I'm not entirely sure what I hope to achieve by posting this....maybe just to clarify this newly discovered concept for myself....but feel free to post your thoughts and we';; argue it out til we all get it In first person fiction, its often assumed that there has to be an indexical continuity between the narrating-I and the character being narrated. This assumption means that the narrator cannot possibly know the thoughts of other characters, for instance, and yet this often occurs in first person fiction (Moby Dick is the example provided in the account I read - in chapters 38-39, the narrator narrates the thoughts of several other characters, before returning to Ishmael in chapter 41, despite remaining in first person the whole time). Since we cannot simply write this phenomenon off as a mistake or a lapse in authorial skill, it is necessary to consider the possibility of a first person voice that is not the character referred to in the first person (the author proposes this third voice be called the Impersonal Narrative Voice, though notes that it has been more familiarly referred to as 'the spirit of storytelling, a "spirit" that is only able to be referred to in the third person, yet is capable of speaking as the first person). So, what are your thoughts on this? Do you think that this type of voice in fiction is something that could/should be more readily employed, or do you think that the binary of narrating-I/narrated-I should be upheld?
It's just a narrative device. Things like 1st person are only as defined as you use them. If I wanted my character to read that guys mind for no reason with no explanation, it means just that. Most of the time the actual story won't have anything to do with it.
It's not the same as reading a character's mind - the thoughts thought by the impersonal voice aren't known to the narrated-I, which is why the shift is necessary in the first place. It means the narrator becomes omniscient for a period (at least in that it can shift away from the protagonist, the narrated-I), which is often (on this site, and by many critics) either rejected as a mistake/innaccuracy, or simply not explained at all.
Personally I would never use it. If I wanted to write omnipresent, I would write in third person. A first person omnipresent narrator doesn't make sense to me.
I must agree with archi... The fact that the example given is Melville doesn't keep the phenomenon you mention from being bad writing. He's basically changed from FP to TPO within the story and probably did so because he felt pinched and needed to get out of Ishmael's head to tell a part of the story. I wasn't there when he was putting quill to parchment so I can't tell you 100% for sure why he's done it, but that's what he has done. Since it's Melville we excuse what would not be excused in modern works. Kinda' the way we don't ask where Cain's wife came from because it's the Bible, but try that in any other book and see if the editor doesn't circle that passage with a red pen and write Wife? Where from? Plot hole!! next to it.
Don't you think its a little close-minded to claim that omniscience in first person is inexcusable? I mean, realism is just one of the huge number of stylistic choices available to an artist. So even though its not realistic to have an omniscient first person narrator (not that this is that simple...the omniscient voice is not a character, its simply an abstract voice, in the same way that the character's voice in first person is a dual voice of the writer and the character) it isn't wrong unless total realism was the aim.
No one used the word inexcusable. A few people felt it was ill-advised. Turning mentions of the word excuse into the word inexcusable is a form of manipulation, a logical fallacy called equivocation. You asked for, and received opinions.
In writing there are few inexcusable things, so long as you get away with it. Melville did. That being said, what Melville could get away with and what the average (or even above average) unpublished writer who aspires to traditional publication can get away with are often not even in the same universe.
I personally avoid doing that in FP. My MC can make an assumption about what another character is thinking, but then it falls into a possible fallacy of the MC, which can lead to conflict and tension between the characters, just as it does in real life. How often do we do that in real life? We assume someone is mad at us because they haven't returned our phone call, but the reality of the matter could be they were just too busy and forgot and it had nothing to do with us. How often do we assume what another person is thinking and then jump to the wrong conclusion, or sometimes the right conclusion. How often do we observe someone's behavior and make a character judgment about them based on not what they say, but what they do? It should be the same way in fiction. Fictional characters are based on our human understanding, whether they are alien or human. Thus their perspectives can and are often filled with wrong and correct assumptions. To jump out of a characters FP head and start talking as if it is fact that they know what some other character is thinking (without that character stating it or showing the behavior) would pull me out of the story. This is part of why I didn't like Moby Dick, though the other part is because it bored the ever living tears out of me. It isn't so much a matter of what you can or can't do as a writer, it is a matter of if the readers are going to want to read it should it be published. If you think you can pull it off and make a great story, then go ahead and write it. But if it is reviewed by editors or peers and they find it annoying, then you have failed in what you are aiming for, a publishable-readable-enjoyable story. I don't follow rules of writing. I write. Then I tear stuff apart like an editor would. Does pulling the view back from FP POV and making it into FP Omniscient POV really work for the story? Does it create tension by letting the reader in on something that the MC in FP doesn't know about? Or is it just a way to mimic TP POV without writing the entire story in TP POV? I personally wouldn't do it. Not because I couldn't, but because I don't want to read a story like that. It would be awkward and confusing to me as the reader. I don't write my character's voice in FP as a duel voice of my own and my character. I write as my character. Maybe it is from the acting training I've had, the ability to fully submerge myself in the character's mind and let the character's voice come through above my own. But, then again, you did ask for our opinions on rules made up by other writers. I say rules are made to be broken, but only if breaking the rules creates a more interesting piece of art. And like much else in life, a story is only worth something if someone else puts value in it. If we write a story that no one likes, then there is no value in it. As long as at least one person finds value in it, then it is worth something.
Close minded? Ouch. I'm many things, but rarely that. The omnicient first person you mention simply feels like a cheat to me, like an ace up the sleeve. The writing is going along swimmingly in the FP and then the writer comes up against a stumbling block and decides, "Ok, I was fine until now, so..... whatever with the rules of FP." I love breaking the rules both in my writing and in my reading. I'm sure the forum is going to boot me if I mention China Mieville once again, but... He breaks all kinds of rules in the blending of disparate genres and head hopping. I'm willing to not only accept these things but even enjoy them because, though this my break with convention, it doesn't break with logic. Asking me to accept that the FP narrator should know the inner machinations of another character's mind without having been told by the other person or without some explanation of ESP powers... No. This pushes me past what I personally can "buy" as the reader. It represents a break in logic that would make me close the book, Melville or no.
I think I once wrote a story of sorts based on this. Then again the character was literally God so...
Maybe I didn't explain it well.... The use of an impersonal narrative voice does not imply an omniscient character, its a tool used by the author to reveal things to the reader beyond the limitations of the character, the narrated-I. To provide another example, in Glamorama by Bret Easton Ellis, the main character (in present tense) comments on a black limo that he did not notice. Given that it is in first person present tense, it cannot be explained by the character reflecting on the past, and there is no reason that the character would lie or be unreliable in his account, which means the only way left to explain it is the use of an impersonal narrative voice, a first person voice besides that of the character, the narrated-I. So while the impersonal narrative voice may be considered omniscience, it should not be assumed that the main character has become omniscient, instead that the author has chosen to shift the focalisation away from the character to reveal something important but beyond the comprehension of the MC.
As far as I'm concerned, all these perspective arguments are kind of useless. If your story is good it will be good, no matter if you change perspective like Melville did. Hence why the book ruled. The only inexcusable thing in writing is to write nothing.
I personally like impersonal narrative. Douglas Adams only writes in this way and I read his books over and over again.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the only book by Adams I have on hand) is narrated in the 3rd person, which has parallels with the impersonal narrative voice in first person (which is what I've been talking about) but is not the same.
I have been told I have a good 'writing voice' or 'story-telling voice'. But I am not so sure what constitutes a writing voice. Is it measured in terms of weak or strong voice? Or,...... ?? I think it will help me in my writing knowing what kind of a voice I want to portray in a particular story?
Your witing voice is your individual style of writing. It includes word choice and sentence structure, but also includes harder to pin down aspects like how you arrange and introduce story elements and your use of humor or suspense or imagery. It is what distinguishes one writer from another. It is what amkes you look at a few paragrapsh and say to yourself, "This reads like Bradbury." As you continue to write and gain experience, your voice will develop.
Yes. Yeah! Right on, bro! To be sure! That is certainly a valid explanation, cog. Oh, how wonderfully descriptive you can be, dear, sweet cogito! [note: the above are examples of various writer's 'voices']
^ Agree to what you said about Cog. My doubts clearly explained as always. Thanks. @Cogito: I also thank you for the various blog articles you have posted. I have learned a lot from them.
There's a good article on voice at Help! I Need a Publisher!, that introduced me to the concept: http://helpineedapublisher.blogspot.com/2009/02/big-mistake-1-slip-of-voice.html
There's a good article on voice at Help! I Need a Publisher!, that introduced me to the concept: http://helpineedapublisher.blogspot.com/2009/02/big-mistake-1-slip-of-voice.html
When you write a lot, people tend to pick out patterns or tendencies in your works. Like when I think of J.K. Rowling, I think of lots of realistic dialogue ("er's" and "um's") and perfectly balanced third-person. When people read my writing, they recognize the plethora of compound sentences (without "and's" or "but's") and four-period ellipses when at the end of sentences.
So, I have a question for you fine folks. Say you are working on a project. One day you come across a published book...it's in the same genre as yours, and there are some similarities, but the style, voice, messages and themes of the book are very different. Do you scrap the project in the interest of complete originality? Or do you say to yourself, "Screw it, nothing's completely original anyway," and continue to work with a devotion to drawing out your unique voice and point of view? And: do you think it would harm your chances at being published? ("Well, there's already a book out about geisha, so, no thanks.") I appreciate your input! Serra
Of course I continue. If you stopped working on every project that had some similarities then you would never write again. You can pull several books, even if different genres, and could probably find similarities in them aswell. Write what you want to write.
There's nothing out there that is completely original, so I'd keep going. No, most publishers care about how well a book will sell and how well it is written.
