ericahope
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Posts
- 585
I wrote my first story. The first chapter can be found here:
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=388808
One of the criticisms I've received from multiple people is that I've incorporated too many points of view. I, the author, can see into any of my characters' heads and know what they are thinking, and I switch between them frequently. People think it's confusing. I can understand the criticism and I want to look for other ways of presenting the story without doing that.
I've thought of three options and I want to get other writers' and readers' opinions.
1) I can remain a third person writer and not look into the thoughts of any of my characters and let their actions do the talking.
2) I can become a first person writer and insert myself into the story, seeing only into the my own head and knowing only my own thoughts. What I can actually see with my own character's eyes is all that is recorded in the story.
3) I can become a first person writer and insert myself into the story, seeing only into the my own head and knowing only my own thoughts. However, events taking place can be related to the reader even if my character is not there to witness it. I got this idea from reading a Nobel prize winning novel in which the author is an actual character in the book (a very minor character) but tells the story of events even though his character was not there to see them.
You don't need to read my story to give your thoughts to this, but is there a particular perspective you like or dislike or that is harder to pull off well than others? Is Option 3 a legitimate literary tool or is generally frowned upon? If it's frowned upon, was the Nobel prize winning author just popular enough or a good enough writer he could get away with it?
Erica
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=388808
One of the criticisms I've received from multiple people is that I've incorporated too many points of view. I, the author, can see into any of my characters' heads and know what they are thinking, and I switch between them frequently. People think it's confusing. I can understand the criticism and I want to look for other ways of presenting the story without doing that.
I've thought of three options and I want to get other writers' and readers' opinions.
1) I can remain a third person writer and not look into the thoughts of any of my characters and let their actions do the talking.
2) I can become a first person writer and insert myself into the story, seeing only into the my own head and knowing only my own thoughts. What I can actually see with my own character's eyes is all that is recorded in the story.
3) I can become a first person writer and insert myself into the story, seeing only into the my own head and knowing only my own thoughts. However, events taking place can be related to the reader even if my character is not there to witness it. I got this idea from reading a Nobel prize winning novel in which the author is an actual character in the book (a very minor character) but tells the story of events even though his character was not there to see them.
You don't need to read my story to give your thoughts to this, but is there a particular perspective you like or dislike or that is harder to pull off well than others? Is Option 3 a legitimate literary tool or is generally frowned upon? If it's frowned upon, was the Nobel prize winning author just popular enough or a good enough writer he could get away with it?
Erica