Being concise with writing and editing

[tinkerdan]

Here is a reference to what you speak of here.
Should I Write in Third Person Limited?

Requires it, perhaps not. Is made more immersive by it, often yes. In any case Ursa specified "very close third" (which might not be defined in a dictionary, but which is often used on Chrons), in which character voice is pretty much a given.



Voice should be only one consideration when deciding whether to use close third or first. They are very different beasts.

Deep POV—What’s So Deep About It

Deep POV | Ann Laurel Kopchik

The difference between third person POV and Deep POV • Kristen Stieffel

Consider these before jumping into Deep Third POV.
-----------The following is my opinion again.------------
One clear difference I can see between first person and Deep Third is the one that I often see as the reason for many people to dislike first person. That is the argument that some readers don't like to be told what they do--which is what the first person tends to do since it immerses the reader into the character.(Often that's a sign the reader is reading poorly written first person stories.)

Deep third allows you to change I and me into he; though it's goal is to immerse the reader into the character just as first person does. On top of that it doesn't improve the writing, usually someone writing poorly in first person will do just as poorly in Deep Third.

Again this is my opinion and if you read those articles you may form your own.
Otherwise maybe you should just ignore me.

 

[HareBrain]

A few other differences between deep third and first, though:

1. in deep third it's easier to handle many POV characters.

2. in first, it feels more natural for the narrator to jump about in time or to expand on a thought. It would be perfectly in keeping, although probably not wise, for a first-person narrator to halt the action for a five-page essay on the kind of sword being used.

3. using first-person raises the question (in me at least) of how and from what perspective the narrator is relating the story, e.g. ten years later in a letter to a friend. There might be no possible or likely way of them doing this (to take an extreme example, if the character dies at the end of the story), which loses credibility. First-person present gets round this, but has its own problems that third-person doesn't.

4. a first-person narrator has licence to lie or obfuscate, much more so than a third-person one.

And so on.

 

[tinkerdan]

We are getting off topic.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Third and third close do not require that the POV character be the narrator.

Indeed, most third person is neutral, but sometimes it's written toward character voice. Joe Abercrombie makes a strong point of it in The Heroes, for example. It's something I do myself for different character POV scenes, though I try to be more subtle about it.

 

[tinkerdan]

And that sort of close or deep POV does allow for and call for character voice::

Indeed, most third person is neutral, but sometimes it's written toward character voice. Joe Abercrombie makes a strong point of it in The Heroes, for example. It's something I do myself for different character POV scenes, though I try to be more subtle about it.

:: However those that I've read who speak of this (check the links I placed above for some examples) caution against having more than one POV in this style. I'm not sure I would stick to that caution myself since I'm guilty of mixing first person and third person in my own work.

I suppose the term for more than one Deep POV would be Deep Third Multiple POV I would have to revisit my links on Multiple POV to further understand the differences that would be evident from the Deep Third POV.

 

[Steven Sorrels]

This IMO is what Stephen King was pushing for in On Writing - the need for brevity, and to be as succinct as possible.

That, and that adverbs are the Devil.

 

[crystal haven]

I have read books with several close third or first POV characters, usually in different chapters. One book I've read has several first person POV characters and a third POV running inbetween these throughout the book. It worked well.

 

[tinkerdan]

I have no problem with that; however::

I have read books with several close third or first POV characters, usually in different chapters. One book I've read has several first person POV characters and a third POV running inbetween these throughout the book. It worked well.

:: It does differ from Very close or Deep third (which is basically a way of writing first person without the stigma of I and me). The problem comes when people try to blend deep third with multiple close third because they are different. Although when done well it does give you that Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer flavor to it again without having the reader annoyed with the I and me. However despite what some might think any other differences between Deep third and First person are things that writers are doing at risk. They are taking the chance that their Deep third multiple will keep digressing to a close third multiple which will remove the voice of the character and begin to confuse the reader also causing a bouncing of POV from up close and personal to protracted way out into space.

However matching narrative voice to dialogue and calling that character voice ignores the fact that people write and speak differently, so it wouldn't be unseemly for the character voice in narrative to be different from dialogue. And sometimes the writer needs to decide if concise works for this character's written voice. And that's where you can run into trouble with some readers because they won't recognize that distinction so if a character uses got or ain't or 'cause in dialogue while in first person or deep third and they don't use it in the narrative portion that might throw them off. Yet it would be normal in real life.

That means that even though its not necessarily realistic to have speech affectation in your written work; it somehow becomes integral for consistency that you do. Unless you can find a way to balance the two from the beginning and keep that balance consistent.

Even so it wouldn't be improbable that a person might be long winded in narrative yet short or brief in dialogue. A lot of long winded thinkers use fewer words when speaking. Conversely you could have a short winded narrator who is long in dialogue. And that has a lot to do with social behavior. So once again, though you have to keep the reader in mind, you have to decide how far you go to compromise your character.

 

[Ursa major]

I suppose, now that much of people's written communication consists of having dialogues over the Internet, that some of them might not understand that a person's spoken English (other languages are available) is unlikely to be the same as their written English. However, I doubt many people write as they speak... unless they're doing so deliberately, which is harder than one might imagine (at least for someone like me, who can't type very fast, thus allowing a certain amount of unconscious editing to creep in).

It isn't as if, when writing dialogue, we reproduce what our characters would actually say, word for word: 1) we're aiming for realism, not reality; 2) we're trying to keep the dialogue to the point, i.e. not including all the stuff that a character might say that would be of limited, or no, interest to the general reader (and certainly not including all the repeated words, not to mention all the ers, ums and ahs).


And while we're on the subject, the language I use when thinking is not an exact match to that which I use for either talking or writing. (For example, I suspect my thinking language might, on occasion, be slightly more blue than I'd use in public.) I suspect it's the same for others.

 

[Cory Swanson]

i.e. not including all the stuff that a character might say that would be of limited, or no, interest to the general reader (and certainly not including all the repeated words, not to mention all the ers, ums and has). *sorry, I can never figure out the quotes function. Ursa said this.

What if the ers and ums are there for a reason? It can express a hesitation to answer, say if they are asked a question about something they would rather hide.

And I am not so sure that these rules that tinkerdan is quoting apply as universally as he claims. Even one of the articles stated that you should pull in and out of deep third to give the reader a break.

I read a bunch of 'literary fiction' for lack of a better term. (I know, it sounds super pretentious) Those folks experiment with perspective A LOT. Deep third may be one writer's preferred mode, but I would venture to guess that authors of the hoity toity sort break these 'rules' and get praised for it.

Donna Tart's "The Goldfinch" was first person through and through. Won the pulitzer. I think that is a great argument for doing whatever you want so long as you do it well.

 

[Ursa major]

What if the ers and ums are there for a reason? It can express a hesitation to answer, say if they are asked a question about something they would rather hide.

That's why I said that one wouldn't include all the ers and ums and ahs.

The ones that are relevant would be included.

 

[Cory Swanson]

Ah. Um....er...I guess you have a point.

 

[Ursa major]

I read a bunch of 'literary fiction' for lack of a better term.

As it happens, I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that I first came across a concept that lies behind very close PoV in a non-fiction book written by David Lodge, Consciousness and the Novel (published in 2003). In it Lodge looked at some of, I think, Henry James's prose, and how it included what were, in fact, the PoV character's thoughts that were not written as such (i.e. in first person, present tense), but woven into the narrative (and so in third person, generally in the past tense). I subsequently learnt that Jane Austen, no less, used the technique in Emma.

I've just found the book on Kindle (I'd originally borrowed a copy from the local library, but they no longer possess it), and further found some relevant text (though it may not be what I discovered before).

I'll jump straight in to the middle (muttering something about errors introduced by my typing):

But the illusion that we are sharing Kate's consciousness at the time holds. It does so partly through James's use of a technique known as free indirect speech, or free indirect style.

Here's the Wiki definition of free indirect speech:

Free indirect speech is a style of third-person narration which uses some of the characteristics of third-person along with the essence of first-person direct speech; it is also referred to as free indirect discourse, free indirect style, or, in French, discours indirect libre.

It then offers the following to explain it in action:

• Quoted or direct speech:

He laid down his bundle and thought of his misfortune. "And just what pleasure have I found, since I came into this world?" he asked.

• Reported or normal indirect speech:

He laid down his bundle and thought of his misfortune. He asked himself what pleasure he had found since he came into the world.

• Free indirect speech:

He laid down his bundle and thought of his misfortune. And just what pleasure had he found, since he came into this world?​

It's clear that we have moved beyond sitting on the PoV character's shoulder, "overhearing" their thoughts, ones that might, in that case, have been recorded as:

Just what pleasure have I found since I came into this world? he thought.​

or

Just what pleasure have I found since I came into this world?​

or

Just what pleasure have I found since I came into this world? he thought.
​

but have, to some extent, melded the narrative with some aspects of the character. Whether or not this means that the PoV character has become the narrator can be disputed, but if the narrative now contains unmediated thoughts, is it such a great leap to occasionally blend some aspects of the POV's character's character into the narrative when it's appropriate?

Here's an example (from my WiP1) of a character's state of mind affecting the narration:

Ritter wanted to punch someone.

Being locked in the police cell at the toll point had been bad enough. Par for the course, really, in this Ptah’s puke of a province. But to be arrested by a Guard officer, one he outranked…. A disgrace and a total humiliation, made worse by being palmed off with a clueless lawyer. But at least the old fool had managed to arrange a call to Guard HQ... for all the good it had done. HQ had been less than sympathetic. Yes, the jumped-up ****ers would send the authorisation required to release him, but they had explained, with a “these things take time” speech that would not convince a credulous child, that it would not arrive for hours.

Ritter had always known he would have to work without official sanction, but why the **** was he continually being forced to submit to all these petty indignities? They could have cautioned him on landing. How the hell am I meant to find Major Tausig from inside a cell? It was ***ing impossible.

More thoughts of what he would like to do to his spineless superiors were interrupted by a knock at the door.
​

Note that the narrative isn't always bonded so deeply with the various PoV characters; it's mostly used to create specific effects. (In the above example, I wanted to show Ritter's state of mind.) Also be aware that the narration associated with Ritter's PoV is rather more formal than is the case with most of the others (give or take his use of profanity...).

 

[Ragandar]

Huh, that's interesting. I actually employ this free indirect speech a lot when my characters doubt themselves specifically, though I never realised it until I read Ursa's description of it.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

i.e. not including all the stuff that a character might say that would be of limited, or no, interest to the general reader (and certainly not including all the repeated words, not to mention all the ers, ums and has). *sorry, I can never figure out the quotes function. Ursa said this.

You're probably trying to do it from the "+quote" button, which is for multi-quoting. The one you want is "Reply", which will pop the post in question into the reply box at the bottom of the page, and then you can delete the bits you don't want, and add your own post outside the quote boxes.

Alternatively, you can highlight the bits you want in someone's post, and a little balloon will appear at the end of your highlighting that will allow you to choose "Reply" there, and it will only pop the highlighted bit into the reply box for you.