Indian Readers discussion
All about writing!
>
Narration - A study
Yeah,its a nice idea. but where do we start.I mean how we will choose book and writer to discuss.
We can discuss anything. For exampleI prefer third person narration to first person because it allows a greater degree of freedom to the author. He can write about different people or different timelines or different places.
In my view first person, often runs the risk of being a self centered book. We get to see nothing more than what the narrator sees.
I prefer third person too. It gives you unbiased view of character. We are not bound by view of only one character and can see things at large. I rarely read first person narrative.
Mod
But any narrative which captures my interest is fine with me.
What about books in letter forms? [there's some name to this type of narrative, but I forgot - epistolary or something]
@Uthkarsh. That's true. I have read a few first person narrations and often it was difficult to decide if something that the narrator said was true or was he just saying because that's how he felt it. @Psmith,
First person works well in some cases. For example, the Murder of Roger Ackroyd. There it changed the book altogether. Something spectacular.
But often the narrator becomes too self indulging. For example Kvothe. He tells us so many things about him which are quite irrelevant.
I don't think I have ever read epistolary before. Do you have any book in mind?
Mod
Mod
Hobb's Fitz is brilliantly written character but sometimes I find him hugely irritating with all of his whining and helplessness.
Personally, I am more comfortable with third person limited point of view narration, but it really depends on the books too. There are some books for which first person narratives really do work, it all depends on how good the author is able to pull them off. I like multiple points of view too but not when the points of view switch too often, for example within a single chapter. I have read very few books in an epistolary format, but one that I read last year, The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society was very good.
I'd like to mention Wuthering Heights here, as I find the narrative style there very interesting. We read the story in Mr.Lockwood's first person pov but he has little to do with the story. He is telling us the story about Heathcliff and Catherine and others as Nelly, the servant tells him, while Nelly herself is a third person in the story. So basically we have two narrators in the novel, one who is a complete outsider and another who has seen and known our main characters, and hence has her own biases and opinions on these characters. We also have a couple of other characters who contribute bits of the story, so it is almost like a puzzle. Earlier this year in an exam I had to write an essay on how reliable the narrative structure is in this case. Although WH is a favourite of mine, hadn't really thought about the narrative style until I found the question in my exam paper, but later as I thought about it I found it extremely interesting and rather difficult to pull off. It is incredible how Emily Bronte who hadn't written a novel before was able to pull this complex narrative style off so well!
Mod
PSmith wrote: "Harsha, glad that you peeked in here. I was about to invite you. Being a literature student, we would really love your inputs. :)"Well thanks, but I'm hardly an expert as I only have started a few months back, but guess it is good practice for me.. :-)
Anirudh wrote: "First person works well in some cases. For example, the Murder of Roger Ackroyd. There it changed the book altogether. Something spectacular. But often the narrator becomes too self indulging. For example Kvothe. He tells us so many things about him which are quite irrelevant. ..."I concur on Roger Ackroyd & Kvothe, and am thinking aloud here as I try to generalise it a little bit.
In mysteries, when the writer wants to limit the amount of details, or take the reader along a particular path, the first person PoV works pretty well. That is the case with Holmes/Watson and Poirot/Hastings. Misdirections work better too.
But first person PoV becomes limiting when an entire world needs to be sketched in fantasy, along with its peculiarities, creatures and magic systems. I guess limiting the narrative to one person's knowledge/perception has its downsides there. Not that it can't be done - Kvothe Book 1 is an example.
Personally, I don't have a preference.
I quite enjoy third-person omniscient, as the narrator has access to the thoughts and feels of all characters. But many readers feel it tends to be a little dry, as personalisation is limited. They voice a need to have each scene anchored in a specific person's PoV.I wonder what you all think. The prime example in fantasy is Lord of the Rings.
I love first person narration as it gives me a feeling that someone close to me is talking to me. But it all depends on the book. In The Martian the first person narration is the main charm of the book.And I am a great fan of epistolary novels ie books written in the format of letters the best Ive read being The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society and The Other Side Of The Table.I loved Daddy long legs too. They have a beauty of their own.
I think the story should drive the narrative style and POV, rather than the other way around. I've written a couple of short stories in one POV and then changed them to another, as it seemed to fit better. Sometimes, first person POV is the most effective, and even first person present tense can be used very well, such as in The Hunger Games.Omniscient third, as Kevan mentioned, was traditionally used for epic fantasy. It seems to have fallen out of favor now, but I still enjoy reading it. I think it's one of the hardest POVs to write well, as some authors attempt it and end up head-hopping a lot.
Mod
I like this wrting style very much.
@Everyone, When it comes to a mystery novel both third and first person narrations can be very effective. Some deliberate first person usage like in Ackroyd can change the whole concept of a book or in that case even a genre.
But there are many risks in first person narration when it comes to a fantasy book. It is very difficult to build epic books from a first person point of view because events can only be witnessed by the narrator. The rest can be summed up by him but first hand accounts are always better. Since he can only be at one place at a time describing events can be difficult though not impossible.
The Broken Empire series is a good example. Mark Lawrence wrote a fantasy series in first person and was clever enough to use the limitations to his advantage. Instead of focusing on world building he centered the story around his pro/antagonist thus eliminating the need to have multiple narrations to be effective. It is one of the reasons some do not like the book, because they find the narrator too self absorbed.
As Kevan pointed out, The name of the Wind is another example. Although technically it is a mixture of first person and third person. I don't think I have come across any other book with such a unique blend.
However as it is set a a story being told to a writer, the author can often use a conversational tone thereby allowing greater degree of freedom.
Personally I didn't particularly like the first person narration there. It was often annoying as despite there being a wonderful world we could only see what Kvothe could see.
While first person narration runs the risk of being narrow and self absorbed, third person narration in my opinion also runs a few risks. In many books I found the narration to be testing. Multiple characters in the book thought the same way, spoke the same way, behaved the same way, because the author could not draw out a clear distinction between characters. In other words the narration must have the power to convince us that two characters in the book are two very different characters and not mere imitation.
I have enjoyed two books set in first person. Moonfleet and Treasure Island Perhaps because the story was simple and short first person was much more enjoyable.
Apart from that I really loved the narration style in The Shadow of the Wind. Though it has first person narration, some parts of the story are revealed to us in third person in the form of letters or diaries.
@Kevan & Ken, Omniscient third person? How is it different from regular third person?
@Harsha, I have not read that book yet. Is it very interesting?@Psmith, thanks for the link. I had doubts about the 2nd type of narration.
@Manju, Mine too. First Law type right?
Mod
PSmith wrote: "@ Anirudh, Wuthering Heights is a good classic. A dark book dealing with the subject of obsessive love and hatred. Have read it twice, though I am no great fan of Romance."I will give it a look then :)
First to all, very nice topic. Second... I love multiple POV narrations. It gives the insight in secondary characters lives. Which cannot be done in first person or third person View. Though third person can be effective here, but not to the point of Multiple narrative. My favorite part of any book is when I get to read how a character is feeling, be is main character or any other.
Nowadays, third person limited is preferred over third person omniscient.In third person limited, you follow one character's external actions and inner thoughts at a time. You see others and world with his eyes. In a sense, you are inside his head looking world through his/her eyes.
Purvika wrote: "First to all, very nice topic. Second... I love multiple POV narrations. It gives the insight in secondary characters lives. Which cannot be done in first person or third person View. Though third ..."Isn't PoV narration a type of third person narration? We get to know what they feel but at the same time it is in fact third person narration.
Perhaps that's what Kevan meant by Omniscient
Utkarsh wrote: "Nowadays, third person limited is preferred over third person omniscient.In third person limited, you follow one character's external actions and inner thoughts at a time. You see others and worl..."
Can you give an example of Limited and Omniscient?
Mod
Multiple POV is third person limited narrative style.
Mod
Got it, Omniscient means - something like omnipresent -i.e., a single voice narrating the whole story, like the traditional fairy tales starting with'once upon a time....'
Game of thrones, the way of kings, the first law are in third person limited.I haven't read any books in third person omniscient. You can find that writing style in classic books.
PSmith wrote: "Now onward I will try to categorize books according to narrative, starting with The Shining. Going by the definitions, I think it is third person limited."Yes it is.
Anirudh wrote: "Purvika wrote: "First to all, very nice topic. Second... I love multiple POV narrations. It gives the insight in secondary characters lives. Which cannot be done in first person or third person Vie..."No there is a difference... In third person narration you get a story on "he smelled the flower and closed his eyes remembering his lost love, feeling immense pleasure." Where as in multiple POV it will be " I closed my eyes and smelled the flower remembering old days where her scent lingered even after she was gone.. "
In third narration we don't get to read their deep feelings but outworldly whereas in Multiple POV we get to know ever little things they feel.
in omniscient, you can see inner thoughts of every person in the scene.In limited, you can see inner thoughts of only one person.
Ohk..so then it makes multiple POV as third Person Limited ?
As an author, I find it easier to write in third person. First person narrative needs more careful crafting.Also, when using first person, the author has to use the diction that the character who is the narrator will use. If the narrator is uneducated, the author can't use exalted language.That said, my recent novel is first person narrative alternating between the hero and heroine.
Can I explain here why I chose that form of narration? If it won't be considered self promotion :)
@Utkarsh, not sure I agree. In first law you get to hear the characters inner thoughts. Usually it is written in italics. And in all his books the narration PoV shifts from one character to another and we get to read what they think about the situation. How is that different from Omniscient? @Purvika, No actually. In game of thrones it is multiple PoV but no first person narration.
I think the difference is something like this.
First
Goltka turned around too quickly and he felt his neck click. Damn, the pain is back again. Curse this body, curse the Gurkish
Second
Goltka turned around too quickly and he felt his neck click. Damn, the pain is back again he thought. Then he cursed his body and the Gurkish.
That's as per my understanding. Might be wrong I don't know :)
@Ani it's not your fault. I blame my laziness. I tried to explain in few words and failed. Consider there are three or four characters inside a room, all talking and doing stuff.
In omniscient, you would be able to hear internal monologue of each character, divided by different paragraphs, in the same chapter. In the same scene. There is no need of multiple POV here cause you can see inner feelings of each character.
This type of writing style can be found in classics.
Whereas in limited, you see one character's POV throughout a chapter, and his internal monologues.
And as the scene changes, or the chapter, you might see a different character's POV.
If you still didn't understand, I have to open my lappi then.
Utkarsh wrote: "@Ani it's not your fault. I blame my laziness. I tried to explain in few words and failed. Consider there are three or four characters inside a room, all talking and doing stuff.
In omniscient,..."
Okay give example of Omniscient then? LOTR? well we don't get internal monologues in it right?
Ok I'll try to explain. In third person omniscient, the narrator is a know-it-all, that is, he/she knows everything that is to be known about the story and the characters, almost like a divine observer who has access to every character's thoughts, actions, emotions or whatever you need to know about the story in question. Imagine we are all in the same place, involved in a story of some sort,and there is an invisible someone, almost god-like, watching us. He can see everything we do as well as our thoughts and feelings and sometimes even what is going to happen to us in the story. This person is the third person omniscient narrator-he cannot be challenged because he knows more than the characters themselves. He can enter into the minds of any character as he chooses and at any time, and even maybe pass objective comments as a detached observer. Most of the earlier classics follow this kind of narration. Eg: Pride and Prejudice. Things Fall Apart is a more recent example.When the narration focuses only on one character's thoughts, feelings and experiences at a time, that is third person limited narration. Here the writer presents the situations and other characters from one person's pov. Most novels written nowadays prefer this style than the omniscient one. To cite a popular example is the Harry Potter series, where most of the story we know from Harry's POV.
I hope I didn't confuse you guys further.
PSmith wrote: "Sure, go ahead :)"Thanks :)
Well, I first came across the technique in a book by Jeffrey Archer. I was really impressed with the way different characters told their version of the events while taking the story forward all the time. So I had that in my mind while I was planning my second novel.
My first novel was quite serious and I was told by several readers that it made them cry. So I also had the desire not to make my second novel serious as well.
Yet, I ended up selecting a theme which could very easily end up being a tearjerker. But I was determined not to make the book heavy and gloomy. I wanted an entertaining book. At the same time, the serious issue discussed in the book could not have been dealt in a light way for the sake of entertainment.
Had I used third person, I would have had to maintain a consistent voice. And the book would have become more and more serious as the story progressed.
So I decided to use two different narrators with different personalities and tones. Both of them could use their own voice and give two different kinds of narration even to the same event. The heroine of the book is a victim of injustice. So her point of view is necessarily somber. But the other narrator, the hero, I made into a bumbling young man who is not sure about anything. He is a happy person. So his narrative could have a happier and lighter tone, even funny at places.
I used the hero's lighter tone to move the story forward and keep it from getting too serious. And I used the heroine's poignant words to express her feelings and the impact of the serious social issue that is the theme of the book.
Together, the two helped me create a balance between poignancy and entertainment.
Recently, I came across another book that very cleverly uses the alternative first person narrative for a different purpose. The book is Arjun: Without a Doubt. It tells the story of Mahabharata from the perspective of Arjun and Draupadi. Arjun and Draupadi both tell the story in first person. Such grand characters talking about themselves could have easily sounded egoistic and self-centered, even boastful. So the author makes Arjun express the grandness of Draupadi. And she makes Draupadi express the winning qualities of Arjun.
The result is we realize their grandness without them having to speak it out themselves. And we realize the intensity of their love and respect for each other. And as the first person is used and we actually hear Arjun and Draupadi speak, we feel for them more easily.
Third person narrative might not have created the same effect upon the reader.
First person narrative is harder to use, but it establishes more direct contact between the narrator and the reader.
@Anirudh I don't know about Lotr, but Anna Karenina is an example of third person omniscient.Sorry, Maybe I am confusing head hopping for third person omniscient. Sometimes it gets confusing. scrap internal monologue part I said earlier.
But I am sure in third person omniscient, the narrator knows thoughts of every person present in a scene.
Example--
"Jason walked slowly beside carry, thinking about what he had just said.
Carry felt her heart beating faster and found herself unable to speak."
Harsha wrote: "I'd like to mention Wuthering Heights here, as I find the narrative style there very interesting. We read the story in Mr.Lockwood's first person pov but he has little to do with the story. He is t..."Ah, I remember we got a question about the narrative technique of Wuthering Heights in exam. don't remember whther in my graduation or post graduation course.
The unique narrative technique is one of the highlights of the book.
I am planning to start William Faulkner's The Sound and The Fury once I finish my current reads and I have heard that the novel is narrated from four different points of view. It is an example of the stream of consciousness technique I've been told. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream... So if anyone is interested we could read and maybe try to analyse the narrative style. Though I have been warned that it is not an easy read..
@Uthkarsh, Isn't that type of writing often found in contemporary books? It sounds familiar but I am not sure@Harsha, I read it and it sounds like author just types whatever comes to his mind. continuous random thoughts
@Anirudh Have you read the girl with Dragon tattoo.
Good, cause the book uses both, third person omniscient and limited narrative style. At first it uses third person limited style. we see world with the eyes of journalist, I forgot his name.
Later, near the ending, the style changes into third person omniscient.
Give me a minute to check from where.
"Salander was up before Blomkvist, around 6:00. She put on some water for coffee and went to take a shower. When Blomkvist woke at 7:30, she was reading his summary of the Harriet Vanger case on his iBook. He came out to the kitchen with a towel round his waist, rubbing the sleep out of his eyes.“There’s coffee on the stove,” she said.He looked over her shoulder.“That document was password protected, dammit,” he said.She turned and peered up at him “It takes thirty seconds to download a programme from the Net that can crack Word’s encryption protection.”
“We need to have a talk on the subject of what’s yours and what’s mine,” he said, and went to take a shower.When he came back, Salander had turned off his computer and put it back in its place in his office. She had booted up her own PowerBook.
Blomkvist felt sure that she had already transferred the contents of his computer to her own."
See, in above paragraphs, narration starts with salander's perspective. What she was doing at that time.But near the end the perspective, POV changes from salander to blomkvist. The line in particular 'Blomkvist felt sure' signifies the change.
So to say,if it were third person limited, say from blomkvist POV, there would be no way of knowing when salander woke up or what she did while he slept. In third person limited, we are bound by the views of one person And through him we see the story unfolding.
Indian Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Heroes (other topics)The Woman in White (other topics)
Arjun: Without a Doubt (other topics)
The Shining (other topics)
The Shining (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jeffrey Archer (other topics)Jeffrey Archer (other topics)
General Group Rules apply. Hope to have a good and thoughtful discussion.