Writing Style Dilemma: Multiple Parallel Lines, yes/no?

Odd, that's not my concept of character-driven story. To me, a plot-driven story is what you described: The plot drives the story. It sets the pace, the scenes and is the single most important thing in the book. A character-driven story is comparable to a sitcom or courtroom drama. The plot isn't important, it's simply a stage, the means for the characters to shine. The resolution to the conflict (and even the conflict itself) aren't important, all that matters is how the character/s react to it, what they think and feel, and how changed they emerge from the ordeal. The plot becomes a tool for the author to showcase his characters and the relationships between them.

My problem with that scenario is that I can't stand meaningless things. Everything must have a reason and a purpose. That conversation, in order to be included in the book, must either show characterization, plot development or character development. Otherwise, I must eliminate it. Usually, I can get away with characterization, but not always. Readers will soon catch up to the fact that every time the characters sit down to have a little chat, they end up revealing something from themselves. And that strains the Suspension of Disbelief.

Well, to me, it isn't the actual "doing nothing" part, it's the different takes on the matter. Some of my characters cannot sit idle while there is plot that must be advanced. Others need a break every now and then. The conflict between these two is going to provide plenty of characterization, I think.

I see. I believe you've hit the nail with that one. Don't mind if I ask you a few questions: How would you feel with the following structure?

Chapter 1: Meet Bob. Hint of plot A.
Chapter 2: Meet Joe.
Chapter 3: Bob finds Joe. Hint of plot A again.
Chapter 4: Meet Alice. Hint of plot B.
Chapter 5: Bob and Joe again, much stronger hint of plot A.
Chapter 6: Meet Jerry and Mary. Hint of their relation with plot A.
Chapter 7: Alice again, furthering plot B.
Chapter 8: Bob and Joe again, furthering plot A.
Chapter 9: Meet Tom.
Etc.

What I'm trying to ask you here is, does it become bearable if we space out the new characters? I mean, if we stick to the "main" characters at semi-regular intervals, only adding new characters every now and then, does it become less confusing and boring?

 

I think something like that could work because Bob and Joe keep coming back often. As long as I love Bob, I will be willing to put up with other character's I might not like as much.

There is a book I really loved that centered around 3 main groups. Each group had a MC that the POV of the chapter was told from. The novel is Robert McCammon's, Swan Song. I really liked the little girl Swan. Her chapters kept me reading. If they didn't come regularly I would have given up on this 740 paged book. By midway into the novel I loved the other two POV characters. I have to admit though, books like Swan Song and The Stand do feel like a Soap Opera, even though they are horror novels.

I would recommend that you use a structure that those novels. Have like three main groups, and have one POV character for each group. Give each group a chapter. Too many POV characters I think will be hard to sell.

Would you consider the movie staring Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness, character driven?

 

I've always read (and I've said this same thing in some other questions about writing style and composition). If you are the captain of this ship -and your writing it - I think you have to write it how you would write it - present it in a way that shows the story how you want to show it. Sometimes - non-writers get hung up on the market and the last thing you want to do is cater to this idea that readers can't follow presenting characters in that way. If the writing is good - they will read it. Put the editors to bed and have at it.

 

Pleasing editors is important. They are the ones that decide if your novel gets published.

 

Hum. I see what you're suggesting. My main problem here is with the very concept of POV. Like I said before, my writing style is detached and equal for all the characters. If I take my time to describe how characters are feeling, I do that for all the characters in the scene, regardless of importance. If it's an action sequence, I relate what all the characters of the scene are doing. The only distinction I'm willing to make is the level of detail. Bob and Joe fighting the big bad demon in the store will get MUCH more detail than Nameless Clerk's attempt to get help.

So you can see how it might become impossible for me to apply your suggestion. Also, the group idea is hazy at best. At first, the characters will begin in different corners of the world and will slowly begin to come together as the plot unravels. So I'd have a lot of "groups" at first, and then two at the most near the end. But thanks for the feedback, it's highly appreciated.

Hum. Hard to say, since I haven't actually seen it. I mean, I saw the ads, but I thought "Ugh, not another comedy/drama/whatever, not my thing" and never saw it. From what I recall of the ads, I think it was character driven. There didn't seem to be a plot that trapped the characters, it seemed like the story of a father and a son and their struggles to find happiness. That seems very character-driven to me.


EDIT:

vlwood: You're right. Though I will take my editor's opinion into consideration, I will ultimately only submit something I'm satisfied with. And believe me, in my list of priorities, pleasing editors/critics/readers is pretty down below, though I will recognise it's very important if I want my novel to be successful.

 

Paul V, Swan Song does just that. The three main groups start off in different states, and don't meet up until toward the end of the novel.

You don't need many POV in order to show the whole scene, such as what the clerk is doing. The POV character can see the clerk. Therefore you can tell us what the clerk is doing. You just can't tell us what the clerk is thinking, bot unless you wish to write in the omniscient POV, and that seems to be what you are talking about.

The omniscient POV used to be popular. It's a tough sell today. Ultimately, you should write it how you want, but if your goal is to see in on book shelfs, you might want to please editors.

Dune is written in omniscient POV, so is LOTR. But that was a long time ago.

Wouldn't it suck if you wrote the whole novel in omniscient POV, submitted it everywhere, and realize that if you want to get it published you will have to rewrite the whole thing in multiple third person?

Just some things to consider. Rewriting from First person to third person limited doesn't take much work, but rewriting from omniscient to multiple third person could be loads of work.

 

I understand what you mean. Yes, I should've said omniscient POV. However, I have certain... issues with my writing. I refuse to write in first person. I absolutely abhor it. I don't mind reading it, but I never feel identified with the character that way. I just feel like I'm listening to someone telling me his/her life, and I feel even further removed than if I'm told the same story through omniscient POV.

You see, as an author, I don't like getting too involved with the characters. I don't want my own bias to tarnish what's really going on. I want to present the reader with the facts, and let him/her decide for him/herself what are their implications. Assume Joe refused to help Bob. Assume you also know what Bob and Joe think and feel. Is Joe being selfish? Or does his justification hold water? That's up to the reader to decide. I'm not going to use my novel to convey any of my personal opinions. I'm simply a neutral mediator between the story and the readers, and I think the Omniscient POV reflects that perfectly.

Honestly, I'm not writing for the money or for the fame. I'm writing because my story needs to be told. I don't care if nobody reads it, if the critics hate it, if I'm accused of vomiting pure undilluted excrement in paper form. I need to write it. The desire to publish it is a mere fancy of mine, I'm not going to feel the least bit disappointed if all the editors in the world reject it. So you can see how your selling argument doesn't particularly sway me.

And on a personal note, if an editor asks me to do some minor changes, such as certain sentences here and there, chapter order or removing or rewriting a scene or ten, I'll do it. If I'm asked to rewrite large portions of it, or alter my work fundamentally, I will refuse. I don't need my novel published to be happy, I just need it written.

 

Editors was a figure of speech - not meant literally - just trying to drive home the authentic voice argument.

 

Paul, that's understandable. But why do you feel you the author can't be objective writing in multiple third person?

When you write from a character's POV, it is the character's bias not yours.

Bob looked down at his bratty sister. << Bob's bias about his sister at the time because she just broke his video game.

Bob looked down at his sister. << No bias, but still limited third person.

Bob looked down at his more intelligent, although younger sister. << omniscient POV and author intrusion about how the author feels about the sister.

Bob looked down at his younger sister. << informative, no bias, and it could be omniscient or limited third person.

 

Oh, one last thought. You walk through life not know the thoughts of others, unless they tell you, and yet you get a good sense of how other's feel based on their body language, and other factors.

As a writer you can still convey other character's feelings writing in limited third person. Show it by their body language, their words, etc.

 

You see, I really don't get the difference. I mean, how do you distinguish character biased from astute author bias? Assume that Bob's sister yells at him, and the narrator calls her "bratty." How can you objectively decide whether it's character bias or cleverly disguised author bias? If I'm focusing all the attention only on one character, you can't know the truth. You can't know if those are really the character's thoughts, or the author's biased conceptions.

And besides, I can easily argue the opposite: If I say "his more intelligent sister," I can easily justify that as him considering her smarter, whether that's the true or not. Using my point of view, I would reveal all three facts: Whether she really is smarter than him or not, what she thinks of him and what he thinks of her. And I might even not reveal the actual truth at all, leaving the reader to decide whether she's really more intelligent than him or not.

To me, that's more of a characterization tool. It helps me paint the way characters act and think. If Bob sees Joe acting defensively, it'll give the reader a good idea of how Bob is, based on how he reacts to that, and what he thinks of it. And conversely, the reader will also know why Joe acts that way, and will be able to come to its own conclusions.

 

Paul, I've been following this thread intently because I'm pushing through with my novel which is written in omniscient POV while moving into a close third. From the earliest chapters there have been some who have had issues with my omniscient POV. They like the writing and what's going on, but simply struggle with this perspective. When pressed, they give me two repeated reasons: First, "it's just not done as much these days;" and second, they "need to get into someone's head as quickly as possible." As valid as their arguments are (often with the rejoinder "if you wanna get it published") I still say what the heck is so wrong with omniscient or even a reader having to wait a moment before they embody a character? It's as if people are afraid of "god" (lol) or fearful of their own solitude and must inhabit the skin of an other immediately. Sorry if I'm waxing philosophically (more like Dr. Phil-osophically).

But anyway, I feel your pain. I'd like my novel to be published some day; but I'm not sure if this stuff about perspective is so locked in stone. I mean aren't there plenty of readers out there who may not be so put off by the long view? Don't some of us enjoy the omniscient perspective once in a while?

 

The Godfather which focussed almost entirely on Micheal Corleone or Pulp Fiction which had multiple plots all coming together.

Which one is better? None. Different writers have different styles - go with one you are comfortable with. There is no RIGHT way of writing but you do need to be consistent. Whatever decision you make, stick to it

 

Paul.

It is easy to tell when an author shares his thoughts, for me anyways. Once you get to know a character, you know if information shared was something the character would know or think.

Suppose you were writing in third person limited. You can still show that although Bob thought he was more intelligent than his sister, that his sister is infact more intelligent. It takes more crafting than just being able to say to the reader, hey, his sister is actually more intelligent.

You have to think of a way to show this to the reader without Bob thinking it. Bob and his sister are watching Jeapordy and his sister keeps naming the answers before Bob. Lame example, but now the readers know his sister is quicker than Bob. A few scenes like that and we know Bob's thoughts of being more intelligent than his sister are delusional thoughts.

There is always a way to be objective. But we also want the biased thoughts of the MC. It is the MC's strong characterization that draws me into a story.

If omniscient POV is done well, it is very engaging. Dune is one of my favorite novels. I also love Messiah of Dune, and Chidren of Dune. God Emporer of Dune is pretty good as well. But I bet I would love Dune more if it was written in multiple third person or limited third person.

I think the greatist strength of omniscient POV is showing the characters' thoughts are all different than their actions and words. You can build a lot of tension this way. Bob is saying one thing, but he is thinking another. Jill is saying one thing, and she is also thinking another. We the readers, go oh dammit you guys. You both like each other but you don't know it because you are to scared to say anything. However that can be done with limited third person as well. It is just harder to do.

As long as someone knows all the strengths omniscient POV offers and uses them well, it should turn out to be a great story. I just understand that it will be harder to publish.

 

This is straying pretty far from Paul's original question, which was about telling the story from the perspective of peripheral characters rather from the POV of one or more of the main characters.

 

Arrow: I think it's a matter of personality. Some people need to feel close to the characters, while others need the opposite. Some don't mind either way. I think it's really about writing the way you want to, regardless of whether it'll sell or not. I can guarantee two things about your book, should you ever publish it: There will always be at least one person that will absolutely love it, and at least one person that will absolutely hate it. You just have to accept that fact.

architectus: I don't think it's really that easy. Otherwise, Mary Sues wouldn't exist. Are you completely sure that you can tell the difference between the character's personality and the author's? Especially when you don't really know the author's personality. For all you know, Bob might be a self-insertion. All you need to pull it off is being clever and subtle.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm saying that you can't guarantee objectivity with Third Person Limited. Take Harry Potter, for example, or Twilight. And tell me that the third person there is objective and not biased at all by the main character's (or the author's) personality.

And what if I show you the MC's thoughts objectively? I can easily tell you what all the characters think or feel, I just don't favour any of them over the other.

Well, like I said, getting it published isn't my first priority. And I do agree that it's going to be harder. But hey, who said it was going to be easy in the first place?

Cogito: Roger that, sir. Back on topic. *salutes*

 

Maybe this thread is embodying Paul's original concern--perspectives from peripheral characters? For we each comment from within our disparate perspective, yet, ultimately, we're peripheral to whatever Paul does with his/their novel.

I believe we're still on track....even while we stray.

Paul, how do you intend on getting past the challenge of using these so called "peripheral characters" when upon writing their perspective, they essentially no longer remain peripheral? Will it be your intention that these characters will become less important by volume? Meaning that you'll have so many characters that none will seem the MC or too important? Also, isn't one of your purposes to create a sense of alienation for the reader? Do you wish to use this Brechtian technique of Alienation?

I would hope that you'd use a strong action line, if you intend on keeping your idea about multiple perspectives. At least the reader will be grounded in some way.

 

Multiple subplots can be very interesting (as per examples cited, above). Just remember that it is generally best to stick to one main-line, big conflict. For example, Tolkien had tons of subplots, bu one overriding conflict.

Also, it depends upon the type of story that you are telling. If the main character is the world the story occurs in, and its history and myth (like Tolkien), then you are definitely right. If it is more of an event based story, then thinner tends to be better.

The reason long works have a bad wrap is that the artful side of writing is often in the re-writing, and especially in the paring down. Concision and precision are important in art. However, if you have a big story, 2000 pages may be concise.

 

Arrow: Ooh, rhethoric! I hadn't seen that in a while.

Well, like I said in some other post in this thread, I distinguish peripheral from main characters by the amount of attention I give them. If I present you a rough idea of the first few chapters of my novel, you can easily guess who are the main characters:

Chapter 1: Meet Bob. Hint of plot A.
Chapter 2: Meet Joe.
Chapter 3: Bob finds Joe. Hint of plot A again.
Chapter 4: Meet Alice. Hint of plot B.
Chapter 5: Bob and Joe again, much stronger hint of plot A.
Chapter 6: Meet Jerry and Mary. Hint of their relation with plot A.
Chapter 7: Alice again, furthering plot B.
Chapter 8: Bob and Joe again, furthering plot A.
Chapter 9: Meet Tom.
Etc.

Well, my purpose isn't alienation. It's an unfortunate byproduct of my detached narration. Brechtian? I believe that is the first time I hear (or rather 'read' in this case) that word.

JohnNoZ: Yes, my novel has a huge overarching plot that won't find resolution until the 5th tome. And the 6th tome will take care of the consequences (which are going to be far worse than the original conflict).

From a certain point of view, you could say that the main character is really about the universe, and the other characters are simply playing their parts. But that's getting a bit philosophical.

Indeed. I plan on spending twice or three times as much time re-writing than actually writing. But hey, whatever makes it perfect (or as close to it as possible).

 

Paul, here is one of many sites on Bertolt Brecht. It includes some brief information about his "Alienation" technique as a dramatist and theatre director. His style was quite episodic and has given shape to many of the television variety shows, theatrical productions, and dramas we enjoy today. Brecht was a Marxist who tried to escape to the US from Germany during those troubled years of the last century.

http://www.imagi-nation.com/moonstruck/clsc15.htm

 

They are distractions, because you're not going to be delving into them too much, are you? They are supporting/secondary characters for, presumably, a reason. They are distractions until you manage the main characters. Less attention to main characters is what happens when you put too much time into minor characters. Less attention to main characters, less of a story. Work those characters out first.

Try to learn why. Do your homework, there's a reason why people say this. Just because you can manage something outside of the norm, doesn't mean you can just do it, regardless. It is bad if they can't separate the MAIN characters from the minor ones. Very bad. If you are unable to distinguish a main character from one of your minor characters, and that minor character dies, your reader is going to be left with a very empty feeling, until they realize the character they thought died, had not died. Then they will just be confused, pissed off, a little hurt that you made people too similar. Things like that.

It's only boring and predictable if it's written in that kind of way. You have more than just you, so it should not be predictable and boring, I'm sure you can figure something out.

 

Remember not to try too hard to be 'unique' in your writing, it'll take away from the actual storyline. At the same time, remember that you can always do both, focusing at the start on a fixed storyline and later splitting it once the main characters are estabilished.

 

Oh, I see. That's very interesting. While I share his main goal (make people think with my work), I am not naïve enough to believe that regular people will be able to detach themselves from their emotions so easily. It takes an extraordinary amount of training in order to do so, and it's only usually found in people that require such demeanour for their professions (scientists, psychologists and the like), and even then, they usually turn to art in order to experience the emotions that they keep separated during their day.

So no, I don't intend to provoke that effect on purpose, but I expect that some people might experience it as a byproduct.

Actually, the amount of attention each character will receive is going to vary quite a lot. Some will appear only a few times, but that's because they'll join the main group within the same book. Others will appear more often, since they won't meet the rest of the group until later books. And a few will only appear for a moment or two, but it'll be necessary for the plot to advance (I have the need to show the readers how things come to fruition, I detest to spring things on them without even a hint of a warning).

Uhhhh, I think we're confusing terms here. Of course what you say is going to be very bad, characters that are too similar are ALWAYS bad, regardless of your writing style. What I meant with my statement was that the reader was not going to be able to tell which characters were main and which characters weren't. Of course I won't make two of my characters alike. Not even minor ones. Each and every person in my story will have its own personality and originality.

Obviously, I meant from my own perspective. I haven't found a single story with a focused POV that I haven't found utterly boring. It doesn't matter how well it's written, I am going to hate it, simple as that. And if I write it, I'm going to do my best to make it interesting, but I know deep down that I will be hating every word I type.

Oh, no, I'm afraid you're advising a fish to stay out of the water. The main theme in my story is precisely originality (not literally, it's going to be much, much more complicated than that, but everything basically boils down to that). So asking me not to worry about being unique or original is asking me not to worry about the main theme in my novel.

But I like your advice. I think that it's a suitable middle ground, albeit one that might make the book longer than planned.