|
Really loving this version of the thread so far, there's some great advice coming out. Especially the stuff about combat.
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
So it's been a long time since I've been around here. But I am working on a piece that's pretty well scripted out. Only issue is that I really feel like it should be done in First Person, but that point of view has always felt terribly unnatural for me to write in and my attempts feel very awkward. Normally I stick to third person limited.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
I have been pretty much reading first person and things that would interest the character (trying to get a feel for who she is). I worked pretty hard to get a sense for the character, but I feel like even with all of this background the words just roll out in third person and they aren't there in first. I guess I can find something to write about in first and then post some examples of my third person stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Dr. Kloctopussy posted:Why do you want to put it in first person if the words are rolling out in third? There's nothing wrong about third person, so why fight it? Yeah I am starting to think I might just be doing it in third. No reason to fight it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
I was inspired to read some first person written from a female perspective and just give this one more go. Right now I'm reading Dan Wells's Hollow City and I am thinking of going off the suggestion of a friend to try Meg Cabot's All American Girl.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
Going to ignore Nano like I do every year. I can't afford to wait for November.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
I'm taking time off right now for reading, I am trying to read more first person and just in general to get a feel for the kind of thing I want to write.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
I've never even heard of someone not using quotation marks unless they were writing a play. I think it is probably one of the stupidest, most pretentious things I've ever heard though. You'd be better off, instead of harping on little marks around the page worrying about the things between those marks and before and after them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Martello posted:Molly Bloom said it was a visual hurdle. I was addressing anyone who thinks Special Literary Writing Rules are a good idea. I think at times they have their place, but only when they're not terribly distracting. I read about a book where this black civil rights leader was killed and his character continues to narrate. In the parts where the dead him narrates, he doesn't get anything capitalized. It's kind of to signify that's him. I understand stuff like that, but something like no quotations seems more like a total distraction and something that would just slow the flow of the story. I was looking into this and someone said just write with them and go back and take them all out. If they're so needed by the writer, that's even further proof they should be left in. Hell, I have issue with the single quotation some traditional British books use (like in the Doctor Who novelizations). I just wasn't used to it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
I'm curious to see this too, I looked up examples but they were kind of bad in terms of just general writing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:I often feel more comfortable and confident when I write in present tense, is that a horrible thing? I've never even considered that it's some kind of pretentious and bad thing. People write in present tense some of the time, especially in first person. I forgot what it was I read like this recently.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:I kind of understand not liking the McCarthy thing but I don't get this. "" is completely arbitrary and a ton of European languages use something completely different: «», which are called Guillemet. It's not completely arbitrary, they're the way most American English speakers denote a direct quote. That's like saying that the upside down punctuation used in Spanish is arbitrary because someone else doesn't use it, it's part of their language. Sure languages change over time, but typically not in a way that makes clarity harder.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Mike Works posted:4 of the last 5 short stories I've written have had no quotation marks/punctuation whatsoever. I would almost say that I write exclusively without them now, but it just so happens that the story I'm currently writing has them. And why's that? It fits the story. This sounds like one of the issues I have with literary fiction. Not to say it sounds pretentious, but seriously if you had to struggle through reading it the first time (and not because of something being wrong with you) then mission failed. I want my story as presentable as can be to the largest audience possible within reason. Molly Bloom posted:Since we're arguing about poo poo, can I ask about white people writing minority characters? I've been reading around on the subject and finding the answer to be a general 'don't do it (unless you have good beta readers from said ethnic group and even then probably not)'. As a black person, I can tell you it pisses me off far more to see absolutely no black people in books (and no other people, like movies with no female characters, movies set in Miami and not a single hispanic person is around, etc). I have a pretty multi-cultral cast. I'm a little heavy on women, but that was intentional. I have two black main characters, two white and there's a Japanese American character I plan to add later. I try to include everyone within reason, I have a lesbian character (though she kind of wrote herself that way). Check out the podcast Writing Excuses did on Writing the Other, it's really funny actually. But I think an important point that they made is one of the best ways to avoid the pitfalls is to have more than one person of a race.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Mike Works posted:The vast majority of (contemporary) literary fiction that I've read over the past few years have had next to no hurdles whatsoever. I understand the notion of wanting to read the largest possible audience, but condemning all of literary fiction is pretty rash or shortsighted. I'm not saying literary as a whole is full of hurdles. But people perceive it as being so because of things like this. And doing things like this seem to be kind of like creating hurdles that don't need to be there really. I would like to say I will read it, but to be honest I don't think it fits into my type of book. Usually I stick to genre fiction, I gave some books a friend of mine recommended mostly because the recommendation came from her. I bore very easily with books and will just put them down if they bore me. All of the erotica I have tried to give a chance did this. Lord of the Rings did this. A Clash of Kings did this too. It's one of the reason that I doubt that my fiction will ever get very long because I tend to figure that things don't typically need to be all that long.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2012 10:26
|
|
|
Mike Works posted:A Clash of Kings? Really? What was the hurdle there? I just got bored with it. There's not always a hurdle, there's just some books that are not for me. I read the first book as I was watching the first season so I stayed ahead of the show the whole time. When the first book ended I was kind of like "Eh, this is okay". The second book added nothing for me. I got about 65% of the way through it and just put it down. I've never really been the kind to start reading something and just finish it because I started it. I don't do that with television shows or movies, so I don't see the need to do it with books. Not all books are for everyone. I think that my biggest issue in a A Clash of Kings is I found out how short of an amount of time passes in all the books (over the course of the series). On top of that I felt that the author was just fluffing things up with words, most of it was extraneous. If someone feels the need to drag their word count out for no reason, I don't feel the need to read it. For me a story should be as short as it can be to get the point across clearly. squeegee posted:Yes, but dudes also need to get out of the mindset that breasts are inherently "sex parts." They're only sex parts in the sense that people who are sexually attracted to women are usually attracted to/aroused by breasts as an aspect of the female figure. They aren't inherently involved in the sexual act and don't serve an inherent sexual function. To a woman who isn't into other women, they're just these lumps on her chest that get in the way sometimes and that men are attracted to and that may or may not produce milk for her real or theoretical children. But we can't act like women don't worry over the size of their breasts or even the shape at times. A semi-famous internet personality recently spoke about putting a Kickstarter up because she felt that she needed to get surgery to enlarge her breasts and give her the breasts she always figured she would have. So I think it's safe to say that depending on the personality of the character, they might agonize over their breasts or really like them and like showing them off (I've known women like that too). CB_Tube_Knight fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Oct 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
Question to all of you: How do you feel about low work magic systems? I ask because I was listening to "I Should Be Writing" and Lou Anders was on talking about how there's a growing trend in the US where a character doesn't have to put any time studying or learning into their power, they just have to believe that they can do it or believe in themselves and it works. He was talking about hating systems that work like this and thinking that they are just wish-fulfillment and lazy writing. I was just wondering what everyone's take on this was? Martello posted:However, A Clash of Kings is an awesome book. I doubt I can give it another go.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2012 08:41
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:Re: Boobchat, I think a lot of people read fiction where there is excessive self breast examination. So it seems like the norm, especially when author's are writing in first person and aren't sure how to characterize their female character (or even let the reader know she's female in the first place). I read Meg Cabot's Ready or Not and there are a couple of scenes in there where the main character mentions her breasts. Mostly it's because her boyfriend stares at them when she wears a top she got from Nikey. But that's a good example of when mentioning breasts is a perfectly logical thing to do and it falls in line with characterization and story. Also sex scenes might have some mention of them there things. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Approach it like every other aspect of world-building. By that I mean, think about how it works and makes sense, and how it affects other aspects of the world. I think I woulad like to keep magic away from being the fix all solution that it appears to end up being in a lot of stories. I think that's my big goal, but I think that's more me being fearful of falling into a trap than anything. I'm sure I've mentioned Mistborn here before, relatively simple magic system that is the building blocks for something more complex later on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:To comment on the magic situation: if the magic is an intrinsic part of the world, consider the ramifications that it has on the behavior of people and cultures which use it or interact with it. If it's otherworldly, Hedge-like, and/or beyond mortal understanding, ask yourself why the magic is a part of the story. If the reason is, "Boy golly do I sure think magic is neat!" then you should probably scrap it or come up with a better story/reason. If the reason has a solid narrative base, then it shouldn't be any different from any other action which establishes character or setting. Just be careful to avoid using it as a deus ex machina. The magic is defintely deeply ingrained in the society of the world and neccessary. Taking it out would cause the plot to simply not work, both in my novel and in the shrot story I am working on. One of my characters can't heal without magic and since she can't use magic herself it's a bit of a weakness for her that any wounds she sustains are semi-permanent. On the subject of fighting I can give a little adivce, I really avoid the large sweeping fights as much as I can and try to focus in on the feelings and thoughts of one person and take everything from their view. Really the type of fighting effects what you're going to be able to say about the fight going on. Like are these people using hands, or swords or is there some guns thrown in there. Since I typically have just guns I don't really have to worry to much about describing the blow by blow because it hardly comes to that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
I Am Hydrogen posted:That very well might be. I think I'm a better short story writer. I studied journalism in college and wrote for a paper for awhile, so I enjoy the economy of words. I want to write a novel though, partly because I've always wanted to write one. And if I do it, I want to do it well. I'm not big into the whole blasting out 70k words and calling it a novel thing that NaNo seems to promote. If I do it then I want to put in a good faith effort and make it at least presentable. I think this is part of the reason why I have trouble. I'm extremely critical of my writing. Even when I don't go back and read what I wrote while I'm writing, it's still in the back of my head. I'm not a fan of a lot of the stuff Nano promotes, like waiting for some arbitray time to write. I really hate when people try and shoot through a novel and pump up a word count just because it's expected, when I finished my novel my goal in editing was to go back and take out as much as possible while still having it be enjoyable, understandable and fun. I liked that fast paced feeling I got from authors like Dan Wells and books like Fight Club.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
I usually have to remove distraction, I love writing but if friends are trying to come over or have me come over. So I sometimes have to ignore people and go to a place where I can't really use the internet--like some place without wifi, which is getting harder and harder to find.Tiggum posted:I don't understand why anyone would want to write fanfiction. If you want to write something similar to something that already exists, you can. In fact, it's pretty much unavoidable. So why not just do that? I think a lot of people just write fanfiction because they're not interested in learning to write something good, they just want people to tell them they already have. It's like people who say they have a lot of ideas but never do anything with them. They want the recognition you get from having done something but without actually having to do it first. This isn't condescending at all, you sound like one of those people who thinks ever person who wants to take pictures should learn to be a grade A photographer and be completely original and artistic. Some people just have ideas set in other worlds, the same way people publish under the Lovecraft Mythos, or people write novels based on video games, or people write Sherlock Holmes mysteries. Saying that just because it's for free online makes it automatically bad is just silly and pompous. There are good fan fiction stories out there, a great deal of them and some of them end up being more involved and longer than the original works and even creative with the ideas and takes they give on things. I don't understand how someone who claims to have a creative mind, like a writer, can't see how someone else wouldn't mind creating stories within the confines of a world that isn't all of their making or using characters that aren't entirely of their making. Maybe you don't want to do it, but it's narrow minded not to understand how someone else could like it. CB_Tube_Knight fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jan 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I seem to have come across poorly. I'm not saying everyone should try to be the best, or that fanfiction can't be good. I just don't understand the desire to write it. I just don't see the appeal. If you liked a story and want to write something like it, well, you can do that without it being fanfiction, you can just write something similar. The same applies if you think there was a glaring flaw in the original and you would have done it differently. Just do that then. Write your own version. Part of it is the immediate audience, I might have been too reactionary in my response, I'm pretty defensive of fan fiction and fan art because I think they're just for fun most of the time. Now the depravity that is displayed I could do with out. I actually haven't been in the thread much recently and I've been having an issue writing anything at all--writer's block for sure. I denied that was what it was until recently. But I've never been a person who had this problem before. Not sure what caused it, though I suspect it to have to do with work and how it's taking a toll on everything that I like to do. I had a short story I planned to self publish that was most of the way done, I scrapped the beginning of it because of the connection to a friend's work which was a bad idea in truth. Now I have no idea how to start it and the stuff I wrote after the start will not fit with the rest of the stuff I have.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Sorry, but this dialogue looks like 90% of what I see out there. Sure there are some exceptions but I think that we're seeing what is commonly done by authors and it sells and critics seem to like this stuff some of the time. Melodrama and the like is really what audiences want. Of course reality TV is popular, so that should tell you about popular opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:See, this is where the quote button would come in handy. Well I'm not saying that it's right or what is desirable. But people want that terribly written drivel and publishers crank it out. Once in a while there is a gem that gets through and is loved. But it's not often. The melodrama I was talking about is just the overall way I view literary fiction (was the book you were talking about literary?) For the most part I feel like they're trying to make ordinary situations interesting and at times it just drags on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Erik Shawn-Bohner posted:Are you talking about big L Literary or little L literary? The labeling system is muddled. An example of little L would be "The Road" which sold well (and got made into a movie), was enjoyed by a wide spectrum audience, and is labeled as "literary". That mostly means that it's well written and more nuanced than your standard sci-fi. Asimov and the like also fall into that little L category. I've never even heard it broken into two separate categories like that. But you hit the nail on the head to what I was describing more or less, that avant garde type stuff. squeegee posted:I don't even know what to say to this. Do you really think that "ordinary situations" can't make for compelling writing? Sure, there's a lot of mediocre crap out there, but some of the most moving fiction I've read is at heart about ordinary people doing ordinary things. It's the craft, the language, and the insight into the human condition that make it good writing. I get tired really quickly of all the writers who think a story needs to be full of explosions and daring escape attempts and interstellar wars or whatever to be worth reading. Raymond Carver is a good example. Most of his stories that I've read take place in one or two rooms and his characters might easily be our next-door neighbors, but it's artful and compelling writing. Obviously everyone's going to have their own tastes, but disregarding a huge swath of entirely worthwhile fiction because it involves "ordinary situations" is just ignorant. And not all genre fiction has explosions and daring escapes. The difference is that usually in genre fiction I feel like I am getting something going on, some kind of conflict other than the mundane. Sure there are examples out there that transcend that, but I would much rather take my chances with other things. I have my non-genre stuff I enjoyed, but it's much fewer and far between. I don't usually get that out of literary fiction and really I don't care as much about language and insight into the human condition as I do plot and compelling characters. In fact I would say language, as long as the person is actually writing well enough to be understood, is one of the things I am least concerned with and that language is probably why so many people think all writing is pretentious drivel. I'm a huge fan of brevity when it comes to language. I'll have to watch this later.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:You seem to be trying to make this into an either/or thing when it doesn't have to be. I've got Ramsay Campbell's The Doll Who Ate His Mother sharing shelf space with Chabon, McCarthy, and Dostoyevsky; my Stephen King books get shelves all to themselves. Good language is good language, regardless of "type." When it's bad in literary fiction, it results in lifeless, self-important blocks of talk or narration about nothing in particular. When it's bad in genre fiction, it manifests as endless zombie stories or fantasy/crime novels that read like something scraped off a Hollywood B-list studio's latrine. But their good qualities can inform each other as well; lit fic is less susceptible to the usual lineup of genre-fiction character cliches and can make for more interesting characters, while genre fiction tends to convey action and movement more often and the better examples can keep lit-fic prose from feeling too turgid. I didn't know brevity was a trashy taste and liking plot and characters over use of language was trashy taste. It's not an either or thing, but I can put up with a lot for a really compelling story.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Brevity and plot/characters aren't limited to genre fiction. This is where the ignorance bit comes from. You come off as someone who doesn't even know what books are outside of your own little bubble. Sure they aren't. There are authors known for their brevity all over. I do reach outside my comfort zone with reading, especially when a book is recommended to me. But I just like what I like. I just get bored easily when it comes to any form of entertainment. Martello posted:How about you two pigtailed tutu-wearing schoolgirls take this little dance-off into Thunderdome and have it out? I know Oxxidation is a good writer already, I'd love to see what the Tube Knight's capable of. I don't know what the Thunderdome is, but not much right now I'm afraid. I've been suffering from writer's block for the past few months and am struggling to get myself past the 3K mark today.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:I'm personally plugging away at a larger project that should've been finished a year ago, but I keep my eye on TD to see if any of the prompts grab me. I'll be back eventually. I guess I should check this thing out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Mike Works posted:I didn't know literary fiction sacrificed characters for language, thanks for the heads up. Not saying that. I just said that in a race between vivd, verbose description and plot and characters the plot and character side of things wins for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
I Am Hydrogen posted:You have an odd view of what literary fiction is. What I've always thought it was basically shapes up to being fiction that's not in one of the genres and usually involves realistic situations, though occasionally I guess there are some exceptions for that. Though wiki says it should be critically acclaimed and serious, not sure if that's the same way everyone here means it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:You don't need action, no. You can write a gripping tale without any bullets, bombs or brawls, but the conflict has to be important enough to engage the reader. The stakes and consequences have to be clear. In the case of hazing, some such consequences might be accidental death or suicide due to humiliation, or students who can't cope might leave the school (that last one is a bit weak though). I didn't even hear this radio DJ thing, I'm going to look into that story. How do others here deal with "triggers". Never really heard them called someone else, but I have had some complaints about different things I have written and posted online having things that made people uncomfortable. Part of me thinks people shouldn't be so super sensitive. Like in one of the stories a character had a glass of wine and then drove somewhere and this person freaked out about drunk driving being a trigger when I didn't even consider that someone would be drink after a glass (Drinking Level: Catholic). But after something I posted about cutting had a friend in tears...I want to be slightly cautious. Putting a warning in a book seems like an odd thing to do and a bit spoilery if the person doesn't know what they're getting into and that's part of the surprise. But how much is too much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
ultrachrist posted:I don't think it's a matter of "too much" or not, just if you handled it well. Like if you used cutting for shock value or to denigrate a person or something along those lines instead of treating the subject matter respectfully. This is going to be a deal breaker for some people, but you that is going to be out of your control and it's simply impossible to cater to everyone's trigger points. Well the thing I posted about cutting was an article and a picture, so I admit there blood and the like but I didn't even think about it. It had to do with the Bleed for Beiber thing. It was the pictures that did it more than anything else. In the case of the drinking example I gave there wasn't really anything bad about it. The drinking wasn't a major plot point or anything and while it occurred I had written it, it didn't register as anything. I guess with things like that there's little you can do besides have a lot of beta readers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
FauxCyclops posted:Ignore, ignore, ignore. The dubious legitimacy of "trigger warnings" aside (and you've given an especially frivolous example), you're writing fiction. Yeah the drunk driving thing is really a bad example. I think that if I had a glass of wine and drove, I could easily do so, I could easily pass any test the cops gave me and the like. And I am a bit of a lightweight. I kind of figured that you would all say this, I wanted to make sure I wasn't being an rear end in a top hat as I usually am.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Cpt. Mahatma Gandhi posted:Erik already did a good job explaining it, but I'll add my two cents - does your story need "friend of the family" in it in order to further the narrative from either a character or plot perspective? If the answer is "yes" then you should use it, if the answer is "no" then you shouldn't. A few years later, in a writer's group I told a cleaned up version of the story and another lady got offended by the use of clitoris and actually left. So really sometimes, even when you use the proper term sensibility is going to be offended. I would say that friend of the family is one of the hard ones to get by with using. While some people don't see it different from other racial slurs, other people will be ready to fight anyone that they don't think has "earned the right" to use it. Even if they're quoting something or referencing something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Martello posted:Re CB Tube Steak: Moral of the story along with that trigger warning horseshit - pussies abound and will always be offended by SOMETHING, so just write what you gotta write and don't worry about it. Some of the greatest stories ever written or put to film are disturbing and offensive and loving raw. Don't ever tiptoe through the roses with your writing. Yeah they took friend of the family out of Huck Finn all over the place. From what I remember they used to basically call the character friend of the family Jim and all of the editions I saw in school just said Jim. There is a lot of censorship out there in books, not all of it because of the offensiveness. Sometimes it seems that parents don't think it's right their kids know how things really were. Like that it used to be okay to call a person a friend of the family and no one batted an eye. And I pretty much guessed that I shouldn't tip toe, but it's hard to get out of the habit, especially after feeling like I had to for about a decade of writing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
There's something seductive about first person, I know I'm terrible at it but I keep wanting to do the thing and I don't get why. I don't really like the way that first person is done most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Martello posted:What's your issue with it? I mean in your writing and in poo poo you've read? First person was one of the first things I did when writing a long original novel, the character came out surprisingly nothing like me and she read as genuine from what I can remember. Every since then I haven't been able to write first person long term without feeling like things seemed silly or sort of off. It's really hard to explain the feeling. Have you ever cooked something you cook all of the time and that you've had others cook all of the time and then this one time you make it and you take that first taste and it tastes alright, but there is something off. You're not sure what it is, but you know it's gone. That's me with first person.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Erik Shawn-Bohner posted:No. Most of what I read is first person. I don't mind third person at all, but it seems that first person is dominant. And the narrates usually have a very distinct voice. Or at least the kind of voice where I feel like this is "well done" first person and not the alternative. Like I love Dan Wells's first person narration in the John Cleaver books and Hollow City.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Odd that you'd find yourself reading mostly first person. Most books tend to go third-person-limited- clearly in a character's voice, often, but still using "he" and "she" instead of "I". I think it's common in certain types of fantasy. I don't know how it ends up happening, like right now it's definitely the trend in YA.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
squeegee posted:I'm a huge fan of third person limited because you can get into your character's head without having to adopt their speaking style (which can easily come off as inauthentic) and you have a little bit of leeway to get into things that a character might choose not to discuss if the narrative is actually coming directly from them. I like third limited the most, it's what I write. But I started reading first person more often intentionally because a lot of books I wanted to read were in first and I wanted to try and better understand it (and how to write it). I don't have an issue finding books written in third person limited and it's what I write and what I feel is the most flexible for the reasons you've said. I think my first person narration comes off as too low or high brow for the character that I am writing, depending on who they are. There are probably two characters I can sort of write it with, but that's just because they're the I've been writing longer than any others without much change in their personality or history. I narrowed my view onto first person, though. It's not that I don't see other things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 17:57
|
|