Near Wolverhampton myself here and sorry don't support them
________________________________ From: Neil Morgan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012, 13:12 Subject: The Wolves ray, regarding your tweet. Are you a Wolves fan? Surprising if you are. I live here and am not, can't get past supporting their rivals! > Subject: Re: Writing question: cause and effect > From: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 11:43:38 -0700 > To: [email protected] > > > On Apr 7, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Nat Russo wrote: > > > It took me a minute to catch the PoV shift you spoke about, but I think I > > see it now. Presenting the 50+ guards before John reacts seems to be a > > shift from John's point of view to some sort of omniscient point of view. > > > > There were definitely a few things about that first example that just > > bothered me, another of which is suspense, even if only for a moment. > > Having him swear in reaction before presenting what he's reacting to seems > > to increase tension a little bit, at least in this case. > > > > Thanks again for you willingness to answer all of my newbie questions :) > > > > Regards, > > Nat > > > POV can be tricky. You have a camera, so to speak, floating in the sky and > you need to have one character in focus (your POV character, even if your > narration is limited omniscient (most popular narrative choice among modern > authors). So, you pull the camera back and suddenly you're into unlimited > omniscient; that was very popular back in the late 19th, early 20th Century. > "Unknown to John, just around the corner a full squad of guards waited . . ." > "Meanwhile, back at the ranch." Modern readers like dialogue, followed by > narrative, then description, for a reason: they've seen a lot of movies and > they expect the narrative to flow a certain way. Jump cuts, i.e. shifts in > POV are OK, as long as they follow a certain logic. If you're going to break > the rules, you better be Tarantino and the film better be Pulp Fiction. If > it's a book, you better be Zelazney and the book better be Roadmarks. > > Best, R.E.F. > ---- > www.crydee.com > > Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by > stupidity. > > > > > > >
