This read like someone actually thinking—not just explaining. That made it land way harder than most of the theory-heavy stuff I’ve seen. You didn’t just walk through Genette—you tested him. Poked the edges. Let the questions stay open where they needed to.
“The labels aren’t the point; those possibilities are.”
That’s the line I kept coming back to. It felt like permission. To play. To break. To get weird with structure and voice without having to justify it through precedent.
I walked away from this thinking less about definitions and more about what kind of narrator could exist in the world I’m building next. That’s a gift. Appreciate you putting it out there.
I have a friend writing a novel in which there are several characters, though only two main ones. The others are all on a spaceship together and these guys and gals are stuck together for years, maybe forever. He writes from many different points of view, though we can tell the story is chiefly about a pre-journey conflict between two of the characters and how it will play out on this journey of collaboration and risk. Ideological differences were what created the rift between these two former lovers and best friends. Anyway, I'm of the view that once the POV shifts don't create confusion for the reader, and there's consistency within scenes as to whose point of view it is, that's all fine. If 'omniscient' includes knowing what's in the various characters heads, then I'm tempted to say he's writing omniscient. Trouble is, we both know UK lit agents generally advise new writers not to do this. I do feel sorry for him, as I feel his novels work as they are - with the varying points of view and sometimes the sense that we're getting a scene where it's not clear who's point of view we've got but these aren't intimate scenes so it doesn't matter. The secondary characters are important enough as plot-drivers to appear in scenes which add to the overall story but these aren't always scenes where the main characters are needed. Often they are logistic: what's happening with the space ship and what strategic approach is needed or psychosocial - how is this small community coping?
I think not enough is spoken about the soul that writes fiction; it seems the necessary and often unspoken presence that is needed to write truly beautiful stuff. Thanks Thaddeus.
Thaddeus, I particularly enjoyed this "LIterary Salon" discussion. I love thinking about, and experiementing, with narrative voice. Have you ever read "Bright Lights, Big City" by Jay McInerney? It's one of a very few books written in second person. Second person put the reader into the story. The opening lines of the book put you into a nightclub, "You are not the kind of guy who would be at a place like this at this time of the morning. But here you are, and you cannot say that the terrain is entirely unfamiliar, although the details are fuzzy. You are at a nightclub talking to a girl with a shaved head."
This read like someone actually thinking—not just explaining. That made it land way harder than most of the theory-heavy stuff I’ve seen. You didn’t just walk through Genette—you tested him. Poked the edges. Let the questions stay open where they needed to.
“The labels aren’t the point; those possibilities are.”
That’s the line I kept coming back to. It felt like permission. To play. To break. To get weird with structure and voice without having to justify it through precedent.
I walked away from this thinking less about definitions and more about what kind of narrator could exist in the world I’m building next. That’s a gift. Appreciate you putting it out there.
I have a friend writing a novel in which there are several characters, though only two main ones. The others are all on a spaceship together and these guys and gals are stuck together for years, maybe forever. He writes from many different points of view, though we can tell the story is chiefly about a pre-journey conflict between two of the characters and how it will play out on this journey of collaboration and risk. Ideological differences were what created the rift between these two former lovers and best friends. Anyway, I'm of the view that once the POV shifts don't create confusion for the reader, and there's consistency within scenes as to whose point of view it is, that's all fine. If 'omniscient' includes knowing what's in the various characters heads, then I'm tempted to say he's writing omniscient. Trouble is, we both know UK lit agents generally advise new writers not to do this. I do feel sorry for him, as I feel his novels work as they are - with the varying points of view and sometimes the sense that we're getting a scene where it's not clear who's point of view we've got but these aren't intimate scenes so it doesn't matter. The secondary characters are important enough as plot-drivers to appear in scenes which add to the overall story but these aren't always scenes where the main characters are needed. Often they are logistic: what's happening with the space ship and what strategic approach is needed or psychosocial - how is this small community coping?
I think not enough is spoken about the soul that writes fiction; it seems the necessary and often unspoken presence that is needed to write truly beautiful stuff. Thanks Thaddeus.
Thaddeus, I particularly enjoyed this "LIterary Salon" discussion. I love thinking about, and experiementing, with narrative voice. Have you ever read "Bright Lights, Big City" by Jay McInerney? It's one of a very few books written in second person. Second person put the reader into the story. The opening lines of the book put you into a nightclub, "You are not the kind of guy who would be at a place like this at this time of the morning. But here you are, and you cannot say that the terrain is entirely unfamiliar, although the details are fuzzy. You are at a nightclub talking to a girl with a shaved head."