That is an effect of watching a Master Craftsman at work. There are 1000s of things that they do that they do not even think about that go into the craft. It just looks easy, it is not.
bws ----- Original Message ----- From: Nat Russo <[email protected]> Date: Monday, April 9, 2012 0:07 Subject: Re: Writing question: cause and effect To: feistfans-l <[email protected]> > 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 <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.
