TECH: Point of View (moldy oldie again!)

[mbarker]

Original posting Dec. 19, 2017

Writer's Digest, June 1994, on pages 10, 12, 13, had an article by Nancy Kress with the title Who's Telling Your Story? It starts out with Nancy relating a very brief story about working on a student's manuscript POV shift. To which he replied, it's not POV mistake, I wanted to use more than one point of view.

Which raises the issue of when can you use multiple POV effectively, and when is it problematic? And if you want to use multiple POV, how do you do it right?

Now, Nancy dives into the issue that everybody in a story may have a different emotional point of view, meaning a perceptual slant or opinion. Indeed, your character should have differing points of view in this sense. However, for writing, point of view, a.k.a. POV, refers to the character that allows us to see the story. Whose head are we inside, whose guts do we feel churning, whose view of the world dominates?

For short stories, a single POV is usually plenty. After all, we are all used to seeing the world through one pair of eyes, our own. So a single POV feels real to us.

Given that, when would you use a multiple POV? Fragmentation, jumping bodies and heads, why?

First, use a multiple POV when there is no other way to tell the story! For example, if the POV character cannot be present for key events, and there's no good way to skip them or have them happen offstage, you need a second POV character. Or more than one.

Be sure to check carefully. Can you revise the story events? Or can you simply have the POV character react to them? Are you sure you have the right POV character?

Multiple POV probably means that the story is going to be fairly long. Shorter stories really need single POV intensity.

Also, multiple POV's probably mean maximum character contrast. "When the very difference of your characters' view of events is central to the story, a multiple POV can work to the story's benefit."

Finally, you might want to use multiple POV if the story really is about losing your grip on the singular self. This is very infrequent, but if that's our story, we may want to tell it that way.

So, you've decided on multiple POV. Well, how many? Two, four, what do you want to do? Nancy reminds us that every story has at least one hidden point of view, the author's. So, when you have more… Just be aware that you are making your story more complicated and more fragmented.

Now, if you are going to have a multiple POV, try to minimize the fragmentation. That means don't change POV too frequently. More than likely, stick to one POV in a scene. When you do change POV, make sure the reader knows quickly whose head they are in, and probably start a new scene. Also, try to balance your use of the different POVs. If there's only a short slip into another POV with everything else in the majority POV, it looks like a mistake! Last but not least, make sure that we – the readers – know as soon as possible that this is a double POV story. That probably means that your second or third scene uses that other POV.

"Multiple POV requires some trade-offs. But if you decide they're worth it, and handle the POV switches with unobtrusive certainty, your story may ultimately benefit. Plus, you'll get a theatrical bonanza: two views of reality for the price of one."

So, practice? Well, the obvious thing is to take a story you've written or you are working on, and consider doing a multiple POV version. What happens when that story has two POVs instead of one? Are there good places to change the POV, and good reasons to do it?

Something to think about.

TECH: Is It Good? (Another moldy oldie!)

[mbarker]

Original Posting Dec. 30, 2017

Writer's Digest, January 1994, had an article by Nancy Kress on pages eight, 10, 11, with the title, "Is It Good?" The subtitle was, "That depends on who's doing the judging – and on these four criteria."

Nancy starts out by pointing out that it's a really good story, her book wasn't very good, he's a good writer, and similar judgments all have that word in them: Good. Just what do we mean by that? Why does one person thinks something is good all another person thinks it's mediocre or even worse? What, if anything, ties being good and being published? For that matter, how do you judge if your work or somebody else's is good? Well…

Nancy suggests that there are various definitions. You need to be aware of at least a few of the major ones. For example:

Judging by texture. "This is the literary criterion for judging fiction." Texture? Well, it's hard to define, but not too hard to recognize. Prose with a high level of detail. Details that create an interlocking set of symbols that conveys meaning, related to the voice. Usually, the details, symbols, and all that is used to explore subtlety of characters. Details, emotional reactions, motifs, voice…

Or maybe judging by plot! Yes, some people don't care about texture. Instead, they want a fast-moving plot, plenty of incidents, unexpected developments, danger, overt conflict. Excitement, action! This actually tends to be the commercial definition, because these books sell a lot of copies. They may or may not have interesting texture and well drawn characters. But what people are looking for is the action! Action, fast pace, danger, lives at stake, a clear-cut resolution to plot complications, and characters that your readers can root for.

Or, judging by scope? Within the realm of commercial, plot-driven fiction, some are better than others. What's the difference? Nancy says it's scope. The background, carefully researched, and portrayed. "It's about an entire era: its hopes, ambitions, briefs, fears, selfishnesses, heroisms." Scope and depth! "Genre work transcends its genre by aiming for – and achieving – a complex setting that takes on a life of its own."

Or perhaps, judging by emotional response? Bland texture, tired plots, stock characters, little scope – but still a bestseller? Well, "such books fill an emotional need. They reaffirmed for readers whatever they already believe or want to believe…" Emotional reassurance and hope. Romances that let them feel love, war stories that let them feel victorious, adventure tales and let them feel tough, and so forth. The readers get something they value, and they consider such books good.

So, texture, plot, scope, emotional response? If someone says your work is or is not good, try probing a little bit to find out which value system they are using.

"Finally, some stories have it all. Textured, individual prose. Compelling plot. Complex characters. Scope of background. Timely emotional satisfaction. We call these books classics."

Understand the criteria which you are using, and which other people are using to evaluate your fiction. Then decide whether you're going the right direction.

And have a good time writing!

Practice? Well, I suppose you could take your work in progress or maybe some of your favorites, and tried judging them by the various criteria that Nancy has described. Does it have great texture? How about the plot? Scope? Or is it provoking an emotional response? You might even consider trying to modify your work to push one or more of these little bit higher!

Just write!