On Points of View
02/11/09 07:10 Filed in: Writing
A weekend of work around the house and catching the
odd play, sports-wise, left room at the end for some
writing. So Sunday night I sat down at the old
computer (as opposed to this new one) and started to
re-work the scene on the courthouse steps.
I'm writing in third-person limited point of view, which places my narrator outside my main character but "on his shoulder" so to speak. I usually write my Phillip Gold stories in the first person: Gold himself tells you the story as it plays itself out. Many of my favourite mystery writers use this point of view to tell their stories because it creates an immediacy to the action and ensures that the reader pieces together the puzzle at the same time the detective does. I find it also helps the reader to identify with the main character, since we are part of his or her thoughts.
That being said, the first-person approach does not allow the author to create dramatic irony, where the reader knows something the character does not. It also requires that the reader will know the resolution to the mystery as soon as the character works it out, meaning it can be difficult to build as much tension at the climax of the story. Once the mystery is worked out, the source of tension often becomes the question of whether or not the main character will be able to catch the evil-doer, not who the evil-doer is.
Unless of course the author resorts to a one of several hackneyed tricks to hide information from the reader. But I hate that approach.
Third-person limited allows a certain distance between the narrative voice and the main character, so that the narrator can comment on the action or on other characters without implicating the main character in those opinions. It also allows the narrator to criticise the main character, to see or notice things the character fails to see, and to provide a broader view of the action than the character might have.
The style is "limited" because the narrator stays close to the main character, knows and understands the thoughts of the main character and of no other character. As a result, if the narrator is describing a conversation between the main character and his client, the narrator would be able to tell you what the character is thinking but would not be able to "go into the mind" of the client to know what she is thinking.
An omniscient narrator could do just that. Such a narrator can enter the mind of any character in the book to see her thoughts, understand her behaviour. In some books, the narrator moves from character to character within a single scene.
Okay, it's early morning and I'm running off at the fingers.
All of that is to say that I am finding it a challenge to write the bigger scenes from the third-person limited point of view. With so much going on around Phillip Gold, I often find myself either being too focused on him or allowing my narrator to see and know too much.
It's hard to get the balance right.
But, as always, I enjoy the challenge.
Next up in The Silent Goodbye: the great discovery that turns the trial around for Gold and his client. So exciting!
I'm writing in third-person limited point of view, which places my narrator outside my main character but "on his shoulder" so to speak. I usually write my Phillip Gold stories in the first person: Gold himself tells you the story as it plays itself out. Many of my favourite mystery writers use this point of view to tell their stories because it creates an immediacy to the action and ensures that the reader pieces together the puzzle at the same time the detective does. I find it also helps the reader to identify with the main character, since we are part of his or her thoughts.
That being said, the first-person approach does not allow the author to create dramatic irony, where the reader knows something the character does not. It also requires that the reader will know the resolution to the mystery as soon as the character works it out, meaning it can be difficult to build as much tension at the climax of the story. Once the mystery is worked out, the source of tension often becomes the question of whether or not the main character will be able to catch the evil-doer, not who the evil-doer is.
Unless of course the author resorts to a one of several hackneyed tricks to hide information from the reader. But I hate that approach.
Third-person limited allows a certain distance between the narrative voice and the main character, so that the narrator can comment on the action or on other characters without implicating the main character in those opinions. It also allows the narrator to criticise the main character, to see or notice things the character fails to see, and to provide a broader view of the action than the character might have.
The style is "limited" because the narrator stays close to the main character, knows and understands the thoughts of the main character and of no other character. As a result, if the narrator is describing a conversation between the main character and his client, the narrator would be able to tell you what the character is thinking but would not be able to "go into the mind" of the client to know what she is thinking.
An omniscient narrator could do just that. Such a narrator can enter the mind of any character in the book to see her thoughts, understand her behaviour. In some books, the narrator moves from character to character within a single scene.
Okay, it's early morning and I'm running off at the fingers.
All of that is to say that I am finding it a challenge to write the bigger scenes from the third-person limited point of view. With so much going on around Phillip Gold, I often find myself either being too focused on him or allowing my narrator to see and know too much.
It's hard to get the balance right.
But, as always, I enjoy the challenge.
Next up in The Silent Goodbye: the great discovery that turns the trial around for Gold and his client. So exciting!