Sorry, I'm new here and don't know how to do those quote boxy things, but Snowbell, your thoughts are really helpful, thanks! In other words, every time I want to use authorial voice (though embedded in the middle of a scene which is basically all in one character's POV) I must think about that transition, just as I would if I were actually switching to another character's POV?

Rosy.

Think about what POV means; point of view

If you're in Janet’s POV, you experience the world through her eyes – and ears and all her other senses. You are in her mind. And you can keep your readers there too by saying things like It had started to rain instead of She saw that it had started to rain.

If I'm not sure if something will work in the correct POV, I see what it would be like in POV1 so, for instance, can you imagine Janet actually thinking, ‘I sauntered over to the kettle like a just-awake cat.’ ? if not, then leave it out. If you really want to give readers the idea that she is like a cat, then try writing the scene from John’s POV – he could quite realistically think it while he watches her making the tea.

Not sure how helpful this is - sorry, I'm in a rush!

Dee

So, Dee, your approach would rule out having ANY authorial narrative voice intruding at all in one of Janet's scenes...? But isn't that too much of a restriction on the writer? It is as limiting as writing the whole thing in the first person, then, isn't it? Because it precludes you from ever stepping back and letting the reader glimpse Janet with 'outside' eyes for a moment? I can see that keeping all the writing inside her head makes it potentially more engaging, but it does limit what one can do...

I suppose I am wondering what is 'best practice' if there is such a thing. Eighteen months ago a novel which turned out to be rubbish: it was set in the 1980s, and I put in this annoying authorial voice which kept putting events in context, viewed from 25 years on. I came to see (aidede by my agent, who hated it!) that this technique was really aleinating and blocked engagement with the characters. So now I am trying to stay 'close in'. On the other hand, I have been told that Harlequin M&B guidelines instruct their authors to stay rigidly insiden the hero and heroine's POVs throughout and avoid authorial voice. Whereas, as I said earlier, Dickens was hot on the opposite approach! I find it so hard to know what's best.

Rosy.

In other words, every time I want to use authorial voice (though embedded in the middle of a scene which is basically all in one character's POV) I must think about that transition, just as I would if I were actually switching to another character's POV?

As I've said, I'm not an expert but what I think I would need to know to answer this is where is it going next. Whether you go:

Janet's thoughts
Janet from outside
Janet's thoughts

Or whether it is going

Janet's thoughts
His thoughts
Janet's thoughts
Janet from outside
His thoughts

Sort of thing.

If you have:

"Care for a cuppa?" asked Janet. That would make three since lunch - she'd be needing the loo all evening if she didn't watch it. And she didn't want to be out of his company for an instant longer than necessary, not tonight. "Go on, then," said John. How did he manage to make even that sound sexy, as if a cup of tea were a full-body massage? She walked over to the kettle like a just-awake cat.

Then follow this by something like

Why was she so tired? Tonight of all nights?

etc etc etc

that links the action in with the thought. (her thought/action/her thoughts) however if goes

"Go on then," said John.
How did he manage to make even that sound sexy, as it a cup of tea were a full-body massage?
She walked over to the kettle like a just-awake cat.
John wondered why he had said yes to another cup of tea. How much tea could one man drink in an evening?
"Milk and sugar?"
He was picking his sleeve like a gorilla looking for a tick"

That all becomes confusing. However:

"Go on then," said John.
How did he manage to make even that sound sexy, as if a cup of tea were a full-body massage?"
She walked over to the kettle like a just-awake cat. She looked tired, thought John. Did she not want him here? Should he be making a move?

Could work.

I don't think there are rules about how it works so much as being very aware of the pace and rhythm - making sure it is all clear and marked. Which is where awareness of transitions come in. I don't think you need to signal every single thing, but there is a different between "she moved across the room" which is almost like a stage direction and an action in which she is complicit and "she moved across the room like a just-awake cat" which is a POV shift.

Actually the more I look at your example the more I think that it is the linkage between things that is important - why say she is like a just-awake cat anyway unless this is relevant to the action or tells us something - it is shocking us out of the scene not so much because of POV as because it is an extraneous thought with no purpose or relevance. If you have another authorial POV that relates to the rest of the scene then I think that would work fine. But I'd appreciate EmmaD coming in here, as I don't want to give you rubbish advice.

One last thing: I think there is an example of exactly the kind of thing that people try and avoid with POV in your example that you have not noticed and it is the line "How did he manage to make that sound sexy, like a cup of tea was a full-blown body massage?"

That line is ambiguous - you have it on the same line as his speech (implying him). I assume it is her thoughts. But it is not actually that clear as there is nothing in the line that indicates one or the other. That is the kind of thing that makes people stumble with POV shifting - so you just have to be aware of it I think.

Sorry - not too helpful- I am not sure there are concrete rules that don't result in wooden prose. I think the best thing is to keep reading it through pretending you are a reader - find the stumbling points and put it up on WW and we can give feedback on specific stuff if that helps.

<Added>

Sorry the para breaks in my examples all over the place as I'm not too hot with the cutting and pasting - I hope it still makes sense. Important to be aware of that with POV too so that the reader knows what action/thought links to what person/speech etc.

<Added>

So it would go:

"Go on then," said John.
How did he manage to make even that sound sexy, as if a cup of tea were a full-body massage?
She walked over to the kettle like a just-awake cat.
She looked tired, thought John. Did she not want him here? Should he be making a move?

And I might put the How did he... in italics to signal it is her thoughts.

Snowbell, thanks for taking so much trouble with me over this!

In answer to your question, no, there wouldn't be any of John's thoughts/POV in here, too - that would be just TOO confusing! I usually stick to one charcater's POV for a whole scene - except that I do make the occasional mid-scene switch (with heavy signposts for the reader) for some special effect. (Not that this Janet-and-John example is my writing, of course, but if we are using to repersent how I write).

But I think a lot of what you say makes sense. Maybe it's about being aware if/when I am switching to an external narrative viewpoint, and making it more explicit for the reader. Thanks!

Rosy.

No problem. Just worried I've been more confusing than anything. I think EmmaD has a story in the archive she uses to illustrate POV shift. Maybe worth taking a look?

<Added>

Just one more thing to add to your list - being aware of the why you are shifting POV. Because the beauty of it is being able to contradict your character or reveal more of the character, of your character - as it were.


I hate him, I hate him.
Her hand brushed the back of his as she passed.

Something she may or may not be aware of.

Or you might want some comedic contrast:

She didn't care. She was cool. She could handle her tea. She could drink him under the table. Three cups...four cups. If he wanted to play it this way. Fine. Let's pretend nothing had happened.

She held up the kettle like a Rottweiler clutching a leg. "Tea and sugar?" she demanded sweetly.

You get the gist.

I love your examples at the end there, Snowbell!

I can't believe I've got so tied up in knots with this 'narrative voice' thing. My first novel was entirely epistolary (so all first person, hence no problem) and the second one I had no problem with in this respect. It was set in a college so all the characters were similar in terms of their vocabulary and the complecity/abstraction of their thought-processes; so, although they had their own distinct 'voices' (I hope!!) when talking or if I was giving their direct thoughts, the bits of narrative/action in between the dialogue or internal thoughts were just in my own natural storytelling voice, and it never seemed to jar. But my natural narrative style tends to be rather wordy and convoluted, and the thing is that in my current work-in-proress I have a 'working class' heroine - not educated - and although I feel I can convey her speech and thoughts OK, I feel that if I then 'tell the story' in her scenes in my own rather wordy style, it seems intrusive in a way it didn't in my last book.

You say keeping it neutral ("she walked over the the kettle") has the virtue of not breaking the illusion of being inside Janet's head and that makes snese. But then I am not allowed to 'be myself" as a writer! And that is what they always tell you, isn't it? That a writer must try to develop his/her own distinctive voice?

Oh, it's all so tricky!

Rosy.

Hey Rosy - I feel your pain. It's very hard to discuss these things in the abstract - why don't you choose a section that worries you and post it (you can join a group or put it in introduce my work forum) and then we can all take a look and see what jars and why. I think that's probably the best way.

A friend of mine recently wrote a story where her narrative voice is very distanced and sophisticated and her story was about some ridiculous comic characters in the mid-west. In the end it came down to ring-fencing the narrative sections and making sure that the long words didn't "leak" into paragraphs of full of speech, thought and implied character POV (if you see what I mean). I think it works, but where it "leaked", it was very jarring and didn't work so she had to be careful. I don't think every story has to be written in the language of the characters or else you could never have contrasting characters. But it sounds like you know there are problems there - so getting some feedback may be helpful.

Maybe WW David about what's the best way to post (members only or whatever - as I'm not too sure of this stuff.)

You are probably right, Snowbell. I ought to join a group. Thanks!

Rosy.

Hello Rosy, welcome to WW. Hope I'm not butting in here but I ask myself the same questions as you are asking and so far I haven't found completely satisfactory answers.

To what extent should third person narrative POV echo the speech patterns of the character? I agree that actual dialogue and first person narrative (although even here I'm not 100% sure) should stick very closely to the character's speech and style but what about 3rd person? The problem I have is that spoken vocabulary is much more limited than written and it feels restrictive to be limited to the kind of things your character would 'say'.

The compromise I have reached (but I'm not saying it works) is to use a 'guardian angel POV'. I see my 'narrator' as the character's guardian angel in that their main interest is the character but they don't have an existence of their own. He can go inside the character's head but can also sit on their shoulder and tut a little if they do something wrong. At all times the guardian angel is focused on 'his' character, concerned about his/her feelings and is rooting for 'his' character but isn't 'him'. Each character who has a POV has his/her own guardian angel who reflects his/her style. I find that this gives me to have a little distance from the character which gives me more literary freedom. I do hope that this makes some kind of sense to you but I suspect that it's hopelessly jumbled up.

I'm aware that this is probably heresy from a creative writing stand-point but it's a position that I feel comfortable writing from. Whether it's a position readers feel comfortable reading from is another matter.

You are welcome to join our group (Novel 2) if you are interested. We are a fairly eclectic bunch but I enjoy the variety of opinions.

A.

Rosy, I may be repeating things - haven't had time to do more than run my eye down the thread - but I don't think it matters in the least to say, plainly, that she switched on the kettle. I think of those as stage directions, and they're often what you want when you just need to get some info over as plainly and unintrusively as possible. Oddly, it's often less intrusive than something very explicitly from your character's PoV and in her (albeing third person) voice.

The 'omniscient narrator' is a concept that people get confused about, because it seems to come in two different varieties: plain vanilla, when you describe different parts of the scene or different characters' thoughts, that a single character couldn't know, and the fancy one with bells on, where the narrator is as it were a character themselves, with ideas and opinions:

Jane's voice and PoV

She went to get a cuppa going and - god! wouldn't you just know it - she sloshed the water all down her jeans and into her trainers, so that when she'd switched it on she was sure he could hear her soggy trainers squishing stupidly as she sat down again.

Jane's PoV, neutral voice

She went to put the kettle on, but sloshed the water down her jeans so that even her trainers were wet by the time she sat down. She hoped he wouldn't notice, but was afraid that he did.

Plain vanilla omniscient [aka free indirect, see David Lodge's The Art of Fiction]

[her voice/Pov:]Would it be a good idea if they had a cuppa? [neutral stage directions:]She walked to the side and put the kettle on, but sloshed the water down her jeans so that even her trainers were wet by the time she sat down. [his PoV, neutral voice:]He noticed, but didn't like to say anything in case he embarrassed her. [his voice/PoV:]She wouldn't like that, would she? No one would.

Opinionated omniscient

She walked to the side but as so often happens when one's upset, she sloshed the water down her jeans... He, being a man, didn't notice, any more than a man will notice when your bra-strap is too tight.


Personally, if I'm doing omniscient, I would have a bit neutral external stage-direction to ease the slide from one PoV to the other. The story I've got in the archive, Russian Tea, started life as an exercise in moving PoV - you'll see the switches get more frequent as the story moves on and the two people get to know each other better, but always via something external in that way.

Emma

<Added>

I think what I'm saying is that if you are doing omniscient, the key seems to be to know exactly how far you are inside a characters head, and then make sure you get out of it before you move into another. But there's nothing to stop you sliding into any head you like, and out again, and into someone else's. How much you take on their voice as you do so is about how much you're inside their head, I suggest.

Jane Austen is the absolute mistress of this. Ashlinn, that sounds not unlike your concept.

Ashlin, Emma - all of these ideas are really helpful! So much to go away and think about.

(Ashlinn - I've just joined the Women's Fiction group, in fact - but thanks for mentioning your group...)

Rosy.

<Added>

So, do I have to pick one of your 4 examples, Emma, and stick to it throughout the book, or at least be consistent through each scene? At the moment I think I am switching around, mainly doing 'Emma's POV and voice' but sometimes 'Emma's POV and neutral voice' and even occasionally getting as far as the vanilla version of narrative voice, too. Will it matter if I change about???

your approach would rule out having ANY authorial narrative voice intruding at all in one of Janet's scenes...?

Yes, but only because it’s my own personal view. I'm not saying it’s set in stone and the authorial narrator should be consigned to the last century. I don’t enjoy author intrusion when I'm reading, so do my damnedest to avoid it in my writing. I find it dated and distracting.

Bottom line is, you can switch POV as often as you like if you do it convincingly. If you want to change within a scene, it’s fine – so long as you post some kind of subliminal marker to warn readers. You can do this by, for instance, inserting some scene-setting narrative to smooth the transition.

"Care for a cuppa?" asked Janet.
That would make three since lunch - she'd be needing the loo all evening if she didn't watch it. And she didn't want to be out of his company for an instant longer than necessary, not tonight.
"Go on, then," said John. How did he manage to make even that sound sexy, as if a cup of tea were a full-body massage?
Up to here were in Janet’s POV.
She sauntered over to the kettle, looking like a just-awake cat, and clicked the switch, reaching up on tiptoes for the mugs.
This is in John’s POV. The switch is too abrupt and would leave me, as a reader, detached from (aka losing interest in) either of them. However…

"Care for a cuppa?" asked Janet.
That would make three since lunch - she'd be needing the loo all evening if she didn't watch it. And she didn't want to be out of his company for an instant longer than necessary, not tonight.
"Go on, then," said John. How did he manage to make even that sound sexy, as if a cup of tea were a full-body massage?
Outside, the sky was darkening and rain beat against the window, casting Janet into shadow as she sauntered over to the kettle, looking like a just-awake cat, and clicked the switch, reaching up on tiptoes for the mugs.
The line about the rain eases the reader out of Janet’s head and into John’s

Dee


<Added>

Hmmm... that finished a bit abruptly... sure I said something else...

Rosy, to my mind the wonder of plain vanilla omniscience is that you can slip around as much as you like between points of view and voices, as long as you take the reader with you. Which I think is what Dee's saying.

The only thing I would say is that the more time you spend inside a character's head, the more the reader will care about them (you hope). So frequent switches may be risky, if you keep wrenching us away from someone we're just beginning to identify with, and try to burrow straight into someone else's brain. I think it's less risky once all the important characters are well-established. Sorry to keep referring to my own work, but it's the easiest way to explain what I mean. In Russian Tea, the whole of the first three or four pages is one character - say 700 words - and then there's about as long of the other. Even when they actually physically meet I stuck to each one for quite long, but when they meet again, with both (hopefully) well-established, it became less a matter of alternating solos and more of a pas-de-deux. What started as a technical decision turned out to reflect the fact that they're interested in each other (like all the best technical decisions! ) But by that time the reader could be involved with both-at-once, and I was very careful to take the reader with me at each switch.

Emma

Just in case anyone wants a look, Russian Tea is here:

http://www.writewords.org.uk/archive/12696.asp

Emma