Forum: Author Hangout

One first person story I read (cannot remember name or author) had chapter 2 as a repeat of chapter 1 from the perspective of a different character. Too much repetition to really make it work as a separate chapter. I think the author needed to find a different way of conveying the second character's thoughts.

I just read one recently (though I won't name names to protect the guilty) where the other kept switching the POV with only a single plain text name announcement, and it wasn't once, twice or thrice a chapter, instead it was continually. They'd write maybe 20 paragraphs, then it would be yet another character taking over the story mid-chapter. I found it very disconcerting!

One first person story I read (cannot remember name or author) had chapter 2 as a repeat of chapter 1 from the perspective of a different character. Too much repetition to really make it work as a separate chapter. I think the author needed to find a different way of conveying the second character's thoughts.

Piers Anthony wrote a seven book series revolving around the same group of characters, and over roughly the same period of time, with the main difference being the main character of each novel (and, in one case, the directionality of the flow of time). But, maybe half of each book was events already covered in other books.

But yeah, if you want to have multiple people's thoughts, you generally should consider at least semi-omniscient narrators, or at least a telepathic narrator. (A narrator who's questioned all or most involved since the time of the events but prior to writing about them can usually be considered semi-omniscient.)

Since hips seem to degrade disproportionately compared to skulls when you have osteoporosis, head hop might be preferable to hip hop.

Or, if you're particularly religious and oppose drinking and dancing, you might go for a head drop (i.e. prayer) instead, just as long as you keep your head our of my personal business! (Grr!)

But yeah, if you want to have multiple people's thoughts, you generally should consider at least semi-omniscient narrators, or at least a telepathic narrator. (A narrator who's questioned all or most involved since the time of the events but prior to writing about them can usually be considered semi-omniscient.)

My favorite narrator isn't your typical 'God-like' individual who knows what everyone is thinking at any given time, but is merely an individual (possibly a member of the story) who's discussed the events described and has a general feel for how everyone was thinking at the time.

That allows for a more personalized feel to the narration, as the narrator isn't dictating what happens, but is merely telling a story, as one used to back in the days of bonfires on the beach or at campsites, where everyone brings stories that they've heard in their travels. It also allows for narrator confusion or biases, especially when it turns out there was a discrepancy between the participants telling the story over what actually happened, and the narrator simply chose to accept one explanation over the others.

Piers Anthony wrote a seven book series

The Incarnations of Immortality series now has 8 books.

On a Pale Horse (1983) - Death
Bearing an Hourglass (1984) - Time
With a Tangled Skein (1985) - Fate
Wielding a Red Sword (1986) - War
Being a Green Mother (1987) - Nature
For Love of Evil (1988) - Satan
And Eternity (1990) - God
Under a Velvet Cloak (2007) - ???? (lets not give spoilers)

The Incarnations of Immortality series now has 8 books.

On a Pale Horse (1983) - Death
Bearing an Hourglass (1984) - Time
With a Tangled Skein (1985) - Fate
Wielding a Red Sword (1986) - War
Being a Green Mother (1987) - Nature
For Love of Evil (1988) - Satan
And Eternity (1990) - God
Under a Velvet Cloak (2007) - ???? (lets not give spoilers)

Forget the endless diatribe over God vs. Satan, how about the eternal struggle between the competing forces of dick vs. pussy, and the counter-competing force of 'just stop touching yourself like that!', otherwise know as the MOM force!

touché

touché

Why two ches, why not one or three?

To give you but one would be an insult and three or more would require you to pay taxes.

touché

I'll touché the aforementioned biologic organs!

Thanks, Switch Blayde! Very helpful. Could you give an example or two of books where this is done well? On she I have seen it but, as you say, just didn't notice. I would like to read with a writer's eye.

Unless the head-hopping is obvious or jarring, it's not a problem and the normal reader wouldn't recognize it. It you want to look for it, just remember the scene is being told from the POV character for that scene so unless he sees it, hears, it, smells it, thinks it, reads about it, etc. it can't be described in the scene.

For me, a better guide is not to describe what each character thinks, or even describe what happens, but to capture how they respond. It takes a LOT more time to write that way, but it catches most of the oversights you'd likely miss otherwise. Thus, you're capturing internal thoughts by their physical responses: whether a head tilt, a pursing of the lips, or one of my favorites, a pregnant pause with an ellipsis (& m-dash;).

CW, I agree that there is a lot to be gained in reader enjoyment by describing actions. But, isn't something more required for the reader to know the character's thoughts if those thoughts are necessary to the story? Can this be done without actually stating those thoughts?

So, something happens. The character perceives that event. The character has thoughts about those perceptions. As a result of those thoughts, the character experiences emotions and, perhaps, physiological reactions. Those emotions and reactions predispose the character to notice and interpret things in particular ways, they have more thoughts (judgments, characterizations, plans, etc.) and they act. But, the thoughts cannot be definitely assessed from the behaviors. Different thoughts can lead to the same behaviors. Similar thoughts can lead to different behaviors. And, sometimes, a person's thoughts, at least those they are consciously aware of in the moment, may not explain the emotions or behaviors of the individual, even to the individual. So, if the specific thoughts are important, then it would seem difficult for actions to show them.

For example. a man and woman have just made love. The man says, "I love you." She recoils, her eyes wide and mouth open, then says, "No! No! Don't say that."

Maybe, with enough context and background, we could guess what she is thinking. Or, maybe, the point of the story would be to make readers guess one thing, then reveal that it was really another. Or, as a third alternative, we might find that even she did not know what was really behind her emotions and reactions in that moment, that what she thought was going on, and what the reader also believed, really wasn't the deeper belief (thought), that was actually operating in the moment. Each way would be a good story. And, each could resonate with readers, because each is true to human experience; they could each make good psychological sense.

Maybe I'm overthinking the point (not the first time!), or maybe your point assumed all of what I've said and just pointed out how powerful descriptions of the emotions and reactions from thoughts can be. Just something that I thought about from your comment!

BTW, I'm really interested in your point that writing out behaviors helps catch things you would miss otherwise. I think I have an idea of what you're saying, but need to think more about it, or maybe notice how it plays out as I write and re-write. Thanks.

CW, I agree that there is a lot to be gained in reader enjoyment by describing actions. But, isn't something more required for the reader to know the character's thoughts if those thoughts are necessary to the story? Can this be done without actually stating those thoughts?

It's definitely not as straightforward, but observing how the exchange unfolds based on how the people respond to each other, as opposed to being TOLD how it unfolds is rewarding—at least for me.

Granted, no one does it all the time, but for short, intense passages, it adds strength to the exchange—especially if you intersperse the observations of the responses with 'action tags', where you describe their actions—turning aside, doing the dishes, painting each other's toenails.

The key is, rather than TELLING the reader what the characters are feeling, the reader gets to discover it for themselves, putting the pieces together on their own. It may seem counterproductive, but readers—for whatever reason—seem to value the distinction, at least some of them!

In your example, the scene might play out as follows:

He glancing into her emerald eyes, pausing to lick his lips. "I … I love you!"

Instead of answered, she drew back, pursing her lips, her eyes leery.

"No response?" he pressed, his eyes dilating slightly.

"I'm … thinking."

"What's there to think about, either you love me, or you don't?"

"No," she argued. "I just … don't like throwing terms like that to lightly. Otherwise, it loses all meaning."

Rather than answering, he leaned back, crossing his arms, awaiting her response.

"It doesn't mean anything if you do it to say 'Thanks for the fuck!'" she accused, getting up and storming out. He shook his head, staring at her long after she'd disappeared down the hall.

Again, it takes more work figuring out precisely how each character responds each moment of the exchange, but …

As far as revealing her thoughts later, as she wrestles with it herself, my example still leaves that option, though rather than showing her actual thoughts, you'd probably switch to her and her girlfriends, as they pry for the details as she continues dancing around the topic.

But again, rather than doing this ALL the time, you pick and choose your battles, using the most effective strategies when it's most vital, relying on shorthand techniques for the less essential discussions.

And trust me, this is something we all wrestle with. We find a technique that we're comfortable. We grow accustomed to it and try variations. Then, once we've played out multiple variations, we trying a slightly different technique.

One technique is no more 'efficient' than the other, though some can be slightly more powerful than the other in the right contexts, but not unless you're in the right headspace in that particular moment.

Thanks, UP! Will read.

I've been doing that a lot lately. The POV character can read the emotions in another character's eyes.

In another part of the novel I did it with: "Boyd forced his gaze to leave the breasts and meet Lt. Fox's eyes. Worried eyes. Panic-stricken eyes."

That's a much better alternative to head-hopping, but can also be problematic, as it's just another shortcut, and is akin to giving away an ending before the ending of the story. The readers want the story to unfold naturally, not have the author 'spill the beans' prematurely. As usual, the author is focused on the ending, but sometimes, that single focus bites them in the ass when he gives too much information away too soon.

While "worried" and "panic-stricken" are viable literary adjectives, it's still better--depending on context--to draw it out a bit by observing her blinking, or looking away or even biting their lips--each of which introduces the element of doubt, without detailing the nature of the doubt. That part comes later in the story and is steal much of the ongoing story tension. Let the readers hang for a bit, wrestling over why someone is uncomfortable. You want to leave them curious, so they'll keep turning the pages. That way, when they finally figure out the conflict, the resolution is much more satisfactory.

But again, you've to to temper such techniques. Not everything bit of information is essential to the story, and saying that a tertiary character 'looks worried' is fine if they're not playing a significant role in the story, and likely won't remain long enough to explain later what they were worried about.

But the biggest problem with POV issues, aside from yanking readers who associate with the protagonist out of the story, is that the vital information is like a relief valve, allowing the story to lose the vital tensions which make it interesting in the first place. So, let the reader stew for a bit, because that makes it more satisfying when everything finally comes together.