experience required please

[Kelly Louise]

experience required please

hiya, I’m just after a little advise from some of you more experienced writers. i did put this in the wrong section i hope i have the right one now.

I have just posted a new story called Which One, now in this one I use my name and those of the other people involved, it was my second ever attempt at writing a story some years ago that has been collecting micro dust on a disc, but in my other, later stories I don’t use any names. I don’t in an attempt to make the reader feel as if it were they doing the things to me and plus I think they appeal to more readers and the reader can become more ‘involved’ in the action.

do I have it wrong? are names better in a story?

thanks in advance

 

[cantdog]

experience required please

hiya, I’m just after a little advise from some of you more experienced writers. i did put this in the wrong section i hope i have the right one now.

I have just posted a new story called Which One, now in this one I use my name and those of the other people involved, it was my second ever attempt at writing a story some years ago that has been collecting micro dust on a disc, but in my other, later stories I don’t use any names. I don’t in an attempt to make the reader feel as if it were they doing the things to me and plus I think they appeal to more readers and the reader can become more ‘involved’ in the action.

do I have it wrong? are names better in a story?

thanks in advance

I have to say, no names would irk me. You need a tag to put on a character when you're reading. It can be 'my brother' and not a name, but you have to have something. I wrote a first person once who never revealed his name. It was fun to do, but you can't very well mistake who it is when he's the first person narrator. Everyone else had a nick or a name, chosen to fit the way the narrator thought of them.

Using real people's names is another problem. Some people become truly aghast and even angry about it, and if you've published (which here you have) they can sue. You really must replace the names with other ones, or have the express permission of the people involved.

What you seem to be describing is second person writing, calling the reader "you" and directing the action at her. I detest reading those. I give them a shot if I've come so far as to open the story, but the whole arrangement grates me. A lot of people love to write them, but I don't hear so many who love to read them. For me, the idea only makes sense in a letter or something.

In the end, though, there are damn few rules to writing. Rhetoricians are whistling in the dark, and endless permutations are possible. It's like atonal music, though, if you experiment too much. It shrinks your readership. In the meantime, if you wax too conventional, you are predictable, trite and boring.

As a reader I like a distinct 'voice' but I like the writing to be transparent, not to obtrude. It ought to become invisible, once you have the sound of the voice, and function as a wire, connecting me to a story like connecting a bulb to a battery, and not stick up its head and become a thing in itself. When I notice the writing I lose the immersion in the story.

cantdog

 

[sweetnpetite]

Point about 'you' stories.

I don't, in general like them either.

I think that most authors, when doing so, believe that they are bringing the reader *closer* to the story (by talking directly to them)

However, personally (and I don't know how others feel about this) I feel that they actually distance the reader from the story.

The reason for this is that when I read a book or story, I don't put myself in the place of the 'audience.' I put myself in the place of the narrator. (sort of like a mind meld or something, wear I see the story directly through the eyes of the narrator) Thus, 'you' stories aren't about *me* at all, but about somebody else.

this would be effective and useful if you're intent was to distance the reader. (something which rarely but occasionally happend)

It works esp. well for high school stories, bc high schoolers tend to substitute 'you' for 'me' in order to distance themselves from there own emotions. ie. 'It makes you feel hurt and angry when others spread rumours about you.' How much more difficult it is to say 'It makes *me* feel hurt and angry when others spread rumours about *me.*

You also works if you are writing a "How to" type of thing, naturally. Or in letters, as you said.

Enough rambling for me...

Good luck on your story(s).

 

[Kelly Louise]

ok thank you for answering, I see all your points. I have written all but one as a direct story to someone, about something that happened, so the person is YOU, its their story, so they understand. In the YOU stories I also steer clear of too much physical bodily descriptions, as we know all men/women are not created the same and I thought that by using the same formula here it may have transferred well.

from the feed back I have had on both the named and the YOU stories it is difficult to tell which a reader likes, cant please all the people all of the time I guess, and well if you don’t ask you wont ever know, the letter point is brilliant, I do write like that.

thank you, not rambling sweet just an honest reply, as is cantdogs

 

[snooper]

In my opinion, as a professional novelist, the only way to go is third person, past tense. "He kissed her tenderly."

Well over 90% of all published novels are written in that way, and I do think that the crowd is rarely wrong.

That said, there are special cases where first person POV is worthwhile, i.e. the narrator is also a part of the action. "He kissed me tenderly."
The disadvantage is that the narrator then cannot know anything they have not seen or been told, nor anyone else's thoughts (except in Sci-Fi).

I find it difficult to see any justification ever for second person writing. "You kissed him tenderly."

As to names, it is certainly necessary to have a tag for each character to keep them clearly separated in the reader's mind. If there are just two people and they are of opposite sexes then pronouns will do, but the moment there are more than two some form of identity tag is essential, be it as little as "the bartender" or as much as "the Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, MP, Prime Minister of England".

Be aware that these are my personal opinions and while you may not agree with them I expect you to respect them and come to agree with them, while defending with your very life my right to hold them and to express them.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'd disagree snooper. There are rare cases for second-person but they often revolve around a style oriented story. For instance, second-person is great for voyeuristic stories as long as you stay light on details.

But yes, on lists of favorite and most used styles it goes third-person past omniscient narrator, third-person past limited narrator, first person past stream-of-consciousness.

 

[cantdog]

Ha

I'm gratified to find my prejudices confirmed. Third person for me, nearly every time. As a reader I expect and prefer it, and it may well be a flaw in Huckleberry Finn, even, although the two biggest flaws in that one are the Duke and the King, followed swiftly by the belabored accented speech. Word choice, yes, but the apostrophes got to me. If there hadn't been such a great Story there, I'd have never read it all.