narrative distance

Put your POV camera on Bob's shoulder.

A battered sign on the wall between the Post Office and the Pizza shop read Tindle Alley. The orange light from the overhead street lamp didn't reach more than a few metres into the alley. Bob glanced along the alley. No doors this end. The entrance to Pat's flat must be farther in. Paul checked the street remained deserted then flicked his torch on and headed gingerly into the alley. Piles of rotted wood and frayed ropes lay scattered along the walls. The place stank. Bob clamped his hand over his nose. A snuffling rat stared into the torch beam then scurried out of sight.

Not perfect, but......

Try saying what he saw or heard without prefacing it by saying he heard or saw this or that.

If the searching for the flat in the alley isn't important or you want to leave it out, do so and simply tell where things are -

An hour later Bob located Paul's flat in Tindle Alley and rapped on the door.


Any help?

smellycat6464 said:

I've been told that having a less intrusive narrator is more interesting story-wise and less distracting. I've tried doing my homework on this, but I still struggle with it.

I understand how phrases like "he saw an object, he smelled the object, he thought about the object" indicate an intrusive narrator because if "he" is the POV, then its like the experiences of the POV are being rattled off by someone spying on whoever "he" is

That makes sense, but sometimes I give distance without intending it. Of the top of my head, I wrote something along the lines of "Bob peered into the alley, but found nothing but rotted wood, frayed ropes, and rats." I was told this is am example of distant narration. I guess that makes sense, its like Mr. Narrator is saying "and then kids, bob peered into the alley...." but this made me over think it slightly, is having the POV addressed in a sentence putting distance?
For example, if you have a sentence structure of "POV/POV's pronoun + verb" does that automatically indicate a distanced narrator since we're reading the narrator tell us something the POV did.

Sorry, but writing close narration while using 3rd limited seems mutually exclusive, but I know that's not true because it can be done, right?

thank you!!

Click to expand...

Bob peered into the alley, but found nothing but rotted wood, frayed ropes, and rats.

Click to expand...

Bob peered into the alley. All he saw was rotted wood, frayed ropes, and rats.

Click to expand...

The first sentence has a strong bit of telling at the end. It was like the narrator was working away from the character we're following.

What I did was shorten the telling, but explaining how the character saw something. I pulled us back in by using "he" as a reference point to the character.

The sentence is fine and is intimate, but not as much (as I guess you'd want).

Another example:

Bob peered into the alley and all he found was rotted wood, frayed ropes, and rats.

Click to expand...

This seems like an intriguing question, and I'd like to help, but I think either your or I am confused about some things in your question.

The "he saw an object" seems to me to be more about strong verb choice as opposed to a distant narrator.

There seems to be an issue with POV in your question as well.

I wonder if you could clarify a bit more what you mean??

I think narrative distance is sometimes dictated by how active your sentences are. If they're less active and vivid, then your reader is going to feel more of a distance between his-/herself and whatever is going on in scene. That's why constructions like "Bob looked in the alley and found nothing but rotted wood, frayed ropes, and rats" feels rather distant. As Will Sauger said, it's the second part of the sentence, after "Bob looked in the alley," that does this. The reader is just being told the ropes and so forth are there instead of actually seeing them. This is not always terrible, as sometimes stuff is just not important enough to the story to be made into a long, drawn-out descriptive passage.

Bufty's description of the alley includes lots of detailed images and active verbs, so the reader is going to feel like they're seeing what Bob is seeing, and thus there will be very little narrative distance.

But no, I wouldn't necessarily say that you need *more* descriptions of surroundings than actions. I would say combine them, have the character interact with his/her surroundings, and basically have a mixture of the two. It is very frustrating, I agree! I find it difficult to recognize these things in my own writing, even though I can see it in others'.

smellycat6464 said:

That makes sense, but sometimes I give distance without intending it. Of the top of my head, I wrote something along the lines of "Bob peered into the alley, but found nothing but rotted wood, frayed ropes, and rats." I was told this is am example of distant narration. I guess that makes sense, its like Mr. Narrator is saying "and then kids, bob peered into the alley...." but this made me over think it slightly, is having the POV addressed in a sentence putting distance?
thank you!!

Click to expand...

The distance I'm guessing you're getting called out on is called filtering. You're filtering your MCs action through a layer of distance. Like so:

Bob peered into the alley, but found nothing but rotted wood, frayed ropes, and rats.

Click to expand...

To unfilter it:
Nothing but rotted wood, frayed ropes and rats clogged up the alley.

Sometimes you want to filter if your goal is to focus upon the filtering act. When you need to do that, you're better off splitting the sentence, IMO.

Like so:
Bob peered into the alley. Nothing but rotted wood, frayed ropes and rats.

Google filter words. They're words like saw, heard, felt, looked, smelled, touched, thought, etc. You can easily drop them and retain the meaning or purpose of the sentence. We know he saw something because you tell us what he saw. So no need to say it. Removing filter words helps to get deeper into the POV.

There's nothing wrong with saying Bob or He did something, like Bob or He glanced, jumped, struggled, walked or said or shouted or drew his sword or whatever.

How else are you to say 'Bob glanced along the alley' other than 'Bob glanced along the alley'? The reader knows exactly what that means -it's an action they can visualise. If the character actually physically does something you have to let the reader know what that action is.

The distancing issue comes into play when the POV character's senses and emotions are involved -see, hear, smell, taste, touch and feelings of emotion - fear, terror, love, anger...

Tell me what it is that triggers the sense or emotion involved and what the physical effect of that trigger is and because I am a human being I should know what the emotion is without having it spelled out. A character shitting in his pants doesn't usually mean he's in love with whatever is scrabbling towards him with venom dripping from its jaws

Anyway, Re your own sentence-

Bob peered into the alleyway but found nothing but rotted wood, frayed ropes, and rats.

Click to expand...

The first part of your sentence is perfectly okay. Nothing grammatically wrong with the second part but it does raise the issue of distancing because you have not stopped after telling me his action. You have gone on to explain to me (i.e.,you have intruded between me and Bob) what he found and that that was all he found.

Compare with -

Bob peered into the alleyway. Rotted wood lay in scattered heaps amongst abandoned coils of frayed rope. Several rats leaped out of the heaps and scampered into the darkened depths of the alley.

Click to expand...

I have to say - Bob peered into the alley! I don't have to say 'he saw....' or 'he found...' or 'he heard' -these are filters.

You should have told me the physical action -period. Then simply stated what was in the alley - as seen through the POV camera on Bob's shoulder! You have just said that Bob peered into the alley so unless the reader is a complete fruitcake it's obvious that what follows would be what Bob sees.

And the illusion is complete.

Without the distancing filter of ' but all he found' the reader can see what Bob saw - without you sticking your explanatory nose in.



It's nothing to do with descriptions per se.

It's basically a matter of keeping you ( the narrator) as invisible as possible.

Any help?

smellycat6464 said:

I'm terribly sorry but I still struggle with this concept. Sorry if my question was unclear, but the comments addressed exactly what I needed to hear, so thank you I'm going to try to dissect these comments and see where I'm failing to grasp the concept

in willsauger's post, the difference between "...and found..." and "...all he found..." determined a close and distant narrator, saying the pronoun "he" pulled us back to a character the felt like was escaping the grasp of the narrator. I guess this makes sense, but I thought addressing the POV character distanced the narrator, but I think that's an incorrect statement. However, mentioning the POV character as often as gracefully possible seems to be oversimplifying it, and actually achieve the opposite of what I'm trying to learn.


and bufty's response was really great, too, however, I still feel confused Your passage of said alleyway was really descriptive and felt so immersive. however, following the rules currently established in my mind, the sentence "bob glanced along the alley" would appear to have a large narrative distance, but what you wrote isn't 'far" at all. Are you saying its a balancing act, that I need more descriptions of surroundings rather than actions, and focus more the POV's reactions, because it seems impossible to never mention the POV's name, so maybe is narrative distance something determined holistically then?

Click to expand...

Just wanted to say this is a very helpful thread. I need work on getting into a closer third as well, and this has made a few things clear.

Well, I'm writing in 1st POV, and this is very useful to me, too!

This is a fascinating, eye-opening thread. Thank you to all contributors.

shadowrose said:

This is a fascinating, eye-opening thread. Thank you to all contributors.

Click to expand...

We have these all the time. At least 3-4 good ones a day.

That's good news for you! Strap in and hold on tight!

These always help the person asking the question, the people answering them and the people who are merely reading through.

Bufty. That is about as clear an explanation as I've ever seen. Very good. Thanks!

Bufty hit the nail on the head.

Bufty said:

Any help?

Click to expand...

Yes! This is a great way of describing narrative distance, thank you for posting. I'm going to tack a copy to the wall above my writing desk

Wow! When recently re-reading my work I'd noticed that I had been writing with distance but wasn't sure exactly how to fix this. I had been following the filtering threads with interest but it wasn't until I read this that I now know where I'm going wrong. Thanks bufty.

Very informative, like a damn V-8 moment. Ow.

so. . .

Bob peered into the alley. Rotted wood, rats, frayed ropes.

Rats.

Click to expand...

Violeta said:

Well, I'm writing in 1st POV, and this is very useful to me, too!

Click to expand...

Agreed. Every time I give my 1st person MS a new look, I find new examples of extraneous filtering that must be cut, and every time I do, the scene gets better.

For me, psychic distance has a few levels going on.

The house stood at the end of the road. Paint peeled from the walls. The front steps had cracks in them. (non judgmental, description only)

Closer - The ragged house stood at the end of the road. (Ragged = narrator's opinion). Paint peeled off the walls like blistered skin. ("like blistered skin" = narrator's input). Robert paused before he got to the front steps. There were so many cracks that he might trip. (Robert is taking the moment in and making an assessment).

Super Close - The house needed a wrecking ball and a molotov cocktail. Even the paint wanted to strip itself away and why not? Who wanted to own a heaping pile of dung? Cracks in the porch. Broken down fence, and the smell . . . something between rotting squirrel and a backed up septic tank. Disgusting.

Obviously there are varying degrees between all of these. I also don't think you need to "filter" to get closer. He smelled, she smelled, he saw, she saw. Those might change the distance, but, you can also move in close w/o filtering.

It's fun to play with distance, imho. It's fun to try and go as objective and "far away" as you can and then take that sentence and try to get deeper inside the narrator's head.

Nothing wrong with the opening 'telling' short section if that's appropriate to the unfolding tale.

I can't say I find the supposed 'super close' version any better or clearer than the 'closer' example.

And I don't see why the references to 'ragged' or paint peeling like 'blistered skin' are picked on as being in any way filtering narrator comments or opinions.

POV and surrounding narrative are always important and relevant.

And I've no idea why you refer to getting deeper inside the narrator's head. The narrator should be trying to maintain the illusion that the reader is experiencing unfolding events throuigh the chosen POV character's experience and senses.

=CrastersBabies;8161987]For me, psychic distance has a few levels going on.

The house stood at the end of the road. Paint peeled from the walls. The front steps had cracks in them. (non judgmental, description only)

Closer - The ragged house stood at the end of the road. (Ragged = narrator's opinion). Paint peeled off the walls like blistered skin. ("like blistered skin" = narrator's input). Robert paused before he got to the front steps. There were so many cracks that he might trip. (Robert is taking the moment in and making an assessment).

Super Close - The house needed a wrecking ball and a molotov cocktail. Even the paint wanted to strip itself away and why not? Who wanted to own a heaping pile of dung? Cracks in the porch. Broken down fence, and the smell . . . something between rotting squirrel and a backed up septic tank. Disgusting.

Obviously there are varying degrees between all of these. I also don't think you need to "filter" to get closer. He smelled, she smelled, he saw, she saw. Those might change the distance, but, you can also move in close w/o filtering.

It's fun to play with distance, imho. It's fun to try and go as objective and "far away" as you can and then take that sentence and try to get deeper inside the narrator's head.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

Nothing wrong with the opening 'telling' short section if that's appropriate to the unfolding tale.

Click to expand...

If I recall, I do not say that any of those were wrong or right.

I can't say I find the supposed 'super close' version any better or clearer than the 'closer' example.

Click to expand...

Never said that any were clearer or better.

And I don't see why the references to 'ragged' or paint peeling like 'blistered skin' are picked on as being in any way filtering narrator comments or opinions.

Click to expand...

Comparing something to another thing is human. Purely objective and far-distanced narration does not have opinion, nor does it compare or make judgment.

POV and surrounding narrative are always important and relevant.

Click to expand...

Never said otherwise.

And I've no idea why you refer to getting deeper inside the narrator's head. The narrator should be trying to maintain the illusion that the reader is experiencing unfolding events throuigh the chosen POV character's experience and senses.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't have any idea.

Wow! This thread is great. I just went through what I've written so far and looked for "saw". The few places it showed up, it was fairly simple to go in and fix. This is my first draft, but I found a sentence like this- "She saw Caise’s boots coming toward her and she held up an arm in front of herself to shield her head."

I think just getting rid of "she saw" and reworking the sentence so it's just boots heading for her and shields herself would make it closer, no? I could probably add in something about how she's feeling, but I do that a few sentences on.

Off to see how much I told the reader what my character heard...

I have to agree with Bufty on this.

CrastersBabies, all your examples and how they "close-in" only further reveals the narrator, IMO. And that does not bring the reader closer to the POV character. For a first person narrative, its almost essential (and what I see that 95% of writers nowadays don't use). But for third, you want to create an illusion that masks your presence and highlights the character.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."