First POV Pt. III

So shortly after my last post, I finally discovered why my version of first person point of view comes off as if the main character is talking to the audience. It's because she is.

The reason why it took me so long to realize this was because the character does it in a subtle way, or technically, I do it in a subtle way.

Now while I never had the character's narrative address the audience directly by saying things such as, "You have no idea how panicked I was when the werewolf lunged at me," I do have her saying thing such as, "Well, damn. That didn't go as planned."  Even though, the idea is that she is thinking that to herself, the latter bit still engages the audience in a dialogue of sorts.

So now that I know what is making my writing come off like one's best friend is talking to them, the question is: do I want to change that?

At this point, I'm still on the fence, but I am leaning toward not changing the narrative. The character is not supposed to be the most likable of protagonists, and so having the narrative possess that subtle friend-like quality might help the reader get through the story, maybe even cause the reader to like the main character despite the character's flaws.

We'll see though.

First Person Point of View Pt.II

After a month of squeezing in time to practice writing first person point of view between other projects, I think I may have finally realized why my writing style feels different compared to other writers' (besides the obvious fact that we are individuals, therefore there are going to be differences in our writing). I believe because of the way things are phrased and the way the main character's narrative digresses it comes off more conversational than literary. In other words, instead of the reader and main character becoming one, or the reader just being an invisible parrot on the main characters shoulder with access to the character's thoughts, it's more like the main character knows the reader is there and is prattling off his/her experiences.

Is that a bad thing? No. Is it a good thing? Eh, not really sure. It was never my intention to have a narrative like that. I can only think of one positive thing about such a narrative, which is that because it so conversational/friendly it might be more engaging/inviting for the audience. The negative side, though, is that the reader could get jolted out of the narrative. After all, if you are reading a story and suddenly the main character is talking directly to you (so far that isn't the case with my work, but it could be), you may be taken out of the story. Second, the narrative sounds immature, or at least mine does.

Anyway, I will continue with this first person point of view experiment for now.

First Person Point of View

So recently I have been trying to write in first person point of view, and all I can say is...why is it so weird?

I have tried so many times to write in first person, but whenever I do something just doesn't feel right. I know part of this is because I it's different from how I usually write, however, it's not just that. When I read through what I've written it doesn't sound anything like how other authors write in first person. It's hard for me to pinpoint what makes my stuff sound so different in my mind--perhaps there is no difference at all? Even so, at times I think that it may be because I'm "telling" more than "showing", but when I focus on making certain that I am "showing" the writing still doesn't feel right.

Sometimes I like to think it is because of the main character, which makes the problem not as worrisome, but I sense this is more of a result of unpracticed writing skills than the awesome and amazing writing skill to make each narrative have its own voice that reflects the character from whose point of view the reader is reading.

Bleh. At this point, I think I should just keep going and see what happens.

Goodreads and Page99Test

This is probably a little late for everyone, but for those who don't know, I am a registered author on Goodreads. So while I may not be the most chatty blogger, if you feel the urge to spy on what I am reading or have read you now know where to look. I will say this, though, I don't rate or write reviews. While I do have opinions on what I read, I rather not deal with ensuing, "But in your book....", "You're such a hypocrite", and the "You think your book is better than this one?" It's just a headache I don't feel like dealing with.

You can also find me on Page99Test. Sadly, whenever I try to make a link to the my post on the site it doesn't work, so telling all of you this may be for naught.

Anyway, back to the editing dungeon.

Efficiency vs Beauty

When I a write and edit I am always at war with myself. I always ask myself would it be better to write efficiently or poetically? For example, "He sliced the queen's head off. Droplets of blood flew off the axe, speckling Rosemary's cheeks as she watched in horror," or, "The axe fell like death's scythe, stealing the head off of the queen's pearl-white neck. The crimson that poured from that once unblemished neck, covered the edge of the axe. The momentum of the axe flung the blood that clung loosely to it into the air, and the specks rained onto Rosemary's cheeks as she gaped in horror."

The second is a lot more dramatic, and since it is a death scene, the latter would be the best choice, since I'm trying to make an impact. However, what about those times when the events that transpire are not so important? An extreme example would be the main character eating breakfast. Unless how the protagonist's toast is buttered is relevant to the plot, must I wax on about it?

Still, I read reviews and watch blogs in which people will complain that the language is too simplistic, or lacks creativity. I don't think it's wrong to want a book that does more with the language then simply use everyday jargon or string non-complex sentences together. Language can be quite beautiful, and it's wonderful that there are people out there that want that.

Even so, I love efficient writing. Some may like, "He hurtled down through the clouds like Icarus, swallowed by the sea." Yet I like, "He plummeted into ocean." It's so simple, and it gets the point across. Again, if the protagonist's fall is meant as a dramatic moment, I would be more inclined to choose the the first example. Even so, I appreciate the second sentence. It gives me the information I need to know, and then let's me move on with story.

In a world where a war is being raged over the average reader's attention between social media, video games, movies, work/school, family, and other forms of entertainment, is it wrong to respect the reader's time?

Yes, I don't want to read a novel that is merely dialogue with "he/she said" tagged on at the end followed by an action already repeated twenty times on the same page. At the same time, I don't have the patience to wade through pages of describing what the dinner table looks like, of the history aforementioned table (though I'm sure Tristan Shandy could pull it off marvelously).

Thus, I am always left torn when writing and editing as I try to search for a balance. Although, I think by now anyone who has read this post suspects, which way I tend to lean. I can't deny, when it comes down to it, unless the scene is dramatic/calls for beauty over efficiency,  I tend to agree with Shakespeare:

"Brevity is the soul of wit" (Hamlet Act 2, scene 2).

Although, even his quoted character went on and on:

"My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . ."

Really Polonius? You couldn't just say, "Your son is mad"?

Well, not like I can talk, considering this post...