The Backward OX

Occasionally I come across this advice about writing: “Make sure the narrator is doing the talking, and not the writer.”

Can someone show me, by way of two brief examples of the same phrase – one as the narrator, one as the writer – what the difference is?

Thank you.

Malone

That sounds like pretty stupid advice. I'd guess they mean that if the narrator has his own personality, the writer should step out of his own and assume that of the narrator? Seems like more of a problem that would arise over the course of a novel, and not easily demonstrated in an excerpt. In four years of college for a writing degree, I never heard that little quip.

__________________
There Is A Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed


Malone's Mind
Everyday Madness Kindle Edition

The Backward OX

Here’s a quote from Wiki on the subject (I think):
"A narrator is an entity within a story that tells the story to the reader. It is one of three entities responsible for story-telling of any kind. The others are the author and the reader (or audience). The author and the reader both inhabit the real world. It is the author's function to create the alternate world, people, and events within the story. It is the reader's function to understand and interpret the story. The narrator exists within the world of the story (and only there—although in non-fiction the narrator and the author can share the same persona, since the real world and the world of the story are the same) and presents it in a way the reader can comprehend."

Dawnstorm

It doesn't work like that. The same phrase could be either the narrator or the author, and in many instances there's no steadfast difference.

In fist-person-narration the difference is clear. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is NOT Dr. John Watson. I doubt that needs explaining.

In third person omniscient, the narrator often passes comments on the story in question. This is where the distinction becomes relevant: do you think that the ideas and sentiments in the story belong to the author or to the narrator? (The analytical answer is always the "narrator", but sometimes the "narrator" is just a proxy for the author, so the difference may be quite small.)

A third person omniscient example follows. The quote is from Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.

I find it hard to believe that Susanna Clarke finds the idea of metal ships funny. It's her narrator who does so, and she shares a joke with the reader at his/her expense. There are other clues in the text, such as word choices that sound appropriate for a Victorian English(wo)man, but not so much for Ms Clarke herself. (I'd go hunting for them, but I don't have the book on me. The quote I found via googling "Norrell" and "metal ships"; here. The link might actually be interesting for you, since they wonder about textual clues to the identity of the narrator, providing plenty of clues implicitly, that the narrator is not Susanna Clarke.)

I find that if you have your narrator down (Who's telling the story to whom, when, where and why?) the story's easier to write. It's not something you need to worry about, but if you like to play around a bit, then, well, why not?

The wiki-quote's fair enough, but it's glossing over a few things, for example that narrator and author might be near identical even in fiction; and if you're getting really nit-picky there are four participants, not three: Author ->[narrator] <--> [fictive reader]<- real reader.

Think about the JS&MN quote above. Do you really think that the narrator, who thinks the idea of metal ships to be funny, is talking to modern readers who know that metal ships are fact? The narrator's intended audience is as difference from the real audience (me, for example) as the narrator is from Ms Clarke.

It's all really obvious, once you think about it, but you don't often think about it, since writing advice often assumes 3rd-limited as a kind of default, and there the problem isn't really prominent, because the narrator/author is disappearing behind the PoV-character anyway.

But often that's just theoretical quibbles. Many writers get right when "in the mood", and then get miffed when they're called on a political stance their narrator expresses but they don't hold. (Happens even to first-person narrators; as if choosing a character as a narrator means endorsing the characters vies.) Perhaps that's the best way to put it in a line or two: You can have your narrator say things, you - personally - would never get away with.

As I said, no need to worry about it overly, but still interesting to look into.

HarryG

He could feel that familiar tingle in his hands as he followed the young girl to the car park. He hoped that she would put up more of a struggle than the last one, the one that kept fainting every time he put his hands round her scrawny neck.


This one was walking a few yards ahead of him, a jaunty walk, with her head held up high. He would show the bitch. He would not let her die quickly.




Although he was a seasoned detective, Smith gagged at the sight of the young girl's broken body. How could anyone inflict such suffering on a young, innocent girl?

The Backward OX

Oy, are you on the right bus?

slayerofangels

I've always thought that the author is simply telling the story, but the narrator is someone in the story telling the story. The best example I can think of would be Lockwood and Nelly Wuthering Heights. We first meet lockwood and see the story through his eyes (which is the author telling the story), then later Nelly tells Lockwood about the history of Wuthering Heights and in that case, Nelly becomes the Narrator.

Seems a bit roundabout if you ask me but like everything else, if done right it works a charm.

__________________

For Sale: One soul. Mint condition, never been used.

"As they dragged him away, Kovacs spoke to the other inmates. He said 'None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me'

Foxee

Dawnstorm touched on my answer by discussing various points of view. The first thing that came to mind when I read your question, Ox, is that the narration should match the voice of the character whose point of view you're writing unless someone else is telling that character's story.

The first two examples are written in third-person limited point of view and and the third would probably be considered third-person omniscient.

So if I'm writing from the point of view of a six-year-old girl I want the narration to sound like her unless someone else is telling her story:

We went camping with a tent and a fire just like the pictures in my adventure book. My brother ate some berries he found even though mom and dad said not to eat stuff if we didn't know what it was.

If her dad is telling the story the narration can have some longer words. Take into account his level of education, where he's from, how old he is, and what he does for a living (a wildlife biologist would most likely know what kind of berries the son had eaten, an accountant might not.):

The kids loved the camping trip to the mountains. We had an exciting time of it when Dan ate some mystery berries. Even though I was almost certain they were harmless I drove him to the hospital.

Now, let's see if I can do this as the author apart from any of the characters. It's tricky because ordinarily I wouldn't try!

When Dan and his children went camping in the mountains, Harry's son ate some huckleberries even after repeated warnings not to eat anything he didn't recognize. The family camping trip had to be put on hold when they drove the boy to the hospital.

I realize the example isn't great but I hope I've gotten across some differences and, no, the differences aren't measurable as in 'oh so this POV is wordier'...that's not the case at all because each of these could be rewritten numerous other ways.

The first example could be an effective way of writing the story because the girl knows less than the dad or the author about what is happening. There is more anxiety for the reader and tension in the story...we only know what she knows.

The second example might be more of a standard way of writing the story if it's a book aimed at adults. The girl's voice might get a little wearing over an entire book unless you can do it well. Also, the dad knows more about what's happening than the daughter does, but knows less than the author knows.

The author-intrusive third example is horrible. I've put in things that I know that the characters don't. If you know what a huckleberry is you know that Dan isn't in any danger at all and the trip to the hospital is wasted. If I'm aiming for tension here, I've missed it.

I'm not saying that you can NEVER write as the author but you'd have to have specific reason for doing so.

__________________
If the staff were bent on policing your thoughts there would be nothing but a smoking hole where the debate forum used to be.

The Backward OX

Foxee to the rescue again. We'll have to discuss putting you on a retainer, or something.

Having said that . . .

Quote:

the narration should match the voice of the character whose point of view you're writing unless someone else is telling that character's story.

I have been confused in the past by remarks like this.

" . . .the character whose point of view you're writing . . .".

I assume we're talking here of the 6 year old, regardless of who tells it, is that correct? So when it's Dad talking it's still the 6 y.o's pov?

JosephB

To me the idea of voice just means I’m presenting the personality and characteristics of the narrator in an authentic and a consistent way. But I'm not very good at defining or identifying any of these things, really, I just rely on instinct. I didn't know POV from SUV before I started posting here.

__________________
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
-- Albert Einstein

"I am really only interested in a fiction of miracles."
-- Flannery O'Connor

Non Serviam

This is clearest with a first person narrative, so I'll start with that.

Right:

I offered the ring to Susan. Her eyes widened, then she lowered her lashes and looked away. "I'm sorry," she said. "I can't marry you."

Wrong:

I offered the ring to Susan. What a bloody cretin this bloke is, she thought. How do I let him down gently? "I'm sorry," she said. "I can't marry you."

The latter example is wrong because the author's failed to distinguish between narrator and author. In other words, the author's describing things his narrator couldn't possibly know (in this case, Susan's thoughts).

As another example, with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, the narrator is usually Watson--so Holmes' thought process are revealed through dialogue rather than described directly. Watson's allowed to tell us what Holmes is saying, and what Watson sees, but Watson isn't allowed to tell us what Holmes is thinking. Make sense?

With third person narration it gets more complex because you're allowed to switch viewpoint characters. But it's a convention that each scene has only one viewpoint character.

Some authors, such as Jane Austen, don't use viewpoint characters. Austen sits in the detached middle distance and looks down on what's happening and makes dry little comments to her readers--in other words, that's a case where the author is the narrator. You can do that but it comes at a cost in immediacy (because the reader doesn't necessarily have one particular character to identify with). Austen overcomes that difficulty by making her heroines so amazingly modest, pleasant, and charming (while remaining very human) that you can't help identifying with them, particularly when the other characters are nasty.

The fashion in literature at the moment is quite cinematic, in the sense that you always know where the "camera" is (and it's usually sitting on one particular viewpoint character's shoulders, if not actually looking out through their eyes).

I suppose the best way of controlling this is to be very clear on where the "camera" is when you write, not to move the camera needlessly, and when you do move it, be clear with your reader that the camera is moving (such as by starting a new scene).

__________________
Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.

Foxee

I think I see where the confusion is. Before I try to answer I have to remark that there are whole books that can be written simply on point of view! So don't feel bad if you're not getting the whole answer in one post.

Let me try a bit of example with some dialogue. I'm writing from the 6 y/o's point of view:

Daddy, Dan, and I went fishing this morning. Daddy put the worms on my hook because they are icky. Daddy was almost as excited when I was when I caught a fish!

"Tug the line a little bit," he told me.

"It's getting away!" I just knew the fish would take my worm again.

"It won't, just...here!" Daddy grabbed the fishing pole and helped me, "Dan, get the net!" he yelled.

Through the whole thing we see everything from the little girl's perspective. We can't see things from the father's perspective or Dan's. This is because this is a LIMITED point of view or perspective.

Think of when you're telling your brother about something that happened in your day, Ox. Say you had a conversation with someone at the hardware store about nails...let's say the owner.

Now, when you tell your brother about something that the hardware store owner said it's not the hardware store owner speaking, it's YOU speaking. It's just that you are conveying the hardware store owner's words. You know only his words, not his thoughts. So when you tell your brother the story, you are the narrator even if you are talking about the hardware store owner (your 'character' in this instance).

Any better?

__________________
If the staff were bent on policing your thoughts there would be nothing but a smoking hole where the debate forum used to be.

HarryG

Probably not, but I'll try again.


It was raining heavily when he boarded the 149 bus at Liverpool Street Station. The bus was crowded, which pleased him, as he stood next to a young mother carrying her child in her arms, it reminded him of his sister back home.


But he knew what he had to do. He shouted Allah Akbar and pulled the switch.


(Narrator's voice, cannot possibly be the author's)


The tired accountant tried to recall how many times he had travelled on the 149 bus from Liverpool Street Station, pushing his way on to the crowded buses for the uncomfortable journey to his home in Tottenham.


(Narrator, could be the author)


London transport has always been an inefficient behemoth, irrespective of which political party was in power.


(The boring author)


I'm probably still on the wrong bus, in which case I'll refer you to the NATO alphabet, and two letters in particular – Foxtrot Oscar.

The Backward OX

Perhaps eventually I'll take in all the advice given here. Meantime your idea (rely on instinct) sounds good.



What's SUV (insert head-scratching smiley)





Just kidding.

Truth-Teller

Man, that's hilarious! Write some more, the terrorist being the protagonist.