![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marycatelliBeen a while. But Parts I, II, III, and IV still await perusal.
And the impact of point of view, particularly close point of view, has struck me recently.
Obviously, the point of view should color the story. The small child should not say that the billowing waves were incarnadine with sunset, the literary scholar should not say that the sea was all red and stuff.
BUT --
First, style is the rocket. It has to convey the information. In particular, the view of the point of view character (or other senses). I have read a passage that said that a cloud of smoke rose, and faded, and then a monster appeared. Monsters do not, in fact, just appear; that's too generic. Did the smoke blow away from it? (The "then" was particularly unfortunate then.) Did it rise up where the smoke had been? Did it charge into the scene. It doesn't matter that the point of view character might have said just that. (Unless it's epistolary point of view, in which case there is still another issue.)
And then, when you have conveyed the facts, you must convey the feelings. "The smoke blew away from a terrible monster," does not, in fact, terrify. Assuming, for the moment, that the writer has convinced us of the reality of the characters so that we care, you describe the smoke blowing away, with glittering eyes, enormous teeth, and towering height, and how it swung its head, eyeing the scene, and how it reached down to snatch up on a fleeing pedestrian.
Even if the character's reaction is "Ho, hum, another day, another dragon," we need to feel how tired he is of fighting dragons.
And what if the point of view character really would not convey the facts precisely, or the feelings vividly? Then choose a different point of view. Even in epistolary, keep documents that are dull short and interspaced with more vivid writing.
And the impact of point of view, particularly close point of view, has struck me recently.
Obviously, the point of view should color the story. The small child should not say that the billowing waves were incarnadine with sunset, the literary scholar should not say that the sea was all red and stuff.
BUT --
First, style is the rocket. It has to convey the information. In particular, the view of the point of view character (or other senses). I have read a passage that said that a cloud of smoke rose, and faded, and then a monster appeared. Monsters do not, in fact, just appear; that's too generic. Did the smoke blow away from it? (The "then" was particularly unfortunate then.) Did it rise up where the smoke had been? Did it charge into the scene. It doesn't matter that the point of view character might have said just that. (Unless it's epistolary point of view, in which case there is still another issue.)
And then, when you have conveyed the facts, you must convey the feelings. "The smoke blew away from a terrible monster," does not, in fact, terrify. Assuming, for the moment, that the writer has convinced us of the reality of the characters so that we care, you describe the smoke blowing away, with glittering eyes, enormous teeth, and towering height, and how it swung its head, eyeing the scene, and how it reached down to snatch up on a fleeing pedestrian.
Even if the character's reaction is "Ho, hum, another day, another dragon," we need to feel how tired he is of fighting dragons.
And what if the point of view character really would not convey the facts precisely, or the feelings vividly? Then choose a different point of view. Even in epistolary, keep documents that are dull short and interspaced with more vivid writing.