Your novel’s written in first person. Here are some tips for how to ensure your narrative doesn’t become overloaded with ‘I’ but remains immersive.
|
Maycomb was an old town, but it was a tired old town when I first knew it. In rainy weather the streets turned to red slop; grass grew on the sidewalks, the court-house sagged in the square. Somehow, it was hotter then; a black dog suffered on a summer’s day; bony mules hitched to Hoover carts flicked flies in the sweltering shade of the live oaks on the square. Men’s stiff collars wilted by nine in the morning. Ladies bathed before noon, after their three o’clock naps, and by nightfall were like soft tea-cakes with frostings of sweat and sweet talcum.
People moved slowly then. They ambled across the square, shuffled in and out of the stores around it, took their time about everything. A day was twenty-four hours long but seemed longer. There was no hurry, for there was nowhere to go, nothing to buy and no money to buy it with, nothing to see outside the boundaries of Maycomb County. But it was a time of vague optimism for some of the people: Maycomb County had recently been told that it had nothing to fear but fear itself. |
‘I’ plus filter word. Reader’s gaze is inwards, on the how
|
Recast: Reader’s gaze drawn outwards towards the what
|
I recall the argument we had last week.
|
Last week’s argument is still fresh in my mind.
|
I recognized the man’s face.
|
The man’s face was familiar.
|
I saw the guy turn left and dart into the alley.
|
The guy turned left and darted into the alley.
|
I spotted the red Chevy from yesterday parked outside the bank.
|
There, parked outside the bank, was the same red Chevy from yesterday.
|
I still feel ashamed about the vile words I unleashed even after all these years.
|
The vile words I unleashed still have the power to bathe me in shame even after all these years.
|
‘I’-centred introspection
|
‘I’-less introspection
|
I wasn’t sure if Shami was a reliable witness but I couldn’t afford to ignore her, given what she’d divulged.
|
Was Shami a reliable witness? Maybe, maybe not. She couldn’t be ignored given what she’d divulged.
|
I still didn’t know who the killer was.
|
The killer’s identity was still a mystery.
|
I wondered whether Shami was a reliable witness.
|
Shami might or might not be a reliable witness.
Shami’s reliability as a witness was hardly a given. Shami’s reliability as a witness was questionable. |
Hey, I stumbled across your blog when reading some truly awful research papers. Glad I did, concise, clear yet detailed explanations of various literary terms I was previously ignorant of.
With that said: "At no point do we lose track, and at no point are we distracted by repetitive ‘I said’s."
I have to admit I struggled to follow that excerpt, repeatedly rereading to make sure I understood the speaker.
Prompted two thoughts, without context and familiarity of the characters it is far more difficult to follow whose speaking. A developed character speaks with unique rhythm tone and structure. If you are familiar with their style then it is easy to distinguish. An excerpt lacks that foreknowledge, if you write a very short story the otherwise superfluous descriptors gain importance.
Secondly, I was wondering if you as an experienced editor who understands how authors are trying to structure prose, intrinsically know what they are trying to convey. When proof-reading, I imagine you don't just follow the text but are perceiving the various linguistic components such that you keep track even if it is ambiguous. I also wondered if that applies when you casually read fiction, do you find yourself analysing the text instead of immersing within the story?
Is it a difficult for editors to remove speech and thought tags since for them the flow is obvious yet are editing for general public consumption? My father has written many public health books, he prides himself for using plain English. Public health literature often falls into two categories, Doctors who use a plethora of medical terms and clinical explanations requiring expertise to even understand versus treating the public like idiots, with infantile simplifications that patronise the reader and are ultimately misleading.
My Da has talked to me about how difficult it is to straddle that balance. Is this something you struggle with, the urge to improve the flow by removing perceived extraneous words versus trying to put yourself in the shoes of the average reader?
I had no difficulty following the flow of dialogue and determining who the speaker is. Most of the lines wouldn't make sense in the mouth of the other character anyway.
However, there is one place where a line break is missing (after "information he needs") that confused me, but I assume that's merely a transcribing error. It happens.
Thanks, C. I fixed that line error.
Hi, bearedchimp.
When I'm line editing, I can't pretend to know every time what an author's trying to convey. But I'll always offer suggestions when there's ambiguity and check in with the author to make sure we're on the same page.
When I read fiction for pleasure, I put the reading first. I sometimes spot useful teaching examples but I don't dwell on analysing the text. A group of people have already taken the book through an editorial process and made decisions with the author, so I focus on being entertained!
As for your final query, I don't think there's a conflict in improving flow and putting the average reader first. It's not a 'versus' issue for me. I think the former supports the latter!