What terms about writing do you find helpful?

[AG31]

At some point into my presence here, I struggled to define what I now understand to be "close third person" (thanks, @ElectricBlue). Here's the thread I posted about it.

Just yesterday I queried ChatGPT and learned that "The room was red," was better close 3rd person language than "He saw that the room was red." I told Chat that sounded counter intuitive, and Chat told me that the second form adds a layer between the character's experience and the reader. Makes sense.

Then there's "immersive fiction." I thought I first encountered that here in AH, but a search got me no hits..

And then, this morning, courtesy of @TheLobster, I learned about 1P peripheral.

One morning later: "tri-colon", courtesy of @MrPixel's link to a NYT article.

I've got to publish this idea before I learn all of the writing terms there are to learn.

I know I could Google to find a glossary of such terms, but I'd rather know what you folks know. What are common terms in the world of amateur authorship?

Is there a generic word for such terms?

 

[cw5523729]

Just yesterday I queried ChatGPT and learned that "The room was red," was better close 3rd person language than "He saw that the room was red." I told Chat that sounded counter intuitive, and Chat told me that the second form adds a layer between the character's experience and the reader. Makes sense.

I have issues with both sentences.

"The room was red" is far too simple to be an example of good writing in any story.

"He saw that the room was red" is better but saying "He saw" comes across as clunky and awkward.

I would go with "The expansive room, walls the color of blood, filled his vision."

But I'm also not saying that my example is better because I'm a crappy writer and would said "He saw that the room was red" until an editor or proof-reader called me out on it. Because it's obvious when I see other people do it but never when I do it myself.

My co-author on a recent story rightly called me out for starting 7 out of 9 sentences in a row with a character's name. I said to myself, "there's no way that's true..." except, whoops! It totally was.

 

[AG31]

"The room was red" is far too simple to be an example of good writing in any story.

Neither is meant to be an example of good or bad writing. They are both meant to be question about whether they are examples of "immersive" writing. I tried to make them as bare-bones as possible.

 

[cw5523729]

They are both meant to be question about whether they are examples of "immersive" writing. I tried to make them as bare-bones as possible.

Well, you can't be both "immersive" and "bare bones"

But having said that, the 2nd example is certainly better than the first (which sounds like a 5 year old was writing it) but everything else I said still stands.

 

[YmaOHyd]

"The room was red" is far too simple to be an example of good writing in any story.

The range of acceptable styles in fiction is massive. How many rules of good grammar are broken here?

So neither of them said another word until they were south of Orlando on the Turnpike, 160 miles to West Palm, Dale Junior staring straight ahead at the highway, flat and straight through Florida scrub, boring, holding it right around sixty so as to make the trip last, give him time to think of a move he might try on the marshal.

That's from Riding the Rap, one of the great modern Westerns. Style exists to be a vehicle for meaning, and "the room was red" means something different emotionally from "the expansive room, walls the color of blood, filled his vision," and if you drop that sentence into a story where "the room was red" ought to be it's going to stick out like a thumb.

 

[CalBishForNow]

Is there a generic word for such terms?

"Lingo"? "Jargon"?

I don't know of a word for specialized vocabulary about writing specifically, but those are both good words for specialized vocabulary that can be applied to writing as well as several other topics, and there are probably others.

 

[SimonDoom]

Another term for "close third person" is "free indirect style."

This is a style for third person POV told from one character's POV. The idea is that the narrative reveals only what the character experiences and thinks. In this style you can dispense with tags because it is understood that all the narration is from the point of view of the main character.

Jane Austen was a pioneer of this style. It is now very commonly used. An example is Michael Connelly's Bosch books when he isn't writing in first person.

Here's an example of non-free indirect and free indirect:

Non-free indirect:

Sam entered the room. He saw that it was red. He thought, "Whoever painted that room had no taste." He left as quickly as he could, telling himself that he never wanted to see it again.

Free indirect:

Sam entered the room. It was red. Whoever painted it had no taste. He left as quickly as he could and never wanted to see it again.

The second example is more immersive. It's also easier and more economical. It dispenses with tags and quote marks. Once we grow accustomed to this style after a paragraph or two we quickly understand as a reader that the narration is from the character's point of view, and we don't have to be constantly reminded of that fact with unnecessary tags and punctuation.

Here's a link to an article that discusses free indirect style in more depth: A Short Introduction To Free Indirect Style .

 

[MillieDynamite]

When he entered the room, the blood-red walls took him back. There he was, eighteen years old, finding his mother in a blood-spattered room.

 

[YmaOHyd]

@AG31 -- are you asking about nomenclature for writing techniques, or about the techniques themselves?

 

[SimonDoom]

@AG31 -- are you asking about nomenclature for writing techniques, or about the techniques themselves?

I had the same question as well. I wasn't sure what AG31 was asking.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I had the same question as well. I wasn't sure what AG31 was asking.

The title doesn't match the post, seems like. Or maybe I'm just dumb and tired this morning.

 

[AG31]

@AG31 -- are you asking about nomenclature for writing techniques, or about the techniques themselves?

Well, both. But just techniques that have a term to describe them.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

Sam entered the room. He saw that it was red. He thought, "Whoever painted that room had no taste." He left as quickly as he could, telling himself that he never wanted to see it again.

Free indirect:

Sam entered the room. It was red. Whoever painted it had no taste. He left as quickly as he could and never wanted to see it again.

What does it say about me as a reader that I liked the first better?

"Whoever painted it had no taste" is the narrator telling me something. The "He thought" let's me know that I am learning about Sam's opinion. There are many reasons Sam might not want to enter that room again, but in the first that reason is made clear to me and sometimes, that's just what I want.

Maybe I'm just lazy.

 

[SimonDoom]

I hadn't been aware of the term "first person peripheral" before, but I'm familiar with it in practice. A good example is Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. Holmes, obviously, is the protagonist, and the person of interest, but the first person narrator is Watson, who is an unremarkable everyman. The device is useful in these stories because a crucial part of the interest of the stories is presenting what a remarkable person Holmes is, and the author does this by showing him through Watson's POV. We share Watson's constant surprise and admiration for Holmes' deductive abilities. This effect wouldn't be achieved as well if we saw things from Holmes' point of view. His deductions would seem less interesting.

Agatha Christie handles things differently in her Hercule Poirot novels. She narrates in the third person, but keeps Poirot's deductions hidden from us until the big reveal at the end. To me, it seems a bit gimmicky after a while. The author seems to be toying with us in what she reveals and what she obscures. Conan Doyle's use of POV keeps things fresh and interesting, because Watson keeps learning more about Holmes' skills but continues to be surprised by his success at deduction. Holmes also becomes more real through his relationship with Watson, while Poirot, as a person and character, is always somewhat of a cypher.

 

[SimonDoom]

What does it say about me as a reader that I liked the first better?

"Whoever painted it had no taste" is the narrator telling me something. The "He thought" let's me know that I am learning about Sam's opinion. There are many reasons Sam might not want to enter that room again, but in the first that reason is made clear to me and sometimes, that's just what I want.

Maybe I'm just lazy.

Different tastes. There's no right or wrong. But try reading a full novel or long story with the two perspectives. I think the free indirect style after a while reads easier and is more satisfying.

 

[AG31]

Another term for "close third person" is "free indirect style."

This is a style for third person POV told from one character's POV. The idea is that the narrative reveals only what the character experiences and thinks. In this style you can dispense with tags because it is understood that all the narration is from the point of view of the main character.

Jane Austen was a pioneer of this style. It is now very commonly used. An example is Michael Connelly's Bosch books when he isn't writing in first person.

Here's an example of non-free indirect and free indirect:

Non-free indirect:

Sam entered the room. He saw that it was red. He thought, "Whoever painted that room had no taste." He left as quickly as he could, telling himself that he never wanted to see it again.

Free indirect:

Sam entered the room. It was red. Whoever painted it had no taste. He left as quickly as he could and never wanted to see it again.

The second example is more immersive. It's also easier and more economical. It dispenses with tags and quote marks. Once we grow accustomed to this style after a paragraph or two we quickly understand as a reader that the narration is from the character's point of view, and we don't have to be constantly reminded of that fact with unnecessary tags and punctuation.

Here's a link to an article that discusses free indirect style in more depth: A Short Introduction To Free Indirect Style .

What's the difference between "close 3rd" and "free indirect?"

 

[TheLobster]

What's the difference between "close 3rd" and "free indirect?"

"Free indirect" refers to the practice of interweaving character thoughts straight into the narrative, without marking them with devices like italics or tags like "he thought". This example from Simon illustrates it:

Sam entered the room. It was red. Whoever painted it had no taste. He left as quickly as he could and never wanted to see it again.

Close 3rd person is any PoV where the perspective is limited to what one particular character sees. It might still maintain narrative distance to that character, which would make it not free indirect, but it's limited to what the character can perceive.

 

[alohadave]

What does it say about me as a reader that I liked the first better?

"Whoever painted it had no taste" is the narrator telling me something. The "He thought" let's me know that I am learning about Sam's opinion. There are many reasons Sam might not want to enter that room again, but in the first that reason is made clear to me and sometimes, that's just what I want.

Maybe I'm just lazy.

It doesn't say anything. People have different tastes in what they like.

I personally feel that most writing examples in forums are overwrought and trying too hard to be clever with their descriptions. It doesn't mean that either is wrong, just a personal preference.

 

[YmaOHyd]

What does it say about me as a reader that I liked the first better?

"Whoever painted it had no taste" is the narrator telling me something. The "He thought" let's me know that I am learning about Sam's opinion. There are many reasons Sam might not want to enter that room again, but in the first that reason is made clear to me and sometimes, that's just what I want.

Maybe I'm just lazy.

Yes Anding everything everyone else already said, it might also say that you're picking up different things because there are slightly different shades of meaning there.

"The room was red." Okay! Fact conveyed. "Sam saw that the room was red." What didn't Sam see? There's an implication that the room has other qualities, perhaps more important qualities, that may not be immediately apparent to the eye; maybe subsequent sentences or later events will clarify that. Or maybe it's just a room that's red.

"He never wanted to see it again" versus "he told himself he never wanted to see it again:" the second construction is less definite than the first. The first states a fact without qualification. The second introduces the complication that this is what Sam thinks he knows. What if Sam's talking about a person? "He never wanted to see her again." "He told himself he never wanted to see her again," but is that actually true? Is he trying to convince himself, is he genuinely unaware of his own feelings, is he telling himself a lie to feel better, is he engaged in an elaborate act of self-deception? Dunno! But the potential exists in a way that it doesn't in the first.

 

[TheLobster]

What does it say about me as a reader that I liked the first better?

"Whoever painted it had no taste" is the narrator telling me something. The "He thought" let's me know that I am learning about Sam's opinion. There are many reasons Sam might not want to enter that room again, but in the first that reason is made clear to me and sometimes, that's just what I want.

Maybe I'm just lazy.

Readers apparently "know" that Sam's perspective and narrator's are the same, and so any opinions volunteered by the narrator are implicitly opinions of Sam.

How do they know it? The cartel of editors decided it, during a secret meeting in a smoke-filled room where they took off their human-skin masks and were finally free to be their reptilian selves.

Less facetiously, it's the function of what is predominantly being published these days; close 3rd person in free indirect style is incredibly common, and so being able to interpret it like you are 'supposed to' can be said to be a part of being well-read in general. It's one of those things that you are supposed to trust the readers to understand, or at least pick it up quickly when they notice that opinions of the narrator curiously match the attitudes of the character.

 

[SimonDoom]

What's the difference between "close 3rd" and "free indirect?"

I'm not sure there is one. I don't quite agree with Lobster, because I think what he's referring to is Third Person Limited, which is a general term for a third person point of view that is limited to the perspective of one character (as opposed to Third Person Omniscient, which is third person that tells the story from multiple points of view and gets into the thoughts of more than one character).

Free Indirect Style is one particular form of Third Person Limited, as is Close Third Person. I'm not sure there's a functional difference. I also don't think it matters, and people may have their own labels for different styles of writing.

 

[TheLobster]

Free Indirect Style is one particular form of Third Person Limited, as is Close Third Person.

So you're saying that the classification goes like this:

• points of view
  • 3rd person
    • omniscient
    • limited
      • close
      • free indirect
  • 1st person

If so, then that doesn't necessarily contradict what I said. I think you simply gave a name to 3P limited that's not "free indirect".

I'm not sure there's a functional difference. I also don't think it matters, and people may have their own labels for different styles of writing.

Au contraire, sir! This is AH, and it behooves us to go into important stuff like this in all the excruciatingly nerdy detail!

 

[SimonDoom]

So you're saying that the classification goes like this:

• points of view
  • 3rd person
    • omniscient
    • limited
      • close
      • free indirect
  • 1st person

If so, then that doesn't necessarily contradict what I said. I think you simply gave a name to 3P limited that's not "free indirect".


Au contraire, sir! This is AH, and it behooves us to go into important stuff like this in all the excruciatingly nerdy detail!

Exactly right, on both points!

 

[TheLobster]

Exactly right, on both points!

Now we're just waiting for a certain cat to point out how my hierarchy is incomplete...

 

[YmaOHyd]

Free Indirect Style is one particular form of Third Person Limited, as is Close Third Person. I'm not sure there's a functional difference. I also don't think it matters, and people may have their own labels for different styles of writing.

Wikipedia is helpful here:

• Quoted or direct speech or narrator's voice: He laid down his bundle and thought of his misfortune. "And just what pleasure have I found, since I came into this world?" he asked.
• Reported or normal indirect speech: He laid down his bundle and thought of his misfortune. He asked himself what pleasure he had found since he came into the world.
• Free indirect speech: He laid down his bundle and thought of his misfortune. And just what pleasure had he found, since he came into this world?

I think it's kind of working on different axes. Third person limited versus omniscient, close versus distant, direct versus indirect versus free, combine as appropriate.

Third limited confines your POV to a single character, or a single character at a single time. There may be multiple POV characters but you're never in more than one person's head at a time. Third omniscient can be used to tell the reader things that no one in the scene would know or to speak in the voice of God.

Close versus distant describes the way things outside the monologue are described and how much of the character's emotional and intellectual state bleeds into the narration. Distant POV generally goes with more omniscience and close with a more limited POV, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so.

Free indirect can be used to jump between the points of view of characters -- that's how Austen uses it -- but at its best it turns the narrative into narration, the internal monologue of the character, spoken in their internal rhythm.

So neither of them said another word until they were south of Orlando on the Turnpike, 160 miles to West Palm, Dale Junior staring straight ahead at the highway, flat and straight through the Florida scrub, boring, holding it right around sixty so as to make the trip last, give him some time to think of a move he might try on the marshal.

Neither of them spoke until they were south of Orlando on the Turnpike, 160 miles from West Palm. Dale Junior stared straight ahead at the highway, which cut flat and straight through the Florida scrub. It was a boring drive, and he held it right around sixty, wanting to make the trip last; he needed time to think of a move he might try on the marshal.

Neither of them spoke until they were south of Orlando on the Turnpike. They were 160 straight, flat boring miles of highway and Florida scrub from West Palm and a pair of carjackers. Dale Junior stared straight ahead and held it right around sixty, wanting to make the trip last. The marshal knew he was thinking of a move he might try.

The first example is free indirect; it's in Dale Jr's point of view and follows the rhythm of his thoughts. The second is in 3P limited. We have his thoughts and perspective but they're presented as reported rather than experienced. The third is in 3P omniscient; we have what were subjective judgements presented as factual observations. There's a new fact introduced (there's a carjacking in their future) that neither character knows about. We have the thoughts of both characters presented too.