To narrate boldly or not to narrate boldly, that's my question.

[KC Trae Becker]

I'd just like to hear others' opinions on a pronounced narrator versus a near invisible narrator.

In my most recent rewrite, I've added back in a narrator that I overdid before and so took out. I think I've got a better handle of the narrator's voice, now. I'm just want a better feel for general reactions and opinions before I workshop and critique group it.

I have some less-than-enthusiastic-about-fantasy-and-kids people in my circles who don't express themselves in positive ways. So I'd like to get an understanding of differing views before hand. I'll be able to listen more proactively if I understand their opinions a little better without the genre hate confusing the issues.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Well KC it kind of depends (that answer again). It depends on the tone of the story, POV, and a bunch of other factors. I wouldn't say that I am always against it, but I myself do shy away from it in certain situations. But, if having a conspicuous narrator is your voice then keep it, work on it, and be the best damn conspicuous narrator out there.

By the way screw those genre haters. May the Dragon Reborn (or some other fantasy uber power person) strike them down with balefire (or whatever is the most deadly attack for your chosen character).

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

First, if your group is full of people who hate your chosen genre and are unable to distance themselves from that dislike enough to deliver an objective review, it may be time to find another group.

If it's handful of bad apples in an otherwise solid group, learn to ignore them. Further, don't waste your time delivering their critiques with a sincere effort. Partnerships are a give and take, after all.

On to the narrator.....

If a narrator has an interesting voice or perspective, they can work quite well. I'm not prejudiced against reading a strong narrative voice. It all depends on the execution and story fit.

If you can cleverly intertwine a narrator into your story, and there are myriad ways to accomplish this, that voice can be a tool which makes the story.

Experiment. Try it. See what happens. You can always revert in revision if YOU feel it doesn't work.

 

[BWFoster78]

I hate narrators and want to be as close to the character as possible. If I make it to a sample on Amazon and there's a narrator, I'm likely to move on to the next book.

That being said... So?

Most readers won't notice what techniques you use and wouldn't care if they did.

The only question you should be asking is: can you, KC Trae Becker, engage the reader using a narrator? None of us can answer that for you.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Like BSA said - it really depends on how you do it.
In my current WiP I'm swapping back and forth between a far distant narrator and a pretty close third person view. The feedback I've had on it so far is that it works, but it's also quite difficult for me to get it right and sometimes the two perspectives get muddled.
The important part is: I'm really enjoying it. It's good fun to lay it on thick with the dramatic visuals in the narration passages.

Example here.

 

[Penpilot]

I'd say narrate truthfully. If you've thought about the pros and cons, and this is the way you think is best to present your story, then this is the best way. Obviously, there are no guarantees, but for myself, I'd rather fall on my face on my own terms than try to placate others. I think I learn more that way.

As for people who can't step out of their boxes, they're square. I mean to dislike something just because it falls under a label is kind of silly. We all have our biases and our favorite flavors, but if you're in a writing group, you should be able to look beyond those biases at least enough to give a solid critique. If you can't, the value of your opinions is greatly diminished.

I mean, I'm not a romance reader, but if someone threw me a romance story, I'd be able to give them a critique without thumbing my nose at it. A good story is a good story regardless of genre, and IMHO, a good writer should be able to see this.

 

[MineOwnKing]

If someone doesn't like a narrator, then they are saying to the world that they don't like the next 2 quotes.....

Aloft, like a royal czar and king, the sun seemed giving this gentle air to this bold and rolling sea; even as bride to groom. And at the girdling line of the horizon, a soft and tremulous motion - most seen here at the equator - denoted the fond, throbbing trust, the loving alarms, with which the poor bride gave her bosom away.

Tied up and twisted; gnarled and knotted with wrinkles; haggardly firm and unyielding; his eyes glowing like coals, that still glow in the ashes of ruin; untottering Ahab stood forth in the clearness of the morn; lifting his splintered helmet of a brow to the fair girl's forehead of heaven.


Story telling goes back to our roots as cavemen around the fire.

It is the very essence and origin of writing and if someone doesn't like it or cannot show appreciation for it then they have no business being a professional writer.

I say write what ever you want.

 

[BWFoster78]

According to MineOwnKing, I apparently shouldn't be a professional writer.

Bummer.

 

[Svrtnsse]

According to MineOwnKing, I apparently shouldn't be a professional writer.

Bummer.

Can I have your typewriter?

 

[MineOwnKing]

I did not see your comment BWFoster78.

I was trying to offer encouragement to Becker through an example of great literature.

I was responding to the following quote.

I have some less-than-enthusiastic-about-fantasy-and-kids people in my circles who don't express themselves in positive ways.


I'm sorry you took offense to my comment.

 

[Trick]

Story telling goes back to our roots as cavemen around the fire.

It is the very essence and origin of writing and if someone doesn't like it or cannot show appreciation for it then they have no business being a professional writer.

I can show appreciation for it, I think, and respect, but I am sick of the classic narrator. I have still enjoyed narrators and especially unique attempts at them but I think if I re-read some of the classics I read in high school I would fall asleep. The style grates at me. It feels self righteous and pompous, even though it usually isn't. Literary fiction of any kind gets on my nerves to one extent or another and in some cases, I just can't read it.

Now, some more modern uses of a narrator are great and I always say to write it how you like it and take the reviews of narrow-minded critiquers with a grain of salt.

 

[MineOwnKing]

Thanks Trick,

Great point, I did not think of it that way.

I was trying to spread the joy but it came out wrong.

take the reviews of narrow-minded critiquers with a grain of salt.

That's great advice also, I will remember that as well.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Okay, my answer is likely to fall in the middle of this timeless debate.

I use deep third POV in most of my novels, with the characters as the narrators and everything seen or described disseminated through the character filter. That's how I like to present novels. HOWEVER...

Many of my short stories use a strong narrator voice and focus less on the character's specific filter. Sometimes I do it to create a sense of omniscience without actually getting into multiple heads, and other times I do it to set a tone for a story that doesn't mesh entirely with the character himself. I hope that makes sense. Anyways...

In reading, I find that I don't like narrators as much as deep third. One reason for it is that most writers (especially newer ones) who use narrators tend to do so sloppily because they feel "this is how it is supposed to work...right?" and it comes off as amateurish and unpleasant. Basically, not utilized to the strengths of a proper narration versus just doing a stronger POV character. Again, I hope this makes sense.

I have a friend who uses a very strong narrator, who tells the story as an omniscient being almost "watching the action" play out before him. He chose that narrator so he could tell jokes and to me, it worked amazingly well and I still think it's one of the strongest examples of a humorous narrator I've ever read. The narrator even makes cracks about the author and the like, saying things like, "Of course, writers are often blind to these kinds of problems," or, "But this writer would like to think so, anyways." It isn't a named narrator, but it gives a feel that whomever is narrating (and for story purposes writing the book the reader is reading) is relating the story to the reader without an author being involved. I know it sounds like it could be tacky and silly, but he pulls it off really well.

So my rather long-winded answer here is that it seriously depends. If your narrator is too basic, not unique, not entertaining, and not inviting to the reader, I think it works against you to use a strong narrator voice rather than a character voice and a sort of strategically utilized narrator in key places. I've read plenty of work that uses a weak narrator and to me, it feels like I'm trying to enter the party of the story, desperately wanting to receive my invitation, but a bouncer keeps stiff-arming me at the door. It hurts my enjoyment when the narrator throws me out the door on my ass and the party is out of my reach, when all I want to do is go have a great time with all my friends.

I believe the days of the narrator voice a la Lord of the Rings is past. You can't wow readers by dredging up the same tools from the last century unless you modernize the narrator's role a little. It isn't enough to just tell a story with a narrator, you either have to own it and make the narrator part of the story, or you should probably consider ditching the redundancy a narrator presents and just go with deep third, which fulfills most of the narrator's job, but allows a character to shine all the brighter by being the sole narrator (of course, this works with MultiPOV as well, if you use two or hell, five, POV characters).

I understand some folks will argue the things I've said here, but again, with any writing advice, take it or leave it. I'm not saying it can't be done (anything CAN be done well), I'm just saying that the multitude of green writer work I've read seriously indicates newer writers are more comfortable with narrators than deep third, but few can harness the power of a narrator to create a compelling, gripping story-telling technique. The vast majority haven't considered the impact of their narrator (I was one of them and used a narrator for large portions of my first four books), and have probably never even thought about why they chose to use a narrator, unless someone comes right out and asks them. I've done that a few times and basically the answers were all the same (as mine was), "Um...what do you mean I'm using a narrator?"

So, I think consciously choosing a strong narrator is great. I do it all the time. I also consciously choose NOT to use a narrator a lot of the time. It just depends on who the narrator is, how his presence helps the story, and whether the narrator's presence and impact will strengthen or weaken the concept/ execution of the story.

Best wishes.

P.S. If you want someone to read a small sample, say a chapter, I'll do it. You can PM me and I'll give you my email address. I think one of the hardest things about diagnosing whether something works or doesn't, is finding someone who is knowledgeable enough about the issue to present constructive feedback. I'm not adverse to narrators, so if you can't find someone else who can give your work a look, I'm happy to do it. Try to get three or four different opinions from folks who are familiar with deep third, omniscient, and narrators to give you their take on whether what you're doing works, whether it doesn't, or how you can make it stronger for the purposes of your tale.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I think the question you have to answer is what does the narrator add to the story. If he's there simply to allow an omniscient POV then tone him back. If on the other hand he adds something else to the mix then amp him up.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[BWFoster78]

I did not see your comment BWFoster78.

I was trying to offer encouragement to Becker through an example of great literature.

I was responding to the following quote.

I have some less-than-enthusiastic-about-fantasy-and-kids people in my circles who don't express themselves in positive ways.


I'm sorry you took offense to my comment.

Not at all. Just poking a bit of fun

And, truthfully, a really good writer can make a narrator work, even for me. I think that, for newbie indie authors (which I tend to read a lot), the narrator just makes it that much harder to engage the reader.

 

[BWFoster78]

Now, some more modern uses of a narrator are great and I always say to write it how you like it and take the reviews of narrow-minded critiquers with a grain of salt.

Let's not be too hard on the critiquers.

In my mind, all anyone critiquing my work owes me is an honest opinion. If that critiquer's honest opinion is that the narrator is making the work less engaging, then that's good information. At the very least, it gives the author a chance to ask himself: a) is using a narrator a good decision and b) am I using the narrator correctly? Ideally, this should result in the author doing a little research and learning more about the use of narrators. In the end, whether he changes anything or not, he will hopefully be a more knowledgeable and skilled writer because of the experience.

 

[Mythopoet]

Well, this is just me, but nothing bores more quickly than a lack of narrative voice. If it sounds like a news report or a history book, I'm out. There needs to be a strong narrative voice, imo. Now this can come from a character, if you're doing first person or just close third POV. Or it can come from the author. Doesn't matter. Intrigue me with your narrative.

 

[Trick]

Let's not be too hard on the critiquers.

In my mind, all anyone critiquing my work owes me is an honest opinion. If that critiquer's honest opinion is that the narrator is making the work less engaging, then that's good information. At the very least, it gives the author a chance to ask himself: a) is using a narrator a good decision and b) am I using the narrator correctly? Ideally, this should result in the author doing a little research and learning more about the use of narrators. In the end, whether he changes anything or not, he will hopefully be a more knowledgeable and skilled writer because of the experience.

Agreed. However, if you get negative responses to your work from someone who is anti-fantasy, and they cannot get past that when they are offering a critique, it's probably time to find someone else to critique you. That doesn't mean don't listen at all, just ascertain how much their particular likes and dislikes are coloring their commentary. If they respond to the use of a narrator by saying, "I hate narrators." that's not critique. I hate the color yellow but does that mean no one should ever use it? No. If they said, however, "I usually hate narrators because... etc." and that 'etc.' helps you determine how to avoid a pitfall or that you might want to throw out the narrator altogether, that his helpful. The narrow-minded critiquer is one who offers base opinions without reasoning beyond their own specific tastes. Hell, saying, "I don't like this paragraph but I can't explain why." is more helpful than, "I don't like first person books." How do you respond to that? ... Um, ok, this is in first person so I guess you'll hate it, thanks. Or I guess, Why don't you like first person specifically?

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think it takes time to become a good critter and let's face it, some people just aren't cut out for it like, ever. If a critter dislikes urban fantasy and I've been working with them for a while, I would expect them to look past their dislike for a genre (based on former impressions, no doubt) and give me feedback as an unbiased partner who knows my strengths and weaknesses. Let's face it, I work with men aged 35-55 usually, and they AREN'T my target audience for my romance/ fantasy hybrid stories, but they continue to give me invaluable feedback as I work to hone my writing and they actually enjoy the stories though they don't gravitate toward this kind of story for their own enjoyment. I do the same for other folks all the time. HA! One of my current crit partners writes a humorous sci-fi type stories, and I always preface my crits with something like, "Now, I probably missed some of the jokes because I didn't watch Star Trek and I don't know who these characters are meant to be spoofs of, but I liked this and that, and I think the pacing was blah blah..." So, critting is a learned skill as much as writing is.

If I were writing a narrator-heavy piece, I'd want to know whether the narrator worked and where it didn't and why, but I wouldn't change my crit partners. I've had these same critters for years and they are by far my most valuable resource as a writer. I may ask them to look past an element they don't particularly love, but I'd expect them to do the same as I do for them--read it and give honest feedback and express their personal opinions just as they always do. If they really hated something, I'd ask for reasons why and suggestions for how to better accomplish my goals, but I think finding good, solid crit partners is not an easy thing, and i'm super thrilled to have the great people behind me I do--supporting me emotionally when I need encouragement and raking me across the coals when I need to slow down and think, and being awesomely honest no matter how negative the feedback may be.

Crit partners are gold. At least mine are. I wouldn't trade them for anything.

But...if you are a green writer, and I mean no offense by that, but I was there too, it's hard to get a thorough crit sometimes because your work is probably riddled with "small things" that add up in a big way to make the work sort of stink. Mine is still like that, and I often have to preface sharing with, "this is a rough draft, please ignore any typos, weak sentence structure, and other crappy execution, because I can fix that on my own later, but what do you think about the concepts for these scenes? Is there enough tension? Are the settings interesting? Do the characters' stories develop in an interesting way?" Rough drafts are well...rough. Any experienced critter will recognize it, but when you specifically ask a question like, "Does this narrator's voice add to the story or detract from it?" you can mitigate the weakness of the work and simply focus on that single element. I've done that. In fact, I just did that for the Clichea tournament. I sent it to a crit partner who enjoys cerebral characters who digress into long-winded internal contemplations and fancy big words. I felt much better when he wrote back that he felt my character's voice was a befitting tone for the sort of narration I was trying to accomplish. Granted, mine was in FPOV, but still...some folks don't prefer that sort of heavy narration, so I specifically asked a partner who I think relates to it very easily. I probably wouldn't have sent that to my friend who writes urban romantic fantasy. She has a very different style and wouldn't probably have connected as easily with what my goal tone was.

My best advice is to never rely solely on a couple opinions. If four people you really respect (and have proved themselves to you by showing they actually somewhat know what they're talking about) say "this isn't working because of..." and their reasons are really similar or two sides to the same coin, even, then I'd consider rethinking the goal and especially the execution. Unfortunately, these questions are rarely as simple as, "Don't use a strong narrator voice because readers find it tedious." That's just nonsense. (I'm not at all arguing with anyone who has expressed a dislike for narrators, just making a broader point). I don't think if my friend (any of them, no one specifically), said she wanted to use a funny narrator to tell a story in third omniscient and the narrator was going to crack jokes directly to the reader, that I would feel one way or the other about it. As a concept, it isn't good or bad. What it is, is a challenge to do it right so readers will align with said narrator and not be distracted by his quirks and jokes, thereby making the story a secondary focus.

Do it! or don't. It really doesn't matter whether you choose a heavy-handed narrator or one with a ghost-like presence. The execution is far more important in the grand scheme of a book's ability to entertain than the concept of who the narrator is. Crit partners are people, too. I'd like to think all of them do as I do--have the best interest of the author in mind and give honest feedback without hurt feelings if the author disagrees. Unfortunately, the reality is that some people are just weak partners. They either can't be fully honest for fear of offending, or they don't know enough about writing to give the really valuable kind of advice. I've had that happen more than once, too, where someone adds in a bunch of adverbs and dialogue tags and "she thought to herself"-type elements because that was a style they preferred, though I'd moved past those items and refined my use of POV to eliminate things I consider erroneous.

We're all trying to improve. Crit partners too. Find a good one and hang onto him like a life raft in a sea of crappy writing.

 

[Caged Maiden]

@ Mythopoet, I'm so there with you. I totally agree that often I read work that has no voice, no uniqueness, and it bores me like nothing else. Hell, I have six novels with that guy narrating...Mr. Boredom-pants who can't come up with an inventive take on anything.

All I can say is it takes time, and I hope after fourteen years, that i'm getting closer to engaging narrative. I was not gifted, I can tell you that right off the bat. It took me a lot of time to distinguish how to put forth information so it didn't sound like, "Then she went here, and then she did this. Lame description that tried too hard, and then she did this other thing." OMG, it's been a long road, but I'm finally proud of what I can accomplish when I try.