What terms about writing do you find helpful?

[THBGato]

As a writer, I don't really find any terms helpful - I don't think consciously as I'm writing that "oh a flashback would be good here" or "some anaphora would help emphasize her panic". I just write.

However, as a beta-reader/editor these terms are incredibly helpful. Otherwise it's very hard to give precise feedback.

 

[YmaOHyd]

As a writer, I don't really find any terms helpful - I don't think consciously as I'm writing that "oh a flashback would be good here" or "some anaphora would help emphasize her panic". I just write.

However, as a beta-reader/editor these terms are incredibly helpful. Otherwise it's very hard to give precise feedback.

Including as a self-editor!

 

[iwatchus]

I want to thank everyone who has contributed here. This thread has been amazingly helpful to me.

I have a question. Is there a term for third person that has no magical knowledge, just reporting what is observationally available to any observer in the room? In my head, I think that as a clinical view and it feels very impersonal, which is what I want on occasion.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I want to thank everyone who has contributed here. This thread has been amazingly helpful to me.

I have a question. Is there a term for third person that has no magical knowledge, just reporting what is observationally available to any observer in the room? In my head, I think that as a clinical view and it feels very impersonal, which is what I want on occasion.

I'd describe this as distant as opposed to close. It could be done in either limited or omniscient.

 

[iwatchus]

I'd describe this as distant as opposed to close. It could be done in either limited or omniscient.

I'm probably just being dense, but I gathered from earlier that limited/omniscient described how many peoples heads the narrator had access to. But I am looking for a viewpoint that has no magical access to their thoughts, merely relaying the events as the proverbial fly on the wall might.

 

[AG31]

follows the rhythm of his thoughts.

Thanks for this. I notice this in books I'm reading, and have struggled for words to describe it.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I'm probably just being dense, but I gathered from earlier that limited/omniscient described how many peoples heads the narrator had access to. But I am looking for a viewpoint that has no magical access to their thoughts, merely relaying the events as the proverbial fly on the wall might.

I think in an omniscient POV, having access to the thoughts of the characters doesn't mean you're privy to them right exactly then. It just defines whose thoughts you can relay, and how.

Where is the fly on the wall? Is it a sigular fly relaying events that it can see, or is it multiple flies relaying events that are not necessarily each visible to every fly but together form a single whole?

 

[THBGato]

Is there a term for third person that has no magical knowledge, just reporting what is observationally available to any observer in the room? In my head, I think that as a clinical view and it feels very impersonal, which is what I want on occasion.

I've heard it described as an objective narrator, with Hemmingway's "hills like white elephants" cited as an example.

 

[crookedletter]

I want to thank everyone who has contributed here. This thread has been amazingly helpful to me.

I have a question. Is there a term for third person that has no magical knowledge, just reporting what is observationally available to any observer in the room? In my head, I think that as a clinical view and it feels very impersonal, which is what I want on occasion.

Third person withholding?

Structure-wise it sounds like third person omniscient. It's not close or limited because it's not specific to one character. But the narrator in this case just isn't telling us anything we wouldn't be able to see if we were there. That sounds to me more a choice in how much detail to reveal than it is a separate type of point of view.

edit: objective is better ^

 

[iwatchus]

I think in an omniscient POV, having access to the thoughts of the characters doesn't mean you're privy to them right exactly then. It just defines whose thoughts you can relay, and how.

Where is the fly on the wall? Is it a sigular fly relaying events that it can see, or is it multiple flies relaying events that are not necessarily each visible to every fly but together form a single whole?

The immediate scene I'm visualizing this in would be a single fly. Or a single surveillance camera. But that generally introduces a POV of its own, which I want to skip.

 

[YmaOHyd]

The immediate scene I'm visualizing this in would be a single fly. Or a single surveillance camera. But that generally introduces a POV of its own, which I want to skip.

Almost like a disembodied narrator, yeah?

 

[iwatchus]

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

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

I want to call this article out again. I got time to read it now and really enjoyed it. Thank you Simon!

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm probably just being dense, but I gathered from earlier that limited/omniscient described how many peoples heads the narrator had access to. But I am looking for a viewpoint that has no magical access to their thoughts, merely relaying the events as the proverbial fly on the wall might.

This is called third person objective. The narrator reports what he/she sees and hears but has no access to the characters' thoughts.

An example is Earnest Hemingway's short story Hills Like White Elephants. It makes sense because Hemingway spent time as a journalist, and this perspective is that of a reporter rather than a normal fiction writer.

It's an unusual perspective.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

from Riding the Rap

the given quote is barely readable:

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.

Scratch that. It's unreadable.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

What terms about fucking do I find helpful? Well, terms are not exactly my biggest concern when fucking.

 

[SmilingLez]

I love reading anacolutha; they make me feel like I'm in a conversation with my SIL's cat Binky, who just can't decide if he wants to nap or knock things off the shelf.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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 don't think it's useful to make these kinds of judgements outside of a context. I would probably default to the former, but it's not hard to think of situations where the latter would work better.

 

[AG31]

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

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

I bet some of the more creative, imaginative writers in this thread could come up with some examples of good, immersive writing that contained the sentence, "The room was red."

 

[TheRedChamber]

I don't think it's useful to make these kinds of judgements outside of a context. I would probably default to the former, but it's not hard to think of situations where the latter would work better.

I don't think the bot was claiming that one was better full stop. I read it more as it saying that 'The room is red' is a better example of close third than 'She saw...'

Basically going through your draft and removing any saw/felt/thoughts is likely to make it 'closer' ** unless they are really helpful in adding some specific nuance**

 

[Britva415]

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

I think you can.

All "immersive" means is that you (the reader) are not distracted from the story: It's compelling enough that you don't think about the writing, or the dishes, or "scratch at the paint," while you're reading it. Immersion is the automatic, effortless, unselfconscious suspension of disbelief.

There's no reason this can't happen in a story with a certain minimalism of style.

If you can read it without a little voice interrupting you to say "this is too bare-bones," then, you're immersed - even if it is bare-bones.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Personally I find minimalism more immersive than attempts to be immersive. Most writerly writing is disruptive (and I say that as someone who is guilty of that all the time).

 

[THBGato]

An example is Earnest Hemingway's short story Hills Like White Elephants. It makes sense because Hemingway spent time as a journalist, and this perspective is that of a reporter rather than a normal fiction writer.

I've heard this too. But what intrigues me is that it isn't really because all the Spanish dialogue is rendered into English - thus the narrator is making a subjective decision to translate. If it was truly objective the dialogue with the waitress would be left in Spanish and it would be up to the reader to understand or not.

This isn't a quibble with Hemmingway, of course, but with the critics who apply the labels. Which brings me back to my point that I don't thonk most writers consciously think about terms as they are writing.

I suppose the exceptions are poets. I mean, nobody 'accidentally' writes a sonnet or sentina. Those are conscious decisions, and you can't do it (or at least I can't) without knowing terms like repetand, metre, volta, etc.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Which brings me back to my point that I don't think most writers consciously think about terms as they are writing.

As a writer, I don't really find any terms helpful - I don't think consciously as I'm writing that "oh a flashback would be good here" or "some anaphora would help emphasize her panic". I just write.

I'm with you on this.

I love it when someone who knows what they're talking about decomposes my writing, explains the grammatical constructs I'm using, which I actually know nothing about. Most of my techniques, I wouldn't have a clue what they're called, but apparently I use some of them very well.

 

[SimonDoom]

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

I definitely disagree with this. While there are no universal principles regarding "good writing," I think simplicity is a good general guideline. More often than not, simple is better than the alternative. If "The room was red" is the most direct and economical way to say something in a particular context, then it's probably the right way.

Personally I find minimalism more immersive than attempts to be immersive. Most writerly writing is disruptive (and I say that as someone who is guilty of that all the time).

I tend to agree. I think writers should worry more about "getting in the way" of the story than about "dressing it up." More often than not, less is more.

I think it's usually more real, too. When I enter a red room, usually I think, "Hey, it's red." I don't "bask in its vermillion splendor." That's not how I experience most things.

 

[AG31]

Is the word "discursive" as applied to writing style meaningful to any of you? Might it be an official technical term? I came up with it (I think...maybe I read about it) to describe several authors I admire who tend to use a lot of words. Elizabeth George, Ruth Rendell and P.D. James.

Any idea how these authors get away with using a lot of words? Are there varieties of styles that use a lot of words?