thanks TZ! You just gave me an idea. Mr. Person Persons manages a wax museum. He can take on the narrative imaginings of the dummies' historical perspectives and ramblings. He is a bit nuts.

But I still need a narrator to move plot and transitions. And I just discover who the narrator will be... a self-referring 3rd person / present, interloper--- Robert Lewis Stevenson's ghost.

Yay! The Family Slugs move forward in glistening trails of sun-reflecting slime.

Last edited by maxkeanu (06-15-2012 11:32:26)

None that I have encountered, and I write in it almost exclusively. Any pitfalls that may exist I just use to my benefit, to enhance the narrative. A narrator is never more raw and unreliable than in 1st present.

Edit: one thing that can be difficult is the narrator does not have te benefit of hindsight. So she cannot say thinks like, "I had no idea what was about to happen" (eg if she is reflecting upon the tale she's telling) because she does not KNOW what will happen. But again, this can be used to the author's advantage. I don't really view it as a handicap, depending on the story.

Last edited by JElizabeth (06-15-2012 14:20:25)

A.T.Schlesinger wrote:

It is an interesting POV; a reader can feel like they are there, in the action, especially with present tense. 

Problems:

1. Unless you are a published author, your book will never see a shelf.  Unless you have a very influential agent who screams into a publisher's ear at the top of every hour.    I dono why this is, but...it is.

2. Can't kill off your protag.  Imagine George RR Martin using 1st person.  He'd only have half of one book.

3. Most importantly, you are stuck with the thoughts, opinions and personality of just 1 character.  I mean, even Green Eggs and Ham had 2 characters.  I have a long list of this I despise about Paolini's Eragon.  One of them is that--although written in the standard 3rd person--he never changes from his protag's POV.  He might as well have written the entire book 1st person.  I know it's a Young Adult book, but even Rowling allowed us to know the thoughts of other characters than Harry Potter.

First person is very common now in YA novels. I'd say most of the novels I read and review for my YA blog are in first person, although almost all are in past tense. On the other hand I can think of very few adult novels with first person.

The Stone Angel by Margaret Laurence, which is one of my favorites, is told in first person present tense.

Venator... marry me.

I was just coming on here to say the exact same thing, and you've already done it SOOO much more eloquently and succinctly. I also loled at your assessment of Mantel. Indeed.

First person present tense has reached the mainstream. Kathryn Stockett used it in The Help for fuck's sake, and we all know what a shitshow that novel was. (At least I do. I needed something to tune out to while I ran sprint sets on the treadmill.) And it utilizes three different POVs.

Present tense actually removes the only real argument against a first person narrator dying, so it's absolutely no problem to anyone wishing to write in first person present.

As for first person narrators who die, those which I have read that do not have any sort of supernatural 'cheat' (like a ghost telling the story) include:

Grendel by John Gardener
Survivor Type by Stephen King
Claudius the God by Robert Graves

amusingly enough, the first two are amongst those authors who share with us (and surely not merely as a moneyspinning venture) their own personal 'rules' regarding how to write . . . so it must be safe to say that killing your narrator is absolutely fine.

I've also read a detective story where the narrator dies at the end but I can't for the life of me recall who wrote it or what it was called.

I belive there is an existentialist argument against first person present that is something to do with 'how can it be written down for you to read if it's happening now?' That sort of literal attitude is actually a good example, to my mind, of the kind of overthinking that does nobody any good.

Workshopping it here, I was told MANY TIMES by MANY REVIEWERS that the present day chapters which were not in the POV of the protagonist needed to be put in third. I changed them all. The editor wanted them changed back. So Ven's right - first person present doesn't only have to be from the POV of the protag and just because they're not in certain chapters/scenes, doesn't mean that the other characters can't remain in first person present, if it serves the story

Just on this, it's my considered opinion that if people just considered on the work in question and whether what was done therein worked for that piece considered on its own merits rather than trying to apply some sort of 'literary rules' about points of view, tenses, grammar, use of dialect, etc, then there would be considerable danger of writing being substantially improved without style being undermined.

a writer writes for everyone, not just the reader who readily suspends their disbelief but the one who over-thinks the plot until nothing is left.

I'm not so sure about that. A writer writes for an audience, sure. But no author in the history of man has ever pleased everyone. Damn few have ever pleased more than a small percentage of the available readership (and those that have are not notable for having styles that are pleasing to many workshoppers).

What is often overlooked, I think, is that a reader, by the time he gets to a place where he has an unanswered question, has already bought the book. thus he must suffer in silence until the point in the book where explanation is forthcoming (if it never is and the question concerns something of importance to the plot, he may then justifiably complain).

A workshop critic on the other hand has a hotline to the author and may freely demand to know everything straight away. This is far from uncommon even outside mystery stories (where the whole point is to conceal the reasons for certain things so that the detective may pull a rabbit from the hat at the end to unmask the murderer). But if the reason will be explained, then there's no obvious reason to change that I can see.

This is kind of related to the issue of style. Some people don't like a certain way of writing -- I, for instance, heartily detest Iain MacEwans's. What happens? I don't buy his books. Thousands of other do though. Yet in a workshop environment it's unlikely one will be able to review only those works written in a style one likes. But surely it would be wrong to badger McEwan or Mantel to change their style. In a workshop though we tend to mix up our preferences for style with other comments on the story and so the two things become confused. We should consider first whether the style being used is in fact effective for the purpose (in Mr MacEwan's case it succeeds admirably in constructing works of insufferable smugness for instance).

And again you can see it with characters. Often this happens:

Workshopper reads a story and likes the character. All is happy.
Character does something workshopper does not like. Whacking a dog with a big stick, say.
Workshopper now does not like the character so much and on some level feels betrayed.
Workshopper berates author for having character behave out of character, without necessarily knowing the full picture. Workshopper says character is now 'unsympathetic'.
Author panic and changes character to pat dog on head and give it a biscuit.
Workshopper approves.
Character is fatally undermined.

It's not actually necessary for the first stage in this to occur. As I've mentioned before, there was an excellent book on this site that had a main character who was pretty unlikeable. The story was actually all about her redemption. But so many people said they didn't like her that she was made more likeable. Result? the point of the story was lost.

Now, let me reiterate, I'm not bashing workshopping, I think it can be most useful. I'm merely pointing out some recurring 'themes' I see amongst reviews that are, in my view, amongst the things that make workshopping less good that it would otherwise be/

dagnee wrote:

SPOILER ALERT MURDERER REVEALED

Jeni I think the novel you're referring to is the Agatha Christie novel, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd in which the writer is the murderer chronicling the case as Poirot's assistant. Even though he's watching Poirot get closer and closer to finding out he did it, the narrative never gives it away, until the last when it's evident what the reader has assumed was a record of a crime is really a suicide note. It's a short read and very much worth your time, even though I've just spoiled it for you.

Ooh, another good suggestion. Thanks, Dags. I don't read many mysteries, so I'll add this one as well.

And for my purposes, you haven't spoiled it because if I'm studying it specifically to see how the writer made it work, knowing the outcome will probably help.

Actually Claudius the God does not quite end with the narrator's death as Graves tacks on three (short) historical accounts that describe the actual end. But the last sentence is 'Write no more now, Tiberius Claudius, God of the Britons, write no more.' and the preceding paragraphs are such that one might well think his death was in fact immediate (in fact though most of the book is written in first person past, the penultimate paragraph switches to first person present) whereas it's likely that it's just his poisoned mushrooms taking hold of him.

dagnee wrote:

Jeni Decker wrote:

I believe there is an existentialist argument against first person present that is something to do with 'how can it be written down for you to read if it's happening now?' That sort of literal attitude is actually a good example, to my mind, of the kind of overthinking that does nobody any good.

As a mystery writer the reader who over-thinks the plot is the bane of my literary existence. In Ronan Boston wants to know if Oscar took Viagra the night he died. In the first draft I didn't bother to explain why. So many reviewers got hung up on that little detail, asking me not only why Oscar would take Viagra, but why would Boston want to know and furthermore, what made him think about it in the first place?, instead of just waiting to see how it played out in later chapters.

When I complained to a friend about it, he reminded me that just because I knew knowing if Oscar took Viagra would indicate what gender he was waiting for and therefore give the gender of the killer, the reader didn't find it out until a chapter or two later. I had to write an explanation as soon as I mentioned it.

I think that's something I realized when I first joined here, a writer writes for everyone, not just the reader who readily suspends their disbelief but the one who over-thinks the plot until nothing is left.

First, that quote should be attributed to Venator, not me. Though I'd love to steal his thought, as it's an interesting one.

I agree partly. You have an "entire" audience to think of. (The royal YOU, I'm speaking of.) But when I write, I try not to think of the audience, at least on first draft. Get it all down as I see it and as I think it should be written. Second draft, after workshopping, I take ALL suggestions into account, and then need to decide which work for the story itself, not necesarily the "audience".

I completely get that the "audience" is out there, but I am also quite aware of the fact that I can edit a draft to a pale version of what was intended, and then as a writer, I've done the work a disservice.

Here's a good example. When I wrote Engulfed, I didn't take audience into account at all. I just wrote what I knew, given it was a memoir, there wasn't a whole lot of leeway, I felt. My experience is my experience... I was told by a very smart person early on, "They're either gonna love it or hate it." He was right.  The thing is, because it's memoir, they also either love or hate ME. That could be tough, I think. But my intent was never to have people like me. My intent was to tell my truth as I saw it (and I think this applies to fictional characters as well. They do "live" on the page; live their truth - however an "audience" might like or dislike them.)

So, needless to say, my reviews on that book have been either love or hate. Not much inbetween. What that told me, as a writer, is that I did something right. I also lucked into a couple of editors that understood what I was doing and didn't try to make the "story" more palatable for a "general" audience. Which is why I tend to think an editor can really make or break a story and it's important that you have an editor who genuinely understands what you're trying to accomplish, as a writer, rather than apply a bunch of generalized rules based on genre, etc.

With a workshop, we're editing chapter by chapter, rather than a story as a whole, so questions that come up are great, but as an author you have to decide if that's what you WANT that reader to be questioning at that time, or not. If they're where you want them to be, that's great. If they're stumbling on something that might lead to dissatisfacton at the result, I guess you have to ask yourself why and adjust accordingly. A reader questioning something at a certain point doesn't always mean changes need to be made.

But that is why it's good that in a workshop setting, you do get these sorts of comments/questions. It helps you to assess where each reader is at every point. I find that really helpful.

Last edited by Jeni Decker (06-16-2012 09:54:20)

Venator wrote:

A reader questioning something at a certain point doesn't always mean changes need to be made.

Certainly. Indeed any number of readers questioning something at a given point does not mean it needs changed. But change often does result and thought I wouldn't say is was as often as not unecessary or for the worse, such occurences seem to me to be frequent enough to be worthy of attention.

Absolutely.

Here's how that process goes for me:

If I see a suggestion and immediately say to myself, "Yes, fantastic idea!" I'll make the change immediately. I think it's pretty easy to spot a really good suggestion because as the writer it immediately feels right.

Also, a suggestion that goes against what I'm trying to do sticks out just as much, but more like a sore thumb and I immediately discount it.

Then there's the suggestion that I'm not so sure about. It might have merit, but I might feel squeemish about it. Unsure. I will copy into a document and think about it, perhaps even re-write that section with the suggestion and see how it feels. Look at both drafts and see which I think serves the work best and go from there.

But those are the suggestions that usually are best with a little time and space between me and the writing. Sometimes it's months later that I say, "You know, they were right." So I'll change it. Or I finally decide I like my version better.

I guess it all boils down to your instincts as a writer. That's a "muscle" that takes a long time to develop. Maybe we never fully develop it. Who knows... but there can't ever be harm, as far as I can see, in any suggestion, as long as the writer gets to a place that they do what they think is best for the work. In the end, if they choose to take a piece of advice, or not, it's entirely up to them.

And as an early writer, I know I got many suggestions that weren't good for a piece of work, and I probably took those suggestions at times when I shouldn't have. I may still... but I know that it helps to make me a better writer because it continually requires me to work that "instinct" muscle.

Last edited by Jeni Decker (06-16-2012 10:09:49)

Venator wrote:

Yes, knowing when a reviewer is wrong is something one must develop.

But I don't think that detracts from the point that a significant number of reviewers may be unintentionally undermining a work partly due to the way a workshop works and partly because the reviewer is considering their own immediate desires as a reader more than they are the actual merits (or otherwise) of the piece as part of a greater whole.

Given a workshop presumably exists to help people become better writers, I'm not sure leaving the developing of authorial instinct to some sort of 'osmosic' process is the best way of dealing with the situation.

This actually relates in a way to QXT's thread and something Memphis mentioned previously. Were it possible to comment on the reviews of others as part of the reviewing process rather than in just the forums (where we are forever at the mercy of serial deleters and actually may well not be seen by a significant number of reviewer concerned), then there could well be more profitable dialogue between reviewers and author about what they liked and did not -- and in a way where people could not just 'shut out' dissenting voices as with pm/email exchanges.

Of course whether all reviewers can dissacociate themselves from their review to a degree that would avoid pointless bitching and bickering is perhaps debatable, but better in this instance to assume the best, I think.

But I don't think that detracts from the point that a significant number of reviewers may be unintentionally undermining a work partly due to the way a workshop works and partly because the reviewer is considering their own immediate desires as a reader more than they are the actual merits (or otherwise) of the piece as part of a greater whole.

Well I guess that leads me to ask, what's wrong about a reviewer "considering their own immediate desires as a reader?" Readers are the audience. So to say that someone is undermining a work with their suggestions based on their desires as a reader makes no sense. They are the audience. The reader. We being writers doesn't negate the fact that we're readers, right? I make all my suggestions as a reader, not as a writer. It just so happens that the writer part of me might know how to suggest changes. But the reader is supposed to be the target audience, right. Not writers.

As to the "merits (or otherwise) of the piece as a part of a greater whole" that's something else entirely. As reviewers, that's something we all have to keep in mind. Suggestions/questions we have per chapter, might not apply once we've read the entire novel, but who else would know that BUT the writer? It's they're job to suss that out. I know I've made suggestions, then gotten a few chapters ahead and said, "Okay, scratch what I said in chapter so-and-so. I get it now." There's nothing wrong with that, but it seems like the author of the book does get the fact that the reader only knows what they know up to the point they've read, so that's all they're able to comment on.

As far as developing instinct, Ven - that's something a writer MUST do to become a good writer. No ifs, ands or buts about it so as far as I can see "leaving the developing of authorial instinct to some sort of 'osmosic' process is the best way of dealing with the situation" is the ONLY good way to go about it.

Let's say you or anyone for that matter, were in one instant able to remove all reviewers on tNBW who you believed were the ones "unintentionally undermining work" (just for the sake of argument) - do you actually think that would help the writer to grow? To learn to trust their own instincts and become a better writer? I don't. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think they'd never develop the skills they needed to become a good writer. The only thing they'd develop is the ability to please a certain "faction" of reviewers, nothing more.

To say that somehow a long line of below-the-chapter/story/poem debates going on involving reviews of reviews (of reviews, of reviews' reviews) would somehow be helpful seems to me totally the opposite of helpful. Aside from the obvious lure it would have for people who like to argue their point until one side shuffles off licking their wounds, I don't see it as something that would be even remotely helpful or different than what we have now. (other than it would take place in a different venue.) To me, it could be even more confusing to the writer, rather than helpful.

We do plenty of talking about the merits of reviews in the forums, and I think it's best to keep it non-specific, rather than attacking the specific reviews of other members. I only see the numbers of reviews dropping considerably for fear of having your review attacked, for no other reason than personal attacks. (As has been the case in many forum threads, already.)

Now, IF individual members had the right to turn OFF the review-of-reviews function on their chapters, then I'd be all for it. That way everyone's happy and I'm partial to situations where everyone can be made happy.

Personally, I don't want other members attacking the reviews of my reviewers. I'll be the final judge as to whether their review has merit for my work or not.