# Ye old Storyteller...



## Heliotrope (Feb 21, 2016)

Chesterama's post on voice has really got me thinking about narrative… namely, the 'narrator', or, for the sake of this post 'ye old storyteller'. 

I've been thinking a lot about storytelling lately. I always knew writing was something I wanted to do. As an English Lit scholar I know how to throw a sentence together. I have learned, however, that throwing a sentence together is very different from telling a compelling story. 

Storytelling has likely been around since the beginnings of humanity. Storytellers can be found with a variety of titles in almost every historical culture. Storytelling was used for a vast number of reasons such as teaching about religion, teaching morality, teaching about an individuals place in the world, teaching about history, and simply to entertain. 

Something I'm interested in discussing is the _personal/human connection_ or the _relationship_ between the storyteller and the listener. I'm beginning to think that this human connection is very important, and that it is perhaps being lost. 

Up until only a few hundred years ago stores were told by a person. Only the wealthy had access to education, and so most people could neither read nor write. Up until the 15th C in England writing was only done in Latin , when Geoffrey Chaucer et al started to write for people in English, but even then most people were too uneducated to read their books. 

Most people had to tell stories orally. A human being with authority would gather a crowd who had come to listen to a compelling story. In history, good story tellers would be famous and would travel around spinning their yarns. Imagine the richness of the experience, sitting quietly while the storyteller would lower his voice to create anticipation, and raise his voice to create alarm. Imagine looking into the shining eyes of an old storyteller while seated around a fire. He would scan the crowd as he spoke, and just as he revealed that the dragon was hiding right behind the stone the very hero stood upon, he would stare directly into your eyes and you would feel the same fear as the hero himself. 

I think that this human relationship with the storyteller was integral to the experience. Humans have always been social creatures. We rely on each other for contact and closeness and as much as we like to think we are "islands" I believe that humans need human interaction to thrive. I believe that as humans we want to hear other humans tell stories, regardless of whether they are true or not, we want to believe that the story is happening to someone real. 

When I read back into older books I find that the narrative voice is very strong. The story is obviously being 'told' by someone. 

_Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting outdoors with her sister, and of having nothing to do._ (Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll). 

_Benjamin Braddock graduated from a small Eastern college on a day in June. Then he flew home._ (The Graduate by Charles Webb) 

_All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his._ (Slaughter-House-Five by Kurt Vennegut) 

Notice how, in these three examples (all within the past 100 years) start with a voice _telling_ us a story. There is a _person_ telling us the story. They do not start with action. They do not start with anyone doing anything. They do not start with mystery or stuff blowing up, or any other matter of things that we are told we are supposed to start a story with. They start with a narrator telling us the story. And yet, to me this is compelling. To me this makes me sit up and think "Oh, ok, the storyteller is starting…I'd better pay attention." 

I have noticed that as people have become more isolated from each other (advent of technology, internet, texting) we are losing writer voice in our narratives. We are becoming more focussed on action and showing, and less focussed on providing a storytelling experience. 

Has anyone else noticed this? We are writing as if showing the events of a movie, and not writing as if we are a storyteller _telling_ the story. 

The human element is being lost. The voice of the storyteller is being lost. We are all developing this sort of "serious writer voice" that is full of rules and structures and "show don't tell" but void of the human element. 

Has anyone else noticed this? What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 21, 2016)

I agree with you, Heliotrope. I do see, however, that in a number of works that do well there is still a strong narrative voice. Not always, of course, but it is there a lot. The rise of first person narratives really seem to me to showcase this, because in first person stories the narrative voice of the main character is crucial. Authors in SF / fantasy who still rely on a strong narrative voice include Neil Gaiman, Caitlin Kiernan, Robin McKinley, Guy Gavriel Kay, Susanna Clarke, JK Rowling, Steven Brust, Steven Erikson, Dan Simmons, Margaret Atwood etc.  There are plenty of others.

With the exception of certain genres where I expect less of such a voice (e.g. thrillers) I have little interest in reading something that could have been written by any generic writer. One of the main reasons I put down fantasy books is the lack of a strong voice and strong storytelling on the part of the author.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 21, 2016)

Thanks Steerpike for your response! 

Yes, I agree with you about the examples you gave for contemporary fiction. I was going to go there, but then my post would have been an essay. 

It does seem, exactly like you described, that the novels that do well are the ones that still maintain that storyteller voice. This only just dawned on my a few months back when I read Gaiman's American Gods. The novel had that literary fiction quality to it that is very distinct, and what I've come to realize through some analysis over the past few days is that that quality appears to be strongly related to author _voice_, and that feeling of being 'told' the story vs. being simply 'shown' the story. 

I also agree with you about certain genres. I started a thriller not too long ago, but as you described, it felt very generic. Anyone could have written the words on the page. The story was there, but there was no human behind it. It felt void of something very important, and now I think that emptiness came from the lack of human element.

Edit: I also thought that I didn't like first person POV. My WIP was begging to be written in first person, and I just didn't get it. I thought I hated FP. But when I was doing this little investigation after Chesterama's post, I realized that so many classics and personal favourites are written in first person. The Sun Also Rises, The Great Gatsby, The Handmaid's Tale, Odd Thomas… so obviously this sort of relationship with the narrator is more important to me than I thought it was.


----------



## Chessie (Feb 21, 2016)

Goodness, we read so differently. I hated the Great Gatsby. Hated. Never read any of the other authors you guys have put up either. Hate GOT. But who I do love is Victor Hugo, Agatha Christie, Margaret Mitchell, Lindsay Buroker (an Indie fantasy writer), C. S. Lewis, and yes, Shakespeare to name a few. Aside from Mitchell who only wrote one fantastic book, the others are in a handful of authors who've kept my attention long enough to read all of their works.

The thing I love about classical literature is that the narrator is strong in these works. I'm guided through a story world and being held captive by the author. I don't find that so much anymore. It's a shame, really.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 21, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> The thing I love about classical literature is that the narrator is strong in these works. I'm guided through a story world and being held captive by the author. I don't find that so much anymore. It's a shame, really.



Totally. 100% with you on this.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 21, 2016)

I like 1st person when done by a talented writer. I like Atwood, but didn't buy into the start of Handmaid's Tale.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 21, 2016)

I'm not fond of 1st POV, but it often depends on how it is handled. The classics are quite good at that... but again, history has a way of separating the wheat from the chaff.   

See the child. He is pale and thin, he wears a thin and ragged linen shirt. He stokes the scullery fire. Outside lie the dark turned fields with rags of snow and darker woods beyond that harbor yet a few last wolves. His folk are known for hewers of wood and drawers of water but in truth his father has been a schoolmaster. He lies in drink, he quotes from poets whose names are now lost. The boy crouches by the fire and watches him.

Showing? Telling? Both? I don't think McCarthy can ever be said to not have a strong voice, and what he does well to me is blur them together. Who's going to tell Cormac McCarthy to show not tell? Who would need to? It works. As I mentioned earlier, I think a lot of the knee-jerk show don't tell responses are an easy way to critique a piece that isn't working for the reader. I have on occasion been hit with the "show don't tell" critique, and most times is is right, but I've noticed that further down the same person won't say that even though I am once again telling... probably because how I told it in one place worked, the other did not. Fixing such a  passage may require showing, or simply stronger telling. 

I think you hit on something with movies influencing writing... show don't tell is vital in screenwriting, unless you have a narrator, and narrators are frowned upon... the visual simply must tell the story, or show the story. The carry over is a bit awkward because it discourages the use of every tool in the box to tell a story.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 21, 2016)

Maybe the demise of 3rd-person omniscient is partly to blame.  (Technically not dead, still being used, but often dismissed as a tool in fantasy genres.)  

There is a kind of sleight-of-hand when authors use the 3rd-person intimate (or limited) approach, of trying to simultaneously give a 1st-person POV feel while having and utilizing the flexibility of 3rd-P description.  The fear of breaking POV limits a lot of what constitutes or may flavor a storyteller voice.  It doesn't _have_ to; but the more mechanical 3rd-P intimate/limited approaches tend to have this effect.  There is a tight line between staying within POV while at the same time adding description that might be considered unweildy or simply wrong in a first-person approach.  So that description comes out flat, matter-of-fact, without all that storyteller flavoring.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 21, 2016)

Excellent example Dem. 

This is what I'm saying. In the old style, the narrator was there with you as the reader. They were a presence, telling you where to look, telling you what to see, holding your hand and guiding you through the narrative. That was part of the storytelling process was being a guide of sorts. An authoritarian with a voice. 

Now, it feels as though that part of it is being removed in favour of simply just 'showing' the scene. As Steerpike notes, this is not always the case. 

Neil Gaiman's book American Gods starts with: 

_Shadow had done three years in prison. He was big enough and looked don't-****-with-me enough that his biggest problem was killing time. So he kept himself in shape, and taught himself coin tricks, and thought a lot about how much he loved his wife._

See how it starts with Gaiman taking on his role as narrator and telling us the story? Taking us by the hand and saying "OK, the story is starting now." 

He could have started it by showing Shadow laying in his cot, flipping a coin through his fingers, flexing his biceps… but he didn't he chose to use his authoritative author voice to tell us the story first… 

I have NO CLUE what any of this means… but I find it really interesting and I think it is important to talk about in terms of story telling.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 21, 2016)

Yeah, Fifthview, I've been thinking about that too. 

GRRM is a prime example of third person limited. He really writes tightly from the POV of the person we are supposed to be watching… but I do feel not as intimate, like I'm still just watching a show, when I read his work. I'm NOT saying that it is a bad thing… I enjoy GRRM very much… I'm just wondering if we are losing the storyteller part of storytelling?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 21, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Maybe the demise of 3rd-person omniscient is partly to blame.  (Technically not dead, still being used, but often dismissed as a tool in fantasy genres.)
> 
> There is a kind of sleight-of-hand when authors use the 3rd-person intimate (or limited) approach, of trying to simultaneously give a 1st-person POV feel while having and utilizing the flexibility of 3rd-P description.  The fear of breaking POV limits a lot of what constitutes or may flavor a storyteller voice.  It doesn't _have_ to; but the more mechanical 3rd-P intimate/limited approaches tend to have this effect.  There is a tight line between staying within POV while at the same time adding description that might be considered unweildy or simply wrong in a first-person approach.  So that description comes out flat, matter-of-fact, without all that storyteller flavoring.



I agree with this. I love 3rd Lim but at the same time, 3rd Om can be great. I was critiquing a work the other day and pointed out, when they mentioned breaking POV, that they weren't locked into anything, it was 3rd so they had plenty of wiggle room in there. That seemed to click, and as I recall, the next version of the text read much nicer because they weren't contorting every word to stay within this near 1st POV.

Head hopping is another interesting thing. Personally, that's the thing horribly lost from POV now, it can be a great thing, if used right. The trouble comes in when people don't know they are doing it, or do it so rarely that it comes off wrong.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 21, 2016)

I think, but do not know, that we both lose and gain at the same time. But I don't think the POV can be entirely blamed. 3rd Lim, movies and screenwriting, the internet and writing seminars creating a dogma of how to write (including Iowa Uni. where show don't tell reputedly originated). In my writing I am shooting for a "narrative 3rd limited". I think one of the funnest parts of tight POV with multiple POV is that the narrative (narrator) often lies, two or more people see the truth and conflicting goals, and we're inside both's heads.

At some point I want to read Workshops of Empire and The Program Era. Both should be interesting, but not sure how much they would apply to the topic at hand.


----------



## kennyc (Feb 22, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> ...
> 
> I've been thinking a lot about storytelling lately. ....
> 
> ...



Yes, there is definitely a trend toward 'writers impersonal/workshop voice' - I think Kris Rusch recently posted on this.

Last year at some point after some very intense reading/studying/learning I came to the conclusion that of all the elements that make up a story that voice or narrative voice may be the most important.  Not that the other elements - characterization, story, description, dialog, etc. are not important, but given an intriguing narration many of the other elements can be minimized. It's the telling of the story, the way it is presented that is primary as far as I'm concerned. 

ah, here it is, found it: Business Musings: Serious Writer Voice Ã¢â‚¬“ Kristine Kathryn Rusch


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 22, 2016)

kennyc said:


> Yes, there is definitely a trend toward 'writers impersonal/workshop voice' - I think Kris Rusch recently posted on this.
> 
> Last year at some point after some very intense reading/studying/learning I came to the conclusion that of all the elements that make up a story that voice or narrative voice may be the most important.  Not that the other elements - characterization, story, description, dialog, etc. are not important, but given an intriguing narration many of the other elements can be minimized. It's the telling of the story, the way it is presented that is primary as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> ah, here it is, found it: Business Musings: Serious Writer Voice Ã¢â‚¬“ Kristine Kathryn Rusch



I would agree voice is primary, in this sense. I would probably put forth the notion description and dialogue are part and parcel of voice, rather than something separate. Character and story can be more separate, particularly story plot, theme and character creation, the background info etc, while the real act of characterization is again linked to voice. All and all, I would say they are inextricably linked. Even if you look at strict "rules" found in some writing books, what they really try to achieve is structuring your voice, so to speak. 

It's all so intertwined, I'm not sure voice can be extricated from description, dialogue, characterization, and the words on the page, the things not on the page, plot, characters, and underlying structure (which are such heavy focus in writing books) can still ruin great voice, while bad voice absolutely can ruin the greatest idea no matter how well conceived.

Hmm, that said, I also believe in pop culture, stories that touch a particular nerve can have great success with questionable voice. Time will cleanse most of these from the book shelves, however.


----------



## kennyc (Feb 22, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I would agree voice is primary, in this sense. I would probably put forth the notion description and dialogue are part and parcel of voice, rather than something separate. Character and story can be more separate, particularly story plot, theme and character creation, the background info etc, while the real act of characterization is again linked to voice. All and all, I would say they are inextricably linked. Even if you look at strict "rules" found in some writing books, what they really try to achieve is structuring your voice, so to speak.
> 
> It's all so intertwined, I'm not sure voice can be extricated from description, dialogue, characterization, and the words on the page, the things not on the page, plot, characters, and underlying structure (which are such heavy focus in writing books) can still ruin great voice, while bad voice absolutely can ruin the greatest idea no matter how well conceived.
> 
> Hmm, that said, I also believe in pop culture, stories that touch a particular nerve can have great success with questionable voice. Time will cleanse most of these from the book shelves, however.



Yep. I agree. It's all tied together, virtually impossible to separate/differentiate.


----------



## Russ (Feb 22, 2016)

I would agree that the story telling experience is changing from what it was historically and that the intrusion of the story teller into the narrative is becoming rarer and weaker.   

The questions then become:

1) is this a good thing or a bad thing; and

2) is there anything that can be done to change the modern audience expectation in this regard.

Firstly, I don't think it is a bad thing.  All forms change and evolve.  We are not sitting around a camp fire listening to a story by someone in person anymore, we are mostly reading novels or seeing films by people most of us will never meet.  Thus they cannot  use the tools the in person story teller can use, voice inflection, gestures, sound effects, literal pacing etc but they gain other tools.

I am of the view that the greatest story tellers, or writers are the ones who create the greatest immersion.  The story teller should either not exist, or get the hell out of the way of the link between the character and the reader as best they can.  A great story is one that carries you away and makes you feel you are really there.  I want to feel that I am on the battlefield with Bob, not in Dave's rather lovely study being told about Bob in the battle.  That is the experience that I believe that the story teller then or now is trying to deliver.  With certain limited exceptions, a great story is one you lose yourself in and don't spend a moment thinking about the narrator, as a narrator.  Even in good first person prose, the idea is to reduce the distance between the character as character rather than to allow you better access to the narrator.  While an interesting narrator can add some charm and warmth from time to time, the general trend is towards getting the reader and character as close together as possible with as little as possible between them.

So to my mind this evolution in the form of story telling is a good development.

On the second question, can anything be reverse this change in the modern audience?  I don't know.  Give it a try.  If you  have a tale in your heart that you believe cries out for a more intrusive narrator, or would be made better with a more human connection to the narrator as narrator, write the darn thing and then publish it and see what happens.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 22, 2016)

So...How does one detect that _storyteller voice_ in prose?  How does one infuse prose with it?

A very nifty tool:  add bias, opinions, a peculiar perspective, and attitudinal twists to your description or exposition.

Why?  Because such things automatically evoke the person behind them.  I wrote above that much of the mechanical writing in 3rd-person limited delivers description that is flat or matter-of-fact. The opposite of matter-of-fact is...opinion.  Every opinion must necessarily have a person behind it; _someone_ has to be holding that opinion.

In the tightest of 3rd-person limited, that attitudinal exposition gives the 1st-person-ish feel; it is as if we are inside the POV character's head.  An example from GRRM's _A Clash of Kings_:

Ser Arys had light brown hair and a face that was not unpleasant to look upon.  Today he made quite the dashing figure, with his white silk cloak fastened at the shoulder by a golden leaf, and a spreading oak tree worked upon the breast of his tunic in shining gold thread.  "Who do you think will win the day's honors?" Sansa asked as they descended the steps arm in arm.​
"Not unpleasant to look upon" and "quite the dashing figure" are observations that convey an attitude or opinion or personal outlook.  The more matter-of-fact approach would be something like, "Ser Arys had light brown hair, and today he wore a white silk cloak fastened at the shoulder by a golden leaf....," forsaking the bias and instead being merely...matter-of-fact.

Even so, I do not think that this inside-the-head feel in 3rd-person limited is the same thing as that _storyteller voice_ that is the topic of this thread.  I do believe that this is one of the potential _strengths_ of 3rd-P limited, however.  

In 3P-limited, this isn't _narration_ of a story. The POV characters aren't narrating the story in their voices, even if we, the readers, get a feel for their voices–or, their personalities.  In fact, much of the time this attitudinal description can't even be said to be actual thoughts that a POV character is thinking at the time.  If asked to explain their feelings after-the-fact, they might say these things.  But often the bias is the author using sleight-of-hand.  Sansa may not have been thinking, consciously, _Dashing!_, above, although her feelings about him might be positive and, if asked directly what she thought about his appearance, she might have used the phrase, "dashing figure."

But this is one of the reasons why I suggested what I did about the demise of omniscient voice and the reason a 3P-limited approach, when mechanical, might eliminate the little flavors that constitute a storyteller voice.  With an omniscient approach, the author can add attitudinal observations, twists, asides, and so forth, without worrying about breaking POV.  But in 3rd-person limited, any such attitudinal structures _must_ (so the author feels) express only the opinions and limited perspective–the personality–of the POV character.  So sometimes exposition comes out flat, matter-of-fact.  In the well-written cases, exposition adds to immersion in the character.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 22, 2016)

Thanks Russ for chiming in  

I'm not sure it is bad, per se… I love George RR Martin, and Lee Child, and they both obviously have very distinct voices without having an over the top story teller voice. 

Someone in one of the posts commented on how voice changes depending on type of story, and I hadn't considered that. That is absolutely true. Good point, that person, whoever you are. 

Im not convinced (for myself) that having an obvious storyteller ruins the immersion… I just think it gives it a perspective… I love Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos, and that has a very obvious storyteller… but yes, I see what you mean in that it does feel distant. Hemmingway also has a strong narrator voice and also feels distant… but I really love it… so that must just be my own personal preference… 

Hmmm…. all so interesting.

And yes, FifthView I agree 100% with you like usual  The best narratives (for me) are the ones that have something to say… that have on opinion on what is happening. Whether it is a description of an article of clothing, or a description of the battle, what is the opinion on it? What is the perspective that is new and interesting and different?


----------



## kennyc (Feb 22, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> ....
> 
> Someone in one of the posts commented on how voice changes depending on type of story, and I hadn't considered that. That is absolutely true. Good point, that person, whoever you are.
> 
> ....



I think that was me.  In the other thread.


----------



## Russ (Feb 22, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Im not convinced (for myself) that having an obvious storyteller ruins the immersion… I just think it gives it a perspective… I love Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos, and that has a very obvious storyteller… but yes, I see what you mean in that it does feel distant. Hemmingway also has a strong narrator voice and also feels distant… but I really love it… so that must just be my own personal preference…



I think a lot of it has to do with reader expectations.  There are a lot of old classics (as you point out) with strong narrator voices, or even books written in the form of "as it was told to me" to add even a thicker layer of narrator interference with the story in it.  When I am reading a period piece, or a piece that is intentionally trying to carry off a period flavour than I enjoy it for what it is, in its context.  It can be really well done, and in older works in coincides with my expectations and everyone is happy.

In fact I was reading Moorcock's Masters of the Pit last night and the whole narrative is premised on a hero telling his story to a writer and the writer re-telling it.  It is also a blatant and fun homage to Burroughs Warlord of Mars works, and in this context it is a nice fit and quite enjoyable.

But if you took that same approach and just stuck it on a modern fantasy novel, or movie without a good reason for doing so, I would say it weakens the work.

I think few techniques or approaches are completely dead, but I think that changes in the field and audience expectations make opportunities to use certain techniques to good effect less frequent.


----------



## Velka (Feb 22, 2016)

I think using a storyteller can be a powerful tool, if used correctly. A storyteller can give the tale a sense of urgency from the beginning, as the reader will ask why do they feel it is important to tell this story right now. It can also bring subtlety and uncertainty into play as the storyteller needs to rely on memory, and are telling it through the lens of hindsight. It can also make the reader ask if the storyteller is being honest about the events, either due to the failings of memory, the desire to change what 'actually' happened so they are seen in a different light, or the bias of which they experienced the events. 

It can also give the writer more room to play with chronology, as memories rarely happen in a perfect sequence. A storyteller can act as a glue that holds events, either separated by time or distance, together.

Heart of Darkness is one of my favourite examples of post-modern storytelling (followed closely by The Great Gatsby). Three unreliable narrators, all searching for their own understanding of "the truth", and even though Marlow tells the story again and again, he never gets any closer to it.

The Usual Suspects is another great use of a storyteller. How Verbal uses story to twist events and hide his identity is truly amazing. Also, a great example of using a storyteller to shake-up traditional chronology.

The Princess Bride uses a storyteller in an equally masterful way. Sometimes drawing attention to a storyteller you can break immersion, and create distance between the audience and the story, but the grandfather's comments and conversation with his grandson only enhance the fairy tale qualities of the story.

I've also been thinking about giving Name of the Wind another chance, reading it with a more keen eye as to how Kvothe acts as the storyteller when he talks about his past. I read it yeeeeaaaars ago, and while I found it enjoyable, but long-winded and a bit absurd in parts, I'm thinking that seeing it as an exercise in creating one's history, and telling it with years of life and reflection between the events and the telling, I may enjoy it in a different way.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 22, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> And yes, FifthView I agree 100% with you like usual  The best narratives (for me) are the ones that have something to say… that have on opinion on what is happening. Whether it is a description of an article of clothing, or a description of the battle, what is the opinion on it? What is the perspective that is new and interesting and different?



Sometimes it's not just what is said, or at least not direct opinion, but also _how_ it is said.  This can be quite subtle.  But thought patterns, the way the exposition is delivered–sentence structure, patterning, unusual word use, and so forth–can suggest a person behind the narrative and give us a sense of there being a storyteller with a real personality.

I also will have to disagree with Russ a little bit.  There are storytellers, and there are storytellers.  Even in 3rd-P limited, there is a narrator; it's just that decisions are made to hide that teller as much as possible, to allow the character POV to shine.  This might be another reason that some of the telling may seem bland, flat, matter-of-fact.  So on one side you might have the overt narrator–the kind I think Russ means when he talks about a narrator stepping between reader and character/story–and then on the other side you might have the "hidden" or nondescript (?) narrator, and in between there may be many different levels.  Plus, I think it's worth keeping in mind that 3rd-person omniscient can also "get in the head" of characters and even trend toward seeming like 3rd limited in some respects.


----------



## kennyc (Feb 22, 2016)

Just to throw in the mix here, Edgar Rice Burroughs - "At the Earth's Core" (and Pellucidar...I suppose the others in the series) is from 'as told to me' perspective.

From the prologue:

"In the first place please bear in mind that I do not expect you to believe this story. Nor could you wonder had you witnessed a recent experience of mine when, in the armor of blissful and stupendous ignorance, I gaily narrated the gist of it to a Fellow of the Royal Geological Society on the occasion of my last trip to London.
You would surely have thought that I had been detected in no less a heinous crime than the purloining of the Crown Jewels from the Tower, or putting poison in the coffee of His Majesty the King.
The erudite gentleman in whom I confided congealed before I was half through!—it is all that saved him from exploding—and my dreams of an Honorary Fellowship, gold medals, and a niche in the Hall of Fame faded into the thin, cold air of his arctic atmosphere.
But I believe the story, and so would you, and so would the learned Fellow of the Royal Geological Society, had you and he heard it from the lips of the man who told it to me. Had you seen, as I did, the fire of truth in those gray eyes; had you felt the ring of sincerity in that quiet voice; had you realized the pathos of it all—you, too, would believe. You would not have needed the final ocular proof that I had—the weird rhamphorhynchus-like creature which he had brought back with him from the inner world.
....
"Ten years!" he murmured, at last. "Ten years, and I thought that at the most it could be scarce more than one!" That night he told me his story—the story that I give you here as nearly in his own words as I can recall them.

...."


----------



## Ben (Feb 27, 2016)

Do you think that the feel you are describing is simply a matter of having an omniscient 3rd person narrator, which is less common in modern fiction?

Or do you think it's possible to give the same sense of a storyteller while using a more limited 3rd?

I do feel like in most 1st person narratives I do get a strong sense of being "told" the story, and it's part of what I like about reading 1st person. 3 rd person omniscient feels a bit stilted and archaic to me when I read it now.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 27, 2016)

Ben said:


> Do you think that the feel you are describing is simply a matter of having an omniscient 3rd person narrator, which is less common in modern fiction?
> 
> Or do you think it's possible to give the same sense of a storyteller while using a more limited 3rd?
> 
> I do feel like in most 1st person narratives I do get a strong sense of being "told" the story, and it's part of what I like about reading 1st person. 3 rd person omniscient feels a bit stilted and archaic to me when I read it now.



Me and my beers will jump in here, LOL. Although this is knee jerk, without serious thought... I'd say it's more than simply POV. POV plays a role, but some of it is purely in the style of writing across time. I don't think there's anything inherently archaic or stilted about 3rd Om. Any POV can be great. My opinion of 1st is "meh". I'd rather read 3rd Om than 1st. Doesn't mean 1st can't be good, just typically I find it isn't, for me. Different stories demand different POV's.


----------



## Chessie (Feb 27, 2016)

I actually passed up what looked to be a fantastic book (girl who works elemental magic falls into a snowglobe) because it's written in first person present. I just can't. Honestly though, I wish that first didn't bother me so much because there must be so many good stories I'm missing out on.

3rd Om isn't archaic...it's just another storytelling tool. Writers have their prefered styles and readers have their tastes. This doesn't make one approach better or worse than another.


----------



## kennyc (Feb 27, 2016)

and if you really want to rock your point of view and tense world read Ted Chaing's The Story of Your Life.


----------



## vaiyt (Feb 28, 2016)

The Harry Potter books are framed like mystery novels, and that's where they take the third person non-omniscient POV from. JKR wanted to omit the full truth until the reveal, but first person narration would already prime the reader to expect an incomplete and partisan narrative. She explicitly does NOT want you to see it as Harry retelling the story, so the tone is fairly impersonal.

I'm among those who doesn't quite like 1st person narration. On the other hand, I can't imagine The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas written from any other POV, and I love that book to bits. Now THAT is a storyteller. The person telling you the story is unmistakably _a person_, and every bit of exposition oozes personality.



> With that said, I expired at two o'clock on a Friday afternoon in the month of August, 1869, at my beautiful suburban place in Catumbi. I was sixty-four intense and prosperous years old, I was a bachelor, I had wealth of around three hundred contos, and I was accompanied to the cemetery by eleven friends. Eleven friends! The fact is, there hadn't been any cards or announcements. On top of that it was raining--drizzling--a thin, sad, constant rain, so constant and so sad that it led one of those last-minute faithful friends to insert this ingenious idea into the speech he was making at the edge of my grave: "You who knew him, gentlemen, can say with me that nature appears to be weeping over the irreparable loss of one of the finest characters humanity has been honored with. This somber air, these drops from heaven, those dark clouds that cover the blue like funeral crepe, all of it is the cruel and terrible grief that gnaws at nature and at my deepest insides; all that is sublime praise for our illustrious deceased.
> 
> Good and faithful friend! No, I don't regret the twenty bonds I left you. And that was how I reached the closure of my days. That was how I set out for Hamlet's undiscovered country without the anxieties or doubts of the young prince, but, rather, slow and lumbering, like someone leaving the spectacle late. Late and bored.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 28, 2016)

L





Chesterama said:


> I actually passed up what looked to be a fantastic book (girl who works elemental magic falls into a snowglobe) because it's written in first person present. I just can't. Honestly though, I wish that first didn't bother me so much because there must be so many good stories I'm missing out on.
> 
> 3rd Om isn't archaic...it's just another storytelling tool. Writers have their prefered styles and readers have their tastes. This doesn't make one approach better or worse than another.



Why do you think that is? I'm curious because it is one if those things I couldn't care less about. If the story is good, I don't care if it is first person, second, third, past tense, present tense, or whatever.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Feb 28, 2016)

I'm going to bang my own drum a little. Some of you will have heard this a few times already, but in my previous project, Emma's Story, I used to different kinds of narration. One very distant and fairy-tale inspired (I guess that's omniscient 3rd or something?) and one more closely related to the regular everyday storyteller voice.

A lot of the distant parts were very over the top and flowery in their descriptions, and I used them to tie together the sections of the story told in the serious storyteller voice. Let's say I had two conversations with a bit of a time gap in between them. I'd then write the conversations in the serious voice, and a shorter passage in the fairy-tale style to explain what happened in between.

I had great fun with it, and I feel like it worked out very well for that particular story. I'm trying it again with my current story, but it's not working out as well this time around. I think it may be a case of finding the right voice for it though, and I'll keep tinkering with it and hopefully I'll find the right track eventually.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that using a distinct narrative voice can work out really well if you just give it a go. You don't have to be a famous published author of classical works to pull it off. You can do it yourself too.

...and even if you may not pull it off, you can still have fun, experiment, and learn from it.


----------



## kennyc (Feb 28, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> L
> 
> Why do you think that is? I'm curious because it is one if those things I couldn't care less about. If the story is good, I don't care if it is first person, second, third, past tense, present tense, or whatever.



Yep, my thoughts as well but I personally think a first person story can be more realistic and impactful.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 28, 2016)

It's difficult for me to discuss different POV or narration strategies, simply because I don't have many solid examples handy at the top of my mind although I do have vague memories of experiencing all the different flavorings.  For example, Harry Potter has been raised in this thread, and although the POV typically follows HP, the opening to the first book is more in the vein of omniscient—but with a twist:

Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.

Mr. Dursley was the director of a firm called Grunnings, which made drills. He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, although he did have a very large mustache. Mrs. Dursley was thin and blonde and had nearly twice the usual amount of neck, which came in very useful as she spent so much of her time craning over garden fences, spying on the neighbors. The Dursleys had a small son called Dudley and in their opinion there was no finer boy anywhere.

The Dursleys had everything they wanted, but they also had a secret, and their greatest fear was that somebody would discover it. They didn't think they could bear it if anyone found out about the Potters. Mrs. Potter was Mrs. Dursley's sister, but they hadn't met for several years; in fact, Mrs. Dursley pretended she didn't have a sister, because her sister and her good-for-nothing husband were as unDursleyish as it was possible to be. The Dursleys shuddered to think what the neighbors would say if the Potters arrived in the street. The Dursleys knew that the Potters had a small son, too, but they had never even seen him. This boy was another good reason for keeping the Potters away; they didn't want Dudley mixing with a child like that.​
This is rather omniscient; but even so, the "storyteller voice" circles around the voices of the Dursleys:


they were perfectly normal, *thank you very much*.
they just didn't hold with *such nonsense*
her sister and her *good-for-nothing husband*
they didn't want Dudley mixing with *a child like that*

So the storyteller is giving omniscient value judgments (or implying them) and observations about the Dursleys—e.g., when discussing Mrs. Dursley's spying on her neighbors, her husband's big and beefy appearance and thick neck—but in these phrases, she uses description/judgments (bolded) that are from the Dursley's POV, in the Durselys' voice.  For me, there's the suggestion that this omniscient storyteller is mimicking or mocking the Dursleys, in the way a person at the office might assume the character traits and voice of someone we impersonate while making fun of them.  At least, there's a duality in the voice, where storyteller and Dursleys blend or intertwine while not erasing one another; both storyteller and Dursleys remain and are separate.

Incidentally, this first chapter has the feel of a prologue, and I wonder if many otherwise 3rd-person limited examples exist in which the body of the book is 3rd limited but the prologue takes a more omniscient 3rd route (or at least not as tight a 3rd limited approach as the rest of the book.)  My vague recollection is, yes; but I'd have to do a search through my library to verify.

Very quickly in the first chapter of _Sorcerer's Stone_, the POV shifts to Mr. Dursley's and is fairly tight for quite a length.  But then it shifts again:

The Dursleys got into bed.  Mrs. Dursley fell asleep quickly but Mr. Dursley lay awake, turning it all over in his mind.  His last, comforting thought before he fell asleep was that even if the Potters _were_ involved, there was no reason for them to come near him and Mrs. Dursley.  The Potters knew very well what he and Petunia thought about them and their kind. . . .He couldn't see how he and Petunia could get mixed up in anything that might be going on — he yawned and turned over — it couldn't affect _them_. . . . 

How very wrong he was.

Mr. Dursley might have been drifting into an uneasy sleep, but the cat on the wall outside was showing no sign of sleepiness...​
Here it shifts into obvious omniscience until Dumbledore's appearance.  Even after Dumbledore and McGonagall begin their dialogue, there are tricks limiting the omniscience and suggesting POV impressions, as Rowling uses "seems" and other tentative description strategies:



She threw a sharp, sideways glance at Dumbledore here, *as though hoping he was going to tell her something*, but he didn't, so she went on.

"No, thank you," said Professor McGonagall coldy, *as though she didn't think* this was the moment for lemon drops.

Professor McGonagall flinched, but Dumbledore, who was unsticking two lemon drops, *seemed not to notice*.

*It seemed that Professor McGonagall had reached the point* she was most anxious to discuss....

[Speaking of D.'s odd watch.] *It must have made sense to Dumbledore*, though, because he put it back in his pocket and said....

Seems...to whom?  On the one hand, this might be an example of "getting in the head" of each viewing the other, or of at least trying to give the impression that each of the two wizards has a limited perspective or knowledge of the other's state of being/intention.  On the other, this could be addressing a generic "you," and the storyteller may be omniscient but isn't wanting to reveal all details to the reader.  I.e., it's almost as if you, dear reader, are an invisible person standing there with these two, watching them, and you can only make guesses about them.  On the third hand, it could be this storyteller, this narrator, wants the reader to fall into the trap of believing that she, the storyteller, is _not_ omniscient.

So there are all these questions that come to my mind when thinking about this first chapter of the first Harry Potter book.  It's always fascinated me.

My general impression, on this topic of voices/POV/narration, is that there is only 3rd-person—omniscient and limited are only two variations on the same thing.  And there may be a continuum between the two approaches.  Omniscient isn't always omniscient, and limited isn't always limited.  Either can dip into the heads of characters and follow a single character for a significant length of time, hewing close to that one POV.  And storytellers can use various tricks to show themselves or hide themselves, and to be more or less reliable narrators.


----------



## Chessie (Feb 28, 2016)

@ Steerpike: I just don't like it. Present tense feels lazy and forced to me. I read FPOV a lot as I was growing up but as an adult  I'll immediately put a book down. It's just not the way I like my marshmallows roasted, I guess.


----------



## Chessie (Feb 28, 2016)

kennyc said:


> Yep, my thoughts as well but I personally think a first person story can be more realistic and impactful.


Uh...whether a story is realistic and impactful depends on a lot of other elements besides just POV.

With Omn and 3rd, the reader gets a broader perspective of what's happening vs a limited and often skewed view of things with the first person narrator. It also doesn't feel like someone is telling me a story. That's really important to me when I sit down to read a book. It's not chat time with so-and-so it's storytime. First person ruins it for me,


----------



## kennyc (Feb 28, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Uh...whether a story is realistic and impactful depends on a lot of other elements besides just POV.
> 
> With Omn and 3rd, the reader gets a broader perspective of what's happening vs a limited and often skewed view of things with the first person narrator. It also doesn't feel like someone is telling me a story. That's really important to me when I sit down to read a book. It's not chat time with so-and-so it's storytime. First person ruins it for me,



You're welcome to believe whatever you like. Read what you prefer, but you're completely wrong about first person ruining stories else there wouldn't be any. You just have a preference.

And btw I never once said realism and impact depended solely on POV. So stop twisting my words.


----------



## kennyc (Feb 28, 2016)

BTW first person can certainly be more intimate and thus as I said more impactful and realistic to the reader, that doesn't mean any other POV can't be as well, but it is much more difficult to create an intimate story in third person.

There's a good post by Tara K. Harper here discussing POV: First Person or Third Person? - Narrative Forms - Tara K. Harper, Writer's Workshop

and a summary from Writer's Digest here: http://www.writersdigest.com/writin...at-point-of-view-should-you-use-in-your-novel


----------



## Chessie (Feb 28, 2016)

I never said FPOV ruins stories in general...I said it ruins them for _me_. Also, I said a story needs more than just POV to make it work. It's one of many tools in a writer's box. Geesh.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 28, 2016)

Certain types of stories lend themselves well to 1st person POV. Others, not so much.

For a long time I had an aversion to 1st POV. After a time, and several positive experiences from recommendations, I discovered that my POV prejudices came about from early stories, written in that style, that I simply didn't enjoy. 

There are many things you can't do in 3rd. Other limitations come from the use of 1st. Heck, some stories switch between 1st & 3rd.

Now my preference is only for good storytelling, without a preconceived notion. As writers though, thinking seriously about the tale we wish to tell, & what POV style best aids that effort, is an important decision. All choices have inherent strengths and weaknesses. Employing the right method makes our story stronger. 

Example:
Imagine Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov written in 3rd person. The magic of that story came from the in-depth insights into a diseased mind that the reader shares throughout the journey. 

I highly doubt that story would've been even remotely as engaging if he chose not to write in 1st person.


----------



## Chessie (Feb 28, 2016)

See, that's the thing. I would _like_ to change my prejudices and I agree with your points, T. Allen. Maybe I just need to force myself and read that snowglobe book after all.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 28, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> See, that's the thing. I would like to change my prejudices and I agree with your points, T. Allen. Maybe I just need to force myself and read that snowglobe book after all.



In that case, I'd suggest starting with a story that utilizes the deep 1st person POV to full effect.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 28, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> In that case, I'd suggest starting with a story that utilizes the deep 1st person POV to full effect.



_Lolita_​ is a great example of this.


----------



## HellionHeloise (Mar 1, 2016)

I think a narrative voice with personality & presence is a vital part about what makes reading compelling. Anything that is meta & draws your attention to the writing itself has always been something I find exciting as a reader. It's very postmodern, whereas a lot of fantasy today is strongly influenced by our image/movie-obsessed society & focused on "show not tell". That's not all bad, but I think variety is important. 

I find it difficult to execute this in my own writing because I am writing in 1st person POV right now & have been wondering if I need to make a change. It's hard to build out the world & describes things without seeming heavy-handed. 

Do any of you have tricks that keep you in the correct narrator role when you're writing/editing? I seem to wander between different narrative categories as I go.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 1, 2016)

HellionHeloise said:


> Do any of you have tricks that keep you in the correct narrator role when you're writing/editing? I seem to wander between different narrative categories as I go.



I used a few tricks to help me stay "in character" when I wrote the fairy-tale style narration for Emma's Story:
 - Avoid using the definitive article, _the_ (that's definitive article, right?)
 - Do not use names for any characters. Instead of _Emma_, the fairy tale voice says _a young woman_.
 - Use present tense.
 - Use repetition.

For example, if I wanted to say something along the lines of _Emma left the inn_ the fairy tale voice would say that as _a young woman leaves a village inn_.

Actual example from the story:


> The morning is still dark when a young woman’s expedition leaves the village between the hills. Eight voices, four horses, and two sleds cross a bridge lit by lanterns, over a river black with cold. Past the river, where the forest stands tall and silent, waits a day on the road. Past the river, in the east, waits the rising sun.



Instead of saying something to the effect of there being eight people split across two sleds drawn by two horses each, I'm using the _Eight voices..._ thing, which achieves the same thing, but requires a tiny bit more of the reader.

What's important to note is that these weren't rules that I set up from the start. Rather these were "rules" that I derived from what I'd already written and which I broke as often as not throughout the story.

EDIT: The full *first draft* of the story is available here: EmmaÃ¢€™s Story Ã¢€“ s v r t n s s e
I'm currently on the third draft and while the main story is the same, it contains an extra chapter and most of the first chapter is different.

EDIT2: Don't be afraid if you end up writing in rhymes or in verse from time to time, just don't overdo it. Now and then, here and there, it can be quite powerful.

EDIT3: Take all advice with a pinch of salt and apply them as you wish.


----------



## vaiyt (Aug 12, 2016)

1st person POV is best when the POV character can spin a decent yarn themself. Someone with personality, a view of the world that's worth delving into or at least an entertaining voice. That's my opinion at least. You can also use 1st person POV to hide information from the reader, but 3rd person non-omniscient works for that too.


----------



## AElisabet (Aug 21, 2016)

vaiyt said:


> 1st person POV is best when the POV character can spin a decent yarn themself. Someone with personality, a view of the world that's worth delving into or at least an entertaining voice. That's my opinion at least. You can also use 1st person POV to hide information from the reader, but 3rd person non-omniscient works for that too.



Yes - to me this kind of personality is what makes a first person narration.  A person is telling you their story because their story is important, at least to them, and they are enough of a character to grab you by the collar and make you want to hear it.  

I'm also just heartened from reading this thread that I am not the only person out there who misses the storyteller voice and omni POV.  I don't care much for 3rd limited most of the time - I actually find it more distancing and claustrophobic.  

And some of the "rules" that are given for 3rd limited are so constraining that much of it ends up sounding nothing at all like the intimate consciousness of most people - in real life people do think about their appearance, they imagine and interpret events that they haven't witnessed, they think about, assume, or even sometimes know what other people are thinking without consciously filtering those assumptions, etc.  The only writer I've read who really *did* 3rd limited in a way that felt like reading the inner life of a character was Hilary Mantel in _Wolf Hall_.  And she broke pretty much every rule of the POV and did it with flair.

I love omniscient narration and would love to see it make more of a comeback in genre writing.  Omni and storyteller voice is far more common and acceptable in "literary" fiction right now.  I'm hoping as the lines between "genre" and "literary" blur (which I think is happening with writers like Chabon, Gaiman, and Ishiguro) omni and the storyteller voice will become more acceptable in fantasy writing again.

I've noticed in just the past eight years since I started taking writing seriously - reading forums and blogs and books on craft - that there has been a trend from a rigid "omni is dated, don't do it" mentality to a more accepting "omni is a hard, but valid, POV."


----------

