wars and rumors of wars

[marycatelli]

On one hand, we have our hero.  On the other hand, we have the politics about him.

He knows that there's an evil roaming the land, revived from of old.  He also knows that he's been taken for a warlock because he can fight it.

Meanwhile, intrigue abounds.  The king might not have the right to the throne, after what that evil revealed.  Unfortunately, neither do most of his heirs, by the same rule -- if enforced.  Of course, from their point of view, just because you dethrone him for it doesn't mean you have to heed it after.  (From his point of view, at least the conflict keeps them from hunting for him too intensively.  He knew they wouldn't help anyway.)

Now, the question is, how much of this do I show from other points of view, and how much do I have filter through to him second hand?  Both would be legitimate writing techniques, though they would produce different stories.  In one it's the hero's story, and the politics and battles are the backdrop to his struggles.  In the other it's a grand sweeping tale -- more or less -- of the country and those who would ruin it and the one who would save it.

And the first one requires juggling gossip and talebearers, and the other requires juggling points of view.

sigh

Comments

[ljlee.livejournal.com]

An example of the first type I can think of is The Dresden Files series by Jim Butcher and no doubt a lot of modern action/adventure fiction. The crucial information comes to the hero at one point or another, sometimes behind the scenes before the big reveal. It's definitely the hero's story as you say, and if DF is any guide as the story gains in scale the hero similarly needs to gain in power and influence in order to stay at the center of events and information. It's a good choice if this kind of character "scaling" suits the story. Let's call this kind of story hero-centric.

A prominent example of the second type of story, the sweeping epic with a multitude of viewpoints, is A Song of Ice and Fire, and going further back The Lord of the Rings. In these stories the central character doesn't have to grow more powerful in tandem with the story, especially since there might not be a central character in the first place. In many ways the world itself becomes the focus of the story, so let's call this world-centric.

Now I have a soft spot for world-centric stories that accommodate multiple storylines and characters, and I don't like it when hero-centric stories get too long, constantly upping the ante. I think the hero-centric story needs to be reasonably short, or the character may be unable to bear the weight of the story and become warped as a result.

I think that's what happened to The Dresden Files, personally--it got too long and too big for Harry Dresden to be the sole focus, and as a result the hero-centric structure no longer works. Smaller and more intimate stories, though, like say the Earthsea books and many others, can comfortably be hero-centric and work the better for it.

[marycatelli]

At the current moment, it looks like it may be a one book series. A singleton. (What was once upon a time called -- a book. 0:) Which works with lower stakes because a series needs to be more complex than a book.

Then, The Lord of the Rings carefully never introduced a POV character as such except for the first. First you saw each one from a POV, then the character had his own -- which is going to be impossible here.

[ljlee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, with one book I think sticking with the main character is probably going to be a good idea. Gives readers time to bond with the main character. You know, like you said, old-school.

[marycatelli]

OTOH, this may be a trilogy in disguise. . . I know my first novel was in disguise -- as a novelette, no less, not even a novella.

(The process is eloquently described here.)

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

I think there's often a difference in intensity of tone. It's easy to fall into G(M)ary Stew with hero-centric, but when it's done well the intensity of experience can be incredible. You're right there at their shoulder, seeing and feeling it in the moment. Also, you can get a deeper explanation of smaller-scale politics, weird family dynamics and reversals that make no sense unless you have the details happening in front of you.
However, I'm awfully fond of world-building skills, and that kind of intellectual happiness is easier to give in a sweeping view. There's big events and massive situations where there's so much stuff that any one person can't possibly know about (meanwhile, the architect of the bridge was fighting with the construction company to ensure they used steel reinforcement as specified, in this earthquake-prone gulch...)

[marycatelli]

In my experience, the real difference lies in identification vs. irony.

Seeing a character exclusively through his own POV aids identification with him. (Sometimes to an extent that only with the aid of hindsight do you realize that he did some pretty bad things there. 0:)

Seeing through multiple POVs means that the characters know less than the reader. This distances the character and aids in dramatic irony.