Tight third - an invention of the 20th century?
Zeborah
you?"(1) and one of the questions is about pov. So far I've completed
research for 15 our of 26 authors for the quiz, and thought I'd check
out what gaps there are in the answers, so I can fiddle things to make
sure they get filled.
Mostly the gaps are just in theme-type things -- I may need to bunch
answers up a bit more tightly -- but I also noticed that so far none of
the authors have responded 'yes' to "single tight third" or "multiple
tight third". It's all either first or omni. And glancing at the
planned list of 11 remaining authors, I *think* none of them have used
tight third either.
Any counter-examples? I'd like as broad a variety of authors as
possible. A dead non-anglophone female would be ideal, but otherwise
anyone whose works qualify for Project Gutenberg would be fine.
Zeborah
(1) Because that way the authors I'm basing it on can't take the quiz
themselves and get someone other than themselves. Mwa ha ha!
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Mary Gentle
(Zeborah) wrote:
> So I'm working on a cute Javascript quiz, "Which classical novelist are
> you?"(1) and one of the questions is about pov. So far I've completed
> research for 15 our of 26 authors for the quiz, and thought I'd check
> out what gaps there are in the answers, so I can fiddle things to make
> sure they get filled.
>
> Mostly the gaps are just in theme-type things -- I may need to bunch
> answers up a bit more tightly -- but I also noticed that so far none of
> the authors have responded 'yes' to "single tight third" or "multiple
> tight third". It's all either first or omni. And glancing at the
> planned list of 11 remaining authors, I *think* none of them have used
> tight third either.
>
> Any counter-examples? I'd like as broad a variety of authors as
> possible. A dead non-anglophone female would be ideal, but otherwise
> anyone whose works qualify for Project Gutenberg would be fine.
Ehh. I'm not sure how 'classical' he is, but Stanley Weyman's on
Gutenberg, and he does tight third. In fact, there's an essay in the
collected edition where he specifically says he's experimenting with
various techniques in various different books, and tight third is one of
the things he mentions.
Multiple tight third, in fact. And it's either 'The Abbess of Vlaye' or
'Count Hannibal', I believe.
And just thinking about what he does technically, he's an underrated
author who ought to be due for a revival one of these days. But whether
that'll happen in time for him to qualify as a quiz subject, who knows...
Mary
Most recently published:
1610: A SUNDIAL IN A GRAVE, novel, Orion UK, hc & tpb
CARTOMANCY, short story collection, Orion UK, pb
Zeborah
> In article <1gitclu.4knvijv43yyN%zeb...@gmail.com>, zeb...@gmail.com
> (Zeborah) wrote:
[A gazillion classical authors who write in either omni or first person]
> > Any counter-examples? I'd like as broad a variety of authors as
> > possible. A dead non-anglophone female would be ideal, but otherwise
> > anyone whose works qualify for Project Gutenberg would be fine.
>
> Ehh. I'm not sure how 'classical' he is, but Stanley Weyman's on
> Gutenberg, and he does tight third.
Thanks!
>In fact, there's an essay in the
> collected edition where he specifically says he's experimenting with
> various techniques in various different books, and tight third is one of
> the things he mentions.
Tight third. As an experiment.
One spends all this time just assuming that tight third is a really
basic point of view (unless one is Graydon, of course, who's probably
smirking right now) and then it turns out to be an experiment. A
temporary aberration in the history of literature.
> Multiple tight third, in fact. And it's either 'The Abbess of Vlaye' or
> 'Count Hannibal', I believe.
>
> And just thinking about what he does technically, he's an underrated
> author who ought to be due for a revival one of these days. But whether
> that'll happen in time for him to qualify as a quiz subject, who knows...
I was vaguely thinking of doing a sequel entitled "What really obscure
writer are you?" and including the author (whose name I've forgotten) of
_The Autobiography of a Pocket Handkerchief_.
After I've finished this, and simulated Asimov's "Bard", and oh yes I
have an assignment due in ten days...
Zeborah
Fanfic28
>> One spends all this time just assuming that tight third is a really
>> basic point of view (unless one is Graydon, of course, who's probably
>> smirking right now) and then it turns out to be an experiment. A
>> temporary aberration in the history of literature.
>
>is deeply confused about the distinction between their opinions and the
>laws of the universe;
A commonplace confusion.
You never have to go very far to find people who think anything
they don't understand is nonsense, that their way is the only
right way, and that anyone who disagrees with them is either
mad, bad, or stupid.
> it suits Miles Vorkosigan to a T.
>
>But as a general thing? I still don't get it.
>
First person raises many questions.
Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so,
when and for who? It doesn't seem the way anyone would tell
their autobiography, unless they were deliberately using
the conventions of fiction, and then they'd either need an
amazing memory or have to be inventing most of the details.
Bertie sounds more like he's describing the events of five
minutes ago, clearly not the case.
Such questions are easier to ignore if the narrator is
invisible.
In omni, the narrator is, but there's nothing tieing them
to the story, nothing preventing them going on a forty page
digression into the courtship rituals of woodpeckers or
the history of the diadochi. Nor is their any good reason
for them to conceal relevant information from the reader.
By nailing the narrator to one character, tight third
makes some errors harder and provides a good excuse
for concealing information.
Of course, some writers can discipline themselves but,
for those who can't, tight third can impose discipline.
They're forced to find creative ways round the restrictions,
which can improve the story -- or so it seems to the
reader.
--
Discover the price of the Wish at
http://members.aol.com/fanfic28/cwishmain.html
(A Buffy Fan Fiction Site)
Mary Gentle
wrote:
> In <1givy59.1kk73o31a5lpfhN%zeb...@gmail.com>, Zeborah
> <zeb...@gmail.com> onsendan:
> > One spends all this time just assuming that tight third is a really
> > basic point of view (unless one is Graydon, of course, who's probably
> > smirking right now) and then it turns out to be an experiment. A
> > temporary aberration in the history of literature.
>
> I think it's an ideal viewpoint for a particular kind of character who
> is deeply confused about the distinction between their opinions and the
> laws of the universe; it suits Miles Vorkosigan to a T.
>
> But as a general thing? I still don't get it.
I'm wondering where you stand on biography (as opposed to autobiography) -
that particular focussed-in type that abandons omni-comment on the
subject?
Mary Gentle
(Zeborah) wrote:
> Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1gitclu.4knvijv43yyN%zeb...@gmail.com>, zeb...@gmail.com
> > (Zeborah) wrote:
> [A gazillion classical authors who write in either omni or first person]
> > > Any counter-examples? I'd like as broad a variety of authors as
> > > possible. A dead non-anglophone female would be ideal, but
> > > otherwise
> > > anyone whose works qualify for Project Gutenberg would be fine.
> >
> > Ehh. I'm not sure how 'classical' he is, but Stanley Weyman's on
> > Gutenberg, and he does tight third.
>
> Thanks!
A much-underestimated writer, Mr Weyman...
> >In fact, there's an essay in the
> > collected edition where he specifically says he's experimenting with
> > various techniques in various different books, and tight third is one
> > of
> > the things he mentions.
>
> Tight third. As an experiment.
Heh. I grant you it sounds weird. To be fair, his major successes
(including the one they made stage plays and films out of) were in first
person. And he'd done omni, I'm almost sure. So, he says in his intro,
he wanted to know what else he could do... and tight third was on his
list.
Weyman does do some /really/ good technical stuff with the pattern of the
historical romance -- 19th century version, I should add: nothing _like_
the current version. My favourite's the perfect 180 degree turn that
swaps a main villain into the hero by the end of the book (and the hero
into - well, not a villain. A wimp, really.) That's up there with
Cabell's book of short stories where the villain of one story becomes the
hero of the next, and so on; i.e. worth squirrelling away and stealing
when the right plot occurs. :)
> One spends all this time just assuming that tight third is a really
> basic point of view (unless one is Graydon, of course, who's probably
> smirking right now) and then it turns out to be an experiment. A
> temporary aberration in the history of literature.
Graydon's allowed his smirk, I think - ISTM the basic story mindsets are
first person ("this happened to me") and omni ("this happened to these
people I know"). Autobiography and anecdote. Focussing omni down to the
limitations of first person... really, it gets odder every time I think
about it. Cue migraine headache again. <g>
Although I can see the point of doing multiple tight third, if only for
all the uses of irony that that allows, which it would be difficult to do
the same way in omni. Not impossible with 'invisible omni', but still
difficult.
I have a vague feeling that tight third relates precisely to camera-eye --
or 'theatre-eye', in the days before films -- when you want to observe
from the outside, but without the moral freight that omni tends to carry
in its 'dear reader' model. Or maybe it's just fiction wanting to
colonise the appearance of biography?
> > Multiple tight third, in fact. And it's either 'The Abbess of Vlaye'
> > or
> > 'Count Hannibal', I believe.
> >
> > And just thinking about what he does technically, he's an underrated
> > author who ought to be due for a revival one of these days. But
> > whether
> > that'll happen in time for him to qualify as a quiz subject, who
> > knows...
>
> I was vaguely thinking of doing a sequel entitled "What really obscure
> writer are you?" and including the author (whose name I've forgotten) of
> _The Autobiography of a Pocket Handkerchief_.
>
> After I've finished this, and simulated Asimov's "Bard", and oh yes I
> have an assignment due in ten days...
A mere nothing, I'm sure... <g>
Lucy Kemnitzer
said:
>In <memo.2004082...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com>, Mary Gentle
><mary_...@cix.co.uk> onsendan:
>> In article <slrnciebo...@grithr.uniserve.com>, o...@uniserve.com
>> () wrote:
>>> In <1givy59.1kk73o31a5lpfhN%zeb...@gmail.com>, Zeborah
>>> <zeb...@gmail.com> onsendan:
>>> > One spends all this time just assuming that tight third is a really
>>> > basic point of view (unless one is Graydon, of course, who's
>>> > probably smirking right now) and then it turns out to be an
>>> > experiment. A temporary aberration in the history of literature.
>>>
>>> I think it's an ideal viewpoint for a particular kind of character
>>> who is deeply confused about the distinction between their opinions
>>> and the laws of the universe; it suits Miles Vorkosigan to a T.
>>>
>>> But as a general thing? I still don't get it.
>>
>> I'm wondering where you stand on biography (as opposed to
>> autobiography) - that particular focussed-in type that abandons
>> omni-comment on the subject?
>
>I don't think that's a good idea, really; biography is supposed to be
>history, and abandoning the attempt at defensibility of conclusion seems
>to me to be a bad thing.
>
>I have not, to be sure, read a lot of biography, so there may well be
>some splendid examples with which I am unfamiliar.
>
>Shall I get into the implausiblity of the story past, where events that
>have happened unto their ends and conclusions are supposed to generate
>tension about outcomes? That's a very strange mapping indeed, from the
>shifting then to the reader's supposed static now.
I don't think the story past is meant to convey pastness. I think in
English anyway it's equivalent to the way we used to (and sometimes
still use) a form that sounded like the past to indicate the
subjenctive. (I don't mean it is the subjunctive: otherwise other
languages sharing the same literary traditions would write their
stories in the subjunctive and I have not seen that) It's a _marker_
and a _marker_ only, that a story is being told. For most stories.
Otherwise, why would we use the past in stories about events
supposedly taking place in our future?
When people use the present, what they do is mark the story _again_.
They say: "you were expecting a story told in the usual way, but this
story is different."
And the effect, I think, most often, is to make a timeless, but more
distant, ambience. Which suits some stories and not others. And
then, some writers somehow turn that into intimacy and immediacy,
though I don't think that's the basic effect of using present tense.
The only reason that the story past usually makes a more simple and
straightforward story is that its wide use makes it invisible to the
reader. It has nothing to do with the real sensation of relative time
passing. That has to be established by other means, because the tense
is taken for granted (you can help by layering different past forms,
but there's a limit to what that can do, at least in English).
Lucy Kemnitzer, still
http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ritaxismom
Lucy Kemnitzer
I have to go find this person.
>
>> One spends all this time just assuming that tight third is a really
>> basic point of view (unless one is Graydon, of course, who's probably
>> smirking right now) and then it turns out to be an experiment. A
>> temporary aberration in the history of literature.
>
>Graydon's allowed his smirk, I think - ISTM the basic story mindsets are
>first person ("this happened to me") and omni ("this happened to these
>people I know"). Autobiography and anecdote. Focussing omni down to the
>limitations of first person... really, it gets odder every time I think
>about it. Cue migraine headache again. <g>
I think tight third is a marker too (see other post where I said I
think that story past is just a marker of a story). It's what you use
instead of first person when you don't want to engage in the level of
artifice involved in presenting the voice of the character: when you
don't want to express their emotions directly but you don't want to
write a cold or alienated character necessarily (or maybe you do!):
when you want to say some things the character couldn't say:when you
don't want to say some things the character would say: when you don't
want the story telling to be prominent: when you want the story
telling to be more prominent -- I can think of lots of reasons.
>
>Although I can see the point of doing multiple tight third, if only for
>all the uses of irony that that allows, which it would be difficult to do
>the same way in omni. Not impossible with 'invisible omni', but still
>difficult.
I've used tight third for a story that _couldn't_ be told in first,
because the character is somewhat inarticulate. Having started that
way, and discovering the necessity of incorporating other points of
view, the story became multiple tight third. And then, since the
piece was at least partly about culture shock, and all of the points
of view were suffering from it in different ways, it worked out okay.
I just recently gave up on an amateur serial in which the shift was
from first person to omni, and irregularly and without warning and
increasingly as the story progressed. The story had other problems,
but this is the one that bugged me the most. Clearly, the only point
of view that really interested the author was the one in first, and he
only made the excursions into omni because he thought that the
information was crucial to the story (it wasn't: the people were doing
weird things, but they were all jealous teenagers, and the first
person point of view was clueless anyway, so the things they did
didn't need to be explained beforehand -- he was going to be mystified
no matter what the reader knew, and the reader's foreknowledge of the
motivations and preliminary actions of these creeps did not help one
bit).
I've also recently read an otherwise wonderful amateur story told in
first person which kept giving me problems because the story was told
in first person with very sophisticated language -- and the point of
view character was completely inarticulate and illiterate, seemed
actually to be aphasic. I kept jolting on it. I understand in the
case of this story why the author chose first person, but I think it
would have been better in very tight third.
>
>I have a vague feeling that tight third relates precisely to camera-eye --
>or 'theatre-eye', in the days before films -- when you want to observe
>from the outside, but without the moral freight that omni tends to carry
>in its 'dear reader' model. Or maybe it's just fiction wanting to
>colonise the appearance of biography?
>
I think it became standard in the second half of the twentieth century
because it's so handy for the existential world view, honestly.
Nicola Browne
news:582fi0p8tspqttnk5...@4ax.com
>> And
> then, some writers somehow turn that into intimacy and immediacy,
> though I don't think that's the basic effect of using present tense.
Why? I tend to think that's the main reason for using it. Its the way
lots
of people tell real life stories 'And he says .... and then I turn
around and
says to him.... and he looks at me and...'
I've tried writing in it, but run out of energy after a page or so.
I think its hard because you try to emulate what it feels like
to be in a situation when, if you really were in that situation
you'd probably miss most of what is going on and its significance while
experiencing a huge number of largely irrelevant impressions.
You can come a cropper on that with tight third too but it struck me as
a more acute problem with first person present.(though I'm prepared
to accept it might be a personal problem rather than a general one)
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brian M. Scott
in <news:slrnciesk...@grithr.uniserve.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Shall I get into the implausiblity of the story past,
> where events that have happened unto their ends and
> conclusions are supposed to generate tension about
> outcomes? That's a very strange mapping indeed, from the
> shifting then to the reader's supposed static now.
But the reader doesn't have a static now: the story doesn't
get instantaneously implanted as a whole in the reader's
head, after all. (Does Chinese fiction leave a hole in the
reader's head after a few hours?) The reader's now follows
the telling of the story, unless the reader deliberately
reads out of order. The generation of tension about past
events is no mystery: the tension is there until the
reader's moving now reaches whatever conclusion resolves it.
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
Nicola Browne <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>news:582fi0p8tspqttnk5...@4ax.com
>
>>> And
>> then, some writers somehow turn that into intimacy and immediacy,
>> though I don't think that's the basic effect of using present tense.
>
>Why? I tend to think that's the main reason for using it. Its the way
>lots
>of people tell real life stories 'And he says .... and then I turn
>around and
>says to him.... and he looks at me and...'
>I've tried writing in it, but run out of energy after a page or so.
Well, you could try reading some Damon Runyon, the past master of
the historical present. He, of course, was not writing
historical present as an intellectual exercise,* but because he
used a first-person narrator who is perhaps a little unreliable,
definitely not a first-class intellect, and a speaker of a
dialect that uses the present tense only.
While you're hunting up Runyon (there are several volumes),
do try to find one containing the short story "The Old Doll's
House (which means, the old lady's house, not the toy house
that's been sitting in the attic for a while). My favorite. All
told in the present, mostly about the distant past, and at the
very very end you realize that the historical present *is* the
present, that the past is the present and will be for as long as
the old lady lives. A bone-chiller.
_______________
*Or maybe he is; who knows?
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>I just recently gave up on an amateur serial in which the shift was
>from first person to omni, and irregularly and without warning and
>increasingly as the story progressed. The story had other problems,
>but this is the one that bugged me the most. Clearly, the only point
>of view that really interested the author was the one in first, and he
>only made the excursions into omni because he thought that the
>information was crucial to the story (it wasn't: the people were doing
>weird things, but they were all jealous teenagers, and the first
>person point of view was clueless anyway, so the things they did
>didn't need to be explained beforehand -- he was going to be mystified
>no matter what the reader knew, and the reader's foreknowledge of the
>motivations and preliminary actions of these creeps did not help one
>bit).
Oh, what a pity. A really clueless narrator can be the best.
Particularly if the narrator is supposed to be the author
himself: I give you Chaucer's persona in the Canterbury Tales and
Dante's persona in the Commedia.
R.L.
>>Zeborah onsendan:
>>> One spends all this time just assuming that tight third is a really
>>> basic point of view (unless one is Graydon, of course, who's probably
>>> smirking right now) and then it turns out to be an experiment. A
>>> temporary aberration in the history of literature.
Yep.
/snip/
> First person raises many questions.
>
> Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so,
> when and for who?
They don't sound written to me, but like something he's telling over brandy
and cigars. Or possibly writing in a letter to a friend; people did long
chatty letters before cheap telephone time.
> It doesn't seem the way anyone would tell
> their autobiography, unless they were deliberately using
> the conventions of fiction, and then they'd either need an
> amazing memory or have to be inventing most of the details.
>
> Bertie sounds more like he's describing the events of five
> minutes ago, clearly not the case.
>
> Such questions are easier to ignore if the narrator is
> invisible.
Most fiction requires a few conventions.
> In omni, the narrator is, but there's nothing tieing them
> to the story, nothing preventing them going on a forty page
> digression into the courtship rituals of woodpeckers or
> the history of the diadochi.
Sure there is: relevance to the story and the attention span of the reader.
You might as well say that in tight third, there's nothing preventing the
author spending forty pages describing everything the pv character did in
the bathroom or at his day job. Which the character probably paid much more
attention to, than to whatever the author wants to explain or foreshadow in
that passage.
> Nor is their any good reason
> for them to conceal relevant information from the reader.
Other than good story-telling? The established meaning of 'Omni' is 'Give
anything' not 'Give everything' -- tho I've seen a few novices using it in
the latter sense (and being corrected). :-)
> By nailing the narrator to one character, tight third
> makes some errors harder and provides a good excuse
> for concealing information.
And makes other errors easier, and provides a good excuse for giving too
much irrelevant information. Imo no choice of pv can substitute for basic
story-telling and editing skills. Of course a writer prone to one sort of
error, might find a certain pv helpful; but this will be different for
different writers.
> Of course, some writers can discipline themselves but,
> for those who can't, tight third can impose discipline.
> They're forced to find creative ways round the restrictions,
> which can improve the story -- or so it seems to the
> reader.
You're in good company on that opinion -- but I'd like to see some
examples.
R.L.
R.L.
> "Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> news:582fi0p8tspqttnk5...@4ax.com
>
>>> And
>> then, some writers somehow turn that into intimacy and immediacy,
>> though I don't think that's the basic effect of using present tense.
>
> Why? I tend to think that's the main reason for using it. Its the way
> lots
> of people tell real life stories 'And he says .... and then I turn
> around and
> says to him.... and he looks at me and...'
> I've tried writing in it, but run out of energy after a page or so.
> I think its hard because you try to emulate what it feels like
> to be in a situation when, if you really were in that situation
> you'd probably miss most of what is going on and its significance while
> experiencing a huge number of largely irrelevant impressions.
I see that quite a lot in tight third.
> You can come a cropper on that with tight third too but it struck me as
> a more acute problem with first person present.(though I'm prepared
> to accept it might be a personal problem rather than a general one)
I've never tried writing in first person present, but I read the examples
you gave above as markers of an anecdote being told -- ie something short
and very much to the point, very focused on the hearer and the points that
are important in retrospect.
R.L.
Nicola Browne
news:5syqrqnxyuzw.1gc3qlh7jfbvx$.d...@40tude.net
>I was just saying that it is quite commonly used in speech to convey
immediacy. My problem with it is that I find it more difficult to use.
It is easy to write:
' His eyes adjusted to the dark too slowly. He lumbered forward like a
sleep walker, arms outstretched, fearful of stumbling. He was afraid
of grazing his fingers against the hard stone of the wall but was more
afraid of the vast vacancy of unseen space that left him so
disoriented and vulnerable. The blow, when it came, was unexpected
but not unanticipated.'
but when I try to do it in first person present:
'I walk in and there's nothing there but darkness. It even smells
of darkness, dank and stale. I can't see. I shut my eyes and
open them and there's no difference - none at all.
Only children are afraid of the dark.
I reach out, clutching at emptiness, and take a step. The ground feels
even and solid. All I need to do is find the wall.
I take another step - it is harder than it should be. I don't want to
walk into anything.
There could be someone in here. I strain, but I can't hear anything
that is not me - nothing that is not my breath, my heart, my blood
pounding like the sea in a seashell. It's too loud.
Is there someone there?
It's just bloody hard work and tiresome to read. Do you describe the
blow? Say 'ouch'? or cut to 'I wake up'?
I'll follow Dorothy's suggestion and read some more I think.
Lucy Kemnitzer
I think the reason that present tense doesn't usually convey intimacy
and immediacy is because it's unusual in written forms, and so it
calls attention to itself, and that causes a little distance, which I
think can be quite useful in putting the reader into a tranced-oput,
dreamlike, suggestive state.
The thing it, I think this is what's really happening some of the
times when the author thinks that the immediacy and intimacy thing is
happening -- the story is working, but not for the reason the author
thinks it is.
The reader gets sucked into the story, but not as a participant
observer -- rather, as a dreamer. But not always.
John W. Kennedy
Orthodox-Jewish elements) has been writing novels of late with constant
shifts between 1st and tight 3rd. If I recall aright, she uses 1st only
for young women.
I find it a little disconcerting, perhaps because I have a problem with
1st unless there is some kind of logic for a 1st narrative to exist
within the fiction. (I don't insist on "I am writing this because..."
or "This is a manuscript I found in my attic..." but I feel vaguely
uncomfortable if I cannot at least imagine that it /might/ be there.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
Zeborah
> "Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> news:582fi0p8tspqttnk5...@4ax.com
>
> > And
> > then, some writers somehow turn that into intimacy and immediacy,
> > though I don't think that's the basic effect of using present tense.
>
> Why? I tend to think that's the main reason for using it.
It is very often the reason for using it -- I've just finished reading
_Villette_(1) again, which uses it partly for that and partly I think
for a kind of feverish dreamstate. But the problem is that readers are
used to written stories being told in past tense: past tense is
invisible to them, but present tense sticks out distractingly and
prevents them from immersing themself in the story.
>Its the way
> lots of people tell real life stories 'And he says .... and then I turn
> around and says to him.... and he looks at me and...'
In speech it's invisible; in writing it's not, at least for many people.
> I've tried writing in it, but run out of energy after a page or so.
> I think its hard because you try to emulate what it feels like
> to be in a situation when, if you really were in that situation
> you'd probably miss most of what is going on and its significance while
> experiencing a huge number of largely irrelevant impressions.
> You can come a cropper on that with tight third too but it struck me as
> a more acute problem with first person present.(though I'm prepared
> to accept it might be a personal problem rather than a general one)
It is hard at first; I did it only because that was the only way to
grasp that character. It taught me how to manage tight third. Probably
because it forced me to *think* about what it feels like to be in a
situation; to *think* what would be noticed and what wouldn't; and if
she would miss something, then I'd have to find another way to get it
across.
I think -- the way I do tight third, being very strict about that
"tight" -- it's equally a problem there as in first present. But first
present makes it obvious; tight third, on the other hand, allows one not
to notice that one is sliding towards omniscient.
Zeborah
(1) It's been a few years; I liked it last time, but this time have
decided that it is a Good Book; so it currently resides among my top
three novels of all time.
Brian M. Scott
<rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in
<news:srnfi0dpjahqokc9j...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> I think the reason that present tense doesn't usually convey intimacy
> and immediacy is because it's unusual in written forms, and so it
> calls attention to itself, and that causes a little distance, which I
> think can be quite useful in putting the reader into a tranced-oput,
> dreamlike, suggestive state.
I find that it has only two possible effects on me, neither
of which fits this description at all:
(1) It works, meaning that I hardly notice it at all.
(2) It comes across as pretentiously or self-consciously
arty and lit'ry, is very noticeable and annoying, and
doesn't work at all.
Graydon's present tense omni works because he somehow
convinces me that we're standing outside the space-time
continuum, and he's pointing out various features of it, but
I'll be buggered if I know *how* it works. Modesitt's
camera eye interludes work for a similar reason, I think.
What I haven't figured out is why his present tense tight
third works, let alone why some of the Recluce novels are in
present tense and others in past.
[...]
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
Zeborah <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nicola Browne <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>It's the way
>> lots of people tell real life stories 'And he says .... and then I turn
>> around and says to him.... and he looks at me and...'
>
>In speech it's invisible; in writing it's not, at least for many people.
Which is one of the reasons Damon Runyon manages it so well; the
nameless feckless narrator is telling a story, probably in a
speak.
"Now it seems that one cold winter night, a party of residents of
Brooklyn comes across the Manhattan Bridge in an automobile
wishing to pay a call on a guy by the name of Lance McGowan, who
is well known to one and all along Broadway as a coming guy in the
business world.
"In fact, it is generally conceded that, barring accidents, Lance
will someday be on of the biggest guys in this country as an
importer, and especially as an importer of such merchandise as
fine liquors, because he is very bright, and has many good
connections throughout the United States and Canada.
"Furthermore, Lance McGowan is a nice-looking young guy and he
has plenty of ticker; although some citizens say he does not show
very sound business judgment in trying to move in on Angie the Ox
over in Brooklyn, as Angie the Ox is an importer himself, besides
enjoying a splendid trade in other lines, including artichokes
and extortion."
Zeborah
> In article <1givy59.1kk73o31a5lpfhN%zeb...@gmail.com>, zeb...@gmail.com
> (Zeborah) wrote:
>
> > Tight third. As an experiment.
>
> Heh. I grant you it sounds weird.
Well, I guess it had to be an experiment at some time. Just... I hadn't
expected it to be so recently.
> Graydon's allowed his smirk, I think - ISTM the basic story mindsets are
> first person ("this happened to me") and omni ("this happened to these
> people I know"). Autobiography and anecdote.
I know, and it made sense when Graydon was saying so too, but to see it
played out in history....
>Focussing omni down to the
> limitations of first person... really, it gets odder every time I think
> about it. Cue migraine headache again. <g>
Alternatively, bringing first person to the distance of omni without the
wide lens -- as Laura Ingalls Wilder did by telling stories of her
childhood in the third person.
> Although I can see the point of doing multiple tight third, if only for
> all the uses of irony that that allows, which it would be difficult to do
> the same way in omni. Not impossible with 'invisible omni', but still
> difficult.
It's quite possible with multiple first (especially epistolary
structures), though not done often that I recall. That is one good
thing I got to do by putting the Backburner into multi-third, though.
(I can't remember if I had a reason to do so beyond "Suppose I should
practise this point of view at some point.")
> I have a vague feeling that tight third relates precisely to camera-eye --
> or 'theatre-eye', in the days before films -- when you want to observe
> from the outside, but without the moral freight that omni tends to carry
> in its 'dear reader' model. Or maybe it's just fiction wanting to
> colonise the appearance of biography?
Hmm (to the former idea; I know little to nothing of biography). Having
just come from reading _Villette_, that's almost as close as it's
possible to get to a first-person camera-eye narrator (and still got in
plenty of "(dear) reader"s). And an unreliable narrator, too.
Charlotte Bronte did a whole host of clever things in that; no wonder
_Jane Eyre_ is better known.
Certainly the first time I tried to write tight-third in a novel it kept
sliding towards camera-eye, but in quite a different way from
_Villette_: there, the protag *is* the 'camera'; in mine, the camera
was looking at my protag from outside, so that it didn't see into her
feelings, but it didn't get to look long on anyone else, either; the
worst of both worlds.
Fanfic28
>> Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so,
>> when and for who?
>
>They don't sound written to me, but like something he's telling over
>brandy and cigars.
Perhaps, for the short stories, but not for the novels.
> Or possibly writing in a letter to a friend; people did long
> chatty letters before cheap telephone time.
Not that long.
I'm pretty sure Bertie couldn't keep that long a story straight
anyway. He'd be forever digressing or repeating himself, and
telling events out of order.
>>
>> Bertie sounds more like he's describing the events of five
>> minutes ago, clearly not the case.
>>
>> Such questions are easier to ignore if the narrator is
>> invisible.
>
>Most fiction requires a few conventions.
Of course, but the conventions should not intrude.
>
>
>> In omni, the narrator is, but there's nothing tieing them
>> to the story, nothing preventing them going on a forty page
>> digression into the courtship rituals of woodpeckers or
>> the history of the diadochi.
>
>Sure there is: relevance to the story and the attention span of the >reader.
That applies to every point of view.
Tight third has additional constraints, further discouraging
such bad habits, which omni lacks.
>You might as well say that in tight third, there's nothing preventing
>the author spending forty pages describing everything the pv
>character did in the bathroom or at his day job. Which the character
>probably paid much more attention to, than to whatever the
>author wants to explain or foreshadow in that passage.
However the author is rather less like to want to do that than
they are to show off their erudition.
The extra constraint is useful, if the author would otherwise
be tempted to stray.
>> Nor is their any good reason
>> for them to conceal relevant information from the reader.
>
>Other than good story-telling? The established meaning of 'Omni' is >'Give
anything' not 'Give everything' -- tho I've seen a few novices
>using it in the latter sense (and being corrected). :-)
>
>
Concealing relevant information can come pretty close to
deus ex machina. This is ok in short twist stories, but not
in novels
Imagine reading, on page 950, 'Fortunately, this was not the
first eldritch abomination John had faced. He had walked
the streets of Ninevah and Troy, and even then he had been
older than the heroes of legend ...' if there has been no previous
hint of this.
Narrators should play fair with the reader. For omni, this means
not hiding cards up their sleeves and sniggering. They should
be played in plain view, their significance hidden by misdirection,
which requires considerable skill.
Tight third narrators only have half the cards, ample justification
for concealing information. Now, if one of the other characters
has six aces up their sleeves, some warning to the reader
is required, which is not trivial to do but requires slightly different
skills from omni.
>And makes other errors easier, and provides a good excuse for giving >too much
irrelevant information. Imo no choice of pv can substitute for
>basic story-telling and editing skills. Of course a writer prone to one
>sort of error, might find a certain pv helpful; but this will be different for
>different writers.
I agree completely, and would add only that I suspect more
people are prone to the types of errors for which tight third
is a helpful corrective than are to the types for which other
points of views would be more appropriate.
>> Of course, some writers can discipline themselves but,
>> for those who can't, tight third can impose discipline.
>> They're forced to find creative ways round the restrictions,
>> which can improve the story -- or so it seems to the
>> reader.
>
>You're in good company on that opinion -- but I'd like to see some
>examples.
The best demonstration would be samples of how omni,
and tight third, go wrong, but I don't keep samples of
that around.
Zeborah
Can you either keep in, or manually add, attributions of who said what
you're replying to?
R.L. wrote:
[stuff preventing the author from major digressions in omni]
> >Sure there is: relevance to the story and the attention span of the >reader.
>
> That applies to every point of view.
>
> Tight third has additional constraints, further discouraging
> such bad habits, which omni lacks.
It discourages some bad habits; which is good if it's really a bad
habit, but it also makes it hard to do something unusual well.
> >You might as well say that in tight third, there's nothing preventing
> >the author spending forty pages describing everything the pv
> >character did in the bathroom or at his day job. Which the character
> >probably paid much more attention to, than to whatever the
> >author wants to explain or foreshadow in that passage.
>
> However the author is rather less like to want to do that than
> they are to show off their erudition.
It is not entirely uncommon for some beginners to write the protag
waking, turning off the alarm clock, listening to the radio, wondering
what to wear, groaning as they roll out of bed, plodding to the
bathroom, looking at their face in the mirror, showering, plodding
wet-haired back to the bedroom, looking for clean clothes in their
closet, etc; and the story starts somewhere in chapter two when they've
finally got onto the highway.
> >Other than good story-telling? The established meaning of 'Omni' is
> >'Give anything' not 'Give everything' -- tho I've seen a few novices
> >using it in the latter sense (and being corrected). :-)
> >
> Concealing relevant information can come pretty close to
> deus ex machina. This is ok in short twist stories, but not
> in novels
>
> Imagine reading, on page 950, 'Fortunately, this was not the
> first eldritch abomination John had faced. He had walked
> the streets of Ninevah and Troy, and even then he had been
> older than the heroes of legend ...' if there has been no previous
> hint of this.
>
> Narrators should play fair with the reader.
Depends a whole lot on the narrator.
[first person pov] "For, reader, [revelation that person X is person Y]
The discovery was not of to-day; its dawn had penetrated my perceptions
long since. [...] To _say_ anything on the subject, to _hint_ at my
discovery, had not suited my habits of thought, or assimilated with my
system of feeling."
This is on page 83 of my edition of _Villette_; it is revealed that she
made the realisation on approximately page 47, but didn't bother to
inform the reader. Not really 'didn't bother'; she made the effort to
identify him then with person Z; but... well, it didn't suit her habits
of thought.
And it is indeed somewhat exasperating to the reader, but it is also
perfectly in character. No sniggering is involved; she's just not
accustomed to making a fuss about things. There is a lot she doesn't
tell the reader, and most of that we're required to figure out ourself.
Lucy Kemnitzer
I just had to comment on that "artichokes and extortion." Because my
father always told me that the artichoke industry hereabouts was
started (as an industry) as a money laundering enterprise by liquor
smugglers towards the end of Prohibition.
So -- is this indirect corroboration of oral history?
sharkey
>
> It is not entirely uncommon for some beginners to write the protag
> waking, turning off the alarm clock, listening to the radio, wondering
> what to wear, groaning as they roll out of bed, plodding to the
Douglas Adams, for example ... <g,d&r>
-----sharks "yellow ..."
Zeborah
Well, technically HHGTTG starts -- the book, at least; I'm ignorant of
the original form's beginning -- with an infodump about the backwaters
of the galaxy; the protag doesn't wake up for about two and a half
pages, in my edition.
Jeanette
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:I2tE8...@kithrup.com...
My first attempt at a novel was written in first person, the only real
problem I had was when my narrator was unconscious for several days. I got
around that problem by saying "They told me afterwards that ..."
Jeanette
Julian Flood
"Nicola Browne" wrote
> first person present:
> It's just [] tiresome to read.
Tiresome is the exact word. There's a nudge nudge quality to it, look at me,
look at me, hey, are you looking, look at me. And it goes on and on...
JF
And on.
Marilee J. Layman
>In <20040821102435...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Fanfic28
><fanf...@aol.com> onsendan:
>> First person raises many questions.
>>
>> Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so, when and
>> for who? It doesn't seem the way anyone would tell their
>> autobiography, unless they were deliberately using the conventions of
>> fiction, and then they'd either need an amazing memory or have to be
>> inventing most of the details.
>
>Or the story is being pulled out of Bertie's head in near-real-time by
>the agency of narrative, an agency concerning which Bertie is blissfully
>ignorant.
"Narrativium" as _The Science of Diskworld_ puts it. Unfortunately,
the book was mostly the science of Earth, so I ended up skipping
alternate chapters.
--
Marilee J. Layman
G.W. Bush says "results count!"
That's why I'm voting for Kerry.
Fanfic28
><fanf...@aol.com> onsendan:
>> First person raises many questions.
>>
>> Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so, when and
>> for who? It doesn't seem the way anyone would tell their
>> autobiography
>
>the agency of narrative, an agency concerning which Bertie is blissfully
>ignorant.
>
In which case, it is not what it purports to be, Bertie's own words.
Thus is not a problem, so long as it is done well, but it does
mean that first person requires just as much artifice as any
other pov.
On the surface it may look like the way people naturally tell
stories, but only on the surface.
Zeborah
> It's the plausibility of tension on the part of the voice which transfer
> the narrative that I have trouble with.
Well, obviously the voice has no tension; except any tension they put on
on behalf of the reader. When you're telling a joke you don't tell the
punchline first even if you know it already.
Irina Rempt
(j...@floodsoopsclimbers.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:
My first-present story is only 1300 words: it ends before it can become
tiresome.
I wrote a 120.000 word novel in tight third, and I'm currently working
on another novel (first draft about 80% finished) with half in first
past and the other half in various POVs.
And on a short story in first past that will probably end up at about
7500 words (at 4000 now); this one is very much from the POV of an
adult woman telling about what happened when she was eleven years old.
I want to do omni, I really want to, but I haven't been able to pull it
off yet.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 14-Jun-2004
Fanfic28
>Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>R.L. wrote:
>
>> >You might as well say that in tight third, there's nothing preventing
>> >the author spending forty pages describing everything the pv
>> >character did in the bathroom or at his day job. Which the character
>> >probably paid much more attention to, than to whatever the
>> >author wants to explain or foreshadow in that passage.
>>
>> However the author is rather less like to want to do that than
>> they are to show off their erudition.
>
>It is not entirely uncommon for some beginners to write the protag
Or P.G Wodehouse. Generally, it's wrong, but a good enough
writere can break any guideline, and make it work well.
For those who can't, that kind of excessive detail is an error
equally easy to commit in any person.
>> Concealing relevant information can come pretty close to
>> deus ex machina. This is ok in short twist stories, but not
>> in novels
>>
>> Imagine reading, on page 950, 'Fortunately, this was not the
>> first eldritch abomination John had faced. He had walked
>> the streets of Ninevah and Troy, and even then he had been
>> older than the heroes of legend ...' if there has been no previous
>> hint of this.
>>
>> Narrators should play fair with the reader.
>Depends a whole lot on the narrator.
On second thoughts, the author should play fair with the
reader. The narrator may be trying to decieve the reader,
though if so the reader should have some evidence of this.
Also, what consitutes fair narration depends on the pov.
>[1st person example cut]
>This is on page 83 of my edition of _Villette_; it is revealed that she
>made the realisation on approximately page 47, but didn't bother to
>inform the reader. Not really 'didn't bother'; she made the effort to
>identify him then with person Z; but... well, it didn't suit her habits
>of thought.
>
>And it is indeed somewhat exasperating to the reader, but it is also
>perfectly in character.
Which makes it fine, such is expected of first person narrators,
provided at least her behaviour between pages 47 and 83 is
consistent with her knowing this. If that means she acts differently
in that time, the alert reader will realise she's worked it out
already.
The guidelines for omni are different, and it was omni I was
talking about above.
An omni narrator is not a character, which would make it
a form of first person; they don't have the same justifications
for not mentioning relevant information as tight third or
first person, in general. As always, though, a good enough
writer can make it work.
Fanfic28
> Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> onsendan:
>> Thus is not a problem, so long as it is done well, but it does
>> mean that first person requires just as much artifice as any
>> other pov.
>
There was an implication.
>> On the surface it may look like the way people naturally tell
>> stories, but only on the surface.
>
>People naturally tell stories.
>
>I certainly wouldn't go further than that, and don't believe I have.
>
>What position do you think you're arguing against, here?
The suggestion that first, or omni, are more natural points
of view, because they are the two ways people naturally
tell stories.
If the various approaches are all far removed from natural
story telling, claiming that any of them are intrinsicly more
natural or artificial becomes unconvincing, though one may
be a more natural approach for a particular writer.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Well, obviously the voice has no tension; except any tension they put on
> on behalf of the reader. When you're telling a joke you don't tell the
> punchline first even if you know it already.
My family has a classification of joke known as 'the composer joke'.
The best ones are in the style of My Word monologues, in which some
elaborate story comes out with the punchline, which is a modified
version of a set phrase. For composer jokes, the set phrase is the name
of a composer.
On long car trips, my father would throw out a composer whose name we
didn't have a joke for yet, and we would compete to come up with good
story-jokes for that punchline. (In the early days of composer jokes --
I think this is a Dad's College Thing -- apparently it was said that
there could only be one joke to which the punchline was 'Dimitri
Shastokovich', and this was delivered as a challenge to a roomful of
students. Then one responded to the challenge . . .)
Of course, like the best My Word stories, ideally the goal one is aiming
for has been forgotten by the time one reaches the punchline, which
means that it sneaks up on one with the extra force of horrified
realisation.
There are a few short ones, though, like:
Q: What do you call a catalogue of ferns?
A: Fronds list.
(Something similar to this brand of humor is the reason that my stuffed
toucan is named Offenbach.)
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Mary Gentle
fanf...@aol.com (Fanfic28) wrote:
> o...@uniserve.com wrote
> ><fanf...@aol.com> onsendan:
> >> First person raises many questions.
> >>
> >> Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so, when and
> >> for who? It doesn't seem the way anyone would tell their
> >> autobiography
> >
> >Or the story is being pulled out of Bertie's head in near-real-time by
> >the agency of narrative, an agency concerning which Bertie is
> blissfully
> >ignorant.
> >
>
> In which case, it is not what it purports to be, Bertie's own words.
>
> Thus is not a problem, so long as it is done well, but it does
> mean that first person requires just as much artifice as any
> other pov.
Well, yes . . .
I usually feel first requires even more damn artifice than any of the
others, but that's possibly because I tend to relate it to actors putting
on personas.
If some theoretical agency is pulling out of Bertie's head what Bertie
_would_ say if he were saying it, that's his persona - how he thinks of
himself. As omni/third, at least all you have to do is portray how Bertie
is, and let the dialogue take care of what _he_ thinks he is . . .
> On the surface it may look like the way people naturally tell
> stories, but only on the surface.
Nothing natural about telling stories - it's the first artifice, that
separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Having said that, I'm convinced the line is blurry - having met animals
who can lie ("Yes, he forgot to feed me, look how starved and thin I
am..."), it can only be a matter of time before something furry starts
telling us stories. :)
Mary
Most recently published:
1610: A SUNDIAL IN A GRAVE, novel, Orion UK, hc & tpb
CARTOMANCY, short story collection, Orion UK, pb
Zeborah
> In <1giyo2f.1qpcyzd1049qo0N%zeb...@gmail.com>,
> Zeborah <zeb...@gmail.com> onsendan:
> ><o...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> >> It's the plausibility of tension on the part of the voice which
> >> transfer the narrative that I have trouble with.
> >
> > Well, obviously the voice has no tension;
>
> Which is, to my mind, a considerable drawback with certain sorts of
> narrative.
I should have been clearer: I was personifying 'voice' and meaning that
there is no tension in the narrator's mind, but (cf my next line) they
may put tension into their voice for the sake of telling the story well.
This may still seem a drawback; but I think it's less of one than it
could be.
> > except any tension they put on on behalf of the reader. When you're
> > telling a joke you don't tell the punchline first even if you know it
> > already.
>
> Depends on how good you are at telling jokes; there are ways of using
> the 'which joke _is_ this?' anticipation in the audience.
I'm little good at telling jokes and anecdotes at all, at least in
real-time, and tend to get my sister to do it for me if possible.
Zeborah
> Zeborah wrote
> >Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> However the author is rather less like to want to do that than
> >> they are to show off their erudition.
> >
> >It is not entirely uncommon for some beginners to write the protag
> >waking, turning off the alarm clock, listening to the radio, [etc]
>
> Or P.G Wodehouse. Generally, it's wrong, but a good enough
> writere can break any guideline, and make it work well.
>
> For those who can't, that kind of excessive detail is an error
> equally easy to commit in any person.
And it's equally easy to commit the error of showing off one's erudition
in any person. There are *piles* of books in tight third and full of
infodumps about this that and the other.
> >> Narrators should play fair with the reader.
> >Depends a whole lot on the narrator.
>
> On second thoughts, the author should play fair with the
> reader. The narrator may be trying to decieve the reader,
> though if so the reader should have some evidence of this.
Yes, mostly.
> >This is on page 83 of my edition of _Villette_; it is revealed that she
> >made the realisation on approximately page 47, but didn't bother to
> >inform the reader. Not really 'didn't bother'; she made the effort to
> >identify him then with person Z; but... well, it didn't suit her habits
> >of thought.
> >
> >And it is indeed somewhat exasperating to the reader, but it is also
> >perfectly in character.
>
> Which makes it fine, such is expected of first person narrators,
> provided at least her behaviour between pages 47 and 83 is
> consistent with her knowing this. If that means she acts differently
> in that time, the alert reader will realise she's worked it out
> already.
She didn't act differently, but then she doesn't tend to react
externally to things like that, and if she reacts internally she doesn't
tell us about it. (There's a certain chap I'm sure she was in love
with, but she never even hints at such until well after she's over him.)
There were no clues to let the reader know the fact, let alone to know
that she knew the fact.
> The guidelines for omni are different, and it was omni I was
> talking about above.
>
> An omni narrator is not a character,
Is too! Not necessarily a character who plays a part in the story, but
certainly they're a character. Cf Paarfi, of Steven Brust's _The
Phoenix Guards_ etc. (Upthread you said that an omni narrator is
invisible; this isn't necessarily so, either.)
>which would make it
> a form of first person;
And indeed it is, or at least very frequently is.
>they don't have the same justifications
> for not mentioning relevant information as tight third or
> first person, in general. As always, though, a good enough
> writer can make it work.
Tight third or first person (especially first person present) can
not-mention information because they didn't notice it.
First person past (but not tight third or first person present) can
mention information that they didn't notice then but have learned of
later. (This is a sort of 'not applicable' for omni.)
Likewise first person past and omni can not-mention information that
they did notice then but which they feel it important that the reader
not know about just yet.
Zeborah
> o...@uniserve.com wrote
> >What position do you think you're arguing against, here?
>
> The suggestion that first, or omni, are more natural points
> of view, because they are the two ways people naturally
> tell stories.
Can you think of another explanation for the apparent fact that for the
greater part of the history of human literature, either single or
multiple first person, or explicit or implicit omniscient narrators,
have been the only points of view used for the telling and writing of
stories?
Or can you give me any examples of tight third (single or multiple)
being used before Stanley Weyman? --honest question, this; I'd rather
like some more examples.
> If the various approaches are all far removed from natural
> story telling, claiming that any of them are intrinsicly more
> natural or artificial becomes unconvincing, though one may
> be a more natural approach for a particular writer.
What evidence do you have that first person or omniscient are far
removed from natural story telling?
Dorothy J Heydt
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>My family has a classification of joke known as 'the composer joke'.
>The best ones are in the style of My Word monologues, in which some
>elaborate story comes out with the punchline, which is a modified
>version of a set phrase. For composer jokes, the set phrase is the name
>of a composer.
>
>
>Q: What do you call a catalogue of ferns?
>
>A: Fronds list.
These closely resemble Randall Garrett's Benedict Breadfruit
stories, in which the punchline is the name of a science fiction
writer.
"How do you keep your hull free of space barnacles, Mr.
Breadfruit?"
"I gas 'em off."
"Look! Unbeknownst to us, the ancient Incas adapted their knotted
(Rephrased from memory 'cause I'm too tired to get up and walk
down the hall to the appropriate bookcase.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>"Look! Unbeknownst to us, the ancient Incas adapted their knotted
Damn! My silly editor truncated several lines and didn't show me
it'd done it. I will now do penance by going and getting the
book and quoting it properly.
"On the planet Toupher VI," said Benedict Breadfruit in his
address to the members of the Institute for Twenty-first Century
Studies, a group specializing in ancient history, "the natives
keep time by means of cords which have knots tied along their
length at precisely measured intervals. Since the material from
which these cords are made is rmarkably even in its rate f
burning, it is possible to tell the exact hour by noticing how
many knots have burned after one end has been lit."
"What is this remarkable contraption called?" asked one of the
members.
"Why naturally," said Benedict Breadfruit in his best British
accent, "it would be a knot clock."
***
The peculiar religio-sexual practices of the inhabitants of
Hoogaht VIII are known throughout the Galaxy. One day a group of
Hoogahtu called upon Benedict Breadfruit.
"We are," said their spokesman, "planning to build an
old-fashioned Earth-type house for our group. The living
quarters for the males and females will be on the first and
second floors. The Temple of Love, as we call it, will occupy
the top floor, just under the roof. Knowing your abilities with
language, we would like for you to give us a name for our
Temple."
"Orgiastic top floor, eh?" asked Bradfruit.
"That's right."
"A hot-pants attic, as it were?" asked Breadfruit.
"If you insist, yes," said the spokesman.
"A libidinous area just under the roof, one might say."
"That's what we said," agreed the Hoogahtu.
"In other words, a lewd loft?" persisted Breadfruit.
"Most emphatically," said the Hoogahtu spokesman.
Benedict Breadfruit shook his head, baffled for the first time in
his life. "Gee, fellas, I just can't think of a damn thing."
(From _TakeOff!_, stories by Randall Garrett edited by Polly and
Kelly Freas; Virginia Beach, NC: Donning, 1979.)
R.L.
> Zeborah wrote
>>Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>R.L. wrote:
>>
>>> >You might as well say that in tight third, there's nothing preventing
>>> >the author spending forty pages describing everything the pv
>>> >character did in the bathroom or at his day job. Which the character
>>> >probably paid much more attention to, than to whatever the
>>> >author wants to explain or foreshadow in that passage.
>>>
>>> However the author is rather less like to want to do that than
>>> they are to show off their erudition.
>>
>>It is not entirely uncommon for some beginners to write the protag
>>waking, turning off the alarm clock, listening to the radio, [etc]
>
> Or P.G Wodehouse. Generally, it's wrong, but a good enough
> writere can break any guideline, and make it work well.
>
> For those who can't, that kind of excessive detail is an error
> equally easy to commit in any person.
There's a special sort of trap in tight third; Brian Pickrell and I talked
about it a while back. When identified with the TT character, we (he and I
and some others) tend to get too deeply into whatever the character is
focused on at that moment, which may have nothing to do with the story. TT
looks simple, but really we're in constant tension about what to focus on,
how much to condense or skip.
Too much erudition is pretty simple to edit; it sticks out as unnecessary.
But too much detail of the character's life is indistinguishable from
world-building, showing character, planting clues.... There's no way to
know it was excessive, was not what the story was about, till you've read
quite a ways further. The result may be indistinguishable from a story
about dull things, or a story about too many things.
My way out of the trap was to swtich to first person or omni. Bickham's
would be to design the plot so that the character is always focused on it
too, he never has a break to get interested in anything not obviously
relevant. I don't know what Brian's way was (or will be :-).
R.L.
Chris Kern
Heydt) posted the following:
>"Why naturally," said Benedict Breadfruit in his best British
>accent, "it would be a knot clock."
(whooooosh)
<snip>
>"In other words, a lewd loft?" persisted Breadfruit.
>
>"Most emphatically," said the Hoogahtu spokesman.
>
>Benedict Breadfruit shook his head, baffled for the first time in
>his life. "Gee, fellas, I just can't think of a damn thing."
(whoooooooooooooooooosh)
Uh...I think I'll stick with why the chicken crossed the road.
-Chris
Harry Erwin
Koko? < http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040809/koko.html>. She
appears to be at least comparable in intelligence to certain current
politicians.
--
Harry Erwin <http://www.theworld.com/~herwin>
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our
country and our people, and neither do we."--George W. Bush
Boudewijn Rempt
> Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so,
> when and for who? It doesn't seem the way anyone would tell
> their autobiography, unless they were deliberately using
> the conventions of fiction, and then they'd either need an
> amazing memory or have to be inventing most of the details.
He's clearly writing up his stories for publication -- there are occasional
asides to the newcomers who might have missed his earlier volumes, but he
also admonishes the regular readers are invited to go for a cigarette or
something while he brings the newbies up to speed. My own conviction has
always been that the Wooster style was meant to convey that this was
written down as naturel as possible by a person of negligible intellect.
>
> Bertie sounds more like he's describing the events of five
> minutes ago, clearly not the case.
>
And then there's the point, which I've never been able to find with any
accuracy where the 'blithering young idiot putting down his story on paper'
changes into a much closer narrative.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi
Fanfic28
>Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> o...@uniserve.com wrote
>> >What position do you think you're arguing against, here?
>>
>> The suggestion that first, or omni, are more natural points
>> of view, because they are the two ways people naturally
>> tell stories.
>
>Can you think of another explanation for the apparent fact that for the
>greater part of the history of human literature, either single or
>multiple first person, or explicit or implicit omniscient narrators,
>have been the only points of view used for the telling and writing of
>stories?
>
for certain values of first and omni.
>> If the various approaches are all far removed from natural
>> story telling, claiming that any of them are intrinsicly more
>> natural or artificial becomes unconvincing, though one may
>> be a more natural approach for a particular writer.
>
>What evidence do you have that first person or omniscient are far
>removed from natural story telling?
The amount of creative work involved?
Prose first person covers a spectrum of styles, but it
does not come close to natural first person, the way
people actually tell unrehearsed anecdotes, and similarly
for omni.
Prose first may look natural, on the surface, but only
because all the narrative machinery has been carefully
hidden backstage. In truth, the chasm is vast.
For a start, natural first is pretty much an confined to
short oral anecdotes. People rarely talk about themselves
for five hours straight, unrehearsed and uninterrupted.
Natural first is also largely artless, lacking in those
flourishes that could sustain interest for five hours
straight.
E.g, If I were casually talking about yesterday, so using
natural first, it'd be something like "... right at a big signpost
but it fizzled out (Why can't they mark these paths properly.
I mean, later there was a signpost pointing all three ways,
each one blank, completely useless) so gambled on open
country, shoulder-high bracken but no trees, hoping to get
my bearings better and found myself on the crags (supposed
to be rare sheep there but they were hiding, (no people,
of course, not until later, just after the point where
I'd gone wrong last time I was lost in those woods (not
last time I there, two years earlier)) well, no helpful people,
only cyclists who directed me straight down a cliff face) ..."
though not quite so clear.
I can't say I've ever seen a novel written that way,
but it is the natural anecdote style of everyone I've
ever known.
Authors may fake this style sometimes, but they only pretend
their stories are a shambolic mess. It actuality, they've worked
hard at achieving that effect. Their stories are well structured,
if you look an inch beneath the surface. If they weren't, they
wouldn't be readable.
Given how different natural first and prose first are,
using the undoubted naturalness of natural first to
argue for the naturalness of prose first is less than
convincing, and similarly for omni.
Brian M. Scott
<zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1giywbc.qbpcdyd97r8mN%zeb...@gmail.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>> An omni narrator is not a character,
> Is too! Not necessarily a character who plays a part in the story, but
> certainly they're a character. Cf Paarfi, of Steven Brust's _The
> Phoenix Guards_ etc. (Upthread you said that an omni narrator is
> invisible; this isn't necessarily so, either.)
I'd rather say that an omni narrator *can* be a character.
Paarfi is explicitly so. A narrator who addresses the
reader is a character even if he's never in any way
identified or given a context. After that it seems to me
less clear. I'm inclined to say that the narrator is a
character to the extent that he has a distinctive voice, a
personality, though this does probably mean that the
character-ness of a narrator is reader-dependent.
[...]
Brian
Zeborah
> Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Having said that, I'm convinced the line is blurry - having met animals
> > who can lie ("Yes, he forgot to feed me, look how starved and thin I
> > am..."), it can only be a matter of time before something furry starts
> > telling us stories. :)
>
> Koko? < http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040809/koko.html>.
In response:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001340.html#more
>She
> appears to be at least comparable in intelligence to certain current
> politicians.
Well, but.
Alma Hromic Deckert
wrote:
>having met animals
>who can lie ("Yes, he forgot to feed me, look how starved and thin I
>am..."), it can only be a matter of time before something furry starts
>telling us stories. :)
>
i take it you and Domino (my resident con-cat) have met?
(the amount of times she has had twice her dinner because both deck
AND i fall for the "feed me now i'm STARVING" game is embarrassing to
mention... now we have a litle fridge magnet which you can set to
either "cat is FED" or "cat is NOT FED" and we have a lot less of
those shenanigans...)
A.
David Goldfarb
Chris Kern <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:14:56 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) posted the following:
>
>>"Why naturally," said Benedict Breadfruit in his best British
>>accent, "it would be a knot clock."
>
>(whooooosh)
"An Art Clarke".
><snip>
>>"In other words, a lewd loft?" persisted Breadfruit.
>>
>>"Most emphatically," said the Hoogahtu spokesman.
>>
>>Benedict Breadfruit shook his head, baffled for the first time in
>>his life. "Gee, fellas, I just can't think of a damn thing."
>
>(whoooooooooooooooooosh)
Remember that these stories were penned by Randall Garrett?
What's a nickname for Randall?
--
David Goldfarb <*>| "Oh, death from on high. Neat."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Tom Servo, Mystery Science Theater 3000
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Gamera"
Brett Paul Dunbar
<gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes
>In article <mu9ji0p4d0cvg9hmb...@4ax.com>,
>Chris Kern <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:14:56 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) posted the following:
>>
>>>"Why naturally," said Benedict Breadfruit in his best British
>>>accent, "it would be a knot clock."
>>
>>(whooooosh)
>
>"An Art Clarke".
I thought the point of these was that the punch line should sound like
the name of a writer?
This one doesn't, at least in British English, as both knot and clock
use the short o sound while Art and Clarke use the short a. It may work
in American English, which doesn't use the short o, but fails totally in
British English.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address
Brian M. Scott
<br...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<news:Pcg8T+nUKpKBFw$0...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> In message <cgdvcb$jcb$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, David Goldfarb
> <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes
>>In article <mu9ji0p4d0cvg9hmb...@4ax.com>,
>>Chris Kern <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:14:56 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>Heydt) posted the following:
>>>>"Why naturally," said Benedict Breadfruit in his best British
>>>>accent, "it would be a knot clock."
>>>(whooooosh)
>>"An Art Clarke".
> I thought the point of these was that the punch line should sound like
> the name of a writer?
> This one doesn't, at least in British English, as both knot and clock
> use the short o sound while Art and Clarke use the short a. It may work
> in American English, which doesn't use the short o, but fails totally in
> British English.
It doesn't work in either. The best match is mixed: a
common U.S. pronunciation of 'a knot clock' is a bad
imitation of an RP pronunciation of 'an Art Clarke', but no
worse than some of the puns already mentioned in the thread.
Brian
Zeborah
> Zeborah wrote.
> >Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> o...@uniserve.com wrote
> >> >What position do you think you're arguing against, here?
> >>
> >> The suggestion that first, or omni, are more natural points
> >> of view, because they are the two ways people naturally
> >> tell stories.
> >
> >Can you think of another explanation for the apparent fact that for the
> >greater part of the history of human literature, either single or
> >multiple first person, or explicit or implicit omniscient narrators,
> >have been the only points of view used for the telling and writing of
> >stories?
> >
> As I said, they are the two ways people naturally tell stories,
> for certain values of first and omni.
No, you said you were arguing against the suggestion. Now I'm really
confused.
> >> If the various approaches are all far removed from natural
> >> story telling, claiming that any of them are intrinsicly more
> >> natural or artificial becomes unconvincing, though one may
> >> be a more natural approach for a particular writer.
> >
> >What evidence do you have that first person or omniscient are far
> >removed from natural story telling?
>
> The amount of creative work involved?
>
> Prose first person covers a spectrum of styles, but it
> does not come close to natural first person, the way
> people actually tell unrehearsed anecdotes, and similarly
> for omni.
Prose first person was originally, the examples I'm aware of, told as if
in letter form. Cf Samuel Richardson's novels; Dangerous Liaisons; the
frame story of Frankenstein (which means all the rest is too, really;
it's all retold into the letters)
Later on first came to be used memoir-style, and also in a way that
doesn't show at all whether it's intended as letter or memoir or what;
but that's very much a later development. I'd be happy to say that the
latter (the way that doesn't show the narrative's intentions) was less
natural than letter-style.
> Given how different natural first and prose first are,
> using the undoubted naturalness of natural first to
> argue for the naturalness of prose first is less than
> convincing, and similarly for omni.
I'd say there are grades of natural-ness, running something like:
spoken anecdote -> letterwriting -> story in form of letters -> story in
form of memoir -> story in unidentified style of first person -> ->
story in third person
nyra
That's just a stylised framework to the actual story; the actual
account of Victor F. isn't told in what i'd call a "letter style".
Anyway, neither Petronius' "Satyricon" nor Apuleius' "Golden Ass"
pretend to be private letters, and they are the oldest first-person
novels i know (the Satyricon is considered _the_ oldest novel, written
in Nero's time).
> > Given how different natural first and prose first are,
> > using the undoubted naturalness of natural first to
> > argue for the naturalness of prose first is less than
> > convincing, and similarly for omni.
>
> I'd say there are grades of natural-ness, running something like:
>
> spoken anecdote -> letterwriting -> story in form of letters -> story in
> form of memoir -> story in unidentified style of first person -> ->
> story in third person
I think the third person stories took another route to get there -
there are anecdotes, fables, fairy tales and whatnot which tell a
story the narrator is not personally involved in yet are still very
"natural" in their form (simple retelling of events and speech, little
if any stylistic sophistication). Even many jokes can be considered
third person prose...
--
„Der Fürst hat soviel Weisheit in seinem Kopfe wie ich in meinem
Hintern.“
- Th. Müntzer über Georg von Sachsen
Fanfic28
>Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Zeborah wrote.
>> >Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> o...@uniserve.com wrote
>> >> >What position do you think you're arguing against, here?
>> >>
>> >> The suggestion that first, or omni, are more natural points
>> >> of view, because they are the two ways people naturally
>> >> tell stories.
>> >
>> >Can you think of another explanation for the apparent fact that
>> >for the greater part of the history of human literature, either single
>> >or multiple first person, or explicit or implicit omniscient narrators,
>> >have been the only points of view used for the telling and writing of
>> >stories?
>> >
>> As I said, they are the two ways people naturally tell stories,
>> for certain values of first and omni.
>
>No, you said you were arguing against the suggestion. Now I'm really
>confused.
>
I have never attempted to argue people do not naturally use first
and omni. Rather, I have been arguing that this undoubted fact
does not make the entirely different first and omni used in novels
natural.
I'm arguing against the inference, not the axiom.
>> >
>> >What evidence do you have that first person or omniscient are far
>> >removed from natural story telling?
>>
>> The amount of creative work involved?
>>
>> Prose first person covers a spectrum of styles, but it
>> does not come close to natural first person, the way
>> people actually tell unrehearsed anecdotes, and similarly
>> for omni.
>
>> Given how different natural first and prose first are,
>> using the undoubted naturalness of natural first to
>> argue for the naturalness of prose first is less than
>> convincing, and similarly for omni.
>
>I'd say there are grades of natural-ness, running something like:
>
>spoken anecdote -> letterwriting -> story in form of letters -> story in
>form of memoir -> story in unidentified style of first person -> ->
>story in third person
That's an historical sequence, though tight third may come
from a narrowing of omni, but the bridges are long gone.
How many epistolary novels are written these days? How
many pseudo-memoirs?
This leaves a chasm gaping between the natural style of
anecdote and all the artifice-filled narrative styles of novels
which renders any differences in naturalness within the latter
group negligible.
Zeborah
> Zeborah wrote
> >Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Zeborah wrote.
> >> >Can you think of another explanation for the apparent fact that
> >> >for the greater part of the history of human literature, either single
> >> >or multiple first person, or explicit or implicit omniscient narrators,
> >> >have been the only points of view used for the telling and writing of
> >> >stories?
> >> >
> >> As I said, they are the two ways people naturally tell stories,
> >> for certain values of first and omni.
> >
> >No, you said you were arguing against the suggestion. Now I'm really
> >confused.
> >
> I may possibly have been unclear.
>
> I have never attempted to argue people do not naturally use first
> and omni. Rather, I have been arguing that this undoubted fact
> does not make the entirely different first and omni used in novels
> natural.
>
> I'm arguing against the inference, not the axiom.
Okay, but in reply to my question - "Why have people used first or omni
in literature?" - you then replied "because those are the two ways
people naturally tell stories". (Both paraphrases; I've left the
originals above.)
In other words "People naturally tell stories in first or omni,
therefore people use first or omni in literature."
No?
I really can't tell the difference between what you're acknowledging and
what you're rejecting.
My argument is that:
Premises:
a) first and omni are natural points of view for anecdotes;
b) first and omni pervade literature for at least a few thousand years
before tight-third ever shows up;
c) there wasn't anything else preventing tight-third from appearing;
Therefore:
d) it is reasonable to assume that a) caused b);
e) IOW, first and omni pervade literature because they are natural
points of view for anecdotes and stories both.
> >> Given how different natural first and prose first are,
> >> using the undoubted naturalness of natural first to
> >> argue for the naturalness of prose first is less than
> >> convincing, and similarly for omni.
To me this is like saying, "Given how different sugar canes and white
sugar are, using the undoubted sweetness of sugar canes to argue for the
sweetness of white sugar is less than convincing."
There are differences, yes; but there are more similarities than
differences; and those differences involve a refination (is that a
word?) of process, not alchemy.
> >I'd say there are grades of natural-ness, running something like:
> >
> >spoken anecdote -> letterwriting -> story in form of letters -> story in
> >form of memoir -> story in unidentified style of first person -> ->
> >story in third person
(By this latter I meant, and should have said, tight-third, as
distinguished from omni.)
> That's an historical sequence, though tight third may come
> from a narrowing of omni, but the bridges are long gone.
I don't care about the links or the history; I'm talking about degrees
of "natural-ness". I'm saying that spoken anecdote is more 'natural'
than letterwriting, and that telling a story in the form of letters is
more 'natural' than telling it in first person but without any frame.
Likewise, I believe that telling a story in first person (or in omni) is
more 'natural', in the same sense, than telling a story in tight third.
Tight-third appears to be extremely artificial; it appears to have been
invented sometime in the late nineteenth century, pending further data -
I must research this properly - and even now I have the impression that
there are whole genres where it's not used at all: the romance field,
particularly Mills and Boon types (which headhop in a way that would
with great difficulty be accepted in sf); and possibly the historical
fiction field (which tend towards either first or a certain brand of
omni, IME).
> How many epistolary novels are written these days? How
> many pseudo-memoirs?
Part of Mary Gentle's ASH is epistolatory; _Letters from the Fire_ by
Alma Hromic and R.A. Deckert is entirely so. (And I reckon more would
be written if it were easier to figure out how to mimic proper
email/usenet quoting conventions without becoming repetitive. My best
guess at the moment would be "Letters Found in a Sent Mail Box"-style.)
Mary's _1610_ is a pseudo-memoir, and so is/are _The King's Peace_ and
_The King's Name_ by Jo Walton.
That's just from my bookshelves of a mere couple hundred recent
English-language sf and fantasy novels, because I have a poor memory for
books I've read elsewhere.
> This leaves a chasm gaping between the natural style of
> anecdote and all the artifice-filled narrative styles of novels
> which renders any differences in naturalness within the latter
> group negligible.
This is writing; nothing's negligible.
Mary Gentle
fanf...@aol.com (Fanfic28) wrote:
[...]
> How many epistolary novels are written these days? How
> many pseudo-memoirs?
<tentatively raises hand> Um, that would be my last two . . . ?
_And_ I managed to fool one reviewer with the pseudo-ness of the
pseudo-memoir: my life is complete! <g>
Okay, call me old-fashioned. Everything that's old-fashioned comes round
to be shocking and new again: look at what the Jacobean dramatists did
with post-modernism . . .
Mary Gentle
(Alma Hromic Deckert) wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:21:48 GMT, mary_...@cix.co.uk (Mary Gentle)
> wrote:
>
> >having met animals
> >who can lie ("Yes, he forgot to feed me, look how starved and thin I
> >am..."), it can only be a matter of time before something furry starts
> >telling us stories. :)
> >
> i take it you and Domino (my resident con-cat) have met?
Must have a subconscious wormhole through the collective unconscious. :)
> (the amount of times she has had twice her dinner because both deck
> AND i fall for the "feed me now i'm STARVING" game is embarrassing to
> mention... now we have a litle fridge magnet which you can set to
> either "cat is FED" or "cat is NOT FED" and we have a lot less of
> those shenanigans...)
So . . . how long do you reckon before the cat learns to set the fridge
magnet back to "cat is NOT FED"?
Harry Erwin
> Harry Erwin <her...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Having said that, I'm convinced the line is blurry - having met animals
> > > who can lie ("Yes, he forgot to feed me, look how starved and thin I
> > > am..."), it can only be a matter of time before something furry starts
> > > telling us stories. :)
> >
> > Koko? < http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040809/koko.html>.
>
> In response:
> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001340.html#more
Excellent point. I have a PhD student working on a closely related
question. The neural mechanisms underlying grammar seem to be fairly
standard cortical circuits applied to some interesting problems. It is
beginning to look like grammar is innate.
>
> >She
> > appears to be at least comparable in intelligence to certain current
> > politicians.
>
> Well, but.
The word here in the UK is that the Bush campaign has given up on
winning the undecideds and is trying to win either by mobilizing the
faithful or demobilizing the opposition.
>
> Zeborah
Pat Bowne
>
> > (the amount of times she has had twice her dinner because both deck
> > AND i fall for the "feed me now i'm STARVING" game is embarrassing to
> > mention... now we have a litle fridge magnet which you can set to
> > either "cat is FED" or "cat is NOT FED" and we have a lot less of
> > those shenanigans...)
How do you reset it, so she doesn't stay FED for days on end?
Pat
Joann Zimmerman
mary_...@cix.co.uk says...
> In article <20040824030210...@mb-m16.aol.com>,
> fanf...@aol.com (Fanfic28) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > How many epistolary novels are written these days? How
> > many pseudo-memoirs?
>
> <tentatively raises hand> Um, that would be my last two . . . ?
>
> _And_ I managed to fool one reviewer with the pseudo-ness of the
> pseudo-memoir: my life is complete! <g>
Oh, you did even worse. :-) Knowing the above, when I read your
introduction to _1610_ I was also convinced that the mere existence of
Weyman must be made-up as well. Good thing I decided to check; _A
Gentleman of France_ now adorns my Ipaq.
> Okay, call me old-fashioned. Everything that's old-fashioned comes round
> to be shocking and new again: look at what the Jacobean dramatists did
> with post-modernism . . .
Like the David Lodge thing with Eliot's influence on Shakespeare? (or
whoever)
--
"I never understood people who don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@bellereti.com
R.L.
/snip/
> Okay, call me old-fashioned. Everything that's old-fashioned comes round
> to be shocking and new again: look at what the Jacobean dramatists did
> with post-modernism . . .
Yes. The Discworld omni narrator with long background and direct addresses
to the reader, Brunner's STAND ON ZANZIBAR....
R.L.
Julian Flood
"Harry Erwin" wrote
> It is
> beginning to look like grammar is innate.
I'm not a betting man. Bet you half a pint of IPA it's not.
JF
Please note: you know what you're talking about. I don't. But I still bet
you're wrong, it would be such a silly way of organising a flexible brain.
Fanfic28
>Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Zeborah wrote
>> >Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> As I said, they are the two ways people naturally tell stories,
>> >> for certain values of first and omni.
>> >
>> >No, you said you were arguing against the suggestion.
>> >Now I'm really confused.
>> >
>> I may possibly have been unclear.
>>
>> I have never attempted to argue people do not naturally use first
>> and omni. Rather, I have been arguing that this undoubted fact
>> does not make the entirely different first and omni used in novels
>> natural.
>>
>> I'm arguing against the inference, not the axiom.
>
>Okay, but in reply to my question - "Why have people used first or >omni in
literature?" - you then replied "because those are the two
>ways people naturally tell stories". (Both paraphrases; I've left the
>originals above.)
>
You've omitted the caveat, which radically changes the meaning
by introducing a distinction between two different categories of
first.
There is a style of first naturally used to tell anecdotes, which is
fundamentally diffferent from the styles of first used in novels.
You are arguing as if the two styles were interchangeable,
which is false.
>In other words "People naturally tell stories in first or omni,
>therefore people use first or omni in literature."
>
>No?
No, because you are calling two quite different things by
the same name.
>
>I really can't tell the difference between what you're acknowledging and
>what you're rejecting.
>
>My argument is that:
>
>Premises:
>a) first and omni are natural points of view for anecdotes;
>b) first and omni pervade literature for at least a few thousand years
>before tight-third ever shows up;
Both true, for certain values of first.
Pay attention to the caveat.
Natural first and prose first are different enough any argument
that relies on confusing them will not convince.
>
>> >> Given how different natural first and prose first are,
>> >> using the undoubted naturalness of natural first to
>> >> argue for the naturalness of prose first is less than
>> >> convincing, and similarly for omni.
>
>To me this is like saying, "Given how different sugar canes and white
>sugar are, using the undoubted sweetness of sugar canes to argue for >the
sweetness of white sugar is less than convincing."
>
>There are differences, yes; but there are more similarities than
>differences; and those differences involve a refination (is that a
>word?) of process, not alchemy.
>
You see no real difference between the unrehearsed
anecdotes of casual conversation and first person
novels that are the product of rare skill?
That is not a position I find remotely credible,
given even a moments comparison between the way
people actually talk and what is on my bookshelves.
>
>I don't care about the links or the history; I'm talking about degrees
>of "natural-ness". I'm saying that spoken anecdote is more 'natural'
>than letterwriting, and that telling a story in the form of letters is
>more 'natural' than telling it in first person but without any frame.
>Likewise, I believe that telling a story in first person (or in omni) is
>more 'natural', in the same sense, than telling a story in tight third.
>
>Tight-third appears to be extremely artificial; it appears to have been
>invented sometime in the late nineteenth century, pending further data -
However, that need not imply it is further from naturalness than
the other styles. If we consider the amount of literary devices
needed, the complexity of the narrative conventions assumed,
in essence how creative work is involved, then the answer is
much the same for all styles.
A genuinely more natural style, less removed from casual
conversation, would be intrinsicly easier to write in, for everyone,
because of its comparative lack of artifice, which I suspect is
not a claim you would be willing to make about first person.
>
>> How many epistolary novels are written these days? How
>> many pseudo-memoirs?
As a fraction of the whole.
People write novels with no letter 'e', but they are not
a significant part of the literary world.
>> This leaves a chasm gaping between the natural style of
>> anecdote and all the artifice-filled narrative styles of novels
>> which renders any differences in naturalness within the latter
>> group negligible.
>
>This is writing; nothing's negligible.
If everything is significant, nothing is.
You are left gawping in wonder at every single leaf, unique
in its own way, unable to appreciate the tree, let alone the
forest.
Zeborah
> I think tight third is a marker too (see other post where I said I
> think that story past is just a marker of a story). It's what you use
> instead of first person when you don't want to engage in the level of
> artifice involved in presenting the voice of the character: when you
> don't want to express their emotions directly but you don't want to
> write a cold or alienated character necessarily (or maybe you do!):
> when you want to say some things the character couldn't say:when you
> don't want to say some things the character would say: when you don't
> want the story telling to be prominent: when you want the story
> telling to be more prominent -- I can think of lots of reasons.
I would say -- but this may not be true for other authors; for me, the
way I conceptualise third and first persons in my own writing -- tight
third and first person present are essentially the same in what can be
presented. (Though plenty of authors take a lot more leeway than I do
of tight third.) So for me, the main difference between the two is to
do with (in)visibility of the prose (first present is a lot more marked
than tight third past) and as a consequence the choice affects perceived
character-reader distance.
> I just recently gave up on an amateur serial in which the shift was
> from first person to omni, and irregularly and without warning and
> increasingly as the story progressed.
I've read a fanfic like that. Quite strange; the sort of thing that
could work well, if done well, but if not done *really* well, falls flat
on its face.
Zeborah
> In article <memo.2004082...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com>,
> mary_...@cix.co.uk says...
> > _And_ I managed to fool one reviewer with the pseudo-ness of the
> > pseudo-memoir: my life is complete! <g>
>
> Oh, you did even worse. :-) Knowing the above, when I read your
> introduction to _1610_ I was also convinced that the mere existence of
> Weyman must be made-up as well. Good thing I decided to check; _A
> Gentleman of France_ now adorns my Ipaq.
She mentioned Weyman in 1610? Gah, I must have skimmed right past it.
Since I'd spent so much time, in the introduction to ASH, googling for
those names in vain.
> > Okay, call me old-fashioned. Everything that's old-fashioned comes round
> > to be shocking and new again: look at what the Jacobean dramatists did
> > with post-modernism . . .
I bet one day tv will even get bored of reality shows and start showing
fiction again.
Zeborah
> Excellent point. I have a PhD student working on a closely related
> question. The neural mechanisms underlying grammar seem to be fairly
> standard cortical circuits applied to some interesting problems. It is
> beginning to look like grammar is innate.
I prefer to think of grammar as... is it called 'emergent'? -- my idea
being that there are things in the brain that generally get applied to
some set of real life problems, and when we started to use language,
those got coopted to organise language into what we now call grammar.
I don't really feel that 'innate' is the right word for that.
Jonathan L Cunningham
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:00:08 -0400, o...@uniserve.com wrote:
>
>>In <20040821102435...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Fanfic28
>><fanf...@aol.com> onsendan:
>>> First person raises many questions.
>>>
>>> Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so, when and
>>> for who? It doesn't seem the way anyone would tell their
>>> autobiography, unless they were deliberately using the conventions of
>>> fiction, and then they'd either need an amazing memory or have to be
>>> inventing most of the details.
>>
>>Or the story is being pulled out of Bertie's head in near-real-time by
>>the agency of narrative, an agency concerning which Bertie is blissfully
>>ignorant.
>
>"Narrativium" as _The Science of Diskworld_ puts it. Unfortunately,
>the book was mostly the science of Earth, so I ended up skipping
>alternate chapters.
Mine is spelled _The Science of Discworld_ -- it's cute that yours
is spelled with a 'k'.
Jonathan
(fixating on trivia -- I've had a couple of late nights, and ought
to to bed, but I'm staying up again to watch an episode of "Angel").
--
Use jlc1 at address, not spam.
Zeborah
> Zeborah wrote.
>
> >Okay, but in reply to my question - "Why have people used first or
> >omni in literature?" - you then replied "because those are the two
> >ways people naturally tell stories". (Both paraphrases; I've left the
> >originals above.)
>
> You've omitted the caveat, which radically changes the meaning
> by introducing a distinction between two different categories of
> first.
>
> There is a style of first naturally used to tell anecdotes, which is
> fundamentally diffferent from the styles of first used in novels.
If anecdote-style-first is fundamentally different from
novel-style-first, then why should people have written for so long in
novel-style-first rather than in tight-third? What advantage did the
former have over the latter? If novel-style-first and tight-third are
equally (un)natural, then why has there been an historic preference for
novel-style-first?
> You are arguing as if the two styles were interchangeable,
> which is false.
Not interchangeable; one led to the other. The style of telling
anecdotes in speech led to the style of telling anecdotes in letters.
Later on, the style of telling anecdotes in letters led to the style of
telling a novel in letters. (More specifically: when Samuel Richardson
was writing a guide to "how to write good letters", he got distracted
and started writing a novel-in-letters.)
Other conventions got attached, yes. When you tell an anecdote, you
don't generally speak for five hours at a time, or if you do you'd
better be entertaining about it and provide good food and wine. In a
novel it's possible to tell longer anecdotes, and authors took advantage
of this. It's possible to invent entire conversations that a real
person would have forgotten(1), and authors took advantage of this.
That doesn't mean that the point of view is fundamentally different; it
just means that there are extra conventions tagged on.
(1) It occurs to me that maybe, at the dawn of novel-writing, people
*could* have remembered entire conversations; maybe people in those days
really did have better memories for such a thing than we do now.
<shrug> These days it's just a convention; but the point of view is the
same.
> >To me this is like saying, "Given how different sugar canes and white
> >sugar are, using the undoubted sweetness of sugar canes to argue for
> >the sweetness of white sugar is less than convincing."
> >
> >There are differences, yes; but there are more similarities than
> >differences; and those differences involve a refination (is that a
> >word?) of process, not alchemy.
>
> You see no real difference between the unrehearsed
> anecdotes of casual conversation and first person
> novels that are the product of rare skill?
>
> That is not a position I find remotely credible,
> given even a moments comparison between the way
> people actually talk and what is on my bookshelves.
When people talk, they insert "ums" and "ahs". But when I tell an
anecdote and quote somebody, I don't quote their "ums" and "ahs" (unless
I'm mocking them for that). Likewise, when I write a story, I don't
quote the characters' "ums" and "ahs".
> >I don't care about the links or the history; I'm talking about degrees
> >of "natural-ness". I'm saying that spoken anecdote is more 'natural'
> >than letterwriting, and that telling a story in the form of letters is
> >more 'natural' than telling it in first person but without any frame.
> >Likewise, I believe that telling a story in first person (or in omni) is
> >more 'natural', in the same sense, than telling a story in tight third.
> >
> >Tight-third appears to be extremely artificial; it appears to have been
> >invented sometime in the late nineteenth century, pending further data -
>
> However, that need not imply it is further from naturalness than
> the other styles. If we consider the amount of literary devices
> needed, the complexity of the narrative conventions assumed,
> in essence how creative work is involved, then the answer is
> much the same for all styles.
Yes, but if we consider *only* the point of view -- I'm not talking
about the amount of intelligence required to tell a pleasantly
believable lie, which is what fiction is -- if we ignore other things
and look simply at the point of view, then I think it is reasonable to
say that first and omni are more natural than tight-third.
First and omni are universal to stories throughout the world. The whole
world for thousands of years used them. Tight-third appears to have
arisen *once*, in *one* culture, and spread from there, and didn't
spread very far at that.
> A genuinely more natural style, less removed from casual
> conversation, would be intrinsicly easier to write in, for everyone,
> because of its comparative lack of artifice, which I suspect is
> not a claim you would be willing to make about first person.
Not first person alone, perhaps, but first person and omni both: yes.
That is, "intrinsically more natural to write in, for the majority of
people, because it accords more with their own experiences".
If people's experiences are to tell anecdotes in first and omni, then it
will be more natural for them to write novels in first and omni.
If people's experiences are to watch lots of tv shows that use
camera-eye, then it'll be more natural for them to write novels in
camera-eye.
Only if people's experiences are to read lots of novels that use
tight-third, only then will it be more natural for them to write their
own novels in tight-third.
The first case is more universally natural (and indeed, in my childhood
I wrote in first and omni). The second case is becoming more so (and
indeed, at some point I attempted camera-eye). The third case is...
mixed. There are tight-third novels that I've read, of course; but
there are also first person and omni. I think sometime in high school I
wrote some tight-third -- but the earliest ones were written as direct
imitations of some beloved book that was also tight-third.
And I've seen a lot of advice/information for new writers (here and in
fanfic circles) that essentially says, "Hey, what you're doing (without
having noticed) is omni, but it's causing you these problems; did you
know there's another way of doing things, called tight third, and this
is how that works?" --I've seen this so often that it seems quite
reasonable to believe that omni is coming naturally to those writers
whereas tight-third is something that has to be learned.
> >> How many epistolary novels are written these days? How
> >> many pseudo-memoirs?
>
> As a fraction of the whole.
> People write novels with no letter 'e', but they are not
> a significant part of the literary world.
Epistolary and pseudo-memoires are more significant than the letter 'e'.
They're not much in fashion at the moment, is all; nor is omni with an
explicit narrator; nor is burping after a good meal, nor all sorts of
other things which are nevertheless perfectly natural.
sharkey
> "Harry Erwin" wrote:
> >
> > It is beginning to look like grammar is innate.
>
> I'm not a betting man. Bet you half a pint of IPA it's not.
> you're wrong, it would be such a silly way of organising a flexible brain.
Hmmm ... as another person who knows nothing, I'd be surprised to
hear that grammar is innate as in built into every brain in a fixed
way, but I'd be not at all surprised to hear that grammar is
to brains as Turing machines are to infinite-tapes-with-a-read-
write-head (they're the architecture of the software for that hardware),
and that all grammars are related in the same way that Turing machines
of arbitrary complexity are reducable to the simplest Turing machine.
Or that might be gibberish.
-----sharks
Heather Rose Jones
I would rather imagine that much depends on one's definition
and understanding of "grammar". (Even linguists don't
always agree on what is meant by "grammar".) As a linguist,
I'd be perfectly willing to bet that some significant
aspects of human language are innate ... but I predict that
it may be debatable whether the innate bits are best labeled
as "grammar".
Heather
--
Heather Rose Jones
heathe...@earthlink.net
Marilee J. Layman
Cunningham) wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:06:56 -0400, Marilee J. Layman
><mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:00:08 -0400, o...@uniserve.com wrote:
>>
>>>In <20040821102435...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Fanfic28
>>><fanf...@aol.com> onsendan:
>>>> First person raises many questions.
>>>>
>>>> Could Bertie Wooster really have written his stories? If so, when and
>>>> for who? It doesn't seem the way anyone would tell their
>>>> autobiography, unless they were deliberately using the conventions of
>>>> fiction, and then they'd either need an amazing memory or have to be
>>>> inventing most of the details.
>>>
>>>Or the story is being pulled out of Bertie's head in near-real-time by
>>>the agency of narrative, an agency concerning which Bertie is blissfully
>>>ignorant.
>>
>>"Narrativium" as _The Science of Diskworld_ puts it. Unfortunately,
>>the book was mostly the science of Earth, so I ended up skipping
>>alternate chapters.
>
>Mine is spelled _The Science of Discworld_ -- it's cute that yours
>is spelled with a 'k'.
I considered looking it up, but I figured I'd be corrected if I was
wrong.
>Jonathan
>(fixating on trivia -- I've had a couple of late nights, and ought
>to to bed, but I'm staying up again to watch an episode of "Angel").
--
Marilee J. Layman
G.W. Bush says "results count!"
That's why I'm voting for Kerry.
R.L. Divergins
> Harry Erwin <her...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent point. I have a PhD student working on a closely related
>> question. The neural mechanisms underlying grammar seem to be fairly
>> standard cortical circuits applied to some interesting problems. It is
>> beginning to look like grammar is innate.
>
> I prefer to think of grammar as... is it called 'emergent'? -- my idea
> being that there are things in the brain that generally get applied to
> some set of real life problems, and when we started to use language,
> those got coopted to organise language into what we now call grammar.
Interesting. What real life problems would fit?
R.L.
Fanfic28
>Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Zeborah wrote.
>>
>> >Okay, but in reply to my question - "Why have people used first or
>> >omni in literature?" - you then replied "because those are the two
>> >ways people naturally tell stories". (Both paraphrases; I've left the
>> >originals above.)
>>
>> You've omitted the caveat, which radically changes the meaning
>> by introducing a distinction between two different categories of
>> first.
>>
>> There is a style of first naturally used to tell anecdotes, which is
>> fundamentally diffferent from the styles of first used in novels.
>
>If anecdote-style-first is fundamentally different from
>novel-style-first, then why should people have written for so long in
>novel-style-first rather than in tight-third?
Why did people would flapping wings before they tried balloons?
The obvious way is not necessarily the easiest way, or the most
natural.
Certainly, people went to great lengths to copy the superficial
appearance of the natural styles, but the amount of creative
labour involved is evidence enough that this wasn't a particularly
natural approach.
>> You are arguing as if the two styles were interchangeable,
>> which is false.
>
>Not interchangeable; one led to the other.
If you accept they are different, why complain when I argue
based on that difference?
>
>Other conventions got attached, yes. When you tell an anecdote, you
>don't generally speak for five hours at a time, or if you do you'd
>better be entertaining about it and provide good food and wine. In a
>novel it's possible to tell longer anecdotes, and authors took advantage
>of this. It's possible to invent entire conversations that a real
>person would have forgotten(1), and authors took advantage of this.
>That doesn't mean that the point of view is fundamentally different; it
>just means that there are extra conventions tagged on.
>
A mile is not very far. Walk ten thousand miles and you
are nowhere near where you started.
Each individual convention may be negligible, but tag enough
on and you are not where you started.
>(1) It occurs to me that maybe, at the dawn of novel-writing, people
>*could* have remembered entire conversations; maybe people in those days
>really did have better memories for such a thing than we do now.
><shrug> These days it's just a convention; but the point of view is the
>same.
>
>>
>> You see no real difference between the unrehearsed
>> anecdotes of casual conversation and first person
>> novels that are the product of rare skill?
>>
>> That is not a position I find remotely credible,
>> given even a moments comparison between the way
>> people actually talk and what is on my bookshelves.
>
>When people talk, they insert "ums" and "ahs". But when I tell an
>anecdote and quote somebody, I don't quote their "ums" and "ahs" >(unless I'm
mocking them for that). Likewise, when I write a story, I
>don't quote the characters' "ums" and "ahs".
There's a lot more work involved in writing first person than just
stripping out the "ums" and "ahs", and that work is considerably
less trivial.
>> However, that need not imply it is further from naturalness than
>> the other styles. If we consider the amount of literary devices
>> needed, the complexity of the narrative conventions assumed,
>> in essence how creative work is involved, then the answer is
>> much the same for all styles.
>
>Yes, but if we consider *only* the point of view -- I'm not talking
>about the amount of intelligence required to tell a pleasantly
>believable lie,
But that is what I mean by naturalness.
Something is completely natural if you can just pick
it out of nature and use it as is, like apples off a tree.
Something is near enough natural if minimal work is done
on it, as with jam. Some preparation is required, but
not a lot.
Something which requires a ton of artifice is not natural,
whether it's this computer, the product of the collective
work of millions, or Gentle's ASH. I certainly wouldn't
want to say which required more hard intellectual labour.
That seems to me a quite conventional use of the word.
Fanfic28
> Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> onsendan:
>> There is a style of first naturally used to tell anecdotes, which is
>> fundamentally diffferent from the styles of first used in novels.
>>
>> which is false.
>
>Over-Generalizations.
>
Really? I thought I had stuffed the space between the lines
with implicit caveats, plainly visible to all in context.
I suppose I could spell all save the most obvious out, but
that would soon get repetitive, and patronising.
I prefer to assume the reader is capable of filling in the
fiddly little details for themselves, so I need only sketch
the broad outlines of my case.
nyra
>
> Zeborah wrote.
>
> >Fanfic28 <fanf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> I have never attempted to argue people do not naturally use first
> >> and omni. Rather, I have been arguing that this undoubted fact
> >> does not make the entirely different first and omni used in novels
> >> natural.
I'm not quite seeing your point here. I've not seen it argued that
first person or "invisible observer" perspectives as used in
literature were exactly like those seen in verbal anecdotes; the
argument seemed to be that these two perspectives were "natural"
perspectives for telling stories, so they "naturally" also were used
for literary story-telling.
> >In other words "People naturally tell stories in first or omni,
> >therefore people use first or omni in literature."
> >
> >No?
>
> No, because you are calling two quite different things by
> the same name.
I consider literature a refined form of (originally oral)
story-telling. Can be extremely refined, but at heart it's the same
thing to me.
For reference, i consider singing to be a very refined form of what
was basically signalling calls; might be too long a link for you.
> >I really can't tell the difference between what you're acknowledging and
> >what you're rejecting.
> >
> >My argument is that:
> >
> >Premises:
> >a) first and omni are natural points of view for anecdotes;
> >b) first and omni pervade literature for at least a few thousand years
> >before tight-third ever shows up;
I must admit i'm not sure what exactly you'd accept as "tight-third".
I'd argue that third person perspectives centred on a single
participant have appeared quite early - in Wolfram's "Parzival", the
perspective is rather mixed (including first-person remarks by the
author), but when it comes to looking into characters' heads, i find
that only the two main protagonists Parzival and Gawan are really
adopted as PoV chars.
And as far as third-person perspectives go, i see a strict difference
between a truly omniscient narrator who can look into the minds of
characters and what i'd call an "invisible observer", effectively a
normal person who witnesses the events without being involved. I
consider the former to be a purely literary perspective, not one of
natural anecdotes.
> Natural first and prose first are different enough any argument
> that relies on confusing them will not convince.
Could you elaborate on this, please? I'm not convinced of there being
a fundamental difference between them. I only see differences in
degree and aesthetic quality, by no means enough to render them
incomparable.
> >Likewise, I believe that telling a story in first person (or in omni) is
> >more 'natural', in the same sense, than telling a story in tight third.
What about recounting the (originally first-person) account someone
gave you about something they experienced? Most likely you won't tell
this as _your_ experience (first person) nor as a completely
unpersonal account, esp. if it was told to you by someone who actually
had an active part in events.
Zeborah
> Zeborah wrote
>
> >If anecdote-style-first is fundamentally different from
> >novel-style-first, then why should people have written for so long in
> >novel-style-first rather than in tight-third?
>
> Why did people would flapping wings before they tried balloons?
> The obvious way is not necessarily the easiest way, or the most
> natural.
>
> Certainly, people went to great lengths to copy the superficial
> appearance of the natural styles, but the amount of creative
> labour involved is evidence enough that this wasn't a particularly
> natural approach.
You mean something very different by "natural" than I do. When I say
"It is more natural for people to use first person or omniscient than
tight-third in writing stories," I do *not* mean that first or omni is
better; I mean it's what the people naturally think of using.
People tried flapping wings because that was what they naturally thought
of first. It didn't work, but that's beside the point; when they
thought "Let's fly," it _naturally occurred to them_ to try wings.
> >Not interchangeable; one led to the other.
>
> If you accept they are different, why complain when I argue
> based on that difference?
I do not accept that they are *fundamentally* different.
> >Other conventions got attached, yes.
<snip>
> >That doesn't mean that the point of view is fundamentally different; it
> >just means that there are extra conventions tagged on.
>
> A mile is not very far. Walk ten thousand miles and you
> are nowhere near where you started.
>
> Each individual convention may be negligible, but tag enough
> on and you are not where you started.
So the conventions of first person in a novel are ten thousand miles;
but the conventions of tight-third are eleven thousand.
You can round it to five significant figures if you want, and say "Ten,
eleven, what's the difference?" But there *is* a difference between
first and tight-third.
> >Yes, but if we consider *only* the point of view -- I'm not talking
> >about the amount of intelligence required to tell a pleasantly
> >believable lie,
>
> But that is what I mean by naturalness.
>
> Something is completely natural if you can just pick
> it out of nature and use it as is, like apples off a tree.
>
> Something is near enough natural if minimal work is done
> on it, as with jam. Some preparation is required, but
> not a lot.
>
> Something which requires a ton of artifice is not natural,
> whether it's this computer, the product of the collective
> work of millions, or Gentle's ASH. I certainly wouldn't
> want to say which required more hard intellectual labour.
>
> That seems to me a quite conventional use of the word.
You sound as if you're arguing "Writing a novel is really difficult, and
therefore there's no difference between how natural first person is and
how natural tight-third is."
I'm arguing, "Of course writing a novel is really difficult, but leaving
that aside, *all else being equal*, it is more natural for people to use
first person to write a novel than it is for them to use tight-third."
I'm not saying one book is more natural than another. I'm saying one
point of view is more natural than another.
Zeborah
(All of the above should be modified with "Pending further data".)
Zeborah
> Fanfic28 schrieb:
> >
> > Zeborah wrote.
> > >Premises:
> > >a) first and omni are natural points of view for anecdotes;
> > >b) first and omni pervade literature for at least a few thousand years
> > >before tight-third ever shows up;
>
> I must admit i'm not sure what exactly you'd accept as "tight-third".
> I'd argue that third person perspectives centred on a single
> participant have appeared quite early - in Wolfram's "Parzival", the
> perspective is rather mixed (including first-person remarks by the
> author), but when it comes to looking into characters' heads, i find
> that only the two main protagonists Parzival and Gawan are really
> adopted as PoV chars.
I'd call that an omniscient point of view with focus alternating between
Parzival and Gawan. Not having read it; I'll try and check it out soon
just in case. I might be willing to be lenient and call it multiple
tight-third if there is only one point of view character in any given
scene, and depending on the nature of the auctorial comments.
> And as far as third-person perspectives go, i see a strict difference
> between a truly omniscient narrator who can look into the minds of
> characters and what i'd call an "invisible observer", effectively a
> normal person who witnesses the events without being involved. I
> consider the former to be a purely literary perspective, not one of
> natural anecdotes.
A normal person would get involved in the events. :-)
> > >Likewise, I believe that telling a story in first person (or in omni) is
> > >more 'natural', in the same sense, than telling a story in tight third.
>
> What about recounting the (originally first-person) account someone
> gave you about something they experienced? Most likely you won't tell
> this as _your_ experience (first person) nor as a completely
> unpersonal account, esp. if it was told to you by someone who actually
> had an active part in events.
There's a phrase that's been floating around on the tip of my brain for
a while -- ah: Theory of Mind. I think.
If I've remembered right, theory of mind is to do with how much you can
cope with thinking about other people's thoughts.
"I think Jane suspects I don't believe her," is quite easy for a human
to cope with, particularly if they watch soap operas a lot; that's three
levels. I think humans can cope with four levels; I think five is too
much. Gorillas certainly can't do four and I think they can't do three.
(There've been some interesting experiments done with boxes, and
bananas, and people leaving the room, and I've forgotten all the
details.)
Once you start telling a story that someone told you, you're asking the
reader to believe that you're telling the truth that John's telling the
truth that these things happened and these people thought this stuff.
Very rapidly you get "John says he thinks Jane suspects he doesn't
believe she never lied about his application form," which is four or
five levels, depending how you count "lie" (possibly six; my head
hurts).
Where was I? Oh. --We do pretty well, really, for gossip, which is
good since we do so much of that. But gossip is about people you know;
whereas fiction generally deals with people who don't even exist. It's
that little bit harder. In fact, it's an extra level up the
theory-of-mind chain, because the reader knows that the author doesn't
really believe that the narrator thinks that John thinks that Mary
suspects...
(I think this is a) why often the omniscient narrator is not presented
as being different from the author; and b) why suspension of disbelief
is so important: if you can trick your brain into forgetting about the
author, then you cut out a level of the theory-of-mind chain, which
makes thinking about the book that much easier.)
Anyway. So when a reader reads what an author writes about a narrator
who tells about how their friend told them the story the stranger told
down in the pub (which story is bound to include something about the
strangers thoughts about whether their enemy believed their lies or not)
-- this is not very easy on the reader.
So (see, I have a point!) for that reason, the author has to present the
central story as if it were straight from the stranger's mouth -- ie, in
first person.
<reflects>
Which wasn't what you were talking about; you were suggesting that
tight-third does have an analogy in 'real life'. Yes, it does; but
a) in those cases, one's own judgements are going to intrude too, and
you're also going to mention what you've heard about the situation from
someone else who was there -- thus making it more analogous to
omniscient;
b) it's an extra level up the theory-of-mind chain, which makes it
'harder' than first, which means that the point of view can be expected
to occur to a writer less naturally than first would.
I have no idea if any of this makes any sense to anyone but me.
Zeborah
Memory, obviously, and all kinds of pattern-matching.
Firstly the kind of pattern-matching that happens when a kid notices,
"Huh, every time I say "Mama" Mum looks at me and smiles," or "When I
say "cookie" she gives me a cookie, but when I say "doll" she gives me a
doll."
The ability to abstract! All kinds of trees are different, but we're
still able to see that they're all trees. Each individual oak is
different, but we're still able to see that they're all oaks. This is
important in order to a) realise that because that apple was good to
eat, this apple will be good to eat as well, even though it's a slightly
different colour; and b) call both the red and green apples "apple".
This is quite basic, and dolphins and gorillas and dogs can all do this
much to some extent; but it's past my bedtime so I haven't time to think
deeper. But I think theory of mind (see my attempt at explaining that
in reply to Nyra elsewhere in the thread) may have something to do with
subordinate clauses, kinda-sorta.
Harry Erwin
The vertebrate cortex seems to support the sorts of vocal communication
we see in animals easily. Basically, all you need is match/mismatch
processes. It has difficulty with grammar (and with planning out complex
tasks in general), since you have to code/decode on more than one level,
and use the results of previous codings/ decodings to control the
current process. I have a PhD student who is working on this problem.
Irina Rempt
[Theory of Mind]
> I have no idea if any of this makes any sense to anyone but me.
Yes, perfect sense, thanks!
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 14-Jun-2004
Helen
<zeb...@gmail.com> writes
>
>There's a phrase that's been floating around on the tip of my brain for
>a while -- ah: Theory of Mind. I think.
>
>If I've remembered right, theory of mind is to do with how much you can
>cope with thinking about other people's thoughts.
>
>Which wasn't what you were talking about; you were suggesting that
>tight-third does have an analogy in 'real life'. Yes, it does; but
>
The only circumstance I can think of where you would use something
closely resembling tight-third in real life would be if you were re-
telling (to a third person) a story that had been told to you very
vividly in first person, along with thoughts and feelings.
If you were attempting to convey that vividness you experienced and if
you could refrain from adding in your own thoughts or commentary
(because if you do that it immediately becomes a version of omni), that
would be more or less tight-third. And, in a novel, that's just what
tight third is. An invisible author re-telling a story that either the
character has told them or that they've experienced second hand via a
sort of telepathic link with the character -- depending on how the
author feels their process works.
>a) in those cases, one's own judgements are going to intrude too, and
>you're also going to mention what you've heard about the situation from
>someone else who was there -- thus making it more analogous to
>omniscient;
>
Exactly.
>b) it's an extra level up the theory-of-mind chain, which makes it
>'harder' than first, which means that the point of view can be expected
>to occur to a writer less naturally than first would.
>
>I have no idea if any of this makes any sense to anyone but me.
>
I think it made perfect sense. Just don't ask me to explain it to
someone else. :-)
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
R.L.
> nyra <ny...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Fanfic28 schrieb:
>>>
>>> Zeborah wrote.
>>> >Premises:
>>> >a) first and omni are natural points of view for anecdotes;
>>> >b) first and omni pervade literature for at least a few thousand years
>>> >before tight-third ever shows up;
>> I must admit i'm not sure what exactly you'd accept as "tight-third".
>> I'd argue that third person perspectives centred on a single
>> participant have appeared quite early - in Wolfram's "Parzival", the
>> perspective is rather mixed (including first-person remarks by the
>> author), but when it comes to looking into characters' heads, i find
>> that only the two main protagonists Parzival and Gawan are really
>> adopted as PoV chars.
>
> I'd call that an omniscient point of view with focus alternating between
> Parzival and Gawan. Not having read it; I'll try and check it out soon
> just in case. I might be willing to be lenient and call it multiple
> tight-third if there is only one point of view character in any given
> scene, and depending on the nature of the auctorial comments.
This is getting into useful territory. I have been meaning to suggest for
your quiz, you might look at Collette's CHERI. Years since I read it, but I
remember it as different from her others because it seemed more focused on
Cheri's experience and reaction to what happened to him, than on the
reactions of the reader seeing a whole design seen by no one character. I
had the same feeling, more strongly, about THE LIGHT THAT FAILED. Woolf's
NIGHT AND DAY is definitely omni, at least by the amount of headhopping in
short spaces, but there are chunks (eg Ralph at home and Mary before she
leaves for work) that seem to invite me to get into the character's pv and
share his experience, rather than to look *at* his feelings.
I may be wrong about these particular books, but I wonder if this might
still be a useful distinction: omni in presentation vs omni in ...
emotional focus? Most of SWALLOWS & AMAZONS is omni with what I'd call omni
emotional focus (or at least group pv), but the part where Titty is alone
on the island seems to change gears; it's more sharing her experience,
indistinguishable from TT.
I can imagine a stage in the development of TT where the emotional focus
was (or was becoming) Multiple TT, but the transitions and such still used
the convenience of omni, and it might have auctorial comments here and
there between the chunks of effectively-TT.
/snip much/
> There's a phrase that's been floating around on the tip of my brain for
> a while -- ah: Theory of Mind. I think.
>
> If I've remembered right, theory of mind is to do with how much you can
> cope with thinking about other people's thoughts.
/snip for length/
> Anyway. So when a reader reads what an author writes about a narrator
> who tells about how their friend told them the story the stranger told
> down in the pub (which story is bound to include something about the
> strangers thoughts about whether their enemy believed their lies or not)
> -- this is not very easy on the reader.
Does anyone have students they could set on a treasure hunt to find the
deepest nest of this sort of thing in Kipling? :-)
>
> So (see, I have a point!) for that reason, the author has to present the
> central story as if it were straight from the stranger's mouth -- ie, in
> first person.
Or make himself a character, as Kipling did, and Collette, and Twain?
R.L.
--
Denham had accused Katharine Hilbery of belonging to one of the most
distinguished families in England
-- Woolf, NIGHT AND DAY
R.L.
> Zeborah schrieb:
/snip/
>> spoken anecdote -> letterwriting -> story in form of letters -> story in
>> form of memoir -> story in unidentified style of first person -> ->
>> story in third person
>
> I think the third person stories took another route to get there -
> there are anecdotes, fables, fairy tales and whatnot which tell a
> story the narrator is not personally involved in yet are still very
> "natural" in their form (simple retelling of events and speech, little
> if any stylistic sophistication).
Imo some folk tales (and perhaps all myths?) are 'omni plot' or 'omni
emotional effect'; the point is a design the reader sees, different than
what any one character is seeing (eg Oedipus motif, Orpheus and Eurydice,
"The Three Golden Hairs of the Devil", "The King Who Would Have a Beautiful
Wife").
But some are pretty much TT in plot and effect: "The Twelve Dancing
Princesses", most of the Russian and Scandavian stories of a hero setting
out on a quest, etc. "Hansel and Gretal" may have some omni for convenience
(explaining the parents' and witch's motives) but the main action is TT and
that information could be put into TT without losing the design.
"Cinderella" could be TT if she hears news of the Prince's reaction instead
of the reader being told it directly.
"Rumplestiltskin" could be told in TT, if we see the Queen being told about
her agent seeing the dwarf singing, instead of seeing that ourselves; but
imo making it TT with focus on sharing the Queen's feelings about her fate
would make it a whole different story.
If the distinction is between looking at a character's feelings vs sharing
them, ie seeing _with_ his eyes -- then just about any short folk tale
focused on one main character among simple marvels will have the "seeing
with" focus, I expect. And maarchen (not 'local legends') are traditionally
in some kind of third, for the "Once upon a time" effect; adding details
and recasting the 'omni convenience' stuff makes it pretty much modern TT.
Tho I think the historical development was different: when they wanted a
long journey among marvels they went to first person.
When I retell a folk tale, I always use third (light omni). My focus is on
the marvels, with the pv's reaction to be inferred by common sense. First
Person would be more difficult for me, I'd have to keep spelling out her
feelings (or make her an objective reporter, like Gulliver).
R.L.
R.L.
/snip/
Woops, need a PS. I meant the tale in Calvino (Oedipus motif) where a king
is trying to get rid of a prophesied rival, but everything he tries goes
wrong -- eg he writes a letter saying "Kill the bearer" but robbers find
the bearer sleeping, take pity on him, and forge a new letter saying "Marry
the bearer to the Princess." The effect of the story comes from all these
people acting independently and only the reader seeing the whole. I think
maybe in Calvino this was in "The Feathered Ogre", and the bearer at one
point did the trip to the ogre/devil.
> Imo some folk tales (and perhaps all myths?) are 'omni plot' or 'omni
> emotional effect'; the point is a design the reader sees, different than
> what any one character is seeing (eg Oedipus motif, Orpheus and Eurydice,
> "The Three Golden Hairs of the Devil", "The King Who Would Have a Beautiful
> Wife").
R.L.
Lucy Kemnitzer
to have said:
>Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> I think tight third is a marker too (see other post where I said I
>> think that story past is just a marker of a story). It's what you use
>> instead of first person when you don't want to engage in the level of
>> artifice involved in presenting the voice of the character: when you
>> don't want to express their emotions directly but you don't want to
>> write a cold or alienated character necessarily (or maybe you do!):
>> when you want to say some things the character couldn't say:when you
>> don't want to say some things the character would say: when you don't
>> want the story telling to be prominent: when you want the story
>> telling to be more prominent -- I can think of lots of reasons.
>
>I would say -- but this may not be true for other authors; for me, the
>way I conceptualise third and first persons in my own writing -- tight
>third and first person present are essentially the same in what can be
>presented. (Though plenty of authors take a lot more leeway than I do
>of tight third.) So for me, the main difference between the two is to
>do with (in)visibility of the prose (first present is a lot more marked
>than tight third past) and as a consequence the choice affects perceived
>character-reader distance.
Well, and I also think that you can do different things with voice
with tight-third and with first-person. You not only can but you must
decide with first-person how closely to render the character's dialect
and idiolect. You can use a different register to write about a
person in tight-third than they would ever use, and you can modulate
your vocabulary along a greater range -- mostly in higher, more
formal, more learned ranges than the character would use (though it
might be an amusing exercise to write the story of a pedantic,
well-educated, formal person in street slang. It would then interject
another layer, of a presumed first-person who doesn't talk about
himself, wouldn't it?) With first-person narrative, you are freer to
use unconventional forms, but only if they are consistent with the
character.
I'm struggling with this now, because the first-person narrator I'm
working with is a construct -- not a person who was raised with a
particular idiom, but an artifact made to resemble a grown person.
Since he was made to be the user interface for a magical process, he
has a normal, fluid command of language -- but what is his voice?
It's easy to cheat with him -- since he was made to suit the desires
and convenience of these people, anything I want him to have I can
simply assert that they made him with it. But. Circumstances being
what they are, and stories being what they are, he is becoming more of
a person steadily throughout the book, and I need his voice to reflect
that. But. If he's narrating the story after the fact, those changes
have already taken place by the time he tells the story. He doesn't
even think he's the same person he was at the beginning.
"I take my pen in hand" and "I'm telling you Jack, it was like this,"
are both implausible artifices for my guy, but the seamless "pulled
out of the character's head in real time" conceit doesn't work either.
So I've kind of settled for a vague synthesis of the first two -- the
first sentences are my guy saying how hard it is to tell the story
because he wasn't thinking like a person until partway through it.
>> I just recently gave up on an amateur serial in which the shift was
>> from first person to omni, and irregularly and without warning and
>> increasingly as the story progressed.
>
>I've read a fanfic like that. Quite strange; the sort of thing that
>could work well, if done well, but if not done *really* well, falls flat
>on its face.
The key, I think, is control. And there has to be some purpose to the
switch. In that story, nothing was accomplished by the switch in POV
at all. It would have been better to leave out all of the omni
sections and let the actions of the other characters remain a mystery
until they were revealed to the first-person character. They didn't
make any more sense when you got a peak into the characters' minds,
anyway.
Lucy Kemnitzer, still
http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ritaxis
Julian Flood
"Heather Rose Jones" wrote
> I would rather imagine that much depends on one's definition
> and understanding of "grammar". (Even linguists don't
> always agree on what is meant by "grammar".) As a linguist,
> I'd be perfectly willing to bet that some significant
> aspects of human language are innate ... but I predict that
> it may be debatable whether the innate bits are best labeled
> as "grammar".
Does 'grammar' map directly to reality? Nouns, verbs etc do, so maybe the
reason the brain has a grammar is because it also understands reality.
JF
Zeborah
> Imo some folk tales (and perhaps all myths?) are 'omni plot' or 'omni
> emotional effect'; the point is a design the reader sees, different than
> what any one character is seeing (eg Oedipus motif, Orpheus and Eurydice,
> "The Three Golden Hairs of the Devil", "The King Who Would Have a Beautiful
> Wife").
I was actually thinking about this last night, in relation to "Sleeping
Beauty". I've been thinking about retelling that, but couldn't figure
out a way to retell it the way I want in tight third. (I ended up
deciding to go for omni; specifically for the family-saga-style omni
that runs and carries you on the way Allende and Esquivel use it, which
means it's going to be awfully difficult, but fun, I think.)
> "Rumplestiltskin" could be told in TT, if we see the Queen being told about
> her agent seeing the dwarf singing, instead of seeing that ourselves; but
> imo making it TT with focus on sharing the Queen's feelings about her fate
> would make it a whole different story.
I have loved "Rumplestiltskin" that much more since, in Korea, a
colleague did a sort of jazzed-up chant version of it as a play with her
class:
Father:
She can sing like a bird
She can swim like a fish
She can do anything, yes she can!
*Aaaand*....
She can spin straw into gold!
Villagers:
Straw into gold?
What a wonderful thing!
Straw into gold?
We must tell the king!
Hearing that chant hour after hour in the teacher's room at double speed
as my colleague dubbed in onto tapes for all her students spurred me on
to writing an alien version of the same kind of tale but with a "Rob
Peter to pay Paul" effect added on top. <thinks> Hey, I wonder if that
would actually be publishable?
Zeborah
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:30:04 +1200, zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) seems
> to have said:
>
> >I would say -- but this may not be true for other authors; for me, the
> >way I conceptualise third and first persons in my own writing -- tight
> >third and first person present are essentially the same in what can be
> >presented. (Though plenty of authors take a lot more leeway than I do
> >of tight third.) So for me, the main difference between the two is to
> >do with (in)visibility of the prose (first present is a lot more marked
> >than tight third past) and as a consequence the choice affects perceived
> >character-reader distance.
>
> Well, and I also think that you can do different things with voice
> with tight-third and with first-person. You not only can but you must
> decide with first-person how closely to render the character's dialect
> and idiolect.
Yes.
>You can use a different register to write about a
> person in tight-third than they would ever use, and you can modulate
> your vocabulary along a greater range
Yes -- but when I have done tight-third so far I generally don't; I keep
the vocab and grammar modulated according to how they'd say it in that
moment if they were to say it.
>-- mostly in higher, more
> formal, more learned ranges than the character would use (though it
> might be an amusing exercise to write the story of a pedantic,
> well-educated, formal person in street slang. It would then interject
> another layer, of a presumed first-person who doesn't talk about
> himself, wouldn't it?)
Maybe, yes. There'd be irony there, I think, quite likely; it'd be like
mocking the pedant for the pedantry.
>With first-person narrative, you are freer to
> use unconventional forms, but only if they are consistent with the
> character.
Hmm. I felt for a moment that I wanted to object, but then I remembered
the start of the Darn Book, which I told as if the protag were telling a
story to/about herself in the style of legends from her home: in first
person I just did it, without comment or identifier; in third person I
think I'd have had to preface it with something along the lines of "When
she thought about herself, it was in the form of a legend:"
> I'm struggling with this now, because the first-person narrator I'm
> working with is a construct -- not a person who was raised with a
> particular idiom, but an artifact made to resemble a grown person.
> Since he was made to be the user interface for a magical process, he
> has a normal, fluid command of language -- but what is his voice?
>
> It's easy to cheat with him -- since he was made to suit the desires
> and convenience of these people, anything I want him to have I can
> simply assert that they made him with it. But. Circumstances being
> what they are, and stories being what they are, he is becoming more of
> a person steadily throughout the book, and I need his voice to reflect
> that. But. If he's narrating the story after the fact, those changes
> have already taken place by the time he tells the story. He doesn't
> even think he's the same person he was at the beginning.
That's hard. That's one reason I haven't really tried first person past
yet, not with an explicit narrating-after-the-fact.
> "I take my pen in hand" and "I'm telling you Jack, it was like this,"
> are both implausible artifices for my guy, but the seamless "pulled
> out of the character's head in real time" conceit doesn't work either.
> So I've kind of settled for a vague synthesis of the first two -- the
> first sentences are my guy saying how hard it is to tell the story
> because he wasn't thinking like a person until partway through it.
<nod> I think it would depend for me if it were the kind of character
who'd try to imitate his thought processes from back then as he tells
the story, or the kind of character who just tells the story. If the
former, then you can change the language as you go; if the latter then
you can just use his voice from the end for all of it.
Richard Horton
<rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>Well, and I also think that you can do different things with voice
>with tight-third and with first-person. You not only can but you must
>decide with first-person how closely to render the character's dialect
>and idiolect. You can use a different register to write about a
>person in tight-third than they would ever use, and you can modulate
>your vocabulary along a greater range -- mostly in higher, more
>formal, more learned ranges than the character would use (though it
>might be an amusing exercise to write the story of a pedantic,
>well-educated, formal person in street slang. It would then interject
>another layer, of a presumed first-person who doesn't talk about
>himself, wouldn't it?) With first-person narrative, you are freer to
>use unconventional forms, but only if they are consistent with the
>character.
To me this is the central reason for choosing "tight-third" over
"first". Voice. "Tight-third" allows you to have a narrator's voice
that is distinct from the protagonists, but also allows the discipline
of that restricted viewpoint. "First person" requires that the
narrator's voice be consisten with the characters.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Richard Horton
wrote:
>Does anyone have students they could set on a treasure hunt to find the
>deepest nest of this sort of thing in Kipling? :-)
Kipling's use of viewpoint is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
There has never been another writer like him, and his control of point
of view is one of the most central aspects of his art.
R.L.
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:57:11 GMT, "R.L." <"<see-sig"@nospams.coms>>
> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone have students they could set on a treasure hunt to find the
>>deepest nest of this sort of thing in Kipling? :-)
>
> Kipling's use of viewpoint is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
>
> There has never been another writer like him, and his control of point
> of view is one of the most central aspects of his art.
Can you elaborate? He may be the best, but quite a few people were doing
that sort of thing around his time. Twain, Collette, perhaps Rider
Haggard....
R.L.