POV - Writing from a different perspective:

[Guest]

Gauche, got it. Thanks.

Perdita

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[oggbashan]

Just a thought: Is British television so accurate in their portrayal of British life that you'd feel comfortable with someone basing their entire "research" on watching a few hours of BBC?

You underestimate just how much US based TV is available in Europe. We have hundreds of channels to choose from and most have a high percentage of US made material from National Geographic to Disney.

A typical Brit family would see nearly as many hours of US material (including films) in a week as British. Our kids know Batman, Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sesame Street. Our teenagers watch Friends, Star Trek, etc. - the examples are dated because my children have left home but the current generations have the same proportions of US/UK material. We even watch CNN.

Whether what we see is 'typical'? I doubt it. If is probably enough to enable a writer to make a reasonable portrayal of some US traits.

Og

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Wills]

McKenna,

Ogg is correct to say that we receive an inordinate amount of US based input across Europe, not just TV but film.

There is a distinction in what I was trying to express. I would feel comfortable about placing a story in a major US city, I have seen enough media imagery to paint my scenery in words. I feel I could place it there. What happens next is what Gauche said 'people is people' how they relate one to another is pretty much like they would anywhere, give or take a few idiomatic or cultural nuances.

Since we (Brits and US) speak versions of the same language I would probably get by.

I could not do the same for Australia, I just don't have the visual references and would need to do considerable research to feel comfortable in writing a story set there.

Having said all that, the US I would paint in words would be based on the stereotypical image projected at me, unless I go there and feel it for myself.

Will's

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Wills]

McKenna

Well, I know Tatelou offered and I'm always up for something else to read, so pester if you feel so inclined.

Will's

 

[raphy]

Just a thought: Is British television so accurate in their portrayal of British life that you'd feel comfortable with someone basing their entire "research" on watching a few hours of BBC?

It depends on what you watch and how much you watch of it. A few hours? No.. But there's thousands of hours of American television available per week on British TV channels, which gives the average Brit a much larger spectrum of examples to choose from.

I wouldn't say you could effectively write British from watching a few hours of Eastenders, or Are You Being Served, or Keeping Up Appearances, but then I also wouldn't say you could effectively write American from watching a few hours of The Young And the Restless, or NYPD Blue, or Jerry Springer.

Thing is, just how much British TV is available for Americans to watch? In my experience, not very much. How much American TV is available for British people to watch? Like I said, thousands of hours.

 

[minsue]

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the idea that one can know what it is like to be from another country and to live there based on TV and movies, regardless of the amount of TV and movies that are watched. It's analogous, to me, to someone claiming to sufficiently know what it was like to leave the Globe theater, walk the streets, and live in that time because they had read all of Shakespeare's works.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[fifty5]

Thousands of hours?! Just how much television do you* people watch over there?! Or are you folks really that enraptured with us Americans?! I'm so flattered.

Olden days, it used to be Beeb 1 & 2 and ITV. Both organisations bought stuff in - with a predominance of US material - because that's where the bulk of english-language programming is made - but made a lot themselves. These days, there are hundreds of cable and satelite channels - and a huge majority of that is bought not made - and the production volume still comes from the US (though some channels do concentrate on Beeb & ITV back catalogue).

So raphy's right about the volume of US material available here: it is thousands of hours per week.

However, all writing (text and stage/screen) is about some oddity that's interesting (at least to the author, and hopefully to the reader/viewer). The 'typical' brit, frog, yank, or whoever ain't actually that interesting - typical effectively means boring. So in writing, I'd suggest that we aren't after quite that degree of typicallity. Sure, unless it's a plot feature, the dialogue should reflect the local idiom (a Brit who talked about visiting with someone, would ring false - unless this was, say, a country and western freak who deliberately used US idiom).

In contrast, I'd say that any character trait could be found in a convincing fictional character in any country or culture. It might well be that behaving against type was exactly what made the situation interesting enough to write a story about...

I'm only re-iterating what seems to be a concensus already, but I support the contention that if the dialogue doesn't contain too many gaffs, the rest is of minor importance compared with all the other issues of writing any story.

Just my thoughts...



f5

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Guest]

A very good friend who grew up in Paris in the 30s and 40s came to New York in the 50s and was disappointed not to see people singing and dancing in the streets, all in bright colors.

She had grown up watching lots of Hollywood musicals.

Perdita

 

[fifty5]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I like what you said above.


It is the variances in our dialects that make our speech interesting; I'm learning a lot I didn't know before, for instance, the use of "cheers" not meaning "goodbye." I have to let you know, however, it wasn't just me, and American, who thought it mean "goodbye;" my Dutch husband did, too, after several years of working with a British company.

Now if someone could just explain the whole "English tea time" thing. Any takers?

Basically (to me - and remember I'm just one individual), 'Cheers' is almost identical to 'Good health' - a salutation used when having a drink with someone. Thus, it's an expression of goodwill, which then is relevant to parting.

Having said that, an earlier form (mid-20th c) was "Cheerioh!", which came to the drink salutation from a goodbye.

I guess it's just gone full circle...

As far as "English tea time" goes, my opinion is that that is even more archaic (and class dependent). In the olden days (pre WW2, and even more so pre WW1) the leisured classes used to make a ceremony out of it and receive guests to that ceremony. Nowadays, folk simply offer a drink to visitors as common hospitallity - and it's as likely to be instant coffee as it is to be tea (and even if it is tea, then it's more often going to be a tea-bag in a mug than leaves in a pot).

Though I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to prove my rule...



f5

 

[Wills]

Now if someone could just explain the whole "English tea time" thing. Any takers?

Oh! Is it tea-time?

Anyone calling to visit is a excuse for 'tea-time'.

Tea time has to been seen in the context of other meals in the house and is class/region variable.

For example, depending upon your class/region Lunch time can be Dinner time. If your Lunch time is Dinner time, then you probably have tea at Tea time, it would not actually be tea but a meal. Conversely if your Lunch time is Lunch time, then you probably have tea at Tea time (with salmon and cucumber sandwiches - crusts cut off - and dainty little cakes); then you would have Dinner at Dinner time, which would be a meal, though sometimes it s called Supper.

Now, not to confuse things, if your Lunch time was actually Dinner time, then you had not tea at Tea time then you probably have supper late.

Approximate timings: Lunch around noon, Tea around four, Dinner around seven, supper around nine. All these timings are subject to change at short notice.

I hope that has cleared it up.

Will's

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Guest]

Mack, you're welcome here anytime. Apart from the geology you'll find as diverse a population as you described in New Orleans (a city I too long to visit).

Ooh, Martha Reeves!

Perdita

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Guest]

Mack, you're right. I was thinking of the settings thread. No matter. P.

 

[minsue]

Mack, you're right. I was thinking of the settings thread. No matter. P.

It matters to some.

 

[BohemianEcstasy]

I have written several stories wehre the main character's Nationality was not my own. But since I use the POV I do, I don't really think my experience helps much. I don't think it's beyond your skills Mckenna and since you cared enough to ask I think you are probably going to do a fine job with it. Careing about how you write the character is really the important part I think.

-Colly

I agree with that--you seem conscious enough of it that you'll do fine. One of my my characters was from Peru, but I've only done one story, so I don't have much other experience in the POV department. *sheepish grin*

 

[oggbashan]

Now if someone could just explain the whole "English tea time" thing. Any takers?

I think I ought to add something to the explanation already given.

'Tea time' used to be four o'clock in the afternoon. At that time ladies of no occupation except leisure would call formally on each other to drink tea and eat delicate cakes. Suitable gentlemen could also visit by prior appointment.

The tea-taking was nearly as formal as a Japanese 'cha' ceremony.

The real ceremony was only ever confined to the leisured and moneyed upper classes and even then was a caricature of itself. It happens in Georgian romantic novels and has overtones of Jane Austen. Oscar Wilde poked fun at it in "The Importance of Being Earnest". Wodehouse used it in his Jeeves and Wooster stories.

The middle classes used to practise it until the late 1950s. In the Commonwealth it survived longer. I can remember my mother getting worried because she couldn't remember whether she had to wear her hat and carry her gloves when invited for 'afternoon tea' in a Melbourne (Australia) suburb in 1961. She had to ring her hostess for advice. I think the advice was that gloves should be carried for morning or afternoon tea, but that hats should only be worn in the morning. Or was it the other way round?

"Having the Vicar for tea" was a reality. One poor Vicar, calling on my mother, was relieved in both senses to be offered the use of the downstairs toilet instead of yet another cup of tea. My mother understood the reality of Vicar's lives and had a great sense of humour.

The front parlour was reserved for visitors calling for tea. Children or pets were never allowed in it. It was the shrine to the middle class values and the place to display the family photographs and the delicate possessions in glass cases. Flying ducks on the wall were lower middle class. Stuffed animals were slightly higher caste.

The tourist authorities still play on the idea of afternoon tea. Tea rooms still exist where visitors can take afternoon tea and sticky cakes. Women still meet there - but usually older women. Younger women meet for coffee latte.

In the 1950s the tea room in our local High Street was an institution. In the front of the premises, ladies would be drinking tea wearing their hats, with their gloves delicately positioned beside the cake plate. At the rear of the premises, far removed from the delicate sensibilities of our mothers, existed a coffee bar for teenagers with a juke box and expresso coffee - daring! We were served by girls in full petticoated skirts covered in dark workaday aprons. Our mothers were served by waitresses in black uniforms with lace aprons and caps. Only we in the rear of the building knew that the staff were interchangeable according to demand.

Og

 

[Wills]

Ogg

You bring back memories of the Lyon's Corner House off The Strand, the first place I took a girl on a date.

Will's