Mini-transitions II

[Incanus]

(Knowledge of the original Mini-transitions thread not required.)

As I was working on editing the stuff with the transitions last night, I realized there is another facet to these transitions. Or, at least the ones that bother me and need work.

So in the text, I was not only covering little jumps in time between scenes, but was also zooming out from my MC’s POV to write about the group as a whole, using the terms “they/them”, “all/everyone”, and “group”. It is for this reason I have a few short transitions that last only a paragraph or so (something Skip had asked about).

To elaborate a little, the narration will move from a ‘scene’ as experienced through the MC’s POV, then into a bit about the ‘group’ and what they’re doing, and then into the next ‘scene’.

That said, I’ve included MC POV stuff within the parts pertaining to the group, so that the POV is consistent.

So then, is this kind of writing about the ‘group’ bothersome to some readers? Are there other ways or techniques to write about a group of people, of which the MC is a member? At the very least, are there any pitfalls or no-no’s when handling this kind of material?

 

[Heliotrope]

Hmmm, I don't think there are any hard or fast rules, really.

I know you are writing in limited third? So I would try to find a way to write those scenes from the perspective of Lanner, only because I think it would be more engaging to the reader than jumping to a sort of third omni... but I don't think there are any rules about that, really.

 

[skip.knox]

That kind of writing happens all the time. I sort of have Tolstoy on the brain right now, but he moves in and out of close perspective all the way through War and Peace. I realize that style can be regarded as old-fashioned.

You asked if this kind of writing is bothersome to some readers? Absolutely. Every kind of writing is bothersome to some readers. Later for them. Fuggedaboudit. Does it bother *you*?

 

[Caged Maiden]

For me, I strongly dislike statements like, "They continued on the road for four days after that, the rain growing steadily worse every day."

It isn't that it's a bad sentence, but it's told about as flatly as possible and the use of "they" becomes lazy in most cases were this sort of "group journey" thing happens.

It isn't bad, but it could be better:

The road ahead wasn't a friendly one, and POV CHARACTER couldn't help feeling a pang of guilt when he thought perhaps Fred had taken the easy path. Four days of rain made travel hard on the men and the animals, and after the second ox keeled over dead from exhaustion, the extra supply wagon was left behind...bearing the bodies of Fred and Jenny. Weak and wet, the travelers couldn't even bury their friends. Fred and Jenny would rest forever in a mountain canyon...if the rain didn't sweep their cart into the river and out to sea.

Okay, that's admittedly not very good, but I hope it gives an idea of what makes a short transitional summary mean more and have more "story" in it than just "This happened, then they went here."

My main focus whenever I do a transition, is to find the big point I'm trying to make, and then to let the other elements of the transition amplify it or contest it. For example, the one above would be an amplification. The road ahead wan't friendly. Then they had to leave friends behind without proper burial--a thing all humans understand leads to guilt, especially if you can't give a friend one last rite.

Contesting it could be something like:

The road ahead looked hopeful, a path in the mountains to take them home, where they could bury Fred and Jenny near their parents. But four days of rain washed away any trace of joy, and even the animals gave up. When the second ox collapsed from exhaustion, it was clear that Fred and Jenny weren't getting home. Wet and weak, the travelers left the cart in the twisted canyon, and said silent prayers to themselves, perhaps. There was no hope left in their hearts, except for the possibility that the spring thaw would wash their friends down to the river and out to sea.

I dunno.

Transitions aren't always about a point, of course, but when I want to skip ahead, I do try to have a message. It's like a disguise for the fact that I'm basically saying, "This happened, then they saw this, and people felt such a way, and then the future things will come up next."

If I give it a little meaning, I feel like it is almost invisible, a continuation of the last "feeling/ event/ scene" and a bridge to the next one.

So in the shit thing I wrote above, maybe the next line would be, "By the time the sun came out again..." and then that would start the other end of the bridge, stepping down into the next scene by way of another mini-transition, or it might just be like a staircase, where the one transition lifted the story right into the next scene, which I guess is the next floor, if I stick with this metaphor.

You can close one scene with a transition and then begin the new scene with an equal or equal but opposite type of transition, or you can just use the one transition at the end of a scene or chapter, and begin right in the middle of a new scene (the next floor) without leading into it in any way.

Personally, I don't mind reading about "the group" but it has to be a character then, with a collective goal, emotions, and problems, and the more interesting it is in the transition, the better. I've red tons of versions of transitions that did the basic format--what happened that night, or where "they" went or how they went. But I think the ones that feel good to me are the ones like learning the fate of the two corpses above, and the reminder that the "group" is compromised of people...all of which might not feel the same about leaving bodies of friends unburied, in the future.

Best wishes!

 

[FifthView]

So then, is this kind of writing about the ‘group’ bothersome to some readers? Are there other ways or techniques to write about a group of people, of which the MC is a member? At the very least, are there any pitfalls or no-no’s when handling this kind of material?

I think that if the POV is close limited third, one potential pitfall is the way a reference to "the group" can imply that the POV character feels separate from the group. He thinks of himself as being separate. There is "the group," and there is him.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing and might be a very good thing. For instance, if the POV character is being held captive, transported or force-marched by a group of captors, then opening a transition with something like, "The marauders pressed forward at first light despite the fact that they were now entering the outer reaches of the Holfert Desert...."

If on the other hand we've been close inside the 3rd limited perspective for a stretch, in which information is always delivered through the filter of that perspective, then the same sentence would seem weird. [Edit: I mean, if he's not a captive, or doesn't feel separate from the group.] "The marauders..." —so he thinks of himself and his group as marauders? He's thinking of his own group in the third person? Naturally, word-choice can make a difference. But even something as generic as "The army entered" or "The party entered" still creates a distance; it's not as close and personal, and agency is being removed from the POV character.

But let's suppose the MC is in a party but is not the leader of the party. Say, someone named Getny is their leader. You could open the transition with something like "At first light, Getny led the party into the Holfert Desert, preparations for the hard march having been completed during the night." By specifically referencing a single individual, it's made a little more personal; the MC is personally aware of Getny. (Next sentence might be, "MC dreaded the sun's fury, but they had no choice. The kidnappers already had a day's lead. No one in their group was willing to let that lead grow, including MC.")

 

[Incanus]

I'm... going to have to sleep on this one, methinks. Perhaps for a fortnight, or a decade, Rip Van Winkle style.

There are altogether way too many instances of this sort of thing in my story to use any one technique. It appears there won't be anything like a perfect solution.

To answer Skip's question--there are all kinds of things that bother readers that don't bother me, and vice-versa. I think that once I already like the story/characters/style of a book, there are a great many little things that I can forgive. Conversely, if I haven't been 'won over', little niggling things start to stick out and become bothersome. Strange the way that works.

In my case, this problem is inherent in the concept of the story. The ENTIRE thing involves the MC being part of a group that is traveling. I'll just have to work with/around it... somehow. My story is full of flaws--what's one more?

One thing I can do is try to pay more attention to how this is handled by authors I like.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Without seeing the actual writing it's impossible to say for sure, but in general, I haven't an issue with POV moving in and out here and there.

Really, even if it's a first person POV and they are in a group, and the narrative says "We traveled three weeks..." no one should have a technical issue with that. In the same way, Joe Dragonsmoke and his party of worthies, may easily be referred to as "they" or the party, the group, or whatever... "They traded horses at every outpost for speed..." ayup, that's what they did, great!

The only problem I might have in an intimate third is if for some reason Mr. Dragonsmoke became privy to information he wouldn't have of the "they"... On the third night while Joe slept Biff snuck out to grab a 6 pack of elf wine, and they didn't share.

If done well, I have no issue with it, I probably expect it. Stay tight, zoom out, zoom in, so what, IMO.

 

[Heliotrope]

Omg this made me laugh.

Can I make a writing challenge where the contestants have to write from the pov of Mr. Dragonsmoke and the lack of elf wine sharing between Joe and Biff? I really want to read that.

 

[Chessie]

Oh, hell. I do this all the time and I seriously don't care. Story first, baby. If it helps you focus to narrate it that way, if you're able to provide a smooth transition for the reader by doing this, then why not? There are NO rules. None. Although actually maybe one...if you're writing in omniscient then what you're doing is fine. But I don't think so in third limited. It's important to maintain the tense you're writing in throughout the story. But if it feels right to you and your tone and style, and you're writing in the proper tense, then I don't see the problem.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, that could take on some interesting twists, just the characters suggest by the names, heh heh.

Omg this made me laugh.

Can I make a writing challenge where the contestants have to write from the pov of Mr. Dragonsmoke and the lack of elf wine sharing between Joe and Biff? I really want to read that.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Even in third limited/intimate, so long as the POV is involved in the action... I don't see an issue. Better to stay in tight? Maybe, but there's no hard rule here, I would say. The deeper you move into 3rd Intimate, probably the better off you are to stay there... but it can be a stylistic choice too. Much like having an opening paragraph of 3rd Om narrator voice for every chapter, before moving into limited, is completely fine. Set your own rules, so long as they work, LOL.

Oh, hell. I do this all the time and I seriously don't care. Story first, baby. If it helps you focus to narrate it that way, if you're able to provide a smooth transition for the reader by doing this, then why not? There are NO rules. None. Although actually maybe one...if you're writing in omniscient then what you're doing is fine. But I don't think so in third limited. It's important to maintain the tense you're writing in throughout the story. But if it feels right to you and your tone and style, and you're writing in the proper tense, then I don't see the problem.

 

[FifthView]

Even in third limited/intimate, so long as the POV is involved in the action... I don't see an issue. Better to stay in tight? Maybe, but there's no hard rule here, I would say. The deeper you move into 3rd Intimate, probably the better off you are to stay there... but it can be a stylistic choice too. Much like having an opening paragraph of 3rd Om narrator voice for every chapter, before moving into limited, is completely fine. Set your own rules, so long as they work, LOL.

Yeah I think stylistic choices would make a difference, especially consistency in those choices.

I thumbed through GRRM's Feast for Crows last night, and although most transitions did not do it, I ran across one, a paragraph, that opened with "They..." Could have been more; I was thumbing. But GRRM frequently moves from intimate to a more distant overview, briefly, so it doesn't seem out of place or jarring.

Edit: Although...behind this idea of consistency is the issue of narrative voice and simply not breaking with it. Each project will have its own approach and voice. And of course even a very close intimate third's character voice might include a propensity to think/view in broader terms, with an overview of the situation. So as with most things: "It depends."

 

[Incanus]

Thanks for the responses. It appears most folks don't have too much of a problem with this sort of thing.

Just to be clear, my story is in a single limited third POV, past tense. This never changes. Every mention of 'they' in the context of the group includes the MC, and NEVER, EVER under any circumstances includes information the MC would not know. The zooming out material is still in the MC's POV and includes his personal take on things. If it was in first person, the term would be "we", or "us".

I don't think I'm clever enough to rewrite the material in such a way that "they" and similar terms are all expunged. At least not the hundred times that this sort of thing is employed. I'll just do the best I can.

 

[Chessie]

So long as there is clarity for the reader then I think you're good.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I don't have a problem with transitions that just come out and tell the reader what just happened, like traveling for three uneventful weeks. Sometimes brevity is precisely what you need.

However, I don't think it's generally engaging, and maybe it doesn't need to engage. But, if you do want to engage, consider a use of In Media Res.

For those who may not know, In Media Res means, "into the middle of things." An example would be, instead of writing, "They travelled through the swamp for three weeks" you'd show the characters weary, hungry and out of food, soaked, and seeing the end of the swamp ahead...plus whatever else you might tack on with description. In this way, the reader interprets what you showed them as "they've been in the swamp for a long while & it hasn't been an easy time".

As they emerge from the swamp, the reader should understand they travelled through. Things like the exhaustion of a food supply, shown through characters acting hungry or fighting over minimal supplies, can clearly depict that information, but in an entertaining way that adds conflict, furthers character, and at the beginning of the In Media Res scene, makes the reader ask questions.

I hope that helps.