Okay, I know I should know this stuff by now, but...

Two characters in a scene, mother (Chrissie) and daughter (Eve). Scene is in (or meant to be) in Chrissie's pov.

Eve is rummaging in a holdall, watched by Chrissie. I want to say,

'Eve gives up on the holdall. She lets it slide to the floor...'

but would that constitute a pov switch? What I mean is, I think it's reasonable for Chrissie to interpret Eve's actions like that, but do I actually have to say something like

'it looks like Eve's given up on the holdall.'

I do, don't I? Bugger. Life was so much simpler when I'd never heard of povs...

<Added>

And yes, guessed who's promised an agent they could have my full manuscript by the end of January and is now scrutinising every word twenty times

I think the first one is fine. It's still in Chrissie's pov, I think. It's what she sees and interprets, as you suggest.

I agree with Jem, it's fine.

I've read commentators who'd try to argue that in the strictest possible terms Chrissie can't know that Eve's "giving up" and "letting" it slide to the floor, rather than, say, it being an accident or carelessness.

But actually, I don't think that would be the right analysis: if we're in Chrissie's PoV then "gives up" and "lets" is Chrissie's interpretation - her word for that movement - and she thinks of it as that.

Eve's PoV way of thinking of it might be different, but that doesn't matter.

Emma

Yay! Thanks, Emma and Jem - I felt it was okay at first, but you know, the more you look at things...

Perhaps Chrissie could 'sigh' and give up on the holdall, if you want to be really anal. Give some physical clue as to how Eve knows eg a sigh, shoulders sagging etc. But then, i think letting it slide to the floor conveys this. Infact, you almost don't need to 'tell' us that she gives up, i think you've 'shown' us by the fact she lets it slide.

If sentences like the one in question need to be put on hold and analysed as potential show-stopping point of view switches, then - for 😂out loud, do some close reading of best sellers and classics and you'll see head-hopping v assumption arguments all over the shop.


We can take things too far - paralsis by analysis - I once read a debate in a creative writing book about the dialogue 'stupid tears' - the debate was along the lines of who the stupid tears belonged to ? - the narrator or the mc- I mean, for frick sake, like the punctuation and spelling in this post, does it matter?
Michael

does it matter?

Not necessarily in the context of a finished novel that you're reading (mainly) for pleasure. A storming piece of storytelling can be pretty badly written, and if it's compelling enough the "bare and ugly scaffolding" (to quote Mark Lawson of Michael Crichton) by which it's transmitted don't matter. As Aristotle said, if you can't manage both a good plot and terrific characterisation and writing, then it's more important to go for the good plot.

But it matters as training for us, I think: it's only by really, really looking at the detail of this stuff that we train our own understanding - which then morphs into intuition - of how apparently technical things affect the reader's experience of the story, whether or not that reader is aware of being affected thus. You'll affect more readers, better, in other words, if you do train yourself in this stuff.

I blogged about this question of whether Real Readers will or won't "notice" here:

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2012/06/real-readers-wont-notice.html

which unpicks things a bit.

Emma

You write that a storming piece of story telling can be badly written and compelling?

Who says so - the grammar polis? If its storming or compelling or both it can't be badly written, no matter how many quotes or blogs are added to the argument.


Michael

I was talking about well written vs badly written as the industry talks about it: the quality of the prose.

For badly-written compelling story? I assume Michael Crichton is compelling, to judge by his sales and even more his sales to film, and I have Mark Lawson's say-so for it - his prose is certainly ugly in the five pages I tried. Same with Stephen King - I think I managed ten pages, can't remember which book, but horror isn't my genre and, again, interest in the story couldn't carry me forward over the prose.

Agatha Christie's prose is nothing to get excited about (not a patch on Sayers) but I like detective fiction and I keep reading, or I did - someone like Kate Atkinson manages both storytelling and good writing, as did Mary Stewart and Gavin Lyall back in the 60s and 70s. In the 70s the vast-selling Susan Howatch and Judith Krantz I kept reading because the stories were as well built as say King, but in a genre I like better, and the prose, again, does the job but is pretty clunky. JKR's prose is only so-so but the early ones (haven't read the later ones so can't comment) are terrific storytelling - again, the writing is nothing to get excited about in itself but it does what's needed: conveys the story with clarity and energy.

I understand Emma,
I was just making a point.
Your posts are always helpful and informative.
Keep up the good work.
Michael

This is complicated, isn't it? Technique - by which I mean thinking about things like POV - doesn't come easily to me, and discussions about psychic distance tend to make my head spin.

I'm a sucker for a good plot (love most of Stephen King's stuff), but I have noticed that I'm less forgiving of bad writing than I used to be. It jumps up and down at me and says, 'Hey, I got a bit lazy here. Hope you don't mind, but you probably won't notice anyway, will you?'

On the other hand, sometimes I think I'm getting too fussy. I am pulling myself up for things like the query which I started this thread with, things I'd not even thought about before, with the result that editing the wip draft is taking forever.

Logically, I know there is a balance to be struck, but I'm definitely not there yet