# Are MRU:s a useful concept?



## AdrianBraysy (Apr 7, 2018)

I have read a few articles on writing, proposing that we write in so called "Motivation-Reaction Units". Basically, the idea is that your writing is composed of something external, followed by an internal reaction that leads to thought/speech. For example:

The black goo on the wall was spreading towards the ceiling at an ever increasing pace. It had soon swallowed the building up from the inside. (External)

Jake dropped his hammer in awe before turning to his partner. "Time to run?" (Internal reaction and a piece of speech)

Is this a useful concept? I have found it useful in fast-paced action scenes, though I also allow myself to stray from the "rule". As an example, I have some paragraphs in my novel where a character is reacting to their own thoughts, so it looks more like: motivation-reaction-reaction (what did I just think?)

Pacing-wise, I think it can be a good system to use in a lot of scenes, and I personally think it often reads well. Opinions?


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 7, 2018)

I think for me at least and this is not a fact like anything I say I find it useless. What I found useful is the cause and effect approach of plotting a story, a scene, or story. It's what Jack Bickham (swain's student) didn't explain. I read a lot on the theory of film school, and its more complex than simply saying something caused something and has= happened. It could be a reaction, action, that serves as a counter, can help you plot it based on reaction and action. The effects are the consequences and the later events that take place because of the emotion (caused by an event). That's just my opinion. Not to mention Swain doesn't give explanations on how to apply well enough in my opinion. Most glaring are the lack of examples in the book. (didn't learn much)


----------



## Bayview (Apr 7, 2018)

There are certainly people who swear by these, so I think if someone's stuck they may as well give them a try.

For me, it feels way too self-conscious. Like describing walking as BSSSSRR units... begin in a state of BALANCE, with both feet planted firmly on the floor. Then SHIFT your weight so the non-dominant foot is supporting the body, then SWING the dominant foot forward in a gentle, controlled motion. SHIFT your weight onto the dominant foot and allow the non-dominant foot to SWING forward beyond the dominant foot. REPEAT. REBALANCE as needed.

If someone, for whatever reason, is having trouble with walking, they may need to break things down like that. If someone is critiquing someone else's gait, it may be useful to have those terms in mind. But for most people who just want to walk somewhere? I don't think they should be worrying about their BSSSSRRs. I think they should just be focused on where they're going, and the cool stuff they see along the way.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 8, 2018)

As with everything, it's a good system if it works for you.

Whenever I ever come across anything like this my first reaction is to go "yeah that's neat" but then, when I think about it, I usually realize that all it's doing is putting into clever words something that happens anyway. It's common sense.

Why is it common sense? Because it's how the brain works, right? The brain sees something, thinks something, speaks something. Life is about seeing what is around us, having an internal reaction to it, and then, when appropriate, communicating to others about that reaction. I see an apple, I eat an apple, I tell you if the apple tasted good or not. It's rare that this order is ever changed. 

Speaking solely for myself, I do not need a system that tells me how to do what I already do. It's not because I am smart or talented but because I figured out a long time ago (after a lot of years of failing miserably) that the best way to write is to write simply and the simplest way is always what closely resembles translating into words one's basic sensory experiences (whether real or imagined, makes no matter). 

I do appreciate, though, that it's possibly not straightforward for everybody and that often writer's can get into the weeds on how to execute a compelling scene, especially early on. So as first said, if this helps you (or anybody else) keep on the straight and narrow and ultimately to write a better product I am all about it!


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 8, 2018)

I prefer to read fiction to learn about fiction. I don't want a map of how to get to the end of my story. I want to discover the ending myself. Sure, I may get lost along the way, but I might discover something fascinating that would have been missed otherwise.

How-to-write books cannot replace what is learned by setting out to write a story. They might help identify what's missing in your story once it's written. And so can a good editor or beta reader.

Would I use the MRU formula to write? No.

Just ask yourself what the books or stories you enjoy have in common. Start there.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 8, 2018)

I am not sure how to actual avoid MR in an ongoing scene. I mean, things happen, then the person responds, then things happen, then the person responds.

So the scene clock is on, there is a point of view. In the small print is that idea that events should be presented in the order they occur. Which means no "time twisting." If it's a scene with the clock on and things in order, isn't automatically MR? Except for the arrogance, it seems like a reasonable idea. Maybe it could help people think about the different ways the main character could respond. And that there should be a right order.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 8, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I am not sure how to actual avoid MR in an ongoing scene. I mean, things happen, then the person responds, then things happen, then the person responds.
> 
> So the scene clock is on, there is a point of view. In the small print is that idea that events should be presented in the order they occur. Which means no "time twisting." If it's a scene with the clock on and things in order, isn't automatically MR? Except for the arrogance, it seems like a reasonable idea. Maybe it could help people think about the different ways the main character could respond. And that there should be a right order.




I think you’re slightly misreading/mischaracterizing the nature of the dismissal. Everybody I think believes that MRUs as described exist as a way to explain conventional narrative. Nobody is saying it should be avoided. 

The question was how useful the concept is in practical application. The answer is not very, unless you find difficulty in transferring natural thought patterns into the written word. 

Otherwise its kind of like a baker reading up about how honey is made when there are plenty of bees around. It’s a question, and a fair one, but more made for academic discussion than any real world use.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 8, 2018)

The purpose of the M/R U is to put the reader into real-time, deep within the protagonist's viewpoint. The idea is that the reader isn't seeking to know what happens, because that's history, and history has no uncertainty. They want to experience it from the inside out, in parallel with the protagonist. And to do that we need to know what the character reacts to, and why. If we can place the reader into the protagonist's moment of now the future becomes as uncertain to the reader as to the protagonist. If the protagonist misunderstands so does the reader.

Here's a snippet of What Dwight Swain, the man who popularized the term, has to say: 





> . . . _equals motivation and reaction_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hope this helps


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 9, 2018)

1. When a lion suddenly appeared, I started with the reaction from my main character, but that was interrupted by reactions from the two people with her. I think that breaks the MRU format, though in a way that anyone could figure out. But that suggests big holes. I also think a character could react to his own thought (even if that was a reaction to something else).

2. The other person in the scene is treated like a plot device. Why can't the MRUs apply to them also? Maybe it's silly for a tiger, but "A hot pain stabbed through his shoulder, but his hunger drove him on."

3. I would have found other ways to complain about the following, but not following MRU seems to work:



> "Bennett, it might be a good idea if your aunt went in with you. You okay with that?" Doctor Kelly stares at me.
> Here's the thing: I'm really good at standing up for myself . . . in my head. When it comes to actually getting my mouth to say the words, I suck.
> So even though the last thing I was is Aunt Laura in the room with my dad and me, my mouth blurts out, "Yeah."


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 9, 2018)

> 1. When a lion suddenly appeared, I started with the reaction from my  main character, but that was interrupted by reactions from the two  people with her.


If you present that information as yourself, rather then having the protagonist notice and react. you broke POV and injected yourself into the scene _telling_ the reader what happened. But the character you cut away from is the protagonist, the one the reader is supposed to identify with. If you interject things that _you notice,_ whose story it is, yours or the protagonist? Are you telling the story or making the reader live it as the protagonist?

Let's say that lion you mentioned appears and the protagonist reacts. Won't the reader assume that the others will do the same kind of thing without being told? If, for example, someone with the protagonist picks up a weapon, or even a chair, and attacks the lion, what matters more, the fact of the attack, which is plot, or the internal/external reaction and action of our protagonist, which is story? If the other character dies the story goes on, and the protagonist's emotional reaction to it is what matters. If the other character is more decisive and heroic than our protagonist, and so must be mentioned, perhaps you have the wrong character as protagonist in that scene?

In life, and I'm sure you've seen me say this before, from waking to the moment of sleep our life is an unbroken chain of motivation and response. We perceive many things at once, through all our senses. But we will notice and act on the thing that is the most important to us in-the-moment. Present your story that way and it runs in real time, and the reader feels as if they are experiencing tha. Sure the character does lots of little asides, like scratching, belching, and even neatening the room, but the things that don't contribute by moving the plot, developing character, or setting the scene are irrelevant to the scene in progress. And if we stay with the protagonist—present their life as they live it in _their_ viewpoint, as Swain said—the sentences race down the page like a fast freight hurtling through the night."


> Why can't the MRUs apply to them also?


They do, and must. Every single character in your story is the star of their own story, noticing and reacting to what's happening around them with their own biases, preconceptions, and needs. If they don't they'll seem smart when the plot needs smart, stupid when that's handy, and read like plot devices.

In life, we are always evaluating what others do and say based on our own viewpoint. And that's how a reader should know them, as the protagonist views them. That way the protagonist's preconceptions are our preconceptions, and when our protagonist has that, "Eureka!" moment, the reader will too.

Hope this clarifies


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 10, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> If you present that information as yourself, rather then having the protagonist notice and react. you broke POV and injected yourself into the scene _telling_ the reader what happened. But the character you cut away from is the protagonist, the one the reader is supposed to identify with. If you interject things that _you notice,_ whose story it is, yours or the protagonist? Are you telling the story or making the reader live it as the protagonist?



Jay,

This logic only seems like it would be true if we are talking about a work written in first or possibly second person - "I see" or "You see". At no point did I see anything about POV mentioned that would qualify what you are saying as belonging to a certain POV and therefore I have to assess it on every kind of narrative that exists. 

Of course one should not break the laws of physics as related to the chosen POV, that is a given (or should be) because "I" cannot see through "Supporting Character #1's" eyes nor have access to their set of emotions. But if the work is written in third person, especially in _omniscient _voice, then one can (and should) move between perspectives and various perceptions freely lest the work be too heavily centered on the protagonist. And before it is mentioned - I can feel it coming -  good writing does not have to be centered on the protagonist and frequently is not and that has no bearing on the worth of the protagonist. I mentioned Phileas Fogg in another post, the definite protagonist in '80 Days and how he is very seldom the only one with a MR shown. Other examples available on request, or one could merely look.



Jay Greenstein said:


> Let's say that lion you mentioned appears and the protagonist reacts. Won't the reader assume that the others will do the same kind of thing without being told?



No, of course not. If one of my characters is a forty year old man and another is a six year old child their reactions to a lion attack are going to be entirely different. And before it is mentioned - I can feel it coming - it may not work to say "well the protagonist is the adult so the child's experience can be shown through his M/R/U". That may work sometimes, it won't work everytime, and definitely don't bet on the reader assuming anything.



Jay Greenstein said:


> If, for example, someone with the protagonist picks up a weapon, or even a chair, and attacks the lion, what matters more, the fact of the attack, which is plot, or the internal/external reaction and action of our protagonist, which is story? If the other character dies the story goes on, and the protagonist's emotional reaction to it is what matters. If the other character is more decisive and heroic than our protagonist, and so must be mentioned, perhaps you have the wrong character as protagonist in that scene?
> 
> In life, and I'm sure you've seen me say this before, from waking to the moment of sleep our life is an unbroken chain of motivation and response. We perceive many things at once, through all our senses. But we will notice and act on the thing that is the most important to us in-the-moment. Present your story that way and it runs in real time, and the reader feels as if they are experiencing tha. Sure the character does lots of little asides, like scratching, belching, and even neatening the room, but the things that don't contribute by moving the plot, developing character, or setting the scene are irrelevant to the scene in progress. And if we stay with the protagonist—present their life as they live it in _their_ viewpoint, as Swain said—the sentences race down the page like a fast freight hurtling through the night."They do, and must. Every single character in your story is the star of their own story, noticing and reacting to what's happening around them with their own biases, preconceptions, and needs. If they don't they'll seem smart when the plot needs smart, stupid when that's handy, and read like plot devices.
> 
> ...



I think this is another massive oversimplification.

Below is a famous excerpt from Benchley's Jaws. In this excerpt there are three viewpoints for the action which alternate freely. One is Hooper, who is trapped in a stricken cage. One is Quint and Brody, who are on the Orca and observing from above the surface with limited perspective and no ability to be heard or seen by Hooper, and the third is the shark itself. 



> _The jaws closed around his torso. Hooper felt a terrible pressure, as if his guts were being compacted. He jabbed his fist into the black eye. The fish bit down, and the last thing Hooper saw before he died was the eye gazing at him through a cloud of his own blood._
> 
> _“He’s got him!” cried Brody. “Do something!”_
> 
> ...


In the book overall the clear protagonist whom we are to identify with is Brody, yet his allocation of M/R/U's throughout that chapter is next to nothing. His entire contribution is as a kind of persistent background commentary with little or no action. His reactions, what there are, obviously does not include all that matters since he is not in the cage with Hooper where most of the interesting action is taking place. 

Most other scenes, a lot of them anyway, do follow Brody and a standard M/R narrative concerned with his experience but not all of them do. Benchley often shifts to focus on other characters M/R/U's, many which feature Brody and could potentially be told from his point of view yet that point of view is intentionally kept on the less-important characters (such as his wife) in order to add depth to the story about this man and his battle against a shark.

Of course, one can justify that by saying there is more than one protagonist, or that Benchley is merely offering background, but in this scene Brody is not only present but is active in real time and yet his M/R is not featured hardly at all because he is not in the cage. Benchley was able to switch to Hooper and the shark's respective POV's seemlessly while not abandoning but simply relegating Brody's. I believe this is the kind of scene that Emma is referring to with and it has nothing to do with Benchley 'injecting himself into the scene'.


----------



## Pete_C (Apr 10, 2018)

To any writer with common sense, MRUs are redundant. Unless you have a haphazard approach that is not well thought out, they're pointless.

Here's the thing. You walk up to me with a pin. I see you with it but am unaware, in that moment, what your intention is. For no reason you stick the pin in me. The first thing I register is you doing the deed and the sensation: in this case pain. Both of these stimuli cause reactions. These are automatic and they happen immediately. As an automated reaction I might recoil, cry out or lash out. These will not happen until the stimulus occurs, but will happen as soon as it does and before any reasoned reaction. After this I might react in a non-automatic way: ask you why you did it, shout at you with a reasoned message, etc.. This is how the world is. I know it, you know it. A new writer might dash into their story and insert a reasoned response as the pin goes in, but they'll learn that doesn't work when they reread it and see the commentary is arse-about-face.

To suggest that anyone with a modicum of sense can't work this out and understand it without MRUs is utter toss. All the supporters of MRUs are doing is claiming to have invented an element of everyday life, and when people claim that you can be surewhat they're pedalling is nonsense.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 10, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> If you present that information as yourself, rather then having the protagonist notice and react. you broke POV and injected yourself into the scene _telling_ the reader what happened. But the character you cut away from is the protagonist, the one the reader is supposed to identify with. If you interject things that _you notice,_ whose story it is, yours or the protagonist? Are you telling the story or making the reader live it as the protagonist?



Do you acknowledge the existence of omniscient POV, or or any POV other than first/close third?


----------



## tgmittens (Apr 10, 2018)

I feel like this would get really repetitive after a while if it was used with every other scene. It definitely strays from the "show don't tell" practice. Perhaps there's a better way of showing thoughts or emotions beyond simply telling what the character thinks verbatim.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 10, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> If you present that information as yourself, rather then having the protagonist notice and react. you broke POV and injected yourself into the scene _telling_ the reader what happened. But the character you cut away from is the protagonist, the one the reader is supposed to identify with. If you interject things that _you notice,_ whose story it is, yours or the protagonist? Are you telling the story or making the reader live it as the protagonist?



I think these are not the only two choices, but that's a lot to talk about here. If this story worked well just from my MC's character, I would have certainly told it that way, first-person present is my natural style. It didn't. It doesn't.

In this scene, my MC screams and freezes, so she's just focusing on the lion. When I write that her friend "yelled, 'Run!' and started running away as fast as he could, is that putting myself into the scene?

I feel like I gave you a lob pitch and you missed. When there are 3 people in a scene and a lion comes, why can't we just say there could be 3 MRUs? And then we leave out the boring responses, which we do for the MC anyway? And present the responses in the right order (her screaming, him running, the other friend staying by her).

And the very next part of the scene is her two friends reacting to the fact that she is not running away. So those are MRU's to her instead of the lion. Is that also a problem? The reality is that all four people in the scene can have an MRU to anything that happens, right?


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 10, 2018)

> This logic only seems like it would be true if we are talking about a  work written in first or possibly second person - "I see" or "You see".


Naa...POV break is a POV break. The personal pronouns you use  are an authorial choice in how to present the story. For the character living the story it's always first person present tense, as it is in life. 

There's no difference between:

I stepped closer, deliberately intruding into Jackson's space as I said...
and 
He stepped closer, deliberately intruding into Jackson's space as he said...
and
You step closer, deliberately intruding into Jackson's space as you say...

Person is very different from viewpoint, and refers only to the use of personal pronouns. If you are in the viewpoint of the protagonist you have placed the reader in real-time, in the persona of the protagonist. Step in as the author and tell the reader what's going on that the protagonist isn't noticing and reacting to and you have abandoned the protagonist's viewpoint.

That's okay of you're in fly-on-the-wall mode,or omniscient, But the vast majority of fiction sold is presented from the protagonist's viewpoint.





> No, of course not. If one of my characters is a forty year old man and  another is a six year old child their reactions to a lion attack are  going to be entirely different.


But they _will_ react. We know they will. So what? It's not their story, and unless they are effecting the outcome from the protagonist's viewpoint, who cares? Those other people and how they react is irrelevant because there is only one protagonist. How the protagonist reacts is unique to their viewpoint. It's what creates the empathetic bond between reader and protagonist. It's why they _care._ Describe what _can_ be seen in a scene and it becomes a report, with no humanity, only facts. History books inform. They're filled with drama, love, intrigue, and all the things a novel has. But because they only inform, and are told in overview, there is no sense of immediacy, no uncertainty, and nothing to worry about. But readers are looking for an emotional, not an informational experience. They _feed_ on drama and the things that make them worry for the protagonist. But that can _only_ happen in real-time. So, kill that moment of now by interjecting yourself into the scene and you break the illusion of time passing, killing all momentum the scene may have built.





> In the book overall the clear protagonist whom we are to identify with is Brody,


You misunderstand the term protagonist. Each scene has one and it will usually be the person who has the greatest emotional stake in the scene. They are the viewpoint character, and that can change within the scene as the situation changes.

Look at the opening of Jaws. After the opening that establishes who we are, where we are, and what's going on, the viewpoint changes from the woman to the shark, and back, always staying within the chosen character's viewpoint, and moment of now of that character.

Suppose, during the interaction between the woman and the shark the author had stopped to talk about the man sleeping, or even had him wake and look for her. That, because it was irrelevant to the outcome of the encounter, would have been a POV break and would have killed the suspense and feeling of immediacy.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 11, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Naa...POV break is a POV break. The personal pronouns you use  are an authorial choice in how to present the story. For the character living the story it's always first person present tense, as it is in life.
> 
> There's no difference between:
> 
> ...



*POINT OF VIEW - NOUN: The narrator's position in relation to the story being told.
*
You are quite literally rewriting the dictionary at this point. "_For the character living the story it is always first person present tense_" What on earth do you mean? The character living the story is not the narrator unless it is in first-person. This isn't a matter of opinion. A narrator (please don't make me whip out the dictionary again, look it up yourself if you must) by definition is the person from whose point of view the text is being written and there is only one and it need not have anything to do with which character is actually of interest in the piece. 

 It is entirely possible for the narrative to be written in a "false" first-person where the scene's events and primary subject(s) are described in third person but the narrator happens to be in the scene and therefore writes what they saw and heard from their point of view. For example, the narrator could be a child present at a dinner writing with minimal reference to themselves about a conversation they witnessed between two family members,. 



> Person is very different from viewpoint, and refers only to the use of personal pronouns. If you are in the viewpoint of the protagonist you have placed the reader in real-time, in the persona of the protagonist. Step in as the author and tell the reader what's going on that the protagonist isn't noticing and reacting to and you have abandoned the protagonist's viewpoint.



Oh please. I'm not going to get into semantics of what the difference is between 'person' and 'viewpoint'. I have been writing for most of my life and have never once needed to differentiate between "first-person' and 'first-viewpoint' and I challenge anybody else to try to figure out what you are saying here or how it is useful (remember the original question was in regard to usefulness). Moving on.




> That's okay of you're in fly-on-the-wall mode,or omniscient, But the vast majority of fiction sold is presented from the protagonist's viewpoint.



Please provide a source for this.



> But they _will_ react. We know they will. So what? It's not their story, and unless they are effecting the outcome from the protagonist's viewpoint, who cares? Those other people and how they react is irrelevant because there is only one protagonist.How the protagonist reacts is unique to their viewpoint. It's what creates the empathetic bond between reader and protagonist. It's why they _care._ Describe what _can_ be seen in a scene and it becomes a report, with no humanity, only facts.



Once again you are dictating the terms without a shred of evidence. Assume you're right and the protagonist is all that a reader cares about and a good book follows the protagonist. There are several books (I wrote one) told from the viewpoint of serial rapists/murderers. An example of one would be Child of God by Cormac McCarthy.

Now, I can get along with the idea that a character does not need to be moral to be empathetic and many of my chapters were written with the intent of the reader sympathizing with or at the very least getting into the head of a character who is frankly a psychopath,  however many such books (the best ones, in my opinion) work on a two-sided level where the report is not necessarily with the protagonist within the scene but another character. The protagonist may be an observer (Ebeneezer Scrooge witnessing the Cratchett family), a bit-part player or even the person who is clearly in the wrong.



> You misunderstand the term protagonist. Each scene has one and it will usually be the person who has the greatest emotional stake in the scene. They are the viewpoint character, and that can change within the scene as the situation changes.



*PROTAGONIST - NOUN: the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.*

I didn't "misunderstand", I assumed its meaning in common parlance. Usually when people talk about protagonists they mean the leading few characters throughout the entire story. Nobody talks about Maester Cressen as being a protagonist in _A Clash Of Kings, _most people probably don't even remember who he is, and yet he is - briefly - a protagonist by your definition.



> Look at the opening of Jaws. After the opening that establishes who we are, where we are, and what's going on, the viewpoint changes from the woman to the shark, and back, always staying within the chosen character's viewpoint, and moment of now of that character. Suppose, during the interaction between the woman and the shark the author had stopped to talk about the man sleeping, or even had him wake and look for her. That, because it was irrelevant to the outcome of the encounter, would have been a POV break and would have killed the suspense and feeling of immediacy.


 
Perhaps, perhaps not. I actually quite like that idea, myself. Why not have an alternating narrative between the woman about to be killed and the poor soul who goes to look for her? There's no way you can say that wouldn't work, and there are plenty of stories that work in a similarly alternating fashion, tracking the movements of two people on their way to meet one another.

I notice you did not really address the excerpt from Jaws I presented, presumably because you cannot explain the way the M/R alternates within your philosophy. Again, all this is fine if you are claiming it only as your philosophy and what has/has not worked for you, but you are not doing that. Rather you are doing what you do _ad nauseam_: Making hefty claims about what is or is not possible and offering no evidence (because there isn't any) or rationale and nevertheless asserting it as gospel.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 11, 2018)

Motivation-Reaction Units are like outlines in a way: some writers swear by them, others couldn't care less.

The way I see it, the intent of the MRU is simply to remind the writer to return to the viewpoint character's POV. If you're already a writer who feels confident in how you handle POV, learning about MRUs is pretty much unnecessary.

If you _do_ use them, my advice is to be flexible. If you stick religiously to such a pattern, there's a good chance the writing will feel repetitive or forced, especially if you're thinking "MRU! MRU!" while writing, instead of allowing yourself to actually fall into the story.

One of the potential drawbacks of the MRU pattern is that it has a natural tendency to create a _reactive_ POV character, rather than a _proactive_ one. So, I'd advise MRU writers to think of the "R" (Reaction) part of the unit as the part that propels the story forward. You don't want a character who just bounces around, reacting to everything around them, without any apparent motivation or drive of their own.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 11, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Suppose, during the interaction between the woman and the shark the author had stopped to talk about the man sleeping, or even had him wake and look for her. That, because it was irrelevant to the outcome of the encounter, would have been a POV break and would have killed the suspense and feeling of immediacy.




It's sometimes done. If done well, it might *increase* suspense. 

For example : 

A person is being chased and another is looking for the one being chased. Whether a book or movie, the reader/viewer gets *more* emotionally involved, *hoping* that the friend/relative finds the victim in time! The audience is rooting for the save! 

That same scenario, shown only from the perspective of the one being chased rouses different emotions in the audience. Fear. Desperation. Panic.

Both can be effective. Both can keep the audience involved in the story. Neither is better than the other. They are just different.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 12, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Naa...POV break is a POV break. The personal pronouns you use  are an authorial choice in how to present the story. For the character living the story it's always first person present tense, as it is in life.
> 
> There's no difference between:
> 
> ...



In third person, I can follow one character, describe only what that character sees and thinks.

But that doesn't mean actually crawling inside the character's mind. The above seem like the narrator looking at the character from nearby and describing what the character is doing and thinking. People don't think about whether their actions are deliberately or accidental. Smaller points, but they usually are more concrete, for example, putting their face into some else's face, not as abstract as intruding on someone's space. They would tend to talk about pushing into the space, not intruding, and "intruding" leans towards describing the action from Jackson's perspective.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with taking a more "movie" perspective. I described myself doing it for the four characters in my scene.

And these aren't MRUs, right? I still can't see any reason to bring perspective into MRUs.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 13, 2018)

Surely (which of course means that I'm not sure) there is a difference between reporting events and telling a story. In the former case it makes sense for events to be placed in the correct order with reactions following motivations, but in the latter case reversing the order stimulates the reader's curiosity and keeps them reading. Writing a story is a dance with the reader's mind; one must keep it close enough to lead it where one wants but one must also allow it the freedom to move independently. The good writer will grab the reader's mind just at the right moment to stop it wandering off the dance floor altogether or doing its own thing.

The evidence of this may lie in the opening lines of stories. Is it better at the very beginning of a story to state a motivation first or a reaction? At that point the writer definitely wants to get and hold the reader's attention. When exactly does a writer stop opening up a story and start closing it off though? Which of the two openings following is better? (Okay, I mean _relatively_ better regardless of whether either is actually good!) One is a motivation and the other a reaction, so far as I understand the idea of MRU.

"I had never contemplated killing anyone before but the day that ..."

"I walked into the bedroom and discovered my best friend in bed with my wife, so ..."

Surely (Evidently I'm still not sure then.) a writer should start as they mean to go on.

This is not really a subject that I should comment on given that the essence of my own writing is that reactions mysteriously precede motivations in a surreal manner, but that's what time distortion tales are all about. It does mean that I have to think about which way round I should present events _all_ the time though.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 13, 2018)

Hiding the motivation is important and presents a need. Every character has a need. In a story they have opposing need. I'd like to think each need is unique each scene. Because something different happens. For example, a sick uncle, and someone keeping it secret because the person has a terrible and deadly illness.

The above I read somewhere and I thought about sharing it and posting it since it makes sense. The character's dialogue is in a subcontext if that makes sense. So his or her hidden motives are not obvious. Dialogue depicts behavior and does not draw conclusions, that would then be on the nose dialogue in a story.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 14, 2018)

> You are quite literally rewriting the dictionary at this point.


The dictionary gives generalities. Quote a book on writing technique and you may be saying something meaningful.





> "_For the character living the story it is always first person present tense_" What on earth do you mean?


It's pretty basic:

In life, for us, it's always first person. Everything that happens to us is interpreted through the lens of our experience, and our needs and desires. And for us it's always "now." 

Each of us sees things differently because of that. Listen to two politicians describe the same events and you'll see that. That's life, and life flows, moment-by-moment. And that's true for your fictional character, too. As a narrator you may talk _about_ them, but for the character, there's only the steady flow of events that must be reacted to. The narrator can stop and eat lunch, then return. The character must react in real-time.

Telling the story in first or third person changes that not at all. First person doesn't magically change telling to showing, And the personal pronouns you use are unrelated to viewpoint, which is the thing that makes one character different from the other. Just as in life, two characters experiencing the same thing may react in different ways. Leave that out and you're writing a report—fact based and author-centric. In other words, nonfiction.

But place the reader into the persona of the protagonist, emotion-based and character-centric and you stop informing and begin to entertaining.

If you look in the dictionary you'll learn that "ice" is the word for frozen water or fruit juice. You'll find that "hot" refers to temperature till you get way down in the definitions, but the statement by Raffles the thief that, "This ice is hot," means stolen diamonds. And lox and bagels seems to refer to food till you learn that Lox is also liquid oxygen and a bagel can be the seal around the hatch in a spacecraft.

So be careful of the dictionary. 





> Oh please. I'm not going to get into semantics of what the difference is between 'person' and 'viewpoint'


It's not semantics. "Person, as in POV refers to which personal pronouns we use, something we learned in grade school. Viewpoint refers to how an individual perceives the world, as in, "You have your viewpoint and I have mine." or, "The story is told from the _viewpoint_ of someone who grew up during the Great Depression." And I'm sure you can see that with that last one it could be told in any person, and still be in her viewpoint. 





> Once again you are dictating the terms without a shred of evidence.


Wait...I said that if a lion came into the room we can be sure that the people other than the protagonist will react...and you say I have to _provide evidence_ for that? Really? Well, you have your viewpoint, I suppose. But in my experience, every time a dangerous animal comes into the room people do react.





> There are several books (I wrote one) told from the viewpoint of serial rapists/murderers.


I don't doubt that you did. But to be seen as proving the point wouldn't it have to have been a success? I mean no disrespect, but if I write a novel from the viewpoint of a sand crab and it doesn't sell I can hardly use it as proof that it's a popular approach.





> PROTAGONIST - NOUN: the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.


You do love that dictionary. But...

In every scene there is a character—call it the viewpoint character if it makes you more comfortable—that is the character whose viewpoint we experience the action through. Be it first, second, or third person, that character is the one with the short-term scene-goal and the one reacting to the conflict. And, that character is usually the one with the largest emotional stake—the one with the most to lose. Be very careful about dictionary quotes because the same term can have very different meanings in different fields.





> Why not have an alternating narrative between the woman about to be killed and the poor soul who goes to look for her?


Several reasons. First is that we want the reader to care about the protagonist. And they want to care about them. so the character has to have some admirable characteristics. And if that person is bad, they should be perceived as having at least a chance of, and be deserving of, redemption. Anther reason is that the number of people who want to read what amounts to a snuff story is pretty limited.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 14, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> In every scene there is a character—call it the viewpoint character if it makes you more comfortable—that is the character whose viewpoint we experience the action through. Be it first, second, or third person, that character is the one with the short-term scene-goal and the one reacting to the conflict.



I wrote a story first person present tense totally from the perspective of the wife . . . and the judges slammed me for how I was treating the husband. They took the perspective of the husband? Really? For my next story told totally from the perspective of the wife, I thought very carefully about how that story would be experienced from the perspective of the husband, and rewrote the story accordingly. It got probably my best score ever, and one judge even mentioned the slight horror from the husband's perspective.

I actually think you are mostly correct. But to think you as author control how the reader experiences the story is not exactly correct.

And one writing technique assumes that readers can simultaneously take two perspectives. Such as the comedy in mistaken identity.

Laughing, actually to say I always take my own perspective ignores that I might be watching a movie and take the perspective of one of the characters. Surely I can empathize with people I see in real life and in a way try to see the world from their perspective. Hmm, that's what I constantly do as a writer, right? One of the hardest things to do as a writer is create a character and then see the events of the story from the character's perspective.

Added: Or, is the hardest thing we do as writers taking the perspective of the reader?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 14, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I wrote a story first person present tense totally from the perspective of the wife . . . and the judges slammed me for how I was treating the husband. They took the perspective of the husband? Really? For my next story told totally from the perspective of the wife, I thought very carefully about how that story would be experienced from the perspective of the husband, and rewrote the story accordingly. It got probably my best score ever, and one judge even mentioned the slight horror from the husband's perspective.
> 
> I actually think you are mostly correct. But to think you as author control how the reader experiences the story is not exactly correct.
> 
> ...



I bet you're right that the judges, especially if male, identified with the husband in both stories.

I don't think writers take on the perspective of their readers, though. As writers, we have to look at the fictional situation from the perspective of our characters, sure. And we need to keep in mind our readers (age, preferred genre, etc) if we are writing to sell to a particular group. But "take on" their perspective? I'm not even entirely sure what you mean by that.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 16, 2018)

People have given a lot of reasons why the MRU advice is not particularly useful. But I think it would have helped this author. The MC is watching TV and his father fell asleep.



> In fact, looking over at him, it seems as if his breathing may have stopped, too.
> 
> My dad has this condition called sleep apnea. It causes him to stop breathing in his sleep pretty much every night. Still, I pause the game and quickly get up to switch off the fan and the air conditioner.
> 
> "Dad?" my voice is loud in the now-quiet room. "Dad! Wake up, man."



His response leads with an action stopping info-dump. I can't think of a great way to write that scene, but everything starting with his emotional reaction works better than that.



> I panic, then remember it's just his sleep apnea, but it's still scary. I turn everything off -- the TV, the air conditioner ...


The premise, plot, and hook were fine, and it was in my genre told in the perspective I like. But I didn't enjoy reading the book so I stopped at page 35.


----------

