest best-sellers, searching for the latest blockbuster movie, but Movie 'adaptations' are universally abysmal. You need a GREAT Novel to reenvision, but movie's don't hold up to the deeper introspection of novels.

That said, I don't object to using individual techniques to highlight aspects of the story. My chief objection to the entire Deep POV discussion was that I didn't see the books on the subject as more than vague, general concepts (i.e. not worth the investment), rather than focusing on whether it didn't help strengthen an individual story.

As a general technique, Deep POV is extremely valuable, but as a guide to constructing novels in general, it's simply too incomplete to get you far.

In my opinion, trying to get a feel for what's generally productive, and what isn't, without reader input is either an exercise in futility or an exercise in groupthink.

Rather than trying to win other authors' approval (which I've NEVER done), it's more akin to asking which avenues are worth pursuing (like Deep POV). It's not so much whether it's appropriate for me, as much as I'm trying to gauge whether it's worth investigating or not.

It the entire premise was abandoned by most years ago, or if it was merely an engaging creative exercise for students, then I'll know that it's NOT really a valid literary technique, either new or old. But at this point, I just don't know.

which avenues are worth pursuing (like Deep POV)

My opinion is it's not for you. You like narrators, whether they be a character in the story or the author. So Deep POV is not for you. Just my opinion.

My opinion is it's not for you. You like narrators, whether they be a character in the story or the author. So Deep POV is not for you. Just my opinion.

That's what I suspect, though it's similar to fight scenes. You simply know that chapters with fights are best when they're short, intense and tightly focused. You simply don't waste time trying to extrapolate on WHY the characters dislike each other, or delving into their pasts, you simply use short, decisive declarative sentences to capture to short, shocking events.

As such, it's possibly an additional tool, though it's likely to NOT work for the traditional 3rd-person omni yarn. Still, the feedback so far has been VERY beneficial in understand when it's called for, and when it's not.

You simply know that chapters with fights are best when they're short, intense and tightly focused.

Not long ago I read a complex fight scene on SOL where the author was very particular at explaining what every character was doing at any given time. It had the effect of slowing the action right down and yet, in a way, it was weirdly effective - like a fight scene in a film shown in slo-mo.

AJ

I've actually done that, but rather than their acting as a Godlike being who know what EVERYONE is doing, I had the character enter a heightened state, typically triggered by a sudden endorphin rush, where everything seemingly slows down and they suddenly notice very specific details, like the fold of curtain fabrics, or the light reflecting off of specific things.

But because the character is hyper-focused, he picks up on specific things that no one else notices, but completely misses what they're NOT focusing on. Again, the fight scenes unfold fast, with short, powerful sentences, but I interject fairly detailed observations, only realizing what was really happening later, in the next chapter, where everyone gets together to discuss precisely happened.

Like Deep POV, it's a powerful approach, but can only be applied to short tightly focused segments. I refer to it as my 'Fog of War' style of write fight scenes, where everything other than what they're concentrating on escapes their notice.

And once again, it's a partial-omni since they narrator knows the complete story, but is only RELATING how the main character experiences the fight, rather than recounting EVERYONE's actions. In other words, it's VERY similar to Deep POV.

this whole Deep POV fascination seems rooted in making literature MORE like movies,

Interesting you should say that. This is from the article with the resources I provided in the other thread:

I write entirely in deep point of view, so I use this technique like a camera lens for the story and I'm the director. As the director, I can use a variety of camera techniques and angles to heighten interest and tension. I can use a wide shot to give a sense of the bigger picture, zoom in to a small group of people, zoom in to just one person, zoom in so you can see the character's sweat. I never violate POV, but by adding small amounts of distance, filtering, or telling, third person lets me adjust the zoom on deep point of view to create specific effects strategically.

Did you miss the part where CW expressed that he didn't consider that a good thing?

Hardly, as I think this overview highlights the benefits of 3rd person over 1st or even 'personal third'. While the adage to "keep" Deep POV is essential, it highlights that it's only ONE of multiple tools, and rather than writing it in for an entire novel, you pick and choose WHEN to employ each of the arrows in your quiver.

However, I questioned the legitimacy of modeling fiction after film, as it will NEVER equal film in its Immediacy, just a film will NEVER match Fiction in its depth. So conflating the two seems ... misguided at best. But, as long as it's merely another tool, and NOT a mantra, Deep POV IS useful. (Just not enough to purchase multiple $20+ books supposedly detailing its execution.)

Did you miss the part where CW expressed that he didn't consider that a good thing?

I knew exactly what he said. I'm suggesting he rethink it.

One of my wife's masters is in English Literature and Creative Writing. She loved the classics. One day she decided to reread one. I think it was "Madam Bovary."

She quit reading, finding the writing stilted. The same novel she loved in college. What changed? Surely not the novel. The times changed. Writing styles changed.

but if the plot/character is interesting enough and I persevere, after a few hours, I get used to it and stop perceiving the style.

Yep, I read a novel by a bestselling thriller author. Every chapter started in 3rd-person (I think omniscient) and then switched to first-person from the MC's POV. At first it was jarring, but then it worked.

Reading thrillers, I learned that to be successful in that genre you have to bend the POV rules for suspense and other reasons. But if you do it right, a normal reader will never know. Only an author trained in POV will.

Reading thrillers, I learned that to be successful in that genre you have to bend the POV rules for suspense and other reasons. But if you do it right, a normal reader will never know. Only an author trained in POV will.

That seems to be the general rule with breaking literary 'rules'. If done well, it's unnoticeable, but it generally requires knowing when and how to employ it successfully.

Simply trying it out of the blue in chapter five is virtually a recipe for disaster!

I've read some novels and authors which I find jarring; but if the plot/character is interesting enough and I persevere, after a few hours, I get used to it and stop perceiving the style.

That's always been a big issue with my stories, as I tend to pontificate, which along with my traditional slow starts, is off-putting. However, once readers get into the story, they find them rewarding , despite my unorthodox style. While my attempts to 'modernize' or 'ameliorate' my odd styles haven't been well received.

So, the very things that trigger such negative responses online, seem somehow 'endearing' in my stories. But why that's case, I've never understood.

She quit reading, finding the writing stilted. The same novel she loved in college. What changed? Surely not the novel. The times changed. Writing styles changed.

Yeah, I've heard that from many sources, though certain authors hold up to the same reviews, particularly Jane Austen, who seems to continually pick up new fans. So some trends change, yet it's more how expressive authors are, than how they express themselves—I'm guessing.

I tend to bounce between 1st and 3rd person when I tell a story, and in 1st person, I have always added the character's thoughts. No reason to try and make a big deal out of it, I just have him or her tell the reader what he thinks. So I just do not get any reason to use italics or anything else to symbolize they are doing that.

See, that's what I was hoping to provoke, examples of these 'techniques' in use, rather than just vague suggestions in a book of questionable merit (I have issues with several other assertions they make). So, if you can give me some samples (either post them here or send them to me privately, so they've not ripped apart by other Forum authors), I'd appreciate it.

But the fact you restrict it exclusively to 1st person is telling, as these two authors suggest it's a useful technique in all writing, but particularly 3rd-person omni, which clearly violates the proverbial 3rd wall of fiction.

So, if you can give me some samples

I gave you an example in the other thread:

Charity was fuming. Her fists clenched and unclenched. Damn Pete Wheelson!

And it's not 1st-person. It's 3rd-limited.

as these two authors suggest it's a useful technique in all writing, but particularly 3rd-person omni

You must have misunderstood. It's not done in omni. You're not in any character's POV to hear their thoughts. The omni narrator tells the reader what they're thinking.

You must have misunderstood. It's not done in omni. You're not in any character's POV to hear their thoughts. The omni narrator tells the reader what they're thinking.

No, I've done that, to varying degrees, throughout my writing career, though I've always tried to limit to what a particular narrator would know in any particular context.

Thus, it's fine to use in context, but strains credibility outside of that context. The key, then, is recognizing the appropriate context to employ it in.

though I've always tried to limit to what a particular narrator would know in any particular context.

Then it's not omni. An omni narrator knows all.

Then it's not omni. An omni narrator knows all.

That's 'particular 3rd-person omni', where the storyteller knows the complete story, either because he's heard it many time, or more often because he's know ALL the participants for years, and they've told him WHAT they thought at the time. But in that case, since the Narrator is simply an undefined story character (with their own backstory), they also have their own agendas and motivations which determine their actions and choices.

It's a more complex 3rd-person Omni, not a Godlike all-knowing intelligence who's unquestionable. Such 18th century artificial constructs are no longer favored by most readers, who tend to question the assumptions behind those telling the story.

Just like 1st, it's not for everyone, and generally requires a particular mindset to execute well (i.e. it's NOT for everyone), but it has it's strengths.

Regardless of what they say, I still think it's easier to show the thoughts in just italics, and prefer to do so.

I agree, and that's what I've always done, but after seeing their suggestion, I'm wondering whether it's a useful tool for expanding one's characters, encouraging them to reveal their motivations which normally don't come up in normal dialogue.

If so, even if you end up dumping most of the observations during subsequent revisions, it may be a useful exercise. But at this point, never having seen it used much, I simply don't know whether it's helpful or not.

I'm leaning towards sticking with what I know, but I'm open to positive feedback from others.

I'm wondering whether it's a useful tool for expanding one's characters, encouraging them to reveal their motivations which normally don't come up in normal dialogue.

I can't see how not using italics to show thoughts would affect your ability to do that.

I can't see how not using italics to show thoughts would affect your ability to do that.

Theoretically, not really knowing what's involved, I imagine it allows you to focus more deeply on each character's motives, relating their thoughts and expanding the character-development as events unfold. But, not having studied it, I'm merely guessing what it entails.

It becomes more jarring if the first half of the book narration is used purely for narration and then you start including internal thoughts.

That makes a LOT of sense, and seems to be true for ALL internal thoughts, whichever approach/style you employ. Consistency is vital, as readers adjust to the approach authors employ, but recoil if they suddenly change mid-story.

Which is another qualm of mine, as I'd rather NOT start a new story, using this already questionable technique, only to abandon it midway through the first or second chapters. If it's a useful technique, I'm ore likely to try it, but right now, it seems to be mainly restricted to 1st person stories only, which I've always avoided.