"I got rejected by Headline yesterday" - Bad luck, Sappho. personally I like my characters flawed - can't stand it when they're more sorted out then me.

Emma, lol.

And now I've come out, all the publishers are saying, 'Nice writing, but all your characters are bonkers.'

Maybe the criticism is that work "all", and not the "bonkers". Mad people only seem mad when they're surrounded by normal people. You need some kind of base for comparison. My little gripe is novels where all of the characters swear like troupers. If it's to make it more realistic then it's just pointless because the additional words mean and say nothing, but if it's to make the characters more interesting then it's still pointless because they cancel each other out. But, if you have one character that curses in every line it becomes part of that particular character and stands out.

Maybe it's the same for lots of zany characters.

Good point, Colin.

And Sappho, you're right; "stuff it" must surely be the approach to take when whole days of agonizing have passed, and not a word has been written!

The main problem with the post I just put up is how to make the base characters more interesting. With Zany characters it's a piece of piss, you just give them quirks and slants to the character, strange or unusual actions/opinions, but to make the straight guy interesting - that takes skill, especially if you're switching POV, because it comes back to the problem of the reader preferring one ot the other. When I was a kid, everyone liked Little and Large, but it was Eddie Large that had the magic, or Bobby Ball, or in the case of Hale and Pace, neither - cos they were shit

<Added>

sorry, a stray italic "liked" got in there. odd.

Maybe the criticism is that word "all", and not the "bonkers".

I was exaggerating. They're not really all bonkers. And what's bonkers, anyway? One character is a bereaved mother, one is in love for the first time, and the other one . . .well, ok, she is quite mad, but in an interesting kind of way.

But I reckon bereavement and love are a fairly normal kind of bonkers.

Anyway, the trick with different narrators is to make them all interesting, of course.

Have you read The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver? That has five different narrators. Actually, they all really irritated me. But at least in that sense, I had no preference. I just wished they's all shut up.

I shouldn't say that. TPB is, apparently, a modern masterpiece.

Colin – So are you insinuating that Little and Large were good???? And Bobby Ball???

Little and Large were the worst thing, when they were on at prime time Saturday night. Oh dear that takes me back! Hale and Pace were shite tho, that’s for sure!!! I saw him (not the one with a tash) in Chicago a few years ago, and he was good actually. I mean the musical, not the city, otherwise that sounds a bit dodgy, like I’m some Z-list celebrity rent boy or something.

As for POV changes, why bother changing between third and first would be my argument, if you’re gonna tell a story, pick one and stick to it, and concentrate on the story rather than trying to be clever or original in the narration, I think that’s what she means, this woman, considering those guidelines are probably for aspiring writers rather than professionals. But if you wanna push yourself as a writer, I expect different narrative POV’s could be interesting and challenging, and if done right could work pretty damn good.

As for multiple POV’s, as in character POV’s in the story, I think that’s a good device in 3rd person, nothing wrong with it, but the POV should be strict, so you have to consider what your characters would see, and think and do. Obviously.

Also I think “What a load of cock!” is a great way to sum up much of what I’ve found out about the publishing “industry”. Made me laugh anyway. And I am bitter.

If I could use Emma's TMOL as an example here. My mum has recently finished reading this and one of her main comments - apart from the fact that she loved the story - was that the POV shifts were an integral part of her enjoyment.

She said that the voices were so clear and distinct that she knew she had shifted within the first few words. I think as a reader this made her feel part of the story more as if Emma was communicating and she as the reader had "got it".

It seems to me that as writers there is no right or wrong way to do these things but if you do it well and your reader "gets" what you are doing then there is an opportunity to really connect.

My mum certainly felt there was more in TMOL than just the story and that a connection between writer and reader had been forged. To my mind this has to be the ultimate in satisfaction for both sides.

So go for it - since your reasons for using the POV shifts are clearly defined and you're not doing it through inexperience it will work out well.

Thanks, Eve - that's encouraging. And what a great plug for TMOL!

Sappho, I've not read TPB, although I distinctly remember a copy sitting for ages on my mother's bedside table. Must remember to ask her what she thought of it...

The problem with using multiple narrators is that there is always a risk your reader will prefer one to the other.

I guess there is a necessity to make any narrator at least enjoyable to listen to, even if they aren't likeable. So maybe the answer to the above remark is that you have to make all your narrators entertain in one way or another, so that even if the reader isn't listening to his or her favourite, at least the conversation's good...

Z

Ooh, Eve, I love your mother! Thank you for posting that. Seriously, my rule of thumb with the voices was exactly that: that the reader should know in the first sentence which of the two voices any section was.

I think in the discussion of how 'literary' - i.e. 'breaking-the-rules' and/or difficult to be - writers and editors underestimate the pleasure readers feel when they do get something that takes a little more thinking and being involved with the book. In fact, I think that's probably one of my definitions of good literary fiction: that there's more to be got, the deeper you dig. I wonder if that's where the sense of communication comes from: that you're involved with the author in a joint project.

Certainly my editor's take on why historical fiction does well is that it makes readers feel clever, because they're using some of their own knowledge and understanding as they read. She also says that it makes readers feel sexy, but that's a different thread...

Sarah I thought TBP was brilliant, until they left the jungle. Should have stopped the story there.

Emma

<Added>

Zooter, yes, most people prefer one narrator in TMOL to the other, as in like. But as long as the other one doesn't bore them, I think that's okay - there absolutely such a thing as being wholly engaged by a character you don't actually like.

there absolutely such a thing as being wholly engaged by a character you don't actually like.

Yes. Definitely. I cannot think of a single one of Ian McEwan's characters (in what I've read of his, which is by no means everything) that I like, but all of them have held my attention, right down to the boy who rapes his ten-year-old sister and the man who lives with his mother and wanks in a cupboard.

On the subject of voice, I actively like books with different voices. As Zooter says, you don't just read a book with your eyes, you also 'hear' the narration, and I like it when there are lots of people talking to me.

Interesting that Sarah, I don't really think about using eyes to read a book, definitely ears!
Maybe that's the key to a lot of questions about writing, that it's heard, rather than contemplated of thought about, or looked at and that a good read must look to its voice to do a lot of the work of engaging and entertaining. Like the best radio actors and announcers the voice should have vigour and idiosyncrasy but never intrude into the magical world it is spinning into existence its very self. That's some trick I reckon.

Z

I read a lot of my work aloud, for exactly that reason: you experience a whole different set of things when the words come in through your ears.

Emma

It took me two years of writing before I was brave enough to read out loud to myself, but then I realised how useful it was.

I remember the first time I joined a writers' circle. I was really paranoid about reading my work aloud so I practiced on my own. It really is amazing the flaws you find when you try to read aloud. Another problem I hit upon was realising that it was often not clear who was talking - okay, this one is usually straightforward on the page, but if you're interested in writing for radio or spoken word, it's well worth the effort.