Search options (Page 7 of 30)

Thank you. That is good to know. Now, if they'd only have a friendlier greeting than Give Us Your Email Address...

in the same way Scrooge is not evil but perhaps misguided by his certain obsession.  Christianity is about redeemable "bad" people who can be turned to good that unfortunately discounts and rarely recognizes that there are people who are irredeemably evil -- even leaving open the possibility that Christ could have been turned by Satan in Gethsemane -- particularly in the context of mental disease in which evil over good is not chosen. One does not pray or plead a bipolar paranoid schizophrenic to goodness, nor is there any permanent turn to goodness of the drug addict who can start up again far more easily than he can quit. However, Christianity is closer to the truth for drug addicts than secular therapists who only weakly mention the harm and destruction caused to others by addiction and indeed other non-biologic obsessions. How does a secular therapist (psychologist) help OCD? It is rather a sort of aversion therapy and not an appeal to empathy and pointing out suffering of others caused by one's actions (evil).

A sort of poll of what is popular by subscribers according to perceived interest -- with the top three being crime/mystery and literary fiction surprisingly in the middle and not surprisingly politics and current events at the bottom.

By my standard of unaffixed dialogue, the quotation clearly belongs to "she" unless the quoted section is in italics with no quotation marks when it might belong to the general even though I would not write it that way unless some prior pattern had been set.  You could specify the origin to the general:
She returned her attention to the general who said (optional adverb)"I want answers by morning."

That is an example of something different. Still left-to-right but the object of the active verb is the thief skulking away.

John watched {thief skulk away with his watch}

In line with the OP example:  John watched {his watch being taken by the thief.} The antecedent to "his" is clearly "John", not the thief.

Even better reference for Deep POV
https://annlaurelkopchik.com/category/deep-pov/

So what the heck is Deep POV? It’s a form of limited third person POV where the narrator takes on the voice of the character and where the reader is deeply immersed in the characters thoughts and feelings. The reader is riding so close to the character, they might be in his or her skin.

Deep POV does not mean that the character bounces between third person limited and first person italicized thought. It does not mean that every single thought and emotion must be voiced. And Deep POV is not achieved by simply replacing “I”  and “my” in a first person narration with “he/she” and “his/hers.”

So the next question is why can’t you just write a first person scene and replace all the pronouns? First person is, after all, a very immersive POV…

Because a first person narrator/character knows that they’re telling a story to the reader. When you’re deep in limited third person, that character/narrator is unaware they are telling a story. The reader is reading the unfiltered thoughts, emotions, and feelings of that character.

So, is  this the finished edit (containing two, instead of four, Joseph's mother) by eliminating an unnecessary reference to Alicia?

Miss Rosary appeared in the doorway and addressed Joseph's mother. “May I be of assistance, Your Majesty?”
“Rosary, get in here! Keep out of the way.”
As she cleared the room’s entrance, Joseph’s mother spoke into the air. “Moses, secure the doorway!” She nodded. “Then may God be with all of you." She hesitated, then spoke into the air again. “All right, Moses, close it up.”

The fix is to drop a Joseph's mother dialogue tag at the risk of reader confusion on whether it is indeed she who responds on the next line in the context that she is  the only human being in the room and that Moses another AI would not say that. And to drop Alicia from specific benediction, if you intended that.

My original suggestion was not a re-write into Deep POV but only to have given Joseph's mother another appellation by Joseph himself rather than having to be stuck with Joseph's mother in sections that are supposed to be in 3rd limited Joseph. A limited sort of Deep POV, in which Joseph has given his mother a unique moniker, can have been a temporary shift into Deep POV but does have the drawback that readers who skim or have poor memory will be lost.

Your mistake was to have ever consistently called Joseph's mother Joseph's mother in Joseph's POV. I never would have in thought referred to my mother as Charles' mother.  That is absurd.  If you had already established with reader that Joseph thinks of his mother in thought in some appellation(s) as "Mom" or "Mary" or "Divine Lady who gave birth to me" shortened to "Lady" or "that bitch who spawned me" shortened to "that bitch" or "Bitch" or anything which he would uniquely call her, you would have another option than "she/her."

Howey is "light."  His Wool is a perfect model for today. Start with an excellent Bradbury-derivative short story and squeeze as much you can  from it with little effort to add value in plot, theme, characters by KDP publishing, clever marketing through internet buzz, transitioning to traditional publishing, and finally movie deal in which the formula for a main character supplies womyn's fantasy and men's T&A quest. His new series project: It wasn't easy for Molly Fyde being the only girl in Flight Academy, but getting expelled was even worse. Abandoned by her family when she was young and now tossed from the only home she's ever known, her future looks bleak.  $$$

From what I can tell, the non-traditional publishing path is encouraging pulp-fiction quality as if on steroids.  Indeed there has been a genuine market for low-brow story-telling (and I don't have a problem with that) -- that had little to do with "characterization" beyond stereotypes, and forget about thematic content. Movies also have taken up pulp fiction market. "Cheap fiction may again thrive" is what I mean by the death of the novel even if there continues to be stories presented in the written word. The ideal would be as one might have seen it in the mid-2oth century with a reasonable mix of high- and low-brow and  the rise of genre fiction but always balanced with what was labelled literary fiction in the '60's but has died out in some rush to homogenize literary culture into certain acceptable political-social values marking a move backwards since the mid 20th century.

I think a proper gedankenexperiment strengths mental discipline rather than weakens it. And what I mean most by until it is read to the last word is the realization that the story is a fantasy in the absolute sense and not in the literary-genre sense: imagination unrestricted by reality in that the main premise is an absolute impossibility whereas the "world-building" of fantasy-genre stories is based on possibility given thus and so, not-unbelievable, alteration of reality.