You probably can get away with leaving the basic philosophical question undefined - or reaching the definite yet undefined conclusion of "I don't know and can't know". But what you probably DO have to do is resolve the actual storyline for the characters and events in a way that is satisfying to the reader.That, and if asking the question is your point, the question better be pretty well defined and the importance of the question (and of the act of questioning) should probably be emphasized. Granted I neither write nor read things that are overly abstract, so I might be way off base.
You can have the protagonist start with a POV that he/she begins to doubt or at least becomes less certain about.
If your theme or thesis is "These questions are too big for us to decide," or "We don't know enough yet; we have to keep looking," maybe. But there does need to be a unifying idea of some sort, or it's just verbal diarrhea. Of course, there is also the saying on such matters that "Not to decide is to decide" . . .
Garball, you're describing general themes. A theme doesn't need to be solved. Are these questions all your story is about? If so, you need to come to some sort of resolution, otherwise readers will be disappointed.
I'm not sure how a story could bring up a theme without ever exploring it. How else could it be included? I think the way to stay neutral as a writer is not to ignore the theme(s), but to show contrary facets of each theme(s). Maybe the characters could all have different opinions on these ideas and by the end each of those opinions could appear to be right in part and wrong in part.
There's no mention of first or third person on the page you linked to. I don't think anyone's saying that first or third person is the only important aspect of narration. But it's the aspect that is being discussed in this thread, right?
I have come to find out story writing is not my thing. One character is all I can do. Talk about my thoughts and experiences is my thing as I see them. Question, do I need to be in this forum where others can benefit more than I? Paul
In particular regard to the existence of god. It is a topic of never the Twain shall meet. Those of a religious persuasion and atheists will never agree. An element of doubt in both sides minds can bring them closer without ever meeting. If the conclusion leaves the reader with a sense of hope regardless of what side of the fence they sit, then it may be indecisive but not weak.
I looked at it, I did a search for the words "first" and "third"... what parts of the page do you think are relevant to this thread?
@BayView like...all of it? It's a text on narrative voices - homodiagetic and heterodiagetic are the words to look for ...because that's what "first person" and "third person" narrators are - the fact they are syntaxically represented through certain pronouns and verb structures is secondary to their nature within the narrative context - which is to "tell" from within ("first person" or from a certain distance (various "third persons") to the narrative situation.
I remember a time when I would never read first person. Reading a story in the first person always left me feeling awkward. In fact, it is only recently that I've been turned on to first person narrative and it is honestly thanks to Patrick Rothfuss. When I first picked up The Name of the Wind, I was not aware that the POV changed from third to first as the MC started telling his story. But I kept reading and I found myself really enjoying the style and the limited perspective. Since then, I've taken to looking for first person stories but I am still very choosy so I've only read a handful of them and most of them are only short stories. The most recent first person novel I read was The Poe Shadow by Matthew Pearl. Despite being unimpressed with the story and despising the MC, I really enjoyed Pearl's writing. I may even pick up The Dante Club but that's up in the air. As for writing, well, I always hear how first person is the easiest perspective to write in and I, well, I just don't get it. Every time I've tried writing in first person, I'm unable to take myself out of the story. It's almost like ghost writing for another author and trying to emulate their style. I just can't do it. Writing a journal or a blog is one thing but trying to tell a story through someone else's voice? Yikes! Count me out.
I think you're making things way more complicated than they need to be. What is there on that page that actually adds to the conversation on this page? ETA: Perhaps you could think in terms of "purpose" and "audience" in order to see why I'm not valuing your link. But maybe you don't think those words are good enough, either? Is there a different phrase, perhaps one from a German school's interpretation of English literature, that you'd be more comfortable with?
I believe the whole point is to tell the story. And I have found, myself shifting to 1st person when my POV talks directly to another character in the scene. After writing it I stop breathe for a couple of minutes then read what move them from a talking 3rd to 1st person. Hers a sample of what I's talking about" Melissa could not hold back her laugh when Bob walked through the door. "Bob, "She said, You look like a raccoon with a face mask, If one of those little old ladies from Des-Moines see you she will faint. I'm sure." Bob told Melissa the true story of what happened, then handed her an envelope. Melissa's eye's gleamed as she finished reading the receipt. He said, "Would you like to leave with me tomorrow for a drive to North Dakota?" Melissa, with a big grin said, "Sure, why not, after all I am on vacation." \
@BayView well, Genet is actually French, and the "school of literature" in question is actually just about literature in general, not English literature... Which still is literature. And, while I can understand your sentiment on terminology, the point of using different and specific terms is not to confuse and make things "complicated" - just the opposite! The point is to distinguish specific ideas and notions and build a meta-language that is appropriate for a discourse. And to AVOID confusion. Here, for example, are gramatical terms ("first/third person") used in narratological sense (you might not think much about narratology as a discipline, but when we speak of narrative voices we are discussing a narratological question ) I don't expect you to read the linked text, of course - it was just a suggestion. Audience here? I always hoped it was about learning, exploring, voyaging... Reading new things, re-thinking and re-evaluating? That's reason enough for me to be open for just about everything... A Turkish guy's thought on Tibetan poetry? Sometimes you can learn more about English prose from that sort of texts
I like both for different reasons. I don't limit myself to either in my reading or writing. I think it is important as a writer to explore both. I like pushing my boundaries and experience.
I was referring to the source of the post, not the theory behind it. University of Freiburg, "Basics of English Studies".
I already read it, found it overly complex and not useful to my writing practice... I certainly wouldn't read it AGAIN, regardless of who posted it.
I looked at it, and read it twice. It seems to explain things that I already know, using nonstandard terminology. The distinction between two aspects of what I would call point of view is interesting, but I don't think that I would often, or perhaps ever, find it useful. I say "close third person" and they would presumably say "heterodiegetic with internal focalizer". I find "close third person" to be more useful.
@ChickenFreak it's really a matter of preference, and the situation in which you use this and/or that term. They are almost interchangable (there is always that slight difference that only appears obvious when you know it's there) To me this "technical" terminology comes more naturally and I feel that it might be helpful to introduce it to others who might not know about them. NOT because I think everybody should adopt that terminology... I really posted that link because it seems to me that some people practically equalize the type of the narrator they use with the pronoun - with all the implications this (false) idea comes with... Of course, mastering any "tech" terminology is only useful if you plan to practically use it, and as most people who write are NOT academic schoolars, I think it's quite alright sticking to whatever terms you prefer However, I also believe every one of us is a *schoolar* in the most basic of meaning. So, becoming aware of different ideas, especially when they are relevant to the subject you deal with, is going to do you good. Even if you find them too complex, or simply shitty! This forum is about writing - writing is about literature - narratology deals with literature. Am I missing something if I believe this is the most obvious of logical sequences? And as for "that's a German site, and Germans are funny and what they think can't possibly have any significance to English literature" - well, English is far from being my mother tongue, and English literature for me is simple "literature in English language" as opposed to, say, literature in Swahili.
I'm pretty sure that you're putting words in people's mouths that do not reflect those people's thoughts. I can think of at least three meanings to mentioning the nationality of the site, only one of them at all snarky, and that one not nearly as snarky as you're interpreting. The kinda-snarky one comes from the tendency for some Americans to assume that European thought is superior, and other Americans to get exasperated about that. It wouldn't be "It's German so it can't be any good" so much as "Just because it's German doesn't mean it's better."
