Arghhh! (Rewrite blues)

popmuze · Nov 2, 2006

Now that I've spent most of the day changing the POV of my novel from first person to (more or less) ominiscient, here's what I discovered.

Previously, my narrator might have been taken for a snide elitist, drowning in the bile of obsessive nostalgia. But at least the reader could see this and take everything else he says with that in mind.

Now, it's the author who is the snide elitist. I can just hear an agent or an editor saying: "The author's bilious rants obscure what might otherwise be a smart and entertaining story." (I love to have my conversations beforehand)

At least I've still got the other version. But what are my other options.
I suppose I could take out all the bilious rants, but those were my favorite parts of the book.

Nakhlasmoke · Nov 2, 2006

Eh, it's a reason I've written a certain character of mine in first. He's such an obnoxious little prat - but of course, i get to murder everything and everyone he holds dear until the pratness is whipped out of him.

I find first very difficult to write, so if you're pulling it off well, why not stick with it?

Del · Nov 2, 2006

Try again. and again...

My finished novel is nothing like my begining novel. It evolved. All we can do is let it.

Jamesaritchie · Nov 2, 2006

popmuze said:
Now that I've spent most of the day changing the POV of my novel from first person to (more or less) ominiscient, here's what I discovered.

Previously, my narrator might have been taken for a snide elitist, drowning in the bile of obsessive nostalgia. But at least the reader could see this and take everything else he says with that in mind.

Now, it's the author who is the snide elitist. I can just hear an agent or an editor saying: "The author's bilious rants obscure what might otherwise be a smart and entertaining story." (I love to have my conversations beforehand)

At least I've still got the other version. But what are my other options.
I suppose I could take out all the bilious rants, but those were my favorite parts of the book.

If you don't want first person, then use conventional third person limited. This avoids the author intrusion omniscient usually causes, and is the most common way of writing a novel.

NeuroFizz · Nov 2, 2006

To me, narrator intrusion is just as pernicious as author intrusion, since it's hard to separate the two in narration-heavy pieces. Can you shove off some of your rants onto a character within the story? It could create a really different, interesting character if the comments aren't too obnoxious or sarcastic. And remember, sarcasm always has a target. Too much of it, or its careless targeting, can turn off a reader.

oswann · Nov 2, 2006

NeuroFizz said:
And remember, sarcasm always has a target.

The sarcasm can also be an insight to a characters weaknesses or sense of self esteem.

Os.

wordmonkey · Nov 2, 2006

But isn't this the job?

And I do mean that as opposed to "part of" the job.

The ideas are easy. Relatively speaking, the first draft is easy.

Sitting down and making the first draft work and work well, THAT'S where the real work is. That's what being an author is all about.

popmuze · Nov 2, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
If you don't want first person, then use conventional third person limited. This avoids the author intrusion omniscient usually causes, and is the most common way of writing a novel.

Let me ask a question about third person limited: does that mean I can also have some scenes where the main character is not present and probably wouldn't be privvy to what went on (unless he was informed later)?

Siddow · Nov 2, 2006

popmuze said:
Let me ask a question about third person limited: does that mean I can also have some scenes where the main character is not present and probably wouldn't be privvy to what went on (unless he was informed later)?

You'll have to have a second POV character who is in that scene. Filter it through their mind--meaning all thoughts belong to the POV character, and only things that the POV character sees and knows can be shown.

One thing you don't want to do is drop in a POV character for only a single scene. They should show up for a large part of the novel, and have more than one POV scene.

popmuze · Nov 2, 2006

Still not totally clear.
My story is basically the narrator (or the limited POV) telling the story of this other married couple. But I have some scenes where it's only the couple and the original POV guy is not in the room. In those cases I'm pretty much using an ominiscient POV.
In my latest version the ominiscent POV is telling everyone's story, but the story itself is mainly about the one guy's relationship with the other two, so he's in most (but not all) of the scenes.

greglondon · Nov 2, 2006

Let me ask a question about third person limited

Imagine a character who has a camera mounted behind their head, and the camera is special, because it can "see" what that character is thinking as well as see what they are doing and what is happening around the character.

That is third person limited (3PL)

If you want to show somethign in your story from 3PL, then you need a character there, with the camera behind his head, and you basically transcribe what the camera recorded into the story.

If you need to follow a couple of different characters to show the reader everything you want them to see, then its a good idea to make the characters interesting enough that they have their own storylines, their own goals, their own problems, and their own personalities.

I wouldn't recommend creating a new POV just to put a camera on the scene so the reader can see something you want them to see.

greglondon · Nov 2, 2006

My story is basically the narrator (or the limited POV) telling the story of this other married couple.

If the story is about the married couple, why aren't the married couple used as your POV characters? They're the ones who will feel the passion and the anger and the love and the rage and all the other emotions that will make it interesting and personal for the readers.

The divorce lawyer (or whoever is the other person) can only talk about what he thinks the married couple felt after the fact. It isolates the readers another level from the actual emotions of the characters.

Doug Johnson · Nov 2, 2006

You can shift the character whose POV you're using. i.e. We see some scenes from the wife's POV and some from the heros. The narrator stays the same. You can also use first person for the hero, and third person for other characters POV when the hero isn't around. Who is doing the ranting and why?

NeuroFizz · Nov 2, 2006

oswann said:
The sarcasm can also be an insight to a characters weaknesses or sense of self esteem.
Os.

Excellent point, Os. In fact, sarcasm in the right hands can be a wonderful literary tool. In the wrong hands, or in some inexperienced hands, it can take on the action of a boomerang instead of an arrow, and come back and smite the writer.

Éclairer · Nov 4, 2006

popmuze said:
Previously, my narrator might have been taken for a snide elitist... Now, it's the author who is the snide elitist. I can just hear an agent or an editor saying: "The author's bilious rants obscure what might otherwise be a smart and entertaining story."

I say it's your book; you're the author and if you're in it, so be it. As a reader I am just as interested in the author as I am in the characters; the characters, after all, are the author. If there's overlap, or a distinct narrative personality, whether in conjunction or conflict with the character, it lends the book an extremely authentic quality I happen to find particularly endearing. Dickens had something to say about every single one of his characters. And he said it. Without mincing words.

kuatolives · Nov 4, 2006

I had to look up the word bilious

popmuze · Nov 4, 2006

kuatolives said:
I had to look up the word bilious

So did I get it right?

popmuze · Nov 4, 2006

Éclairer said:
I say it's your book; you're the author and if you're in it, so be it. As a reader I am just as interested in the author as I am in the characters; the characters, after all, are the author. If there's overlap, or a distinct narrative personality, whether in conjunction or conflict with the character, it lends the book an extremely authentic quality I happen to find particularly endearing. Dickens had something to say about every single one of his characters. And he said it. Without mincing words.

This could be the most important post of the thread, since I've just gotten a request for material from an agent and I was torn between sencing out the old, first person draft, or the new, third person draft. Now I'm leaning toward sending out the new. But at least I've got the whole weekend to ponder it.

Éclairer · Nov 4, 2006

popmuze said:
This could be the most important post of the thread, since I've just gotten a request for material from an agent and I was torn between sencing out the old, first person draft, or the new, third person draft. Now I'm leaning toward sending out the new. But at least I've got the whole weekend to ponder it.

Well, I wish you the best in whatever you decide. I'm sure you'll do well.

popmuze · Nov 4, 2006

Éclairer said:
Well, I wish you the best in whatever you decide. I'm sure you'll do well.

I don't see how you could be so sure. I myself am a nervous wreck.

Éclairer · Nov 4, 2006

popmuze said:
I don't see how you could be so sure. I myself am a nervous wreck.

It's a formality. You could be a terrible writer; but in my opinion those writers who can create "snide elitists" are usually fairly readable.

Doug Johnson · Nov 4, 2006

popmuze said:
This could be the most important post of the thread, since I've just gotten a request for material from an agent and I was torn between sencing out the old, first person draft, or the new, third person draft. Now I'm leaning toward sending out the new. But at least I've got the whole weekend to ponder it.

I'd wait until it was the best you could possibly make it, even if it takes you a long time. (It's a lot easier to get them to read it for a first time in a year, than for a second time a month from now.)

popmuze · Nov 4, 2006

Éclairer said:
It's a formality. You could be a terrible writer; but in my opinion those writers who can create "snide elitists" are usually fairly readable.

I don't have to take that from a commoner like you.

popmuze · Nov 4, 2006

Doug Johnson said:
I'd wait until it was the best you could possibly make it, even if it takes you a long time. (It's a lot easier to get them to read it for a first time in a year, than for a second time a month from now.)

Every time I rewrite it I think it's the best it could possibly be and I've been in rewrites for a couple of years. Then I read it later and fix something on page 137, thus making it the best it could possibly be.

I thought the last version was my last rewrite, until I tried the new third person.

Until and unless an agent or editor (or many agents and editors) convince me this will never get published, I'll probably keep tweaking it until that happy day (since I've already decided that until and unless this one gets published, I'm not writing another one).

Anyway, I've had three novels published and each of those I could still be tweaking if I had my way.

Doug Johnson · Nov 4, 2006

popmuze said:
Until and unless an agent or editor (or many agents and editors) convince me this will never get published, I'll probably keep tweaking it until that happy day

Which is another way of saying that happy day won't come until you're finished tweaking it.

Arghhh! (Rewrite blues)

Last of a Dying Breed

yes

Sky isn't falling, ground is rising

The grad students did it

Grumpy

ook

Last of a Dying Breed

I'm super! Thanks for asking

Last of a Dying Breed

Planet Wookie techno geek

Planet Wookie techno geek

The grad students did it

Gonzo Journalist

Last of a Dying Breed

Last of a Dying Breed

Last of a Dying Breed

Last of a Dying Breed

Last of a Dying Breed