VanderMeer's Wonderbook, Chapter 2: The Ecosystem Of Story (continued)
There are three insert essays presented in the second chapter. The first is by Nick Mamatas, a novelist with an interest in unusual narrative perspectives, and is entitled: "Point Of View: 'Subjective Versus Objective' And 'Roving'".
Manatas begins by framing POV as connected to cultural context, discussing the historical development and shifts in the popularity of various narrative persons. He connects the movement away from omniscience with the pluralization of society. The omniscient narrator can stop and provide a context, discussing concepts or commenting on action, to guide and inform the reader. Today, individual readers already have a concept of the social world and no longer want such guidance, leading towards fiction with different priorities. I am not certain how much of this I truly agree with, but I have not done a serious study of this issue in the history of the novel, so I am not going to argue, except to say that I don't believe any such concern should be a matter for a writer. While I have not done very many stories in omniscient voices, and certainly not recently, I am interested in exploring variations on that concept, and think that the concepts can be very contemporary, reflecting aspects of modern living that could not be seen in a more singular or simplified perspective.
Alas, I don't have any such work, as yet, to show for that, but my point is more that I do not see any reason a writer should allow trends of this sort to alter their natural inclinations, at least not in overt choices. Of course any writer is bound to be influenced by what is happening in the contemporary fiction they encounter, and by the needs and interests of contemporary readership. The connection beneath Manatas' claim is harder for me to validate. That claim lies on the concept that writer's are driven to reflect a specific set of values when they choose to utilize one style of narrative perspective. The POV that is omniscient and carries a certain quality of authority, exist almost as a God over the narrative, could have many inspirations, and the shift from that form of authorial voice towards perspectives that are less grand may be a reflection of the specific shift into a more informed public who have a wider view of the world and are themselves individualized and differentiated in ways unlike previous generations. This all is a sound argument, but I think that individual writers can see these things in different ways, and suspect the actual historical shifts being discussed are more complicated. I would, for example, imagine that a great many writers were influenced, knowingly or otherwise, to choose voices reflective of the fiction they wished to emulate. Thus, it may well be that certain key writers influenced these shifts based on their own ideological conceptions, and created a fashion that was followed by many who did not even realize it was associated with a deeper meaning. Of course, that historical question is largely besides the point, the more central matter is that it I do not believe it inappropriate to utilize any form of voice, though it may seem unfashionable, and disagree with the implication that omniscient voices belong to the past, a notion that is not directly stated, but which I am inferring from the general argument and which might not reflect anything that Mamatas actually believes.
Manatas next draws distinction between objective and subjective perspectives: objective narrators have no personal opinions and present only the facts; subjective narrator can present thoughts from characters, even if these are placed into the narrative description. I wonder, though, about a viewpoint that cannot see inside the heads of characters but still has opinions about the world. I don't know whether such a thing has been done, probably it has, but the point is more that I am not certain that I am quite understanding this as the distinction, as I can see it limited to certain perspectives and biases. However, my goal is to see beyond that, and as such, I want to set my own thought on this aside for a moment. I think that, in some sense, the distinction being more generally made here is about the question of whether it is useful in a story to give the readers more or less access to the character(s). In an objective narrative, the access is entirely external, and the actions of each character are open to interpretation. A reader is not certain what a character is thinking, they only see them act and hear them speak. In subjective narration, that access is expanded to allow a reader to enter one or more minds. In this context, both first and close third narratives serve a similar function, and the choice between them is about how much distance is needed and what is required in terms of perspective shifts. Seeing through this lens, the focus on a balance between giving the reader more information, thus guiding and controlling the experience, or requiring them to do more work by providing less information, such that the meanings of the story should be more internalized by the reader. In the first case, their is the advantage that one can point the reader to specific interpretations and understandings; in the second, the writer is leaving the possibility open for a greater degree of interpretative freedom, but is also hoping that, because the reader does more to unveil the story's meaning, that the experience will make the connection to those understandings deeper. I can certainly see a value in this perspective, but I think their are other concerns that I would personally weigh beyond this.
The section discussing roving perspective, where the narrator (generally in third person) can enter into different perspectives. This can be a complicated proposition, and is often badly executed. The advice here is largely to recognize that such shifts need to have a function, and need to be important. A shift in perspective is jarring to a reader. We have one way of seeing the world, and one character we are attached to, and then we are whisked off, traveling within another mind. Their are two primary reasons for such shifts, one being for the plot, and the other being to show a point about the characters. If one is shifting to forward actions of plot, the first goal has to be picking the perspective that will make the scene work best. As well, I would suggest asking if the shift is needed. If switching inside a scene, the question of how this is done is often as or more significant than why. I would suggest reading Tolstoy. No one else is able to enter the minds of his characters more fully, nor switch more fluidly. It is astounding. Manatas points out that switching between perspectives often can become confusing or even silly to a reader. Thus, in the cases where the point is narrative, it does not generally help to have a number of perspectives that are similar on an event. A meeting of people does not require entering each mind in the room, but may be more effective if told from the one right perspective. By contrast, if their are multiple perspectives that need to be expressed, that may be a reason to jump to a different character.
This does not mean, though, that a shift between two or more characters with identical opinions or experiences is never useful. Generally, this is done more, though, to convey character. For example, love at first sight is often portrayed through a swapping of perspectives as the two characters see each other and feel that passion. It can also serve to show the unity of a group, for example the dedication and single-mindedness, as well as the disorder and frenzy, of a mob mentality can be shown by shifting between the similar emotions and thoughts of the characters. As well, the differences that can be shown can point out aspects of character that might not be obvious from appearances and actions.
In the end though, the point that is most important is to use such a device with intent. Well executed, and applied to the appropriate story, it is possible for the roving POV to work wonders and transport the reader beyond the bounds of any other medium, but done wrong, it will completely destroy a work of fiction. Yet, of course, the only way to learn is to attempt and fail, and then take that failure and try to improve it. That might mean working from the first draft, or a whole new story, or it might mean just rewriting the first story without ever looking back at that draft, but no one figures out how to do hard things without taking a risk in that direction, and we writers are quite lucky that what the world ultimately sees may well have been edited for years.
Manatas begins by framing POV as connected to cultural context, discussing the historical development and shifts in the popularity of various narrative persons. He connects the movement away from omniscience with the pluralization of society. The omniscient narrator can stop and provide a context, discussing concepts or commenting on action, to guide and inform the reader. Today, individual readers already have a concept of the social world and no longer want such guidance, leading towards fiction with different priorities. I am not certain how much of this I truly agree with, but I have not done a serious study of this issue in the history of the novel, so I am not going to argue, except to say that I don't believe any such concern should be a matter for a writer. While I have not done very many stories in omniscient voices, and certainly not recently, I am interested in exploring variations on that concept, and think that the concepts can be very contemporary, reflecting aspects of modern living that could not be seen in a more singular or simplified perspective.
Alas, I don't have any such work, as yet, to show for that, but my point is more that I do not see any reason a writer should allow trends of this sort to alter their natural inclinations, at least not in overt choices. Of course any writer is bound to be influenced by what is happening in the contemporary fiction they encounter, and by the needs and interests of contemporary readership. The connection beneath Manatas' claim is harder for me to validate. That claim lies on the concept that writer's are driven to reflect a specific set of values when they choose to utilize one style of narrative perspective. The POV that is omniscient and carries a certain quality of authority, exist almost as a God over the narrative, could have many inspirations, and the shift from that form of authorial voice towards perspectives that are less grand may be a reflection of the specific shift into a more informed public who have a wider view of the world and are themselves individualized and differentiated in ways unlike previous generations. This all is a sound argument, but I think that individual writers can see these things in different ways, and suspect the actual historical shifts being discussed are more complicated. I would, for example, imagine that a great many writers were influenced, knowingly or otherwise, to choose voices reflective of the fiction they wished to emulate. Thus, it may well be that certain key writers influenced these shifts based on their own ideological conceptions, and created a fashion that was followed by many who did not even realize it was associated with a deeper meaning. Of course, that historical question is largely besides the point, the more central matter is that it I do not believe it inappropriate to utilize any form of voice, though it may seem unfashionable, and disagree with the implication that omniscient voices belong to the past, a notion that is not directly stated, but which I am inferring from the general argument and which might not reflect anything that Mamatas actually believes.
Manatas next draws distinction between objective and subjective perspectives: objective narrators have no personal opinions and present only the facts; subjective narrator can present thoughts from characters, even if these are placed into the narrative description. I wonder, though, about a viewpoint that cannot see inside the heads of characters but still has opinions about the world. I don't know whether such a thing has been done, probably it has, but the point is more that I am not certain that I am quite understanding this as the distinction, as I can see it limited to certain perspectives and biases. However, my goal is to see beyond that, and as such, I want to set my own thought on this aside for a moment. I think that, in some sense, the distinction being more generally made here is about the question of whether it is useful in a story to give the readers more or less access to the character(s). In an objective narrative, the access is entirely external, and the actions of each character are open to interpretation. A reader is not certain what a character is thinking, they only see them act and hear them speak. In subjective narration, that access is expanded to allow a reader to enter one or more minds. In this context, both first and close third narratives serve a similar function, and the choice between them is about how much distance is needed and what is required in terms of perspective shifts. Seeing through this lens, the focus on a balance between giving the reader more information, thus guiding and controlling the experience, or requiring them to do more work by providing less information, such that the meanings of the story should be more internalized by the reader. In the first case, their is the advantage that one can point the reader to specific interpretations and understandings; in the second, the writer is leaving the possibility open for a greater degree of interpretative freedom, but is also hoping that, because the reader does more to unveil the story's meaning, that the experience will make the connection to those understandings deeper. I can certainly see a value in this perspective, but I think their are other concerns that I would personally weigh beyond this.
The section discussing roving perspective, where the narrator (generally in third person) can enter into different perspectives. This can be a complicated proposition, and is often badly executed. The advice here is largely to recognize that such shifts need to have a function, and need to be important. A shift in perspective is jarring to a reader. We have one way of seeing the world, and one character we are attached to, and then we are whisked off, traveling within another mind. Their are two primary reasons for such shifts, one being for the plot, and the other being to show a point about the characters. If one is shifting to forward actions of plot, the first goal has to be picking the perspective that will make the scene work best. As well, I would suggest asking if the shift is needed. If switching inside a scene, the question of how this is done is often as or more significant than why. I would suggest reading Tolstoy. No one else is able to enter the minds of his characters more fully, nor switch more fluidly. It is astounding. Manatas points out that switching between perspectives often can become confusing or even silly to a reader. Thus, in the cases where the point is narrative, it does not generally help to have a number of perspectives that are similar on an event. A meeting of people does not require entering each mind in the room, but may be more effective if told from the one right perspective. By contrast, if their are multiple perspectives that need to be expressed, that may be a reason to jump to a different character.
This does not mean, though, that a shift between two or more characters with identical opinions or experiences is never useful. Generally, this is done more, though, to convey character. For example, love at first sight is often portrayed through a swapping of perspectives as the two characters see each other and feel that passion. It can also serve to show the unity of a group, for example the dedication and single-mindedness, as well as the disorder and frenzy, of a mob mentality can be shown by shifting between the similar emotions and thoughts of the characters. As well, the differences that can be shown can point out aspects of character that might not be obvious from appearances and actions.
In the end though, the point that is most important is to use such a device with intent. Well executed, and applied to the appropriate story, it is possible for the roving POV to work wonders and transport the reader beyond the bounds of any other medium, but done wrong, it will completely destroy a work of fiction. Yet, of course, the only way to learn is to attempt and fail, and then take that failure and try to improve it. That might mean working from the first draft, or a whole new story, or it might mean just rewriting the first story without ever looking back at that draft, but no one figures out how to do hard things without taking a risk in that direction, and we writers are quite lucky that what the world ultimately sees may well have been edited for years.
Comments
Post a Comment