Different writing styles in the same book?

[prehistorickid]

I'm in the process of writing something I hope to turn into a novel that has two main characters: a teenager in first person present narration, and an immortal with third person narration. They also have intentionally different styles of writing: the former is more casual and conversational, while the latter is more poetic and grandiose.

I'm not sure this is allowed, seeing as I've just joined, but here are two snippets to hopefully show what I mean:

> The ancient creature was never quite used to the unnatural, pale green light of the cubed machines - computers, the new cultures called them. They had a computer installed in their personal library nearing three decades ago, and even in such a short time the innovators of the young had created far more advanced and arcane technologies - in their eyes, at least. To the thinking specter that traveled the digital world of computers and the internet that spoke to them, it was as home.

> Y’know, now that I think about it, I think I may have forgotten to set my alarm. The logical part of me worries that I should wake up and prepare for today — “it’s the big day,” it reminds me. But the rest of me doesn’t care, it just wants to sleep in, and take in the sights of the overgrown cityscape I find myself in. Moonlight illuminates the prairie grasses and trees and vines, the exact species I can’t identify. It’s not my first time here, I’m something of a regular.

I feel fairly confident in my ability to juggle these two styles, though please correct me if you think I'm sniffing my farts a bit here. But the main thing I wanted to talk about is the prospect of other character perspectives. I do kind of like the idea of each character that gets a perspective is given a different style (i.e. replicating the format of a wikipedia article for a history nerd, or using iambic pentameter for a poet) but 1) it feels like it could get very hard to follow, and 2) might come across as gimicky. What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Rexenm]

It is as if you are writing in italics style, as if it has a style of its own. This text is hard to decipher, but it appears to have a depth of knowledge, so I will have to judge the wisdom.

Also, if I were to nitpick, it seems to use both third and first person vibe. Is this intentional? Otherwise, I could not place it.

 

[pmmg]

I am not sure what I really think of this. I suppose, I will default to its more about execution than style.

The characters are different, so it is expected to show them as different. I don't need a separate writing style for that, and while I am sure there are some who have done this, and done it well, I think you will find that, no matter your effort, your natural writing voice will bleed through, and that, in the effort to keep this going, the natural flavor it will seem forced into the two narratives making one or both seem less flowing, or stuffed into a frame. And that, perhaps, for the longer effort, cultivating and developing your own natural writing voice is a better use of your effort.

I think this may also carry some risk. Suppose I think the one voice is competent, but the other voice is a flake? I may enjoy reading one but not the other...which, for me, might make me skip parts, or abandon.

Typically, I would expect a type of narrator voice, and then character voices separate from that when in character.

BUT...I am sure I can point to works where this has put to use, and to great effect. And anything is worth experimenting with. Ultimately, I am going to like or dislike your story because of a whole lot of elements, chief among them being the story itself. If the story is worthy, the rest is execution. Stuff that draws me in and hooks me, and not stuff that distracts. So...its all gotto be stuff that draws me in and hooks. If you think you have the edge on that, write on.

 

[Jackarandajam]

The two different bits have two different voices, AKA one is written to immerse the reader in the way the first character thinks and the second is in the voice of the first person narrator, and yeah that's fine.

The tense is different; the first is written in Third Person Past, "he was," and the second in written in First Person Present, "I am," and that's okay too, as long as one or the other carries the lions share of the story and the other only pops up occasionally.

I just finished No Country For Old Men. Mccarthy has the book divided into about 9 "parts" and uses a short monologue of First Present to introduce each part, the rest of the book is written in Third Past.
The technique would work reversed too, depending on which voice you prefer for the bulk of the story.

Personal opinion, I think the immortal would be best ingested by a reader if the perspective was only a few paragraphs at a time, maybe at the beginning of each chapter. Because the style is more convoluted, promising the reader that you're only going to make them read a couple paragraphs at a time and only at the beginning of each chapter would help stave off reader exhaustion and encourage them to spend more time parsing it and not glaze over.

 

[Mad Swede]

There's nothing wrong with the concept, and several very successful authors have done this in their books. A particularly way-out example would be Iain M Banks' novel Feersum Endjinn, other examples would be Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (fairly subtle) and Eddings' The Belgariad.

 

[hunfrith]

I think it is totally something you can do - in many books, when different characters are speaking, the author uses different conventions in the dialog to highlight individual differences. If you're doing the same thing just on a larger scale to highlight the differences between two narrators, I don't see the problem with that. Transitioning between the two may or may not get confusing for the reader, so it might be good to also consider how you implement a shift. I am thinking of some of Rick Riordan's demigod books, particularly the Kane Chronicles, whereby the POV shifts and whenever it does so he starts a new chapter and indicates whose POV it is at the beginning of the chapter. You don't have to do it that way, but I remember the POV shifts being easy to follow in that format.

 

[prehistorickid]

Thanks for all the feedback! I might check out some of the example books given to see how other authors juggle different writing styles.

Personal opinion, I think the immortal would be best ingested by a reader if the perspective was only a few paragraphs at a time, maybe at the beginning of each chapter. Because the style is more convoluted, promising the reader that you're only going to make them read a couple paragraphs at a time and only at the beginning of each chapter would help stave off reader exhaustion and encourage them to spend more time parsing it and not glaze over.

I already had the idea that their perspective would be the less common of the two, but your idea to keep it limited is helpful, as I hadn't considered the reader retention factor. My main concern is that, since their perspective is more plot and progression heavy, it being limited might be disappointing to those who want that sort of stuff. Also, there is at least one section I have in my head with the immortal (a debate with a powerful spirit) that requires a more lengthy time spent with them (which is near the back end for what its worth).

 

[skip.knox]

As others have said: it has been done. Whether you can also pull it off is another matter, but let's assume you can.

I'm curious as to the why. Because the way you phrased it, it does sound gimmicky. That is, it sounds as if you want to do it simply to see if you can do it. That's ok, though it's more okay for someone on their twelfth book than on their first, but are you able to find a *story* reason for the approach? Why not just tell it all in the usual third person past? What is gained by adding even one perspective? Then, what is gained by adding another, and another?

It's worth asking yourself such questions, even if it's hard to come up with good answers. At least it passes the time talking to oneself!

 

[prehistorickid]

As others have said: it has been done. Whether you can also pull it off is another matter, but let's assume you can.

I'm curious as to the why. Because the way you phrased it, it does sound gimmicky. That is, it sounds as if you want to do it simply to see if you can do it. That's ok, though it's more okay for someone on their twelfth book than on their first, but are you able to find a *story* reason for the approach? Why not just tell it all in the usual third person past? What is gained by adding even one perspective? Then, what is gained by adding another, and another?

It's worth asking yourself such questions, even if it's hard to come up with good answers. At least it passes the time talking to oneself!

I hadn't really thought about why they are different, but it comes down to a few things. I have a fairly good picture in my head of both of the main character's voices, and they are different. More than that, however, how they view themselves and the world is completely different. Tulip (the teenager), is highly self-reflective and conciencess of her thoughts, and the fact of the matter is that I just enjoy writing in her voice as it is similar to mine. Purple (the immortal), by contrast, doesn't really view themselves as a human or even any sort of traditional person, and often looks backwards when viewing the world. Boiling it down, I want to tell parts of the story from each of their perspectives, and having those perspectives be told the same way doesn't quite sit right with me, as they are very different people.

I'm not sure these are good answers, or if I'm way over my head, but it's what I think at the moment.

 

[Finchbearer]

It could work. Why not? But I think you have to consider that many writers have been able to bring different voices whilst retaining the same style. And you maybe have to ask yourself why in the industry this is almost never done. To break the ‘rules’, you are better off by knowing them in the first place.

 

[prehistorickid]

As a test, I tried rewriting a segment of the immortal's section in first person present, and it didn't feel right somehow. Maybe I just have a particular vision and any deviation from that sets off an unjustified ick response, or maybe something about having a direct line to their immediate thoughts doesn't work for their story. In any case, I can't write a story I don't enjoy writing, so for now I think I'll stick to the system I have going on at the moment.

That being said, I have come around and decided that the more format-screw-y styles I was considering (wikipedia article, poem) are too gimicky, and would more likely either be told from the other two's perspective or have a less divergent style more in line with the two already present.

 

[Prince of Spires]

It depends a lot on what exactly is writing style and how often you switch etc.

In general I would say it is good practice if all your viewpoint characters sound different to the reader. Usually they are still fairly close together in style. But an 80 year old grandmother and a 16 year old boy should sound different. They see different things, use different expressions and so on. If you are writing third limited, the reader should know who is the viewpoint character of a scene without being told.

Just know that in general these changes stick to the same type of POV (usually third limited), and the same tense (either past or present).

Both tense and type of POV are invisible to the reader. What I mean by that is that if done well, a reader will simply read the story. They wont realize that it's in past or present tense or in first or third person. Or rather, they may realize for the first few pages, but then they adjust and it becomes fine for that story. I remember reading a story in first person present tense, which is very different from the default 3rd person past tense I usually read. It was a bit jarring for the first few pages, but then I got used to it and didn't think about it anymore.

However, once you change either tense or POV halfway through the story, the reader will notice, simply because it's different. They will find it jarring, even if they don't know why.

A story I read did this. There was 1 viewpoint character who wrote everything in present tense, while the rest was past tens. It had a mental health reason in the story. Which made me understand on a functional level why the author had decided to do this. However, each time I got to this character's chapters, I had trouble getting into the flow of them, just because they were so different from the rest. The first time I read a chapter from the character, I did a double take after a page to see if I'd read it correctly and if I had fully understood what was happening.

Now, that isn't to say don't do this. If it works it can be wonderful. Just be aware that this is a possibility

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Every technique is valid. The trick is pulling it off. If you can, awesomesauce. And never stop trying just because someone else isn't feeling it, or you aren't. It could just be that technique isn't right for that particular story.

We write in character voice. The books are all 3rd Person Limited Deep POV so the narrative changes. We also have a lot of fun with unreliable narrators. Every POV jump brings a different tone and a different voice. So far, the reviews have only one person questioning it, and it's mostly wondering how many writers are on this project. Three... but I'm the drafter, so it all filters through my squiggy little brain.

It works well for us. Do it. Let's see it on the page.