narrative distance

Ken... that's not filtering.

"Peered" is an action, perfectly fine. Characters need to act.
A filter notes an action (that describes) that is already included in context. "He saw--" is stating what we already know.

"Bob peered into the alley where fifty black cats awaited, staring back at him."
Is perfectly fine.


Now, looking/peering/watching too much can be mistake that some writers repeat. It's the writers trying to point out that the character is watching something, which is already noted. This is just going farther into the context of the narrative.


I think I haven't said this, but for the people who want to reduce filtering, look for it in the editing phase. Find it, just take it out and reassemble the sentences back. And if you can't figure how to remove it, just skip it--no one is going to hang you for it.

Agreed.

'He peered into the alley... ' or 'Bob jumped' or whatever action he did is not filtering. The reader has to know what a character physically does.

In third person limited, filtering - or unnecessarily drawing attention to your presence as the narrator) can weaken the narrative and reader experience if it occurs often and it usually occurs and/or becomes a habit because of a weak POV.

It's nothing to get all tied up in knots about - it's simply something we beginners should be aware of so we use filters by choice and not through ignorance.

... well if it's in 3rd we know it's Bob and if things in an alley are mentioned we know they're being seen by him. So why mention something that needs no mentioning? It's dull and redundant if nothing else. It's like saying the same thing twice. Bob Bob peered peered into an alley.

Not really a convincing argument, Ken, and you know perfectly well what we're talking about.

Ken said:

... well if it's in 3rd we know it's Bob and if things in an alley are mentioned we know they're being seen by him. So why mention something that needs no mentioning? It's dull and redundant if nothing else. It's like saying the same thing twice. Bob Bob peered peered into an alley.

Click to expand...

Ken said:

... well if it's in 3rd we know it's Bob and if things in an alley are mentioned we know they're being seen by him. So why mention something that needs no mentioning? It's dull and redundant if nothing else. It's like saying the same thing twice. Bob Bob peered peered into an alley.

Click to expand...

It depends how you want to use it. If, for example, Bob was hiding behind a wall, and then peered into the alley, that could be an important action, particularly if the next action or set of actions depends on the location of his head (maybe the person in the alley is trying to shoot him). Also, in such as situation, if you went straight to describing what was in the alley when he was hiding a moment before, I'd wonder how he could see what was in the alley without turning around or looking, because in such a case, I wouldn't necessarily assume the action.

If the action of peering is important, it's fine to mention it. There are cases where it may be redundant, but there are also cases where it might not be.

As another example of when filtering could be okay (and not redundant or unnecessary), consider "Bob didn't see anything in the alley" versus "There was nothing in the alley."

These are subtly different, and which one is more appropriate depends both on the narrative distance and the kind of guy Bob is. Consider the possibility that there is someone in the alley that Bob doesn't see. In a more distant POV, saying "Bob didn't see anything" may be appropriate, if it leads into the revelation that there actually is someone there. In a close POV, with a Bob who believes his eyes, "There was nothing in the alley" would be more appropriate, because what Bob sees, Bob's perception of what he sees, and the narrative are all identical. However, you could also have a close POV where Bob is suspicious and suspects there may be someone in the alley, but he can't see anyone. Then "Bob didn't see anything" would again be appropriate, because it conveys different information than saying there's nothing there.

If you find yourself filtering, e.g. using words like "saw", "felt", "heard," etc., then try removing those words and see if the resulting passage is equivalent and makes sense. If it is and does, then it's probably more powerful without the filtering. But if it changes the meaning, or you find yourself struggling to reword it without those filtering words, then it's probably fine.

... am not in disagreement.
Spelling things out is totally necessary at times for reasons you and others have stated.
But many times it isn't. And on those occasions it's best to streamline,
by eliminating proper names and pronouns and verb tags.
That'll reduce the distance between reader and the story,
which is what the OP is aiming to do in his third person limited novel.

Ken said:

But many times it isn't. And on those occasions it's best to streamline,
by eliminating proper names and pronouns and verb tags.
That'll reduce the distance between reader and the story,
which is what the OP is aiming to do in his third person limited novel.

Click to expand...

...or bring up the narrative voice to the reader--which I've already warned about earlier in the thread.

Subjects, and their actions are the basics of grammar and conveying information. To try to cut 'who's doing what' can become very, very confusing for the reader. Without that, actions and subject are thrown around without referencing the POV character and that stems directly from the narrator.

Sometimes, you can do this for 1st person--because we already know who's talking (another writerly bug where we point out how many "I" started sentences). But, for third, it could be crossing the line if you're trying to hide the narrator.


Now, without cutting the subject and their actions, you can work with the grammar to resolve some repetition in the paragraph structure by varying sentence strucuture.

"Peering into the alley, (comma)--"

But that creates problem with citing who's acting here.
The sentence could be:

"Peering into the alley, Bob saw fifty black cats stared back at him."

That's filtering.

Removing it:

"Peering into the alley, fifty black cats stared back at him."

But that's the cats peering, not Bob.

Cutting it even more:

"Down an alley, fifty black cats stared back at him."

But that loosens context a bit too much and can reveal the narrator's voice.

I'd just leave it more simply. All the other can appear jarring at times.

... it's hard to get across what I'm suggesting without context.
If it's already established that Bob is the subject of the scene,
then "Bob" can be dispensed with.
Peering, too, unless it's really necessary.

If you write tight the reader won't be confused, at all.
Context will tell them exactly what they need to know,
about who's doing what and how it's being done.

Again. It's not essential to do things this way.
But if your aim is increased intimacy between characters and readers,
it's a good way to go, imo.

Roxxsmom said:

I'll call them guidelines and not rules, because, yes, of course there are instances when they can and should be broken, but I'm not talking about a book that uses filters when they're needed, I'm talking about a book that uses them to its detriment.

As in one that most of us would pick to pieces over on SYW.

I thought the point of these writing guidelines was to make stories more accessible/comprehensible and to make manuscripts more readable and marketable.

All else being equal (i.e. a decent story with relatable characters being foremost), wouldn't a story follows the basic guidelines about when it is and isn't advisable to do these things be more appealing to readers? I mean, the point of eliminating unnecessary filters is to make the characters more salient to the reader, and isn't character one of the things people read for?

Of course your average person who is reading a paperback on a plane is not going to say, "Ew, this author is filtering and using too many adverbs." But she might wonder why she "can't get as much into this book" and may not want to finish it or buy another by the same writer.

I'm just wondering whether all this time I'm spending combing through my ms, polishing out these kinds of things, trying to make sure my voices are "just right," etc. is going to matter a rat's ass to an agent or editor, or in the end, to the people who might buy and read said book?

Click to expand...

If I were to take a photograph, it would be a case of holding up my digital camera and pressing "shoot". A professional would pay a lot more attention to lighting, exposure, and a hundred other minute details. Look at their photo next to mine, and I couldn't tell you what the differences were, but their's would be better.

Can the average reader tell whether you've used filtering or not? Probably not, no. But can they tell a difference? I'd say so. The overall impression of your work is changed by it, same as I can tell that professional photo is better than my point-and-click. I can get pretty good results with that point-and-click, but it's largely luck. I don't really know what I'm doing and I can't replicate good photos every time, let alone get a really great photo.

You comment on a lot of published writers using a lot of filtering. I'd bet most of them made that choice knowingly. It gets brought up in critiques of amateurs a lot because it's used unknowingly, without any idea of what it will and will not do for narrative distance.

Learn what the term means. Make an informed choice whether you use it or not. Know the effects either way. Choice of filtering either way is unlikely to be the single thing that stops a MS being accepted, but if you are blindly stumbling around the basics without making a firm, confident decision about what you intend, then it may indicate other weaknesses in your prose, and collectively that may lead to a rejection.

The removal of superfluous or un-needed pronouns, names and explanatory phrases etc., will usually tighten the POV and improve both flow and the reader's sense of involvement in unfolding events.

Ken said:

... it's hard to get across what I'm suggesting without context.
If it's already established that Bob is the subject of the scene,
then "Bob" can be dispensed with.
Peering, too, unless it's really necessary.

If you write tight the reader won't be confused, at all.
Context will tell them exactly what they need to know,
about who's doing what and how it's being done.

Again. It's not essential to do things this way.
But if your aim is increased intimacy between characters and readers,
it's a good way to go, imo.

Click to expand...

Roxxsmom said:

Yet she's doing the kinds of things we ding each other for in SYW etc.

Click to expand...

Could be an indictment on the way people "ding each other in SYW" — if the excerpt does those things well, that is. Say someone designs a sophisticated critting AI. Call it Rulesbot. Rulesbot can identify "telling" and filtering and all sorts of "rule"-breaking with 100% accuracy, and it can spit out commentary that would ace the Turing test. Yet it has no ability to discern aesthetic value, can't determine when the "rule"-breaking works or not.

Rulesbot is a horrendous critter. Wouldn't let him crit my stuff. (Although I'd love to dance to techno with him.)

If you're dinging each other judiciously, then — if the excerpt does those things well — she's probably not "doing the kinds of things [the good critters] ding each other for in SYW."

Roxxsmom said:

This is a bit depressing, because I wonder whether it either means that editors and agents (and critics) don't care as much about all this stuff as we're led to believe.

Click to expand...

Or that it's more nuanced than "telling = bad, filtering = bad," etc. A lot more nuanced.

The excerpt might have been poorly written, sure, but even if it was super well-written — and even if tell- and filtering-heavy prose were typical of good, published fiction — it wouldn't follow that "editors and agents (and critics) don't care as much about all this stuff as we're led to believe."

What happens, sometimes, is that having (basic) knowledge of the guidelines causes writers to care too much. John Q. Writer stumbles across filtering in the wild, for example, and is bothered by it just because it's filtering — not because it doesn't work. John "should" be bothered only by filtering that doesn't work, but he can't stand it even when it does. He becomes pretty Rulesbot-like. (From his perspective, he doesn't even "notice" that it works. It's not like he thinks, It works, but I hate it; he just thinks it doesn't work.)

The apparent unimpeachability of the "But writing is subjective!" fallback makes this even more dangerous.* Mr. Writer can simply say, "So what if I hate pretty much all filtering? What 'works' and 'doesn't work' can't be measured objectively." But that's where having a bit of introspective ability sure helps. If filtering starts to make you cringe, and if this sudden uptick in how much you dislike it coincides with reading a series of posts about how "filtering is bad" … yah, maybe "But writing is subjective!" isn't the most intellectually honest "defense," Mr. John Q. Writer.

This usually resolves itself after the writer learns a lot more about "exceptions"** how flexible the guidelines can be — reads more, studies more. But when it's in place, it can be pretty nasty. It's fairly common in beginners, looks like, but it can persist even in writers who've leveled up quite a bit.

(Just got a phone call: John Q. Writer wants to dance to techno with me.)

Roxxsmom said:

Or it means I'm completely missing something about when filtering and a distant, "telly" voice are appropriate, even praiseworthy, in literature.

Click to expand...

This could be it.

Roxxsmom said:

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but sometimes it seems like far more writers break these guidelines of good writing than follow them. I'd love to know why they do it and how they get away with it.

Click to expand...

They get away with it when it works.


*Not to mention the fact that John Q. Writer, Rulesbot-like as he might be, is actually "right" >85% of the time, especially in critting hubs (and also thanks to Sturgeon's Law). That doesn't exactly provide the negative reinforcement he needs to snap out of this habit.

**Dislike the word exceptions because it normalizes the inverse of the broken guideline, which I don't think is a great idea.

onesecondglance said:

If I were to take a photograph, it would be a case of holding up my digital camera and pressing "shoot". A professional would pay a lot more attention to lighting, exposure, and a hundred other minute details. Look at their photo next to mine, and I couldn't tell you what the differences were, but theirs would be better.

Can the average reader tell whether you've used filtering or not? Probably not, no. But can they tell a difference? I'd say so. ...

You comment on a lot of published writers using a lot of filtering. I'd bet most of them made that choice knowingly. It gets brought up in critiques of amateurs a lot because it's used unknowingly, without any idea of what it will and will not do for narrative distance.

Click to expand...

onesecondglance has a great example, here. I know I can take pictures of my grandchildren--but my son takes far better ones, because he has learned how to do it right, knows things about lighting and composition (and patience!) that I don't.

And makes a good point--something done on purpose feels different to the reader. As a reader, I want the feeling that the writer's in control of the material. I'm entrusting myself to the writer for a few hours, and I want to feel (as with a pilot or bus driver) that I'm safe in doing so.

How closely related are 'authorial intrusion', 'narrative distance' and 'filtering'?

Sometimes it seems like they're used interchangeably, but that could just be a sign that they're all symptoms of Newbie-itis.

So: three entirely different things, three facets of the same thing... or have I completely missed the point?

They're pretty much the same thing insomuch as - if and when created through ignorance or habit as opposed to choice based upon knowledge of technique - they can each distance the reader from the character.