# Failed Effort



## garza (Mar 2, 2015)

I've stayed away for a while to try and bring my writing in line with what everyone says it should be. Following the recent discussion about the weakness of a 'fly on the wall' point of view, I've tried writing stories with narrators going inside characters' heads to say what the characters are thinking. I've written over a dozen such stories and each is a disaster. The people who've always said they enjoy reading my stories say the new stories sound artificial and clumsy. I feel the same way about the new stories. 

I've tried and tried to have the narrative voice tell what the character is thinking, rather then rely on dialogue and action for that, and it all sounds fake. When I re-read my stories that rely entirely or very heavily on dialogue to show what characters think and how they feel, the scenes are real, at least to me. 

So I'm giving up fiction. Everyone here says 'fly on the wall' pov is a bad way to write, and that is the only way I know how to write. There's no point continuing to try to polish a way of writing that is faulty in its concept. I thought I could adapt what I've learned in 60 years as a journalist to fiction writing.

i was wrong.


----------



## Sam (Mar 2, 2015)

How much fiction do you read, garza? 

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the best way to learn how to write a POV is to read how someone else writes it. You say you cannot write anything other than "fly on the wall". I find that hard to believe. You were a journalist for years. I'm sure you've had to write in news style, inverted pyramid, feature style, etcetera. You had to learn how to do so. Writing fiction is no different. You have to learn how to write third, first, limited, omniscient, etcetera -- and you do that by studying and mimicking how other authors write those POVs.


----------



## midnightpoet (Mar 2, 2015)

Garza

You can't be something you're not.  Write the only way you feel you can, send the stories out, keep trying.  Regardless, good luck.  I've always felt you would be a great friend I could sit with on an old dessicated tavern drinking beer (or coffee) and telling stories.  Your adventures as a journalist should have provided you with many.:wink:


----------



## Kevin (Mar 2, 2015)

absolutist, you? and who's this 'everyone'?  I don't concur. Evidence is anecdotal at best. There are many things one cannot do and then later are able to.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 2, 2015)

Of course you have to do what you feel is best, garza, but your writing has been successful here at WF--numerous LM wins and top three finishes--and you've actually had a book published. That is in no way 'failure' unless you are judging yourself by unrealistic standards. I think we all sometimes feel like failures. I know I often read what I've written and think it sounds like the work of a ten year old hack writing during recess. What do you have to lose by writing in your natural style? If you like it isn't that enough? You know how to write. Don't worry about the opinion of inexperienced internet wannbes who regurgitate dogma they've read in some blog somewhere. So your style isn't common, so what? It's effective.


----------



## M. Cull (Mar 2, 2015)

Hi Garza, 

It always makes me sad to hear that someone is giving up on fiction writing. I wonder if you could justifiably call it "failed effort," however. In the end, whatever processes you went through to arrive at this conclusion were probably valuable learning experiences on their own. But to avoid letting this response sink into pure philosophy, I'd like to offer something a bit more concrete. I make no demands about how seriously you decide to take this advice, but I offer it all the same. 

I personally feel that dialogue and action are a very strong mechanism for plot exposition and character development. In any case it's been a favorite of mine from the very beginning. I feel like that's because in the real world, when forming opinions and understanding of those around us, we do so largely by way of what we hear and see them say and do. So in truth, if you're doing nothing in your fiction writing but documenting people's words and actions, as far as I can see, the majority of the work is already done. As writing goes for me, anyway, you don't actually have to spend pages and pages combing through your character's inner worlds, dredging up interesting details about emotions and conflict. A lot of that info can be communicated in the aforementioned action and dialogue. It just takes a few lines here and there where your characters express their hidden thoughts. If I may, here's an excerpt from one of my current projects that I finished feel illustrates this. It's a bit long, but representative, I think.

---begin text---
Suddenly the hologram popped into existence. They had just the basic model thought box, so it only produced simple holograms, the kind that wouldn’t produce sensations when you interacted with them. That was good, because before him was an unnerving-looking creature Jake had never seen before. He thought it was a kind of… bird? Yes, it was a bird,  like the ones he was learning about in his natural history class. The only difference was, this one was…lumpy. That was the best way he could describe it. It was all shaped wrong.
“Do you know what this is?” Jake’s mom said, her eyes alight with interest.
“A hologram.”
“Ha ha.” His mom said, then playfully pushed him. He smiled. “Do you know what the hologram represents, mister smarty-pants?”
“I don’t know.” Jake shrugged. “I think it might be some kind of bird. Is that what they called them? Birds?”
“Well done!” She said, beaming at him. “I see someone’s been paying attention in school.”
Jake smiled again and shrugged. “It’s kind of interesting.”
“So do you know what kind of bird this is?”
“It’s probably an early species.” He said.
His mom’s face took on a look of surprise. “An early species?” She repeated. “Jake, where did you even learn what that means? You’re only eight!”
“Natural history.” He said, turning back to the hologram of the bird. It kept smashing its face into the ground. He laughed.
“So why do you say that, then, that it was probably an early species?” his mom asked, manipulating the thought box to add a little more detail. The feathers took on color, painting the bird a deep auburn, and that weird hairdo on top turned bright red.
“Well, look at it.” Jake gestured. “It doesn’t look like it flies very well, and my natural history teacher said that most birds that didn’t fly well went extinct even before the thaw.”
“You’re right, this one didn’t fly very well.” His mom said, flashing her fingers above the glass and making the perspective grow, adding more of the odd birds. Just like the first one, these were all just walking around, slamming their faces into the ground every once in a while.
“They also don’t look very intelligent.” Jake said with a laugh. “What are they doing? Doesn’t that hurt them to hit their heads on the ground over and over again like that?”
“No, they’re eating.”
“Eating?” Jake laughed in disbelief. “Mom, can I please eat like that?” He stepped back and put a silly expression on his face, pretending to smack his face on an unseen table, then again.
“No, of course not.” His mom said with a hearty laugh. “Not unless you like worms.”
“They ate _worms?_” Jake said, a little grossed out but also interested. “Those slimy, squirmy things from the ponics?”
“Well, something like them. The ones in the _farms_, not the ponics” she emphasized the word with a reproving glance, “have been engineered to be a little different, bigger and tougher. But yes, they ate worms. And bugs. And do you know what’s even more interesting?”
“What?” Jake asked, gazing at the birds as they slammed their heads into the ground, apparently eating.
“They were one of humankind’s most important sources of food.”
Jake looked up at that. “What? These things?” He pointed.
“Yes. They were called ‘chickens.’”
Jake laughed. “Were they really scared of everything, then?” Sme of the kids in his school called other kids chickens, the ones who were always afraid.
“Yes, that’s basically what Wikser says. They were easily startled.” She nodded. “And that one, with the thing on its head, that one’s called a rooster.”
“But you said they were chickens.”
“A rooster is the male chicken, the rest of them are female.”
Jake and his mom both fell silent for a few seconds, watching the chickens strut around. “Do you think grandpa remembers these?” Jake finally asked.
“Oh no, chickens were engineered to death before grandpa was even born.”
“Oh.” Jake said with disappointment. He’d heard of that. Scientists had destroyed other species by experimentation. Only what could they have wanted to engineer chickens for? “What did they want the chickens to do?”
“Produce more food.” His mom said, flashing her fingers above the glass and turning off the thought box. “before they died off we’d engineered them to produce so much meat that they broke their own legs just trying to stand. They just sat and got bigger and bigger, until they were completely unable to function without direct human support.”
“They probably produced a lot more food, though.” Jake said.
“Well, they did until it became too expensive to keep them. By that point we’d engineered them to be meat bags that couldn’t defend themselves or even move. So when the thaw hit, they were left behind.”
“So why did you show me that?” Jake looked up. He realized he’d been staring into space, trying to imagine the birds so overloaded with meat that they couldn’t even move. He didn’t really like what he saw.
“Because tonight,” his mom said, bringing her hands together in anticipation, "we’re going to have chicken for dinner!”
“Did you finally buy that formula?” Jake’s father walked through the door, tossing his jacket on the couch.  “Did Jeanie finally convince you to try it?” They embraced.
“Yeah, she said the chemists claim they’ve finally gotten it about right.”
“I’m not convinced.” His dad said. “Not yet. I guess we have to taste it, huh? Hi there cap’n!” he turned to Jake. “Learn anything interesting today?”
“That chickens ate worms by slamming their face into the ground.” Jake said with a smile.
“Really?” his dad wrinkled his face a little. “Seems an odd way to survive.”
“They didn’t.” Jake said. “They died off.”
“It wasn’t because of that, Jake. Honestly, you two…” his mom shook her head, then turned to his dad. “I told you he’d get your smart mouth. Didn’t I tell you?”
“I do recall having a conversation vaguely along those lines. Where’s Emmy?”
“Down in the bowl.” Jake’s mom said, turning to set the table.
“Again?” Jake’s dad asked. “She’s spending a lot of time down there.”
“I know. She likes it, and it keeps her occupied. Which means I like it.” His mom smiled wryly. 
“All right, I’m going to go say hello.”

I won't claim that this is the very best example, since I'm still very much a developing writer myself, That said, I think even in this an almost entirely dialogue/action sequence, there's still plenty of character development and plot exposition, just sprinkled through with "internal" moments. You know that Jake is a precocious 8-year-old with an interest in natural history and already-forming opinions about genetic engineering. You also know that he enjoys his relationship with his mom, and so on. 

Anyway, all in all, I wouldn't give up on fiction just yet. You're probably closer to being good at it it than you think!

M


----------



## TKent (Mar 2, 2015)

Garza, don't give up. I just read an incredible essay on POV that I think you would appreciate. It is in the only non-digital book I'm reading right now, so will have to give you the details tonight when I get home.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Mar 2, 2015)

Hello Garza

Never Surrender!

Check out the writings of Hermann Buhl and Reinhold Messner. Anything is possible - _everything_ is possible. In my Ironman catalogue there is a picture of a man doing a one-finger pull-up (or chin-up for you Americans). In his other hand he is gripping a 45kg plate by the boss.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 2, 2015)

I'm puzzled. You've written stuff people enjoyed, then in some esoteric discussion (not sure if I read it or not; probably not) "people say" XYZ is a "bad thing" so you quit writing your way and try to write their way, it sucks, so you're quitting writing fiction altogether.

Does that really make sense? Since when is there only one right way to write? 

"People said" one could only transplant flowers during a certain time of year. My mother was famous for her "instant gardens", when she would dig up and transplant flowers at any time during the growing season - and those plant always grew and flourished. So much for what "people say".

Ignore them. Be successful.


----------



## Folcro (Mar 2, 2015)

Strange, I hardly ever read fiction to practice my own fiction writing. I'm admittedly not a fan of fiction much at all: I just write it. I think reading mostly non fiction has given me a taste for realism, and helped me to apply it to ideas that can be very wacky. I find the contrast works very well for me. I think an underplayed "fly on the wall" pov can be a powerful narrative for a story with dragons. We'd have to see the writing though to get a better idea, I'm not sure as of now what the problem is exactly.


----------



## Lydia14 (Mar 2, 2015)

Don't give up! I've been trying to write fiction for more than 10 years. I went through multiple drafts of a novel that completely failed, that everyone in my life hated, and a phase writing short stories that were absolutely awful. But, I fell in love with every character I created along the way. At the moment, I've been working on planning out a fantasy series, and it's taken me almost 3 years to even get to the point where I feel comfortable starting to write it. I've always been my own worst critic, but I can't stop writing -- it's just who I am. It took almost 20 years for me to realize that after loving it when I was a kid, but getting convinced that it could never be a big part of my life. The writer's life isn't an easy one, but what really makes it wonderful is when you keep going. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what other people think, and you never fail as long as you try. The point of writing isn't to make everyone like what you've created -- it's to tell a story in the way only you can. Everything you create is unique, and that alone makes it worth consideration. Keep writing. Don't worry about criticism, and just trust in yourself.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 2, 2015)

> I thought I could adapt what I've learned in 60 years as a journalist to fiction writing.



Neil Gaiman worked as a journalist in order to improve his approach to writing. So don't worry; I think there are a lot of transferable skills.

What I'd be concerned about is _what _I'm writing about, rather than _how _I'm presenting. A style is just your best way of expressing what you want to express, and if that style is different to everyone else's, so be it. As long as you focus on the story you try to tell, you'll end up trying to tell it as best you can, and whatever POV you use, as long as you work at it enough, it'll be the right POV for what you're trying to do.


----------



## Carousel (Mar 2, 2015)

. I admit to being puzzled by your post; you had it right the first time, so why did you let others change your approach when it obviously worked for you? There are plenty of self acclaimed experts that are only too willing to tell you how to write, the web is loaded with them but the only true judges are your readers

Good written dialog should be as close to the natural exchange as possible you don’t have to embellish it with stupid remarks like. 
“Oh I shouldn't worry” laughed Nigel gaily. 
Wow! Nigel is a Ventriloquist; he can speak and laugh at the same time.

“Listen”-- His eyes begged patience.
 His eyes did what?

OK its crap writing but so is the idea that you have a passport that lets you into a character’s mind before they open their mouths.

You had it right the first time mate.


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 2, 2015)

I can see trying to write different POVs as a learning exercise, garza, but I have a hard time understanding why you would reject a POV you are so good at based upon poor results at a different one. Even if you never excel at a first person or other POV (and I suspect you can, given your talents), practicing the first person will probably make your fly on the wall approach work even better. 

Think of it as training, as a sort. A marathoner doesn't do speed work to become a sprinter, but to become a better marathoner. He wouldn't give up running because sprinters could beat him in a hundred yard dash.

I know that the fly on the wall approach you excel at in your fiction isn't as hip and trendy as the more intimate POVs, but it's a classic approach, and one well worth using.

Plus, I bet you'll be plenty able to write the others, but even if not, no matter.


----------



## Pluralized (Mar 2, 2015)

Any named POV or other categorization of style seems a ludicrous reason to 'quit' writing fiction. Because one boob or another doesn't find your characterization endearing? Who gives a shit?! You've won the LM several times, have a fan-base of people who follow you around and read all your stuff (and many who love it and comment with nice things to say). Every one of your pieces I've read has nothing to apologize for; the work is sound. Stop caring what other people think. Or maybe that's the primary aim here, to generate sympathy...


----------



## ppsage (Mar 2, 2015)

Well, I don't know where everyone else is coming from, but I'm with you Garza. At my age, life is too short, and this wall looks like it's tougher than my cranium. I was sitting on the throne for a spell this morning, before heading to town to get my will notarized, and read a few paragraphs of what's considered very mediocre Updike. With such casual genius littering the literary landscape, why should I inflict myself on anybody? I think I should just finish repainting my jeweler's studio and go back to what I do best. Good luck and take it easy (ier). pp


----------



## TKent (Mar 2, 2015)

Okay, so the essay was by Nick Mamatas who wrote _Bullettime _which includes 3 first person POVs (from the same person in different universes), a 3rd person present, as well as a first person plural POV via the sensory organs of a collectively intelligent species of spider. Now I don't know about you, but would have loved to hear what his agent said when he pitched this one! So point is, for every POV someone says not to use, there are probably stories out there that use them skillfully and work. 

source: _Wonderbook _by Jeff Vandermeer


----------



## J Anfinson (Mar 2, 2015)

Just write what you like to write however you'd like to write it. So some on here don't care for the style--big deal! Fly-on-the-wall is valid. If something is valid, there's nothing wrong with doing it.


----------



## aj47 (Mar 3, 2015)

POV is about being where you need to be to tell the story you're telling.


----------



## Tettsuo (Mar 3, 2015)

There's weakness is every pov, so I'd say that criticism is bunk.  IMO, ignore the detractors that tell you to not write that "fly on the wall" pov.  I'd say you should go in DEEPER into that pov and really make it work to your advantage and write it in a strict manner.  Use your dialogue to it's fullest as well as your descriptions to enhance that "fly on the wall" perspective.  NEVER go into your characters heads, but use everything else to give the reader an idea of what your characters are experiencing.

A great benefit to this is you can show how words and actions can be in conflict.  You can toss curveballs to your readers by giving mixed signals.  There are more benefits, but I get the feeling you're well aware of them.

Be different!  If your work "sounds" the same as everyone else, how can you stand out?


----------



## Newman (Mar 3, 2015)

garza said:


> So I'm giving up fiction.



Don't give up.


----------



## garza (Mar 3, 2015)

Sam -
Remember I spent six years at university as an English major, so, yes, I have from early on and continue to read quite a bit. Of contemporary fiction, however, I read little. I do try, but get bored after a while and go outside to watch the grass grow. 

Tourists leave paperbacks in hotel rooms, and such books get handed around and eventually end as discards from the town library. From these I hve my pick, and I pick very few. Too many are sci-fi, horror, spy/super-hero/loose-cannon adventure type books in which I have no interest. There are only about six fantasy novels that have ever been written that I fully appreciate. JRR Tolkein wrote four of them and Swift wrote the others.  The English novel appears to have entered the doldrums and all the good novels now are in Spanish or French. If you have any suggestions of contemporary writers I might enjoy, let me know.

I do continue to study, not only read but study, the literature of the 20th Century, such as Joyce, Camus, Faulkner, Hemingway, Sartre, Malraux, Kerouac, and others. 

All these writers use a variety of pov, but the problem is not in trying to learn a new style of writing but in changing a basic law of the real world we live in. That is, the lack of anyone's ability to read the mind of another person. For me to directly say what a character is thinking is tantamount to reading another person's thoughts. That is my hangup. I can estimate what another person is thinking by what that person does or says but i can't know for certain. Suppose in the midst of an article about the budget debate I were to insert this sentence: 'Even as he spoke, the Prime Minister was thinking to himself, ''What a load of nonsense this is. We all know the numbers we are talking about today have nothing to do with how we plan to spend the money.''' I can't read the PM's mind, though I can guess, based on past performance, what he is thinking. For me it's the same with a character I've included in a story I've written. Other writers reveal their characters' thoughts and that does not bother me. I can't, and apparently that bothers other people. I can only use my characters' speech and actions to show what they are thinking. 

As for style itself, that's easy to shift around. I worked with two editors in my teens, one who wanted strictly structured inverted pyramid, and the other who wanted essay style with beginning, development, and end. From that beginning I learned to adapt any piece of writing to suit the demands of whatever publication for which the piece was intended. Style has to do with the choice and arrangement of words. Mind-reading is, for me, something altogether different.

midnightpoet -
Exactly, and thank you for your kind words. Next time you're in Belize look me up and I'll buy you a Belikin, the Beer of Belize, as they say.

Kevin -
My absolutism has only to do with the natural laws of this world where I've lived for 74 years, laws strictly enforced by P.C. Reality, a brother to P.C. Plod.

Terry D -
Your closing words constitute a real uplifter - 'So your style isn't common, so what? It's effective.' 

That has made my day. Thank you.

M. Cull -
We differ greatly, but only in degree. Fo me, dialogue and action are th only strong mechanism for plot exposition and character development. It's interesting to note that while I feel that way about my own writing, i do not use the same measuring stick in reading what others write.

TKent -
Of Nick Mamatas I've not heard, and if he writes about different universes I'm not surprised by that. I only recognise the existance of one universe.

Riis Marshall -
Buhl I've heard of but never read. Having been born on a coastal plain, I've always thought of mountain climbing as a complicated, expensive, and potentially painful way to commit suicide. High windows and revolvers are easily accessable and more dependable. Of Messner I've not heard.

In my world, not everything is possible. See answer to Kevin, above.

shadowwalker -
I've not quit writing, but I've mostly stopped putting any fiction I write on public display for a while. My efforts at mind reading have resulted in what my friends all agree are some dreadfully bad short stories. We plan to shred them and use the shreds as kindling for a barbeque, hoping the flavour of the meat will not be spoiled by the bad writing.

They've also made me swear never to try that again.

Folcro -
I do love many kinds of fiction though I've made my living for 60 years writing non-fiction. There are those who say some of my ghost books are well-written fiction, but just as a lawyer must never ask his client whether he's guilty, so a ghost must never ask his client whether what he's telling is true. 

One story you'll never see from me is one about dragons of the mythical variety. My fly-on-the-wall sees and hears not only what is factual, but also what is true.

Lydia14 - Truth to tell, the writer's life can be a very easy one. I've never had a job, depending entirely on my writing beginning as a cub community news reporter for two local newspapers at age 14. And while I'm only famous in narrow circles and have never become fabulously wealthy, I've had probably far more than my just share of the good life. The trick is to find something you are fairly good at doing, that you enjoy, and  that people will pay you money to do, and you will never have to work. Anyone can do it, but you need to start early with your mind pretty much made up by age ten or 11 and stick to it for the next 60 or 70 years. 

Cadence - Subject and theme are the essential elements. What I am going to write about and the idea I want to express must come before all else. I never think of 'style' while I write, and leaving out a character's inner thoughts is not a matter of style for me. 

Carousel - 
Good dialogue is never close to natural speech, but it must read as though it is. Great care must be taken in writing dialogue with particular attention paid to rythm. There is a silent drumbeat that underlies speech with occasional ruffles and flourshes. In writing dialect the correct rythm must be achieved first, then any variations from standard word usage or pronunciation. Read some of my all-dialogue stories and you'll see how i try to accomplish making fake speech sound real. 

I dislike first person generally and have no interest in writing that way. Second person is, of course, much worse. Dreadful, really.

And thanks for saying I had it right the first time. That's what I believed, but some of the comments here shook my faith.

instituteman -
At 74 I've decided that writing exercises are no longer needed, and that I should proceed to follow the path I was on to make it better, not go off on a side road that would probably lead nowhere.

Pluralized - 
I've not quit writing - I continue to sell op-ed pieces and such every week. It's only fiction that's giving me trouble and the reply I wrote to instituteman says what I plan to do about fiction from here on.

Generalte sympathy? Remember I'm the person a teacher called an 'arrogant little snot' at age ten. The only thing that's different is that today I'm much taller. Anyone with a well developed sense of self appreciation needs no sympathy.

ppsage - 
Good points. life is too short. Some of my best thinking comes to me while enthroned. I've emailed my grandkids to say that my will leaves everything to a nice widow lady in Nigeria. All Updike is mediocre. Marketable, but mediocre. The desire to take it easy is what led me finally to decide to be a writer. I was born lazy, showed some inclination toward energetic activity around two years of age, then at three suffered a severe relapse from which I've not recovered.


To all the others - thanks for your replies. I believe I've explained what I meant to explain in the replies above.

In future, I plan to avoid discussion and limit myself to posting stories. That's probably the only way I'll stay out of trouble.


----------



## Carousel (Mar 3, 2015)

_Carousel -_ 
_Good dialogue is never close to natural speech, but it must read as though it is._ 
This sentence makes a statement and then rejects it.

_Great care must be taken in writing dialogue with particular attention paid to rythm. _
‘No’ said Tom. Can you point out the rhythm for me? 

_There is a silent drumbeat that underlies speech with occasional ruffles and flourshes. _
You mean as in Shakespeare’s blank verse. Yes, the dialogue is there but it takes an actor to speak the written word to give blank verse rhythm. I don’t think that many readers read aloud today.

_In writing dialect the correct rythm must be achieved first, then any variations from standard word usage or pronunciation. _
Readers have the illusion that they are listening to a conversation, an exchange of words. Not I suggest in engaging in a sing song. 

_Read some of my all-dialogue stories and you'll see how i try to accomplish making fake speech sound real. _

Thanks for the invite but-----


----------



## Terry D (Mar 3, 2015)

garza said:


> In future, I plan to avoid discussion and limit myself to posting stories. That's probably the only way I'll stay out of trouble.



Aren't you the guy who grabbed a camera and a notebook and ran _into_ trouble?


----------



## bazz cargo (Mar 3, 2015)

Garza me old mucker, sometimes I have to poke the universe and see what wobbles, that is my choice and I wouldn't force it on anybody.

On a good day your writing can be inspirational, on a bad day it can be a good example. 

Don't let the bastards win.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 3, 2015)

Carousel said:


> _Carousel -_
> _Good dialogue is never close to natural speech, but it must read as though it is._
> This sentence makes a statement and then rejects it.



But it is absolutely correct. Written dialogue gives the impression of natural speech without being a transcription of it. 

_Great care must be taken in writing dialogue with particular attention paid to rythm. _
‘No’ said Tom. Can you point out the rhythm for me? 

_



			There is a silent drumbeat that underlies speech with occasional ruffles and flourshes.
		
Click to expand...

_


> You mean as in Shakespeare’s blank verse. Yes, the dialogue is there but it takes an actor to speak the written word to give blank verse rhythm. I don’t think that many readers read aloud today.



All dialogue has rhythm and pace. Good dialogue takes that into account and uses it to create flow.

_



			In writing dialect the correct rythm must be achieved first, then any variations from standard word usage or pronunciation.
		
Click to expand...

_


> Readers have the illusion that they are listening to a conversation, an exchange of words. Not I suggest in engaging in a sing song.



Nothing was said about a sing-song rhythm. A good writer of dialogue understands more than the words being used, s/he understands how their pace, and cadence is effected by region, by education, and by upbringing. Without understanding how to create the sound of the spoken language all a writer will end up with is dictation.


----------



## Carousel (Mar 3, 2015)

_A good writer of dialogue understands more than the words being used, s/he understands how their pace, and cadence is effected by region, by education, and by upbringing. Without understanding how to create the sound of the spoken language all a writer will end up with is dictation._

You left out vocabulary. You can’t create sound in text, that’s impossible; two or more characters in a novel use dialogue to communicate with each other, the key word is communication. Of course the writer adjusts the dialogue to the vocabulary of the speakers, also to their sex, accents and their individual personalities. The sole aim is to make the dialogue read as natural as possible to the reader. All the rest is candyfloss.


----------



## garza (Mar 3, 2015)

Terry D - Thank you. And now, perhaps, you understand why I'll not take part in discussions after this. 60 years making my living solely by writing has taught me things which are rejected by a few. Let them find their own way.

And yes, I'm the guy who grabbed a camera and a notebook in '61 and put myself in harm's way. I'm certain you've read my poem 'I Went Away to See The War'. I had, by that time, been writing professionally for seven years.

And I have never rejected an invitation by another writer to look at his or her work. Ever.

Let us append -30- to this particular dialogue.

But not before a thanks and a tip of the hat to Bazz.


----------



## W.Goepner (Mar 4, 2015)

garza,

Quitting something you like to do? Writing? Fiction is like writing anything you have ever written. I would like you to read a small book By Ann McCaffrey called "Dragonsong", it is a story about a young lady who is forbidden to do what she loves most, sing and play instruments. There is more to it than that but I would like you to tell me the POV, the true concept of the story and most important what YOU think. The book is about 200 pages. 

I truly hope you will do this, it can help you to see a bit more of how fiction works. It is not some gaudy SF, light saber, Mind pushing, over the top story. 

If you want to try a heavy novel Jean M Aoul's, "Clan of the Cave Bear" it is Historical fiction. That one is Over 400 pages. It was made into a movie, not bad but no where near the depth of the book.


----------



## W.Goepner (Mar 4, 2015)

Clan of the Cave Bear, the clan uses sign language. You cannot hear it but you can read it.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 4, 2015)

"Fly On The Wall" POV is "weak"?

Really?

Seems to me that it would only be a "weak" POV when used incorrectly by a weak writer.

You, garza, are most definitely NOT a weak writer.

To me, a weak writer very often gives in to the ideas that some like to wpout about one way of writing or another being weak or too simplistic or whatever the hell they want to beat something down for on any given day.

I am so sick of seeing those who are portrayed as knowing EXACTLY what they are talking about taken at face value when the espouse a particular idea about a certain POV or writing style.

I would practically guarantee that those whose word is taken that way would say that EVERYTHING I have done with Side Worlds is wrong.

But ya know what...an awful lot of people who have read it really like it.

Any writing style, in ANY POV, is strong when written well.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 4, 2015)

W.Goepner said:


> Clan of the Cave Bear, the clan uses sign language. You cannot hear it but you can read it.



And for that I would dearly love to slap Jean Auel.

I absolutely despise Clan of the Cave Bear.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 4, 2015)

Carousel said:


> You can’t create sound in text, that’s impossible;



Of course you can. The reader 'hears' every word written with an internal ear that is as discerning of the sound of the words as is our actual ear, maybe more-so. It's this internal ear's ability to discern the sound and rhythms of our written words--and its unwillingness to tolerate fillers and repetition (things we tolerate in actual speech all the time)--that makes writing challenging. Yes, we strive to make dialogue 'sound' natural, but written dialogue is anything but natural.


----------



## Carousel (Mar 4, 2015)

The internal ear?? Where’s that exactly I’ve only got two stuck on each side of me head, have I missed out somewhere?
Even if your explanation carries a modicum of weight a writer doesn’t write sound it’s physically impossible. A musical score or lyric itself hasn’t any sound until its given sound by an instrument or a singer. Of course it is written with a beat, rhythm and rhyme for that purpose as in most poetry but the author is not writing sound he is merely writing in such a way to make it easier for the sound to be added. 

A totally deaf person lives in a world of complete silence yet they get as much satisfaction of reading the written word as you or I do.
Sure, any reader can give the written word a sound but that sound reaches the reader ears (External) by their own tongue.  

Finally if your dialogue isn’t natural to your characters speech patterns, then its bad dialogue full stop.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 4, 2015)

Carousel said:


> The internal ear?? Where’s that exactly I’ve only got two stuck on each side of me head, have I missed out somewhere?
> Even if your explanation carries a modicum of weight a writer doesn’t write sound it’s physically impossible. A musical score or lyric itself hasn’t any sound until its given sound by an instrument or a singer. Of course it is written with a beat, rhythm and rhyme for that purpose as in most poetry but the author is not writing sound he is merely writing in such a way to make it easier for the sound to be added.
> 
> A totally deaf person lives in a world of complete silence yet they get as much satisfaction of reading the written word as you or I do.
> ...



You can be as pedantic, and literal, as you like, but that doesn't change the fact that an experienced writer writes with a high level of awareness of the pace, and rhythm of their writing--the sound of it when read, even silently. But that's something you'll need to discover for yourself... or not. As garza said, I think I'll put a '30' to this one.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 4, 2015)

> The sole aim is to make the dialogue read as natural as possible to the reader.





> if your dialogue isn’t natural to your characters speech patterns, then its bad dialogue full stop.



No it's not. The aim of dialogue is to communicate what the character said and how they said it - and even why - in the way that you want to as best as possible. The dialogue in _A Clockwork Orange_, for instance, does not read naturally to anyone who isn't yet familiar with reading Nadsat. That's part of Burgess' purpose for the wider novel, and it was one of the components of his storytelling that brought him great success. Furthermore, many characters have been very dramatic when clearly speaking outside their usual speech pattern. The same happens in Burgess' novel, and again it is to great effect.

There's even a word for making something read unnaturally, untraditionally, or just wrongly, for effect: _catachresis_. Have you ever heard that 'Thunderbirds are go'? Sure, it reads and sounds okay, but once you try to apply the rules of grammar to it, it's unnatural. It should be 'Thunderbirds are going'.



> a writer doesn’t write sound it’s physically impossible



Sound occurs in the head. I'm thinking of the opening theme to _Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica_ at the moment. If a writer were to write that a character was listening to that, I'd have it enter my head as I read. The same goes for a single sound. You tell me there's an explosion, I hear an explosion in my head. So no, we don't write 'sounds', but we write what the reader needs to make the sound themselves.

Since you mentioned music, how do you think Beethoven composed?


----------



## Carousel (Mar 4, 2015)

Cadence said:


> No it's not. The aim of dialogue is to communicate what the character said and how they said it - and even why - in the way that you want to as best as possible. The dialogue in _A Clockwork Orange_, for instance, does not read naturally to anyone who isn't yet familiar with reading Nadsat. That's part of Burgess' purpose for the wider novel, and it was one of the components of his storytelling that brought him great success. Furthermore, many characters have been very dramatic when clearly speaking outside their usual speech pattern. The same happens in Burgess' novel, and again it is to great effect.
> 
> There's even a word for making something read unnaturally, untraditionally, or just wrongly, for effect: _catachresis_. Have you ever heard that 'Thunderbirds are go'? Sure, it reads and sounds okay, but once you try to apply the rules of grammar to it, it's unnatural. It should be 'Thunderbirds are going'.
> 
> ...





Beethoven had a lifetime of writing music so it was perfectly possible for him to write music without the luxury of hearing it played; though it’s true that the quality was not the same as when the composer could hear. Beethoven illustrates this decline to a point. His swansong was the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] symphony written when he had at least some hearing left, after that there was a sharp decline in the quality. Sadly it seems he never had the advantage of Terry’s internal ear to carry on.

Nadsat was an invention made by the characters and as such was familiar to them in its use. 
If you look again at my post you will see that I said ‘to your characters speech patterns’
Not to the readers speech patterns.


You can be reminded of a song in many ways; you simply draw the song from your memory banks to replay it in your mind. If however the writer mentioned a song that’s unknown to you then the text hasn’t the ability to play it for you.


----------



## Carousel (Mar 4, 2015)

Terry D said:


> You can be as pedantic, and literal, as you like, but that doesn't change the fact that an experienced writer writes with a high level of awareness of the pace, and rhythm of their writing--the sound of it when read, even silently. But that's something you'll need to discover for yourself... or not. As garza said, I think I'll put a '30' to this one.



Well I admire your dexterity in sidestepping the points raised but repeating the same views doesn’t make any argument the more powerful.


----------



## garza (Mar 4, 2015)

Terry - Feed them not.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 4, 2015)

> If you look again at my post you will see that I said ‘to your characters speech patterns’
> Not to the readers speech patterns.



No, you said both:



> Finally if your dialogue isn’t *natural to your characters speech patterns,* then its bad dialogue full stop.





> The sole aim is to make the dialogue read *as natural as possible to the reader*.



Also:



> Beethoven illustrates this decline to a point. His swansong was the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] symphony written when he had at least some hearing left, after that there was a sharp decline in the quality. Sadly it seems he never had the advantage of Terry’s internal ear to carry on.



His ability to perform was hindered, but his composition wasn't really affected, from what I've read and heard. He demonstrates what I'm trying to say; that someone who hears nothing is always hearing their own thoughts, be them words or sounds. Thus, one listens to one's self throughout life, and one listens to the narrator in their head in a similar way. That is the 'internal ear' or 'writer's ear' that many, many people talk about when it comes to rhythm and sound being produced and manipulated in and by the prose. It's not worth questioning something like that when it's so widely regarded as an important tool for the creative mind.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 4, 2015)

These discussions crack me up sometimes.

It's akin to someone reading what I write and assuming my MC is schizophrenic because he has an 'inner voice' that talks to him.

A reader can use the 'inner ear' that Terry speaks of to "hear" (with their imagination) what the sound is supposed to be. In the case of deaf people, they may not have ever heard the actual sound itself, but I would be willing to bet that they still use their imagination to "hear" the sound. Even if it isn't accurate.

The argument I see that disputes that idea would pretty much equate to a reader not having an "inner eye" that allows them to see the surroundings if the author doesn't describe everything in the most exquisite, mind numbing detail.

That's what the reader's imagination is for. It takes the words that the writer uses and "creates" the details of the story from there.


----------



## W.Goepner (Mar 4, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> And for that I would dearly love to slap Jean Auel.



First thank you for the correct spelling of the name. I can botch any name and sometimes even my own.



T.S.Bowman said:


> I absolutely despise Clan of the Cave Bear.



I would like to understand why that is. I like the way she brought the girl into the learning of the language. I use similar tactics in my "Searcher".


----------



## W.Goepner (Mar 4, 2015)

Carousel said:


> The internal ear?? Where’s that exactly I’ve only got two stuck on each side of me head, have I missed out somewhere?
> Even if your explanation carries a modicum of weight a writer doesn’t write sound it’s physically impossible. A musical score or lyric itself hasn’t any sound until its given sound by an instrument or a singer. Of course it is written with a beat, rhythm and rhyme for that purpose as in most poetry but the author is not writing sound he is merely writing in such a way to make it easier for the sound to be added.
> 
> A totally deaf person lives in a world of complete silence yet they get as much satisfaction of reading the written word as you or I do.
> ...



First when you read, do you read out loud? Most do not. The inner ear is the same one you speak/think to yourself with. It is also the place you put the voice of what you read. Many can argue that is the inner voice, but seeing as we tend to hear that voice it is also an ear.

Have you ever played an instrument? I have, but anyone can bring any idea of song or sound into their mind. No We can not translate sound to paper but the mind can take what it sees and make it sound. A writer will explain what a noise could be or sound like. Give it a description and the mind will compile it into a sound unheard by the physical ear, but never the less, it is heard.

A deaf person who has never heard the national anthem, cannot tell the differences between tones. You or I can hear it played in our minds as clearly as if it were being played beside us, simply by thought. Thus the inner ear. Sound does not have to be heard by the physical ear to be heard, point of fact, ultra sound. Given a frequency loud enough to shatter cells in the brain or the flesh, it will not be heard by the physical ear, but will appear as a pain in the skull.

Your last sentence makes no since to me so I will not qualify it with any greater comment.

-edit-

I will correct myself. The dialogue is correct to the character, for the character as written. The character which the reader, "YOU" has created in your mind cannot create the dialogue as You read it. 

I will admit I have read only one of Garza's works, "Paper Boy". In this I found the dialogue appropriate for the characters shown and in the circumstances they are shown in. Granted this was his piece for a challenge of which he missed the deadline. Given the limit of words he was given the detail he might have been shooting for was not available for him to insert. I will have to see more of his work before I can say he botched anything.

Garza,

Even so you feel it is not working out as a fiction writer, I urge you to not give up. With time it will flow. I will say this though, write in the style you are used to, use your reporting style in the fictional world. It might be a refreshing style for the reader.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 4, 2015)

W.Goepner said:


> First thank you for the correct spelling of the name. I can botch any name and sometimes even my own.
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to understand why that is. I like the way she brought the girl into the learning of the language. I use similar tactics in my "Searcher".



Sorry. It wasn't my intention to correct your spelling. In fact, I hadn't actually noticed your spelling of it until you brought it up. LOL

My hatred for that particular book stems more from her writing style than from the story. She is much too verbose for my liking. I found Clan of the Cave Bear to be extremely dull and plodding. From taking what seemed like 500+ words to describe some grass (it's freakin GRASS for cryin out loud) to the repetitive introductions every time the MC meets someone (son/daughter of so and so fathered by such and such blah blah blah...) I could never manage to read the entire book.

There are some who think it's a great book. I hold nothing against any of them. To each their own. 

I would just like to smack her once. Just once. LOL


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 5, 2015)

garza said:
			
		

> I've tried writing stories with narrators going inside characters' heads to say what the characters are thinking. I've written over a dozen such stories and each is a disaster. The people who've always said they enjoy reading my stories say the new stories sound artificial and clumsy. I feel the same way about the new stories.



Three years ago, Garza, I complained about a similar problem. I mentioned that, while attempting to learn new POVs and writing styles, I felt overwhelmed and unable to write anything at all.

You gave me advice that helped. I'm going to return your own advice to you, bolding the part that helped me the most.



garza said:


> There is a scripture that explains how to find your way home. I've forgotten the exact reference. Give me a bit of time and I'll find it for you.





garza said:


> See Chapter 19 here (http://www.chinapage.com/gnl.html), where the words of Master Lao Tze are interpreted as follows:
> 
> People need personal remedies:
> *Reveal your naked self and embrace your original nature*;
> ...



Embrace your original nature, Garza! Flow along the path of least resistance. That's where your truest voice lies. :encouragement:


----------



## SerenataImmortale (Mar 5, 2015)

garza said:


> I've stayed away for a while to try and bring my writing in line with what everyone says it should be. Following the recent discussion about the weakness of a 'fly on the wall' point of view, I've tried writing stories with narrators going inside characters' heads to say what the characters are thinking. I've written over a dozen such stories and each is a disaster. The people who've always said they enjoy reading my stories say the new stories sound artificial and clumsy. I feel the same way about the new stories.
> 
> I've tried and tried to have the narrative voice tell what the character is thinking, rather then rely on dialogue and action for that, and it all sounds fake. When I re-read my stories that rely entirely or very heavily on dialogue to show what characters think and how they feel, the scenes are real, at least to me.
> 
> ...



No, no, go back, fly on the wall is GOOD! 

Do you know how many fiction workshops I've sat through where people stayed entirely in their character's heads, showed nothing, told everything? _For every story they wrote for an entire six months?_ The CIA should start teaching their agents to replace waterboarding with forced readings of in-head/character-thought-only stories written by workshop students, because good lord on sweet buttered toast, it is _painful_ to read.  

Obviously, too much of anything (either extreme fly on the wall or extreme in-head) is bad, and I've read plenty of horrid stories that were so fly-on-the wall no emotions whatsoever could see their way through, but if I had to choose, I'd definitely pick a bad fly-on-the-wall story first. Inversely, this isn't to say all in-head stories are bad - many competent writers can easily make in-head stories work magnificently.

I should also mention that said workshops often told me that I need to stop fragmenting sentences and paragraphs even though I find it euphorically fun. For me, fragmenting is like the writing equivalent of slipping into pajamas at the end of the day, so naturally, I still fragment like the enter-key-happy idiot that I am. BUT, that doesn't mean that I can't clean it up and show a version with more full, less broken grammar to show to everyone else and fool them into thinking I've "improved" and "stopped writing those god-awful fragments." Drafts and edits are two very different things, and an edit doesn't have to be automatically better than a draft.  

Your writing is for YOU. Improvement happens with more writing. Only take in the criticism that makes you stronger. So go out there, bash some heads, break some rules, and be the fly-on-the-wall writer you were BORN to be.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 5, 2015)

SerenataImmortale said:


> I should also mention that said workshops often told me that I need to stop fragmenting sentences and paragraphs even though I find it euphorically fun.



I find fragments are terrific for certain effects. They're quick. Punchy. To the point. (See what I did there?)

Telling a writer not to use them is (to me) like telling a boxer not to jab.


----------



## The Green Shield (Mar 6, 2015)

garza said:


> I've stayed away for a while to try and bring my writing in line with what everyone says it should be. Following the recent discussion about the weakness of a 'fly on the wall' point of view, I've tried writing stories with narrators going inside characters' heads to say what the characters are thinking. I've written over a dozen such stories and each is a disaster. The people who've always said they enjoy reading my stories say the new stories sound artificial and clumsy. I feel the same way about the new stories.
> 
> I've tried and tried to have the narrative voice tell what the character is thinking, rather then rely on dialogue and action for that, and it all sounds fake. When I re-read my stories that rely entirely or very heavily on dialogue to show what characters think and how they feel, the scenes are real, at least to me.
> 
> ...



Then I must be _deeply, deeply _wrong because after ten years of 'wanna-be', where I barely had the courage to even finish chapter one, I dare to give myself a second chance, be easier on myself, and just write something. By this logic, I should just delete everything and never go back. 

Listen, I'm probably the last person to be giving this advice, but I just wanted to say that we all start somewhere. The goal for beginners is to just write something. I don't care if it's yet another fantasy story filled to the brim with every fantasy trope known to man. The important thing is to write, to improve on your skills. Practice, experiment. See what works out for you. Go out and observe the people around you, ask questions about why they do what they do. Make stuff up. Read fiction. 

Sometimes it's better to start from square one again. It's _infinitely_ better than quitting.

As for 'fly on the wall' POV? Maybe what you really are looking for is third-person omniscient where we are in the heads of a selected group of people. Imagine yourself as a journalist following your characters around armed with a camera and a microphone. Here are POV's as I understand them:

1st-person- You're inside one character's head and only know his/her thoughts.

3rd-person limited- You're following a character around and watching what he/she does.

3rd-person omniscient- You're following a group of characters around and watching what they do.

Hope that helps! And sorry if I completely missed the point, just wanted to give you some advice.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 6, 2015)

> 3rd-person limited- You're following a character around and watching what he/she does.
> 
> 3rd-person omniscient- You're following a group of characters around and watching what they do.



1st person - the narrator is a character.

3rd person limited - the narrator only knows the thoughts (or has the perspective) of one character.

3rd person multiple - the narrator only knows the thoughts (or has the perspective) of a few characters.

3rd person omniscient - the narrator know the thoughts of all characters.

3rd person objective (fly on the wall) - the narrator knows the thoughts of no characters.


It only really gets complicated in novels like The Book Thief which do more than one of these at once, and when you start thinking about 'free indirect style' which is a cross between omniscient and multiple.


----------



## The Green Shield (Mar 6, 2015)

Cadence said:


> 1st person - the narrator is a character.
> 
> 3rd person limited - the narrator only knows the thoughts (or has the perspective) of one character.
> 
> ...


Oh, thanks.  Makes sense now.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 6, 2015)

Cadence said:


> 1st person - the narrator is a character.
> 
> 3rd person limited - the narrator only knows the thoughts (or has the perspective) of one character.
> 
> ...



Oddly enough, I am thinking I need to have someone take a look at Side Worlds and let me know what the POV is.

Because I really have no idea.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 6, 2015)

The funniest thing about the POV discussion, to me, is that, all things considered, Side Worlds should be nothing more than a jumbled mess of words on a couple hundred pages.

I don't know, or much care, about the "rules" of writing. As Kyle and others can attest to, I don't know much about POV or such things.

But yet, despite my obvious shortcomings, I can manage to write something coherent every once in a while.


----------



## ppsage (Mar 7, 2015)

What's being described here as 'fly on the wall' is a very extreme form of third person objective. At least the examples I've seen posted are like transcripts of an audio bug. The fly has no eyes or other sense organs except ears tuned only to human speech. The danger here is for the dialogues to be only ostensibly directed between the characters who end up speaking to the reader almost directly to supply information she needs which presumably they must already know and assume. It can be done, I'm sure, and done well, but it's very hard to avoid feeling like a sort of etude: a difficult and contrived composition lesson taken on to practice something. If this is what's still intended by the term fly etc, than it's beyond a regular third person objective point of view, which I would explain as a written description of a recording which includes video as well as eavesdropping, and which may or may not include a distinct narrative voice. Not being privy to any thoughts does not exclude exposition. Excluding exposition is a tough row to hoe and retain any naturalism.


----------



## BeastlyBeast (Mar 7, 2015)

I find the idea of all these POVs very confusing, to be honest. It's why I've always tried to just write how I want to. Putting too much focus on POV can weigh someone down. I usually just find I use first-person if I want the story to feel super-personal, while I write what I guess is third-person omniscient if I just want to write up the general idea of what's going on. Third person limited is nice sometimes, as well. It's like a neat blend between first person and third person. However, I struggle to find the differences bewteen 3rd Person multiple/omniscient/objective to be almost moot. Frankly 3rd person objective sounds extremely boring - sounds like quite literally telling rather than showing. If there's nothing observant about the narrator, or it can't tell any character's thoughts, then it's just spouting out what everybody's saying or doing, with no deeper meaning, it sounds. I'd imagine a true TPObjective book would just be what the guy in a chair with amazing listening skills types up during a court trial.


----------



## garza (Mar 8, 2015)

ppsage - My pure dialogue stories are, indeed, practice exercises intended to see how far speech alone can carry a story. A real fly on the wall not only hears but also sees what is around the character to be seen and sees all that the character does. I use the term fly-on-the-wall to mean that the thoughts of a character are never expressed directly. I like using dialogue and action to take the place of telling the reader what a character is thinking. When it works as it should, the reader understands the character the same way we understand, or often misunderstand, the people around us in real life. After all, we are, none of us, mind readers. We know other people by what they say and what they do. I like to create fictional characters by showing what they do and listening to what they say. Most of the people here say that can't be done, that only if I stop and tell out loud what John is thinking will they be able to connect with John. That's why I have suspended all public exhibition of my fiction.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 8, 2015)

> I like to create fictional characters by showing what they do and listening to what they say. Most of the people here say that can't be done, that only if I stop and tell out loud what John is thinking will they be able to connect with John. That's why I have suspended all public exhibition of my fiction.



If some people don't receive your work well, that doesn't mean you should stop exhibiting it to the people who enjoy it immensely. It's an overreaction; WF is not a mass body with one mind and perspective. We're all individuals with different preferences and takes on the craft, just as your all your readers are. 

Preventing everyone from enjoying your work because of a group that doesn't enjoy it, no matter how large they are, prevents your work from becoming what you want it to become. You need that criticism, good and bad, valid and invalid - that process of reception - to be a writer of any sort. Putting a stop to it seems like more of an emotional decision than a logical one.


----------



## aj47 (Mar 8, 2015)

Write something you'd want to read if you were going to get a new book.  The important thing about POV isn't which one you pick, but that you maintain consistency--throughout the whole work or throughout each chapter or part.   This is about making it easy for the reader to understand your story--it's not meant to make it more complicated.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 8, 2015)

garza said:
			
		

> I like to create fictional characters by showing what they do and listening to what they say. Most of the people here say that can't be done, that only if I stop and tell out loud what John is thinking will they be able to connect with John. That's why I have suspended all public exhibition of my fiction.



Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. — *Steve Jobs*


----------



## DB17 (Mar 17, 2015)

I have never read your fiction, but using myself as an example, I am also a journalist who deals in hard facts and opinions. I basically dislike reading fiction and always have. I had to read so much fiction in college in order to earn my degree, that I vowed never to read a word of it again, although I have strayed from that promise on a rare occasion. I make exceptions for poetry. There are certain poets like  Jarrell, Plath, Ginsberg and Bukowski I enjoy. I have never tried writing fiction because I basically have no interest in doing so. 

I know my niche, so that's where I direct my efforts. I tried writing poetry. It sucked. I tried writing lyrics. Again, pretty bad.

Since I don't know you, I can only say, do what you do best. You sound like an older man, so maybe your writing habits and style are set in stone. Don't beat yourself up. Concentrate on your strengths, and don't obbsess over your weaknesses.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 17, 2015)

The only POV that's 'weak' is 5th person. That's where you tell the story starting each sentence with "I heard from this friend of mine who heard from this dude that..."

Every other POV (even second person) has been done beautifully somewhere. To argue that one is better than another is as pointless as arguing if blue cars are better than red ones. They're just different approaches. Sure, one might be better for a certain story, but that's wholly up to the writer. No one else.

Garza, I'd be bitterly disappointed if you gave up. I worked my ass off through February to keep writing despite my demanding new job, not because someone told me it was the right way to do things but because I needed to. A man writes sixty years and throws in the towel because some people can't stomach not writing in first person? I don't buy it. Especially from a man so dedicated and accomplished. You've dominated this field where most of the voices on this site are struggling to stand out. Don't go quietly just because you like writing FOtW POV.


----------

