A teeny tiny writing exercise

[anthrodisiac]

I mentioned above that the excerpt lacked urgency for someone racing along. Without claiming to be perfect, or even better, just writing in a different style, here's a similar scene from my story Into The Night:

And later in the same story:

Obviously the style is completely different: stream of consciousness (and 2P to boot), but I reckon if you're driving 80 mph in traffic that's probably your state of mind anyway. Even if it isn't, writing in a leisurely way doesn't give the reader the impression of speed.

It makes me wonder how clear the scene was in the writer's mind: it's as if the bit about driving fast was thrown in on a whim, but she really wanted to use the driving scene to introduce the background. If she wanted to convey urgency, I think she might have been better served by describing an itch between the character's shoulder blades, triggering a barely controlled desire to speed up. I haven't read the rest of the book, but I think that would create a more vivid (and more positive) impression of the character.

That's exactly the kind of voice that works beautifully: stream of thought matching streaking through the streets and the unhinged structure of someone with no real regard for anything but the feeling of speeding along, with only the last scraps of control left hanging on and threatening to be ripped away in the slipstream.

 

[AG31]

If you're going to go with detached omniscient narrator, what purpose does that serve for telling the story?

Ain't serendipity great? This morning I was reading John Grisham's latest book and was toying with the possibility that the company had hired a ghost writer, because the story seemed to be moving more slowly than I expected. That's been happening with greater and greater frequency. Or maybe it's just that I'm old and my favorite authors are getting old too. Anyway, I rejected that idea when the story moved to the courtroom and started racing along.

But while I was wondering, in the first half of the book, I was thinking about voice. Did this sound like Grisham? It seemed to. That's usually the tell for me when ferreting out ghost writers. But I began thinking about what, exactly, Grisham's voice was. I couldn't come up with anything. I thought about starting a thread here about the voice of detached omniscient third person narrators and the notion that some don't have a voice.

And then, lo, here you are asking about "detached omniscient narrators."

I'd like to propose (or repeat... maybe I said it up thread) that there are detached omniscient 3rd person narrators who have their own voice, and there are those whose voice is undetectable. I think maybe Grisham falls in the latter group. He disappears in service of the story.

Do you all agree that there can be two kinds of detached omniscient 3rd person narrators?

 

[AG31]

t makes me wonder how clear the scene was in the writer's mind: it's as if the bit about driving fast was thrown in on a whim,

Yes. This expresses one of my reactions well. Thanks for articulating.

 

[AG31]

other writers prefer the narrator stays consistent with voice.

We've got two good words to describe omniscient 3rd person narrators who don't reflect their characters' voices, "detached" and "consistent." Are either one commonly accepted among thinkers about writing?

 

[anthrodisiac]

Ain't serendipity great? This morning I was reading John Grisham's latest book and was toying with the possibility that the company had hired a ghost writer, because the story seemed to be moving more slowly than I expected. That's been happening with greater and greater frequency. Or maybe it's just that I'm old and my favorite authors are getting old too. Anyway, I rejected that idea when the story moved to the courtroom and started racing along.

But while I was wondering, in the first half of the book, I was thinking about voice. Did this sound like Grisham? It seemed to. That's usually the tell for me when ferreting out ghost writers. But I began thinking about what, exactly, Grisham's voice was. I couldn't come up with anything. I thought about starting a thread here about the voice of detached omniscient third person narrators and the notion that some don't have a voice.

And then, lo, here you are asking about "detached omniscient narrators."

I'd like to propose (or repeat... maybe I said it up thread) that there are detached omniscient 3rd person narrators who have their own voice, and there are those whose voice is undetectable. I think maybe Grisham falls in the latter group. He disappears in service of the story.

Even a detached and flat omniscient narrator has a voice. It's just the voice is, well, detached and flat. It's like when people say they don't have an accent (lot of people in SoCal are of this opinion, which is silly), they just don't recognize the accent because it sounds so bland and boring to them. Doesn't mean it's not there, though.

I'd for sure be open to discussions about different voices in 3P omniscient. Either in On Writing: Voice or even as a separate thread if you wanted to get into the weeds specifically about that.

I'd like to propose (or repeat... maybe I said it up thread) that there are detached omniscient 3rd person narrators who have their own voice, and there are those whose voice is undetectable. I think maybe Grisham falls in the latter group. He disappears in service of the story.

Do you all agree that there can be two kinds of detached omniscient 3rd person narrators?

Like I said before, I don't think you can make a distinction between "voiceless" and "voiced" narrators, since all narrators have some voice. But there are a lot of different types of third-person omniscient narrators.

You can have one that's minimally interested in the characters, viewing them with total detachment. You can have one that is right up in there with the characters, more grounded. Narrators can be level and consistent in their voice, or change up the pacing and structure to add flavor to the narrative. Some are neutral arbiters, reporting the facts, while others have various levels of affinity for the characters: hopeful that they succeed, hoping they fail, rooting for them, active scorn, disdain, mocking, etc. Some can be both omniscient and in the story (perhaps someone who is part of the action, but with the benefit of hindsight and all the knowledge, they now know things they didn't at the time being), or one that is completely separate from the story. And many variations, combinations, and levels of degree besides.

We've got two good words to describe omniscient 3rd person narrators who don't reflect their characters' voices, "detached" and "consistent." Are either one commonly accepted among thinkers about writing?

Oh yeah. That more detached, consistent style was actually pretty par for the course for quite some time. More tailored voice shifts within omniscient narrators is more common nowadays, but was pretty rare for a while (no idea how infrequent, nor when it started to bubble up and become more common; my guess would be 70s, 80s, but that's just a total guess). Even today, if a lot of writers using omniscient 3P have the narrator's voice pretty level-headed, consistent, and moderately detached.

 

[AG31]

Oh yeah. That more detached, consistent style was actually pretty par for the course for quite some time.

Actually, I was wondering about the terms themselves ("consistent" and "detached"), whether they are technical terms among people who routinely talk about writing as a craft. Or as an art.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Actually, I was wondering about the terms themselves ("consistent" and "detached"), whether they are technical terms among people who routinely talk about writing as a craft. Or as an art.

"Consistent" (normally talked about as "consistency") certainly is when talking about voice. I'm pretty sure "detached" is as well, or at least is at least well understood enough that the other writers would know what you mean. Less sure about that one.