|
Post by scdaffron on Mar 12, 2014 8:23:14 GMT -5
I know. Like I said. Pretend the writing is better. I sorta overdid it as an example of deep POV. Not as an example of great prose
|
|
|
Post by Suzy on Mar 12, 2014 8:26:58 GMT -5
Mine was a very first draft too. Not even revised. But you pointed me in the right direction. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by scdaffron on Mar 12, 2014 8:32:06 GMT -5
The examples in the book Lynn mentioned are really good. I have the book, but not here, unfortunately. For me, before and after examples help me remember how deep POV works. That's why I tend to do it in a revision pass. I can wrap my little brain around it again and go from there
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Mar 12, 2014 10:11:58 GMT -5
Suzy and Susan, thanks! Those examples help me get the hang of it!
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Mar 12, 2014 10:33:35 GMT -5
Labels are all well and good, as long as we know what they mean. When I see a jar labelled coffee I know what to expect but, like Becca, I've never taken a creative writing course, so throwing around terms like objective or subjective third, is more than my tired old brain can handle. Like I said at the start of this thread, when Daniel mentioned deep POV, I had to Google it to be sure what it meant. What I found in the blog post I linked to, was a short and clear explanation of the meaning, shorn of gobbledegook, that I could easily understand and use to better my writing. Now that I know what it is (irrespective of what you call it), I can see its importance - and its usefulness. LIKE. Thanks for keeping it real.
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Mar 12, 2014 19:06:03 GMT -5
My point about deep POV and close third person is that you can underline (I mean literally with a pen) the differences between, say, first and third person in two books, and you can underline the differences between third person and close third person. But you can’t underline the differences between close third and deep POV because, as far as I can see, there aren’t any. Now, the practical upshot was (and still is) simple: anyone interested in deep POV should also look at close third person. As for the idea that there’s something called deep first person, well, I’m a little mystified as to what it could be when the difference between third and close third is that the narrator (author) and the protagonist merge—-merge just like they do in first person. So how do you merge more than being one and the same voice, as narrator and author are in first person? According to the difference Daniel was describing ... "Regular" first person: "Deep" first person: Is that the kind of difference you have in mind, D?
I see a move from abstract to concrete between the first and second examples, but I don't see a change in POV. The same persona is still speaking--it's the same voice. I guess it might be helpful to some to think of using more concrete language as a way to get a deeper POV, where "deep/deeper" means more concrete and more visceral. If that line of thinking works, by all means continue as you were. But technically speaking it's not a change in POV; it's a change in style.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Mar 12, 2014 19:10:58 GMT -5
But technically speaking it's not a change in POV; it's a change in style. Oh, wow. I had no idea you thought I was suggesting it was a change in POV. You are exactly right. It's a matter of style, not a change in POV. Sorry about the miscommunication.
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Mar 12, 2014 19:39:48 GMT -5
Well that's all wrapped up!
|
|