How can I show a character doing a Doubletake

Jamesaritchie said:

There's no way to write a novel about ancient Egypt without using modern language, and this includes such things as a double take.

I don't know the language, but I'd guess they had a word for double take, as well.

Click to expand...

Roxxsmom said:

"Doubletake" is one of those words I can't use in my own stories (since it's anachronistic in a pre-industrial fantasy setting that has no film industry).

Click to expand...

I couldn't work out why JAR's advice didn't sit right, but Roxxsmom nailed it - of course you can't use double-TAKE in a setting that has no concept of film directing. The same way that I don't used words like 'derailed' because they don't have trains, nor do I used words like rocketed or cannoned or anything else that refers to anachronistic technology. It just doesn't feel right. Obviously I used modern words to bring my characters to life, modern cursing for example, but words that refer to bodily functions or suspect parentage have been round since the year dot

They are - speed is the core of a double-take.

Shadow_Ferret said:

"He did a double take" assumes that all double takes are created equal. They aren't. Consider the following: http://youtu.be/-dTHaMOz4ws

I'd prefer to show over telling.

Click to expand...

Kallithrix said:

of course you can't use double-TAKE in a setting that has no concept of film directing.

Click to expand...

A film term. I didn't get that. Actually, never knew the term was related to film. Learnt something new

If you start researching the etiology of words, you'll be amazed at how many of them derive from some significant or historical source that's unique to our reality. Using those words in elf-land is every bit as "wrong" as using "rocketing" or "double-take". But as has been pointed out, so is writing dialog in English.

When Asimov wrote "Nightfall", he had an apologia at the beginning to explain that the race in the story weren't human, didn't speak English, etc, but were presented that way for the convenience of the reader. Your MS is a translation as well. So, as has been pointed out already, if an action exists in your world, then using an English term to describe it is ok, especially if attempts at circumlocutions all sound kludgy.

Just my opinion. YMMV.

Wherever or whenever your story is set the narrative has to use language that creates understandable images to the readers of today.

So long as it isn't in dialogue it is immaterial whether or not characters within the story setting would have used or have been familiar with expressions or words used to convey a particular and/or relevant image to the reader.

Bufty said:

Wherever or whenever your story is set the narrative has to use language that creates understandable images to the readers of today.

So long as it isn't in dialogue it is immaterial whether or not characters within the story setting would have used or have been familiar with expressions or words used to convey a particular and/or relevant image to the reader.

Click to expand...

But surely we want to avoid out-and-out anachronisms?

Bufty said:

Wherever or whenever your story is set the narrative has to use language that creates understandable images to the readers of today.

So long as it isn't in dialogue it is immaterial whether or not characters within the story setting would have used or have been familiar with expressions or words used to convey a particular and/or relevant image to the reader.

Click to expand...

But to me, the narrative should be considered no less privileged than dialogue, because it is from my MC's POV. If he doesn't know what a canon or a rocket ship is, he wouldn't refer to them in description.

And also, what Beth said

Angry Guy said:

If you start researching the etiology of words, you'll be amazed at how many of them derive from some significant or historical source that's unique to our reality. Using those words in elf-land is every bit as "wrong" as using "rocketing" or "double-take". But as has been pointed out, so is writing dialog in English.

Click to expand...

No matter how careful you are, you're going to have some that slip through, certainly. But as a rule, people who write historical fiction and secondary world fantasy try to avoid the obvious ones that will throw a reasonably well informed reader out of the setting. Tolkien could refer to things like matches and freight trains in his narrative because he was writing in omniscient third, not limited third. They are different, and one difference is that limited third avoids references and words that the pov character would not refer to or use. With a limited third pov, we are trying to create the illusion that there is no narrator from our own time and place telling the story from without.

Imagine if people are going around saying (or thinking as per the narrative), "Jesus H Christ!" in a world with no Christianity, or someone is referred to as a loose cannon when there are no cannons in that world. Double take is derived from the film industry. Most people know that. So it really doesn't make sense to use the term if your world doesn't have film.

There are also words, like "volcano" that are anachronistic, but where there really isn't a viable alternative in the English language, and where most people probably don't think of their mythic origins when they hear them. Everyone has a place where they draw the line in fantasy or historical fiction, and yes it's fuzzy. But that doesn't mean there isn't a line or shouldn't be.

That's my opinion, of course, but it's something fantasy writers (yes published ones) blog about, and talk about at workshops and on panels as an aspect of world building. Not everyone draws their line in the same place (Asimov's apologia is one approach to the situation, but even so, I bet he some of the more obvious bloopers) and that's fine. But it's something writers of these genres should be aware of. It's not as trivial a thing as some people are trying to make it.

In any case, "double take" is a word I would likely not use in narrative, even in a contemporary setting, because to me, it has the odor of the cliche about it. And it the word comes off as sort of cartoonish, a visual exaggeration, something done for comedic effect in visual media more than something real people do. So maybe it's a matter of the feel one is shooting for.

It may be his POV but unless it is first person he is not the narrator and we are talking about narrative.

And if there's no reason to put rocket-ship or canon or any other word in the narrative it shouldn't be put there, whether he knows about it or not. Clarity and flow and helping the reader to understand the unfolding story is the best reason there is.

Kallithrix said:

But to me, the narrative should be considered no less privileged than dialogue, because it is from my MC's POV. If he doesn't know what a canon or a rocket ship is, he wouldn't refer to them in description.

And also, what Beth said

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

It may be his POV but unless it is first person he is not the narrator and we are talking about narrative.

Click to expand...

Hmm... depends how 'close' you want close third to be. When I write from a character's POV I slip into their mindset, try to become them. In a sense, they ARE the narrator, but as if they're talking about themselves in third person.

Sorry, in third person limited, the writer remains the narrator no matter how much it may suit the discussion to describe the POV characters as such.

In the final analysis all word choices are to aid the reader's comprehension of the unfolding tale.

Kallithrix said:

Hmm... depends how 'close' you want close third to be. When I write from a character's POV I slip into their mindset, try to become them. In a sense, they ARE the narrator, but as if they're talking about themselves in third person.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

Sorry, in third person limited, the writer remains the narrator no matter how much it may suit the discussion to describe the POV characters as such.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that to suit the discussion. I have always treated third limited as if it is the character narrating the story. It's not my voice, not an external narrator's voice. It is my POV character's voice, thoughts, expressions, turns of phrase and perception, just in third person. If that's not how you write it then I'm not going to tell you to do it differently. But that's how I write it. So, on our interpretation of close third it seems you and I will have to agree to disagree.

We don't disagree that much, but it's all an illusion.

And creating and maintaining the illusion is the craft. And the craft is displayed by us, the writers, by reporting all these thoughts, expressions and perceptions in such a manner the reader hopefully does not see us or detect our presence and believes he is experiencing the unfolding tale as if he were the POV character.

But we are always there. Someone has to link all these descriptions, perceptions, scenes, actions and dialogue together by narrative and that someone is the narrator - us.

Kallithrix said:

I'm not saying that to suit the discussion. I have always treated third limited as if it is the character narrating the story. It's not my voice, not an external narrator's voice. It is my POV character's voice, thoughts, expressions, turns of phrase and perception, just in third person. If that's not how you write it then I'm not going to tell you to do it differently. But that's how I write it. So, on our interpretation of close third it seems you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

We don't disagree that much, but it's all an illusion.

And creating and maintaining the illusion is the craft. And the craft is displayed by us, the writers, by reporting all these thoughts, expressions and perceptions in such a manner the reader hopefully does not see us or detect our presence and believes he is experiencing the unfolding tale as if he were the POV character.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I won't include blatantly anachronistic terminology in my POV narrative - it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Thanks for making my argument for me

Nobody should use what they consider to be blatantly anachronistic terminology in their narrative and nobody has suggested that anyone should.

Kallithrix said:

Which is exactly why I won't include blatantly anachronistic terminology in my POV narrative - it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Thanks for making my argument for me

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

Nobody should use blatantly anachronistic terminology in their narrative and nobody has suggested that anyone should.

Click to expand...

Now I call shenanigans.

Jamesaritchie said:

There's no way to write a novel about ancient Egypt without using modern language, and this includes such things as a double take.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

Wherever or whenever your story is set the narrative has to use language that creates understandable images to the readers of today.

So long as it isn't in dialogue it is immaterial whether or not characters within the story setting would have used or have been familiar with expressions or words used to convey a particular and/or relevant image to the reader.

Click to expand...

Backpedal all you like, you infuriating Scot. You know you're outdone, outargued and unmanned. Come on, try admitting defeat once in a while. You might find you like your new role as sub to mistress Kalli

Sorry, my dear.

You can wave your whip all you want, but extracting random sentences that make perfect sense in context only demonstrates frantic searching for a stick to drag oneself out of the swamp.

Bufty said:

Sorry, my dear.

You can wave your whip all you want, but extracting random sentences that make perfect sense in context only demonstrates frantic searching for a stick to drag oneself out of the swamp.

Click to expand...

And failure to stand by your own comments only demonstrates you are one slippery politician, sir.

Have you considered standing for MP?

Anyway, all this rhetorical foreplay is making me extremely aroused. I'm off to write some ancient Egyptian erotica

See you behind the third pyramid on the left. Bring your Whip, and I don't mean the chocolate one.

Kallithrix said:

But to me, the narrative should be considered no less privileged than dialogue, because it is from my MC's POV.... Hmm... depends how 'close' you want close third to be. When I write from a character's POV I slip into their mindset, try to become them. In a sense, they ARE the narrator, but as if they're talking about themselves in third person.

Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly.

Describing Third person Limited POV characters as narrators because in their relevant scenes/chapters they are 'imagined to be speaking about themselves in the third person' is, to me at least, a very misleading and confusing definition of a narrator.

BethS said:

Yes. Exactly.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

Describing Third person Limited POV characters as narrators because in their relevant scenes/chapters they are 'imagined to be speaking about themselves in the third person' is, to me at least, a very misleading and confusing definition of a narrator.

Click to expand...

Hey! How did you get out of those restraints??

*drags Bufty back to bondage wheel*

In general third, Bufty would have a point

In third limited we are limited (note the word) to what the POV knows/hears/sees/thinks. That's why it's called limited.

If we are in limited, then a caveman thinking (for in limited it is supposed that the narration -- much like first -- is the POV character) a caveman thinking "wow, that was fast as a ferrari" is going to sound off

When I write third limited -- also called close-- POV my narration IS the character -- what they think, how they think about the world. There is a certain distance -- it's easier to say describe why the Z-drive is a pain in the arse when you go faster than light or whatever -- but essentially you only give the knowledge the character has, not the knowledge the author/narrator has.


If, in the other hand you have set up the narrator as someone from now, it won't. (pratchett frex often speaks of real world stuff, but his narrator is clearly not his characters)

So anyway, perhaps a mix up of terminology? (happens all the time with POV!)

Bufty said:

Describing Third person Limited POV characters as narrators because in their relevant scenes/chapters they are 'imagined to be speaking about themselves in the third person' is, to me at least, a very misleading and confusing definition of a narrator.

Click to expand...

I think I'll let you and Kalli, um, sort this one out.

Mix up of terminology? Yep - happens all the time. Hope you had a good weekend.

=Mr Flibble;9143216]In general third, Bufty would have a point. Would I? I have no idea what's meant by 'general third'.

In third limited we are limited (note the word) to what the POV knows/hears/sees/thinks. That's why it's called limited. No- it's 'limited' because it's limited to one POV character at a time per scene, per chapter or whatever even though there may be more than one chosen POV character in the tale.

If we are in limited, then a caveman thinking (for in limited it is supposed that the narration -- much like first -- is the POV character) a caveman thinking "wow, that was fast as a ferrari" is going to sound off. Of course it is going to sound 'off'. That's a perfect illustration of wholly inappropriate word choice if that is what the narrator (who is not the POV character) reports the caveman POV character as 'thinking'. But to leave a common expression such as a double-take out of narrative because it is 'anachronistic' is plain silly. Folk have been double-taking since the beginning of time - even though the origin of the expression may be attributed to the movie industry. Any reader would know what the expression meant and wouldn't blink an eye upon seeing it in descriptive narrative.

When I write third limited -- also called close No- to me, 'close' is a fancy sub-category of Third person Limited-- POV my narration IS the character -- what they think, how they think about the world. There is a certain distance -- it's easier to say describe why the Z-drive is a pain in the arse when you go faster than light or whatever -- but essentially you only give the knowledge the character has, not the knowledge the author/narrator has. Nobody would disagree that the narrator revealing knowledge that is unknown to the POV character would be narrator intrusion.


If, in the other hand you have set up the narrator as someone from now, it won't. (pratchett frex often speaks of real world stuff, but his narrator is clearly not his characters) Omniscient POV done well usually works and the narrator in omniscient is the only POV.

So anyway, perhaps a mix up of terminology? (happens all the time with POV!)

Click to expand...