Pros and cons of having a narrator

So in short, I want an in-universe narrator (as an actual character) for my draft, but I'm not sure if implementing narration in the story itself would actually work, mostly because "narration" seems to be mostly reserved for ye olde medieval texts from ancient times. I'm not sure if having an in-universe narrator would have benefitary means? (especially if the disembodied narrator "disappears", due to plot reasons)...

Any advice on this plot development would be helpful at this point?

 

I've not used the narrotor form yet, exactly because I can't picture what would happen if the narrator isn't involved in a bit of story I think should be told. But, if you can overcome that hurdle, the size of which for you might not be the same as for me, I do not believe they're mainly reserved for 'ye olde ancient crap'.
I don't see why an epic tale of space fight and wormhole-hopping couldn't be told to us by someone who witnessed it first hand.

Practical example: Mad Max/The Road Warrior was narrated by that feral kid with the wholly irresponsible boomerang toy. That's a classic set in a future right there.
So, the only useful advice I can give you is to forget the idea a recent/modern/futuristic piece shouldn't be narrated.

 

I've done several projects with an in-character narrator. All of them have been set in the present day and the narrative voice pretty colloquial. Personally I really enjoy working with this mechanism, I like that it allows the text to be a little more free-flowing and less linear (at least if the narrator is looking back on past events, you can inject things like), and also potentially more humourous if the narrator is the witty type (or thinks they are).

The major con for me is the one you point out, namely that it becomes harder to deal with stuff not personally experienced by the narrator, both in terms of events and in terms of the inner workings of other characters (especially those who wouldn't naturally confide in the narrator). Ways you can get around this include having the narrator relay things told to them (e.g. 'Other Character told me later that...'), employ more than one narrator, or use other sources like letters, newspaper clippings, etc. You can also just go into standard third person narrative mode for certain key events, but IMO this is the most jarring option for the reader so personally I would use it sparingly, and only where no other option is available.

 

I think the crucial point is whether the narrator is a person (a character in the story, like Watson telling us about Holmes) or a disembodied Omniscient or Objective narrator, who can be anywhere the story requires, including inside a sealed room or a tomb or showing us a blood clot in a character's brain.

I once again defer to the excellent resource Novel Writing Help: POV—The Complete Guide

This article explains quite clearly the differences between the narrator, the POV character, the author, and the protagonist, which is necessary to understand. It also links to many other articles explaining parts of it in greater detail.

 

I feel as though narration doesn't have to have the ancient times feel to it if it's done properly. Really the only questions you should be asking are how it's essential to the plot? Can it be used to drive the plot forwards? For example, a protagonist in a coming-of-age story can use narration to demonstrate the personality of a young and inexperienced individual that really is just searching for his or her place in the world.

 

I was thinking since this particular character is the narrator of the story itself, that I should give her (the narrator) some special powers pertaining to her own ability to narrate (ala puppetry and/or marionette styled stuff)... I'm not sure how to incorportate her 'powers' into the narrative though?

 

I like to think of the mannequins as a "metaphorical/symbolic quality" of the narrator herself, since what she says will affect the whole story with her words alone...

 

Yes, this.

Is your narrator a character who is involved in, or influences the plot in any way? The narrator who is involved in the plot is usually referred to as a 'First Person' Character. (A First Person Character who narrates the story can be the protagonist or just a bystander ...like Watson in Sherlock Holmes. But Watson does do things that influence the plot, so he is a character in his own right.) The reader experiences whatever the First Person Character does, more or less in real time ...which can produce a very immersive and emotional experience. The First Person Character lets us in on his/her thoughts and feelings and observations—which may or may not be accurate. On the other hand, there is the problem that this character can't narrate what he/she doesn't know. So you need to either create more than one "I" narrator in the story (and make it clear when you switch) in order to offer several points of view, or frame the story so the narrator doesn't need to see what other characters are doing 'offscreen.' (Either other people tell the First Person Character what he/she needs to know, or he/she simply remains mystified by—or ignorant of—events they're not part of.)

This First Person narrator can also relate the story from hindsight, of course. They are old now, but they're relating the story of their younger days, etc. This may give them a broader perspective on what happened to them. It's the concept (not the clichéd words) of If I'd only known then what I know now, etc This hindsight can influence the way the story gets told. And, of course, the readers also know at the start where the narrator has ended up ...so a bit of jeopardy is lost. (We know they survived the story's events, even if we don't yet know how.) But many many great stories have been told this way.

Then there is your disembodied Omniscient Narrator, who is not a character in the story at all, but who, nonetheless retains some aspect of personality. The Omniscient Narrator plays the role you would play if you were telling a friend the entire plot and character development of a movie you just saw. You can interject comments and opinions on the characters, plot, etc as you describe 'what happened', but you won't have actually experienced the events yourself. You've only witnessed them, second-hand.

This is also a fairly common kind of storytelling framework. It gives you the opportunity to state opinions about characters and situations.

This kind of narrator can be the author's genuine voice and opinions ...or the author can just pretend to have them.

This Omniscient Narrator makes for a slightly less immersive experience for the reader. The reader isn't as apt to think or feel what the characters do, but, instead, responds the way the Omniscient Narrator tells them to respond.

Then there is the 'Invisible Narrator.' That's the author, who doesn't directly offer opinions. The author certainly forms reader's opinions by what the author chooses to include in the story and how they present characters and situations. If the author wants you to think a character is hypocritical, you will be shown an instance or two where the character is behaving that way—and you're expected to figure this out for yourself. This is an immersive experience for the reader, despite the Third Person voice. Like the First Person Narrator, the Invisible Narrator forces readers to come to their own conclusions.

All three of these approaches work very well indeed. But each one has a different effect on the reader. A First Person narrator, for instance, might not tell the reader everything, or reveal everything. In fact, they may deliberately lie. That's something the reader needs to be aware of—they might be getting led up the garden path by an unreliable First Person narrator. However, if the Omniscient or Invisible Narrator leaves important information out of the story, the reader is likely to feel cheated.

 

To answer your questions, the multiverse's narrator has a very tight metafictional "control" of the storyline via her own warped abilities to manipulate others. This narrator tends to utilise forbidden magic to control a small replica of a town... Whatever the circumstances, the crafted dolls within the replicated town represent actual characters, and whatever the narrator does to the dolls has an indirect "butterfly effect" upon the characters themselves. Thoughts on this?

 

Wow! Well, what you've got there at first glance seems to be an omniscient (and possibly omnipotent) narrator who's also a character in the story. Interesting. It's like almost literally writing from a God's-eye-view.

 

From a storytelling point of view, this issue could boil down to how much @takadote26 wants the readers to know. Does @takadote26 want the reader to know the characters are being manipulated? If the answer is no, the story could be quite powerful, in that the reader won't discover, till the end, that all the characters were NOT acting of their own free will, but being totally controlled by a warped magician. But that would prove difficult to pull off if the magician is the narrator. Unless the magician is a completely unreliable narrator, and is lying to the reader for most of the story.

What I'm not seeing yet, is the central story conflict. If the victims are unaware they're being manipulated, the magician can do whatever she wants, can't she? And nobody opposes her?

Where is the conflict? Who is the protagonist? Who (or what) is the antagonist? Where is the story headed? Thus far we have a powerful, manipulative character, and a bunch of puppet characters. That's a good start, but the story need to go somewhere. Where it's heading will influence what kind of narrator @takadote26 chooses to use.

Think of the effect on the reader. What effect do you want to produce with your choice of narrator, @takadote26 ?

 

No I don't want the readers of the main story to know that the other characters were secretly controlled by an ultra-powerful dark magician (who is also the narrator by default)... The main conflict begins when the narrator herself disappears for a lengthly period of time (25+ years) while the other characters are gradually drawn into the decade-long mystery of exactly where she went, (and what had caused her disappearance in the first place)...

 

Speaking as somebody who had to re-think my approach to my own novel, due to a similar narrator dilemma, I'd say it's VERY difficult to use a first person narrator who is keeping secrets from the reader. Not impossible, but difficult.

In my case, I found I had to spit it out early, so the readers knew what my character knew, but what the other characters in the story didn't. It transformed the way my readers engaged with my story. Instead of turning pages in increasing frustration, wondering what is WITH that guy, they started out knowing what HE knew, and watched the story unfold through his eyes. That worked, while my original plan didn't.

Just going by what you've said here, I think I would choose either an omnipotent 'invisible' narrator, or choose one or more of the other characters as a narrator—the characters attempting to solve the mystery of your magician's disappearance. That way your readers will be drawn into sympathising with these characters ...and maybe be shocked at the end to realise the whole exercise was actually being controlled all the time by the absent magician.

If you want your magician to narrate at least part of the story, you could start with maybe a short prologue from her point of view, where she says something like "I'm now going to disappear. I want them to come looking for me..." without letting on that she's actually controlling the whole show.

However, I'm still not seeing where the story is going. If you do know, and just haven't told us here on this thread, that's okay. But if you, yourself, don't yet know how this is going to end, that might be part of the problem you're having with the narrator issue.

 

@takadote26 - I think we crossed in the ether! I edited my post and added a bit after you 'liked' it ...another suggestion, actually.

 

Maybe I'm a bit confused but don't all stories have a narrator?

 

Have you read the Great Gatsby? As much as I despise that book, the in-character narrator does work. He's someone involved in the plot and does a few things of his own. I don't see why doing that wouldn't work, so long as you treat him like any other character and have him take actions specific to him with his type of personality. Another option is to write the story as though it's being told by the narrator to the reader.

Any sort of writing technique can work. It doesn't matter if it's "ye olde" so long as the story is interesting and works.

 

I have read that novel a long time ago, but sadly I don't recall much from that novel other than the symbolisms and the 1920's Jazz Age in that particular era. Any other questions about the narration in the meantime? I basically was raised with knowing a lot of international folktales with a narrator always explaining the character's actions and so forth.

 

Perhaps the more heavy-handed narrator is played out. But in essence, in the Great Gatsby, the narrator is a person who is friends with Gatsby, talking about what happened to Gatsby. This character also has a love interest of his own, but that doesn't take up too much time in the story. I guess what I'm saying is, if you really want a narrator, maybe grab one of your side characters and have him tell the story.