Boarders Writing A Novel: Part 13

[TrackerNeil]

So? We're not talking about shitty female characters. We're talking about POV. Whatever works for a writer or a read works, just because you don't like it means that it "sucks donkey balls" or whatever was said. But hey, don't let me stop you from dictating literary merit and pontificating great writing advice to the rest of us. 

Actually, Ebenstone, I was asked about shitty female characters, and I answered. I never mentioned "donkey balls" either, so take that up with Spockydog. And if you have a problem with reading discussion of literary techniques, you are in the wrong thread, honey. 

[TrackerNeil]

While I agree with you on the lack of female characters, I would disagree with you about the ones who do appear. Arwen was not a prize, she was in love with Aragorn, and they wed after the war. Eowyn marries and has children after her heroism in the Battle of Pelennor Fields, because that was the end of the war and there was no more 'heroism' to engage in, similar to the way Faramir settled down after his heroism. Galadriel dwelt in an area of the world that was not spent much time in as Lothlorien was relatively unessential to the main conflict.

There should have been more female characters, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the ones that did appear despite their (lack of) prominence in the story.

Arwen gets no dialogue until the third book and exercises no personal agency. That's not exactly a strong character, wouldn't you agree? As to Eowyn, I notice that Faramir does not decide to take care of flowers after the war. He goes on to rule Ithilien, IIRC, while his wife takes up needlepoint or whatever. The very fact that Tolkien chose to put Galadriel, one of the most powerful elves left in Middle-Earth, on the sidelines says something as well. Those are not in my book examples of interesting female characters.

[Ebenstone]

Actually, Ebenstone, I was asked about shitty female characters, and I answered. I never mentioned "donkey balls" either, so take that up with Spockydog. And if you have a problem with reading discussion of literary techniques, you are in the wrong thread, honey. 

You are right. 

[Magnar of Skagos]

Arwen gets no dialogue until the third book and exercises no personal agency. That's not exactly a strong character, wouldn't you agree? As to Eowyn, I notice that Faramir does not decide to take care of flowers after the war. He goes on to rule Ithilien, IIRC, while his wife takes up needlepoint or wherever. The very fact that Tolkien chose to put Galadriel, one of the most powerful elves left in Middle-Earth, on the sidelines says something as well. Those are not in my book examples of strong female characters.

Arwen should have been included more, though she did appear in the appendices, which I have not read in years. Was Eowyn forced to take up needlework or looking for flowers? (I don't think her life was mentioned much after the War) If she did choose such a fate, is there something wrong with what she chose? As for Galadriel, I think all that says was her character at that period of time was not very relevant to the rest of the conflict in Rohan, Gondor, or Mordor, due in part to her location and the fact that she wished to leave Middle-Earth for Valinor.

I argue that lack of prominence in the story does not make them shitty characters. Celeborn wasn't shitty, neither was Tom Bombadil or Grima, and they only appeared for a brief time. Though for nostalgia's sake they feel much more important than they actually were.

[TrackerNeil]

Arwen should have been included more, though she did appear in the appendices, which I have not read in years. Was Eowyn forced to take up needlework or looking for flowers? (I don't think her life was mentioned much after the War) If she did choose such a fate, is there something wrong with what she chose? As for Galadriel, I think all that says was her character at that period of time was not very relevant to the rest of the conflict in Rohan, Gondor, or Mordor, due in part to her location and the fact that she wished to leave Middle-Earth for Valinor.

I argue that lack of prominence in the story does not make them shitty characters. Celeborn wasn't shitty, neither was Tom Bombadil or Grima, and they only appeared for a brief time. Though for nostalgia's sake they feel much more important than they actually were.

There were plenty of well developed male characters in the book, so I don't find your argument about Celeborn, etc. very compelling. That's like saying, "Well, we don't have any black officers in our army, but there are plenty of white non-officers too!"

As to Eowyn and her choices, I think I'm not making myself clear. Of course characters make choices; the problem arises when those choices are exactly what one would expect. What is interesting about having Eowyn, up to then a warrior, decide to take up a lifestyle similar to every other woman in Middle-Earth, and one that fits neatly into social expectations? We've seen that a zillion times, so why do it once more? Why can't Eowyn want something more? 

(Please don't answer with because-that's-what-she-wanted. Eowyn is made up and wants what Tolkien says she wants.)

[Magnar of Skagos]

There were plenty of well developed male characters in the book, so I don't find your argument about Celeborn, etc. very compelling. That's like saying, "Well, we don't have any black officers in our army, but there are plenty of white non-officers too!"

As to Eowyn and her choices, I think I'm not making myself clear. Of course characters make choices; the problem arises when those choices are exactly what one would expect. What is interesting about having Eowyn, up to then a warrior, decide to take up a lifestyle similar to every other woman in Middle-Earth, and one that fits neatly into social expectations? We've seen that a zillion times, so why do it once more? Why can't Eowyn want something more? 

(Please don't answer with because-that's-what-she-wanted. Eowyn is made up and wants what Tolkien says she wants.)

In Eowyn's case, her choices are what one would expect because they are what makes the most sense. I mean, she is thrust into this situation after having seen her cousin die, and then witnesses the death of her uncle and father-figure Theoden (who she has seen has been subjugated by sorcery for who knows how long) and hundreds of her kin. Choosing the take the farthest step away from "glory in battle" is a completely rational decision. I would have probably done the same if I were in her position.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Tolkien only had two or three (in LOTR) but apart from that what was "shitty" about them?

Female characters in LOTR, ignoring the ones who only pop up in the appendices or as off-screen references:

Eowyn. In her case, the martial instinct is really a death wish: if she can't have Aragorn, she'll go out in a blaze of glory. After meeting Faramir, she realises her earlier immaturity and settles down. This isn't about a woman being denied the opportunity to be different, this is about a character learning from previous mistakes. With Faramir, she concludes that life has more to offer than death, and given that Faramir himself has little love for war, it's a sound piece of character development.

Arwen: Really Tolkien's attempt to replay Beren and Luthien (and his own marriage - Edith had dark hair and grey eyes, and was a forbidden love in his youth).

Galadriel: The most powerful Elf in Middle-earth by the end of the Third Age. Completely overshadows Prince Phillip Celeborn.

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins: Sour old crone who shows more guts resisting Saruman than any other.

Shelob: Not your standard female character, but powerful, and puts a different spin on Evil. Sauron wants to rule; Shelob wants to eat.

Rosie Cotton: Functions largely as a symbol of the best of The Shire.

Goldberry: Gentle, mysterious. Personification of the countryside.

Ioreth: Partly played for comic relief, but she's a comment on the importance of folk wisdom (I think Ioreth is the closest Tolkien comes to writing a Pratchett character - she'd fit in just fine with Nanny and Granny).

That's a decent range of characters.

 

[Spockydog]

Head-hopping sucks huge hairy donkey balls. There, I've said it again. 

It's an archaic form of writing, which distances the reader from the events on the page, and is sometimes just downright confusing.

Wherever possible, pick the character who is most affected by events, and write the scene through their eyes.

In 2015, writing omniscient, head-hopping POVs is just another barrier to getting published.

It should be noted that LotR is one of my favourite books. One which Tolkien would probably struggle to get published today. As I said up-thread, tastes change.

 

[Kyoshi]

I hate head hopping. I was a bit dramatic about it when it came to THE NAME OF THE WIND, but it was very jarring. Sometimes it changed the respective tones of consecutive paragraphs. I didn't know what voice I should use to read it. It's important for me to know which of the characters is the author's vessel. Different characters interact with people differently and therefore note the world differently. To have all these characters contributing their voices willy nilly can confuse things for me.

If an author wants to have different voices in his/her book then I'm fine with that. Just divide them with chapters. It maintains tonal consistency and can build a character much more effectively. If head hopping is done in the interest of portraying how differently people may perceive the same situation, then I still suggest diving it by chapters. To use an example I'm sure we're all familiar with in this thread, reading of Jaime's arrogance from Ned's chapter and then reading the story differently (much later and in a Jaime chapter), is something I think was more effective in mapping both character arcs. I don't think it would have been done so well had head hopping been used by Martin.

Chapter division just makes things more readable in general. Like this forum, when this new version was still brand-spanking new, there wasn't a division between different posts. Everything just looked like one long post with links, quotes and signatures all mixed up in there. It was cluttered.

But that's just my opinion. I can't dictate what or how people should write.

I also don't think what Tolkien did was head hopping. Then again, it's been a while since I've read his work.

[Kyoshi]

Roose Bolton's Pet Leech already linked this: Using Third Person Omniscient. I think it would be useful to read the whole thing, tbh.

The distinction (all from the link):

THE OMNISCIENT NARRATOR (Which is what I think comes close to what Tolkien did)

Dave sat up on his surfboard and looked towards the shore. Two people, John and Brian, were paddling up to the line up. "Nice day," Dave said.

Dave looked out to the shoulder, a look of worry on his face. John was afraid of the shallow reef in the impact zone, and tended to avoid the peak in these situations. However, at this particular spot, even though the waves were smaller out in the shoulder, the reef out there was much shallower, and Dave worried about John wiping out after a take off. However, Dave didn't need to worry, as John had decided to brave the peak.

Brian arrived at the line up and sat on his board, as they waited for the lull of the waves to be over. Behind him, John slipped into the water, and pulled on Brian's leash from beneath him, making Brian lose balance and fall into the water.

"What the hell?" Brian said, as he floated back to the surface. John chuckled, and Dave grinned. A large wave began to form in the water, moving towards them. Dave gave John a taunting wink as he asked, "you gonna take the first wave of the set?"

 

HEAD HOPPING

Dave sat up on his surfboard and looked down towards the shore. Two people, John and Brian, were paddling up to the line up. "Nice day," Dave said.

He wondered if John was going to stay out on the shoulder instead of the peak. Dave knew he was afraid of the shallow reef in the impact zone. Although the wave was smaller out in the shoulder, the reef was much shallower, and Dave worried about John wiping out after trying to take off. However, Dave didn't need to worry as John had decided to brave the peak.I'll have to watch him, Dave thought.

"No need to watch out for me, I'll be fine," John said. Brian realized there was a lull in the waves, and sat on his board. Bored on my board, he thought. John slipped quietly into the water behind him, and pulled on Brian's leash, making him lose balance and fall into the water.

"What the hell?" Brian said as he floated back to the surface. John chuckled, and Dave grinned. They could see a large wave forming in the water, moving towards them. Dave gave John a taunting wink as he asked, "you gonna take the first wave of the set?"

[The Marquis de Leech]

True omniscient isn't head-hopping. Character thoughts are narrated by the narrator, so you're never in any doubt about who is thinking what. Point is, that sort of POV style has to be a conscious choice.

[Spockydog]

Roose Bolton's Pet Leech already linked this: Using Third Person Omniscient. I think it would be useful to read the whole thing, tbh.

The distinction (all from the link):

THE OMNISCIENT NARRATOR (Which is what I think comes close to what Tolkien did)

 

HEAD HOPPING

Yup, those examples are both terrible and confusing in equal measure, and kind of prove my point.

[TrackerNeil]

In Eowyn's case, her choices are what one would expect because they are what makes the most sense. I mean, she is thrust into this situation after having seen her cousin die, and then witnesses the death of her uncle and father-figure Theoden (who she has seen has been subjugated by sorcery for who knows how long) and hundreds of her kin. Choosing the take the farthest step away from "glory in battle" is a completely rational decision. I would have probably done the same if I were in her position.

Well, it certainly doesn't seem very in line with her behavior up until that point. She was willing to defy her uncle and king and take on an enemy who had at that point defeated all comers, and then soon after decides that being June Cleaver is just more fulfilling. I daresay a male character would never have been written that way--hell, after helping Eowyn kill the Witch-King, Merry goes on to become a knight of Rohan and fights to take back the Shire. I feel as though you're overlooking all that.

Also, The Lord of the Rings is a novel, and is it ever interesting to read about a choice that, while it may be explicable, is nonetheless uninteresting and completely expected? Is that what you want from a book?

[Kyoshi]

Yup, those examples are both terrible and confusing in equal measure, and kind of prove my point.

Lol. I think they generally prove that head hopping just sucks...big hairy donkey balls. Just don't do it.

[Spockydog]

Lol. I think they generally prove that head hopping just sucks...big hairy donkey balls. Just don't do it.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Yup, those examples are both terrible and confusing in equal measure, and kind of prove my point.

Heaven help you with most books that pre-date the twentieth century then. True omniscient is a perfectly valid authorial choice, but it has to be done deliberately (as opposed to default omniscient, which equals no POV at all) and done well.

[Spockydog]

Heaven help you with most books that pre-date the twentieth century then. True omniscient is a perfectly valid authorial choice, but it has to be done deliberately (as opposed to default omniscient, which equals no POV at all) and done well.

I will admit to not being a fan of the old stuff. But just because I am somewhat limited in my tastes does not change the fact that many so-called classics would not be published today.

And you're right, omniscient POV is a perfectly valid authorial choice.

 

[Myrddin]

Actually, Ebenstone, I was asked about shitty female characters, and I answered. I never mentioned "donkey balls" either, so take that up with Spockydog. And if you have a problem with reading discussion of literary techniques, you are in the wrong thread, honey. 

Honey? Really? Dude, if you have a problem with reading discussion of literary techniques that are reflective of modern tastes as well as acknowledging past trends, you are in the wrong thread.

[Starkess]

I enjoy omniscient. It can take a little bit to get used to, since it isn't common anymore, but I think it can add a nice breadth to a story. I think it is a shame that people get so locked onto one "this is the only way to do things". Every book doesn't need to be written in third person limited any more than every book needs to be written in first person present tense or whatever. There is a wonderful variety of tools in the writer's toolbox, and I think it is foolish to dismiss any of them so cavalierly out of hand. Further, trends come and go, so I think it's erroneous to state that something that is currently not in style is permanently dated and never to be used again.

[Spockydog]

I enjoy omniscient. It can take a little bit to get used to, since it isn't common anymore, but I think it can add a nice breadth to a story. I think it is a shame that people get so locked onto one "this is the only way to do things". Every book doesn't need to be written in third person limited any more than every book needs to be written in first person present tense or whatever. There is a wonderful variety of tools in the writer's toolbox, and I think it is foolish to dismiss any of them so cavalierly out of hand. Further, trends come and go, so I think it's erroneous to state that something that is currently not in style is permanently dated and never to be used again.

 

I completely agree. Writing is an art, not a science. There's no blanket write or wrong way to do it. It's about the skill of the writer and how he applies his craft, and IMO originality counts for more than familiarity.

Difficult to argue with any of this. Yet...

No-one is ever going to abandon your book simply because it is written in third-person limited. However, there are plenty of people out there who will not even touch your book because it is written in first person present tense, or third person omniscient.

Something to think about.