This writing stuff is hard work, Ray. You make it look a helluva lot easier than it actually is :)
Nat On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Raymond E. Feist <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > > -- Sent from my Crappy Laptop (tm) using a poor excuse for a web browser.
