Prologue Problem

[Alice.S]

okay, the main character in my book is 18, but in the prologue she's 8, and the way I’m writing the prologue (in 1st person,) she sounds 8, can I do this?? or does my character have to tell the whole story as an 18yr old???
haha! >>>:e2bouncey<<<still can't get over this!!

EDITED:
GJFDSKBJDFKBJSKDFBKNVDNVGKJNFNB!! SORRY GUYS!...imsofreakingstupidgah!!! i meant 1st person...sorry again

[Momento Mori]

Alice.S:
the main character in my book is 18, but in the prologue she's 8, and the way I’m writing the prologue (in 3rd person,) she sounds 8, can I do this??

You can write your novel in any way you choose, provided it's readable. The only things I'd say are:

1. At some point during the writing process (it can be after you've finished the first draft) revisit whether you actually need the prologue - does it add anything that literally can't be handled any other way? For example, many writers use the prologue to convey backstory that could be told further in the text.

2. Keep the narrative voice consistent. If you're writing something from the point of view of an 8 year old girl, make sure she sounds like an 8 year old girl, ditto an 18 year old narrator. That means making sure the vocab is appropriate to the age group.

MM

[jdparadise]

You can do anything you want, as long as it works :o)

Get the story written; set it aside for a few months; come back and read it and decide then if it "works" for you. Then, after your revisions, put it before readers who can tell you if it "works" for them.

[maestrowork]

If it's 3rd person, it should be the voice of the narrator.

[miles]

If the narrator is eighteen, and looks back to when she was eight in the beginning, then it should be from her eighteen-year-old perspective.

If the narrator is eight in the beginning, then jumps forward to when she is eighteen, then the language should reflect an eight-year-old's in the beginning.

In other words, what maestrowork said.

[EriRae]

Ask yourself if the prologue is necessary. If so, why isn't it part of chapter one? Can it be done as a flashback instead?

[Devil Ledbetter]

I think you could do it either way.

I initially wrote a prologue from my protagonist's POV around that age. It was good, and crucial to the story. But I ultimately decided I didn't want to start with a prologue. So instead I shattered it and sprinkled the shards throughout the book. The result was another dramatic thread building up slowly and pulling the reader through.

Just offering that as an option to consider.

[job]

If it's 3rd person, it should be the voice of the narrator.

Let me differ with this slightly.

In my opinion, if it is Third Person, Omniscient Narrator, it is in the voice of the narrator.

If it is Third Person, character's POV, it is, or can be, in the character voice.

But terminology is slippery stuff.


In answer to O.P. -- prologues are great things to play around with.
What everyone said about finishing the first draft and reassessing the need for a prologue

[a_sharp]

A lot has been posted about the pros and cons of prologue in other threads. You hear the same points made over and again that prologues aren't necessary, they're better done as backstory or flashback, readers skip them, and so on. But a prologue can be an effective device in the proper genre--I'm thinking Robert Ludlum's use of it to set the plot in motion, to introduce a character of whom the protagonist is unaware, etc. This works for the thriller story because it's all built on suspense, surprise, and the reader's foreknowledge of things the protag has to discover for him/herself.

I don't have a lot of respect for Ludlum as a writer, but he was a superb spinner of stories. Last year I read an award-winning literary novel whose plot hinged on tragedy that occurred in the protagonist's childhood. She keeps alluding to that event and others, but does so as she carries us along in the present. So there was no need for a prologue.

My point is that the use of prologue belongs in the hands of the adept, and since you are asking the question, I presume (perhaps wrongly) that you haven't a lot of publication to your credit. Join the rest of us, myself included, who often begin the thought process with a gripping prologue and are so taken with it that we feel compelled to keep it.

The advice to finish the book and then reconsider is well placed. Keep the prologue, but write the rest as though it weren't there, and then go back and see if it's so hang-all vital.

Good of you to ask the question. You'll get a variety of opinions, I'm sure.

[David I]

In my opinion, if it is Third Person, Omniscient Narrator, it is in the voice of the narrator.

If it is Third Person, character's POV, it is, or can be, in the character voice.

But terminology is slippery stuff.

It is. But it need not be be omniscient to be in the narrator's voice.

Third person comes in many flavors. But perhaps the most common one is for the novel to have a narrative voice of its own that is heavily colored by the voice of the POV character.

When the psychic distance from the POV character is large, then it will sound more like the voice of the novel. When we zoom in close, it sounds more and more like the POV character, until, at the closest--when we are in internal monologue, it is identical to the voice of the POV character.

I often write 3rd person with multiple viewpoints. Every POV sounds different, but there is still a narrative voice that is identifiably the voice of the novel/narrator that runs through the pages.

And, you're right--the terminology sucks.

[maestrowork]

If it is Third Person, character's POV, it is, or can be, in the character voice.

Sure, but I personally don't like that. Say you have three different POV characters, one 8, one 16 and one 35, and you have three narrative voices that are the characters'... to me, it's very distracting. It's neither a cohesive narrative voice nor first person -- to me, it's neither here nor there.

I favor sticking to one narrative voice. Don't confuse narrative voice with POV. To me, there's always an "invisible" narrator somewhere, whether it's 3rd limited or omniscient. Like David said, you can zoom in and out of the viewpoint, but I think there should always be a cohesive narrative voice.

In the OP's case, I think it would be weird to have an 8-year-old's narrative voice in the prologue. If you want to use the 8yo's voice, then why not use 1st person? That, too me, is more direct and less distracting.

[miles]

Sure, but I personally don't like that. Say you have three different POV characters, one 8, one 16 and one 35, and you have three narrative voices that are the characters'... to me, it's very distracting. It's neither a cohesive narrative voice nor first person -- to me, it's neither here nor there.

I favor sticking to one narrative voice. Don't confuse narrative voice with POV. To me, there's always an "invisible" narrator somewhere, whether it's 3rd limited or omniscient. Like David said, you can zoom in and out of the viewpoint, but I think there should always be a cohesive narrative voice.

In the OP's case, I think it would be weird to have an 8-year-old's narrative voice in the prologue. If you want to use the 8yo's voice, then why not use 1st person? That, too me, is more direct and less distracting.

Ah, I guess your original response differs from me after all. I thought by "narrator" you meant whoever was telling the story at that particular time.

I always prefer the narration be done in the voice of the POV character in the particular scene. I've never found it distracting at all.

[Mumut]

Ask yourself if the prologue is necessary. If so, why isn't it part of chapter one? Can it be done as a flashback instead?

I agree. I started one story with a prologue but half of my beta readers said they never read the prologue - they flip straight to chapter 1. So I changed it and it works.

[maestrowork]

To me, a narrator and the POV character are two different things. Otherwise, it'd be like Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole. I've always favor a separate narrator, or what David said: the voice of the novel on the whole.

[miles]

To me, a narrator and the POV character are two different things. Otherwise, it'd be like Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole. I've always favor a separate narrator, or what David said: the voice of the novel on the whole.

Well, if it's third person, and in one scene the POV character is a child and the narration is done with little words and exclamation points and misspellings, then the next scene the POV character is a law professor and the narration has lots of big words and technical-sounding sentences, doesn't that mean the narrator is whoever the POV character is at the time?

I see this is many Stephen King novels, particularly Rose Madder and The Stand. Completely different narration in The Stand from the beginning when the wife is getting woken up to that of the hicks at the gas pumps.

[job]

It is. But it need not be be omniscient to be in the narrator's voice.

Third person comes in many flavors. But perhaps the most common one is for the novel to have a narrative voice of its own that is heavily colored by the voice of the POV character.

When the psychic distance from the POV character is large, then it will sound more like the voice of the novel. When we zoom in close, it sounds more and more like the POV character, until, at the closest--when we are in internal monologue, it is identical to the voice of the POV character.

I often write 3rd person with multiple viewpoints. Every POV sounds different, but there is still a narrative voice that is identifiably the voice of the novel/narrator that runs through the pages.

And, you're right--the terminology sucks.


You are so right. Bad terminology and generally not worth trying to pin down.

Now me ... I don't believe I introduce an actual 'narrator voice' or 'voice of the book' anywhere into the mix.

So far as possible, for me, anything that does not obviously belong to a POV character is written to be 'invisible'. Without distinctive voice.

My disagreement was that your statement did not make clear that character POVs and any 'narrator voice' are all part of Third Person. This is just to expand on what you said a bit.

[job]

Sure, but I personally don't like that. Say you have three different POV characters, one 8, one 16 and one 35, and you have three narrative voices that are the characters'... to me, it's very distracting. It's neither a cohesive narrative voice nor first person -- to me, it's neither here nor there.

I favor sticking to one narrative voice. Don't confuse narrative voice with POV. To me, there's always an "invisible" narrator somewhere, whether it's 3rd limited or omniscient. Like David said, you can zoom in and out of the viewpoint, but I think there should always be a cohesive narrative voice.

In the OP's case, I think it would be weird to have an 8-year-old's narrative voice in the prologue. If you want to use the 8yo's voice, then why not use 1st person? That, too me, is more direct and less distracting.


I'm going to avoid using the term 'narrative voice' when I'm talking about how the character sounds when we're in deep character POV. OK?
I'll just talk about it as character voice.

When I try to think about the character sounding like a narrator my brain bleeds.


Now as to whether a character can, at different times in his life, have two very different 'voices' ...

I do a dream sequence where we're briefly in the POV of my character at age 4.



Here she is at 19

"They are a mad dream, these Boulogne plans. A chimera. I never saw them."

Even as she said it, the Boulogne plans were clear in her mind – the many pages stacked together untidily, the dog-eared edges turned down, maps covered with smudges and fingerprints, lists in small neat writing. I will not think of this. If I remember, it will show on my face.

"Sauvignon gave you the plans in Bruges. What did he tell you to do with them?"

He told me to take them to England. "Why would he give me plans? I am not a valise to go carrying papers about the countryside ..."


A simple, straightforward adult voice.

Here she is at 4.


The prison courtyard was dark, full of bobbing lanterns and loud voices. She could not get to Papa. He was in the wagon with the other men. They grabbed at Papa. Shoved him.

"It's the little girl." someone said.

"Dieu. Get her out of here."

It was not right. Papa should not look like that. Jerking like a fish on a string. Kicking and swinging. His face was ... ugly. Not like Papa. Black and ugly with his mouth open.

They tried to grab her. Darkness around her and stone walls. She ran and ran, back the way she had come, into the prison. "Maman. Maman. Où es-tu?"


Which is meant to be a child's voice -- confused, not able to express complex thoughts clearly, not understanding.



That little girl who grew up to be the 19-year-old in the first snippet is, in effect, a different character with a different voice.

I think most readers will be able to follow this.

Whether, like you, the readers find this a distraction, I could not say. I took larger chances of displeasing the readers, here and there, and would advise a writer who wants to use deep POV on the same character at different ages -- go ahead and try it.

[ORION]

This really makes me want to read the book...

[job]

This really makes me want to read the book...

Mine? or O.P.'s?

If it's mine, thank you very much. Drop by the blog. There's an excerpt right up at the top meant to either convince everybody the book's worth worth reading or send them skittering away, quick like.

[CDarklock]

Otherwise, it'd be like Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole.

That's called "illeism". I was just tickled to discover there was a word for that, because now I can be talking about something and say "but what Caliban believes - if you'll pardon the illeism - is blah blah blah." That way, I get to look weird, pretentious, and condescending all at once. Which saves a lot of time.

[SPMiller]

That's called "illeism". I was just tickled to discover there was a word for that, because now I can be talking about something and say "but what Caliban believes - if you'll pardon the illeism - is blah blah blah." That way, I get to look weird, pretentious, and condescending all at once. Which saves a lot of time.Awesome.

[job]

That's called "illeism". I was just tickled to discover there was a word for that, because now I can be talking about something and say "but what Caliban believes - if you'll pardon the illeism - is blah blah blah." That way, I get to look weird, pretentious, and condescending all at once. Which saves a lot of time.

That clicking sound you hear is dozens and dozens of folks googling "define illeism" all at once.

[Feathers]

But I ultimately decided I didn't want to start with a prologue. So instead I shattered it and sprinkled the shards throughout the book.

Ooh. NICE analogy.

That clicking sound you hear is dozens and dozens of folks googling "define illeism" all at once.

Ouch, you got me. As quoted from www.reference.com "Illeism is the act of referring to oneself in third person."

Job, I agree with Patricia...your excerpt made me want to read the book. Now I have to go check out your blog. Sigh. ;)

-Feathers

[maestrowork]

Well, if it's third person, and in one scene the POV character is a child and the narration is done with little words and exclamation points and misspellings, then the next scene the POV character is a law professor and the narration has lots of big words and technical-sounding sentences, doesn't that mean the narrator is whoever the POV character is at the time?

I'm saying I personally don't like that kind of narrative voice. If it's not 1st person, I don't understand why the narration has to be in the character's voice: why exclamation points and misspelling? Why suddenly the next chapter it's all proper and well-grammared? It's not 1st person for a reason. There's supposed to be a narrative distance.

[maestrowork]

The prison courtyard was dark, full of bobbing lanterns and loud voices. She could not get to Papa. He was in the wagon with the other men. They grabbed at Papa. Shoved him.

"It's the little girl." someone said.

"Dieu. Get her out of here."

It was not right. Papa should not look like that. Jerking like a fish on a string. Kicking and swinging. His face was ... ugly. Not like Papa. Black and ugly with his mouth open.

They tried to grab her. Darkness around her and stone walls. She ran and ran, back the way she had come, into the prison. "Maman. Maman. Où es-tu?"

See, that doesn't make sense to me. This reads like 1st person. So why would a 4-year-old say, "she ran and ran?" Again, it's like Bob Dole saying, "Bob went to the store and Bob Dole bought an apple." Besides, I doubt a four-year-old would be articulate enough to actually write that. So why use a four-year-old's voice in the narration? When you assume the voice of the character, IMHO, your narrative has to be different because, for example, a 4yo wouldn't know the intricacy of human relationships, for example, or the deeper meaning of certain things. In that sense, to me, the narrative voice and the content create a discrepancy. It's neither 1st person nor truly 3rd person. It's not even Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole. It's someone trying to sound like Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole.


Instead, I prefer a neutral narrative voice -- neither infantile nor scholarly -- that is consistent throughout the book. Sure, you can "sink deeper" with the character's POV -- for example, referring a character as "Papa" instead of "her father." But to me, there's always a 3rd person narrator, even if it's unnamed and undefined.

[job]

Job, I agree with Patricia...your excerpt made me want to read the book. Now I have to go check out your blog. Sigh.
-Feathers

Thank you so much. What a kind thing to say.

I was not actually self-promoting with the bitty quotes, but I'm delighted to think it might have done so.

[HeronW]

Rename prologue to Intro and you get the folks who skip prologues.

[job]

See, that doesn't make sense to me. This reads like 1st person. .

Both First Person and Deep Third Person use character voice. Perhaps that is why the two sound similar to you.



So why would a 4-year-old say, "she ran and ran?" Again, it's like Bob Dole saying, "Bob went to the store and Bob Dole bought an apple." .


It is not engineering logic here.
This is a Convention. It is the way the reader in the 21st century has been taught to think about 'story'.

'He ran' and 'she said' are invisible to the reader.

No, the average reader does not imagine a narrator has stepped onto the stage every time a 'he said' shows up on the page.
The 'he' does not break the fictive haze and grab the reader and pull her out of the POV character.

Now ... there is a kind of Third Person where all the 'he saids' and 'she rans' ARE in the voice of a narrator.
This is called Narrative POV, or Omniscient Narrator, or Shallow POV ... and probably some other things.
It is a perfectly valid and excellent way to approach point of view,
but it is not the only kind of Third Person POV.


Besides, I doubt a four-year-old would be articulate enough to actually write that. .

Do you mean a four-year-old wouldn't be able to 'tell the story' the way it is told in that whole passage?

I rather hoped I was using a realistic set of words and concepts.

That said.
If we are very careful, we can present a character voice using words and organization that are slightly more advanced and articulate than the character would actually use.

We are not reproducing reality, remember. We are creating a fiction.
The colors in the picture are a little brighter than real life.
The actor does not open the box on stage the way he would open it on his own kitchen table. He presents a larger-than-life representation of opening a box so the audience 'gets it'.

I do not want to record a little girl's voice. I want to create the fiction of a little girl. These are two different things.

If many of my readers say to themselves ... 'this doesn't sound like a real little girl,' then I have failed and I should have used wiser, more astute wording.
That I might fail in my goal of vivid, engaging four-year-old's POV should not discourage others from attempting it.




So why use a four-year-old's voice in the narration? .

Ummm ... because I'm using Deep Third Person POV ...
Because I'm doing it after some consideration, to achieve a certain effect ...



When you assume the voice of the character, IMHO, your narrative has to be different because, for example, a 4yo wouldn't know the intricacy of human relationships, for example, or the deeper meaning of certain things..

Yes.




In that sense, to me, the narrative voice and the content create a discrepancy. ..

I'm not getting this.
When I use the POV of a four-year-old I don't have her think about tribadism or nuclear physics. There isn't any jarring content while I'm in her voice.

I put all my musing about the economic causes of the Napoleon Wars into adult heads and adult POVs.


It's neither 1st person nor truly 3rd person. It's not even Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole. It's someone trying to sound like Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole...

No it's not First Person.
Ummm ... Perhaps an illustration:


First Person.

"Jeesh. Lemme out of 'ere."

I strapped on the brain bucket -- frickking fascist shi!t, the helmet laws -- and threw a leg over me pig. The Old Lady was squawking. I didn't give her the finger, just said, "I'll get the buidy milk. Now get off my back." and peeled out.

Screech of brakes and curses. The suit in the dullmobile didn't have no right t' be speeding along like that. Could be bluidy kids on the streets. Could be.


Third Person, Deep POV

Jeesh. Lemme out of 'ere."

He strapped on his brain bucket -- frickking fascist sh!t, the helmet laws -- and threw his leg over his pig. The Old Lady was squawking. He didn't give her the finger, just said, "I'll get the buidy milk. Now get off my back." and peeled out.

Screach of brakes and curses. The suit in the dullmobile didn't have no right t' be speeding along like that. Could be bluidy kids on the streets. Could be.


Third Person, Shallow POV,
narrative voice, rather than character voice

"Jeesh. Lemme out of 'ere."

He strapped on his motorcycle helmet, thinking the helmet laws were a bunch of fascist repression. and threw his leg over the cycle. His mother was squawking. He didn't make any rude gesture, just said, "I'll get the buidy milk. Now get off my back." and drove his motorcycle rapidly into the street.

There was a screech of brakes and volley of curses. The businessman in the blue Toyota shouldn't have been speeding along like that, Mike thought. There could have been kids on the streets.


Bob Dole-ism

"Mike says 'Jeesh' to his mother and he says 'Lemme out of 'ere. Yeah. That's what he says.

"Mike doesn't loike to put on 'is bloody 'elmet either, he don't. When he does this, gets on his pig like this, he don't want to have his Old Lady squawking at him none. That's what Mike don't like. See? Damn helmet Laws. And I'll get the bluidy milk, I will.

"Lemmee tell you what else Mike don't care for. He don't care for peeling out into the road and some don't-give-a-damn suit almost runs Mike down. Could be kids out 'ere, y'know, Mr. Fancy suit. You ever think o' that? Mike does."



Instead, I prefer a neutral narrative voice -- neither infantile nor scholarly -- that is consistent throughout the book. ...

Then that's what you should write.

I've always thought that much of 'authorial choice' boils down to writing what we're comfortable with.


Sure, you can "sink deeper" with the character's POV -- for example, referring a character as "Papa" instead of "her father." But to me, there's always a 3rd person narrator, even if it's unnamed and undefined.

Sinking deep into the character has always seemed to me to be a Very Good Thing.

If you always see a narrator on stage, then you do.

The O.P. asks -- 'Can I write from the viewpoint of a character, making him several different ages in the same book?'

I say, 'Go ahead.'

You would seem to say -- 'Don't write from the deep viewpoint of a character at all. Use a neutral narrator always. Then it won't sound like a kid or an adult. It'll all sound like a neutral, educated narrator.'

Both honest pieces of advice, and both, I hope, useful to the O.P.

[maestrowork]

Both First Person and Deep Third Person use character voice. Perhaps that is why the two sound similar to you.


Perhaps I just don't like "deep 3rd person." For me, might as well write first person. What's the point with deep 3rd person that sounds exactly like 1st person except for the pronoun?


'He ran' and 'she said' are invisible to the reader.


Come again? "Said" is invisible. Not "he ran." That's an action. If it's invisible then you have a problem. All your action will be invisible.

"He ran and jumped off the building" is not invisible. It's 3rd person, and it's clearly not the narrator. It's a "he," who happens to the POV character the narrator is following. It's not an "I."

There's definitely a distance there.


No, the average reader does not imagine a narrator has stepped onto the stage every time a 'he said' shows up on the page.


But there is a narrator. Who wrote "he ran"? It's not a first person narrator, and it's not the character himself. So who wrote that? I don't care if the readers actively imagine a narrator -- the fact is, there is a narrator.

The 'he' does not break the fictive haze and grab the reader and pull her out of the POV character.


I NEVER said anything about breaking away from the fictive dream. I was saying it's not 1st person ("I ran") and yet it's in the character's voice but also describing the character's action in 3rd person. Thus there is, indeed, a narrative distance.

I think we need to be very careful about distinguishing a "viewpoint" from a "voice." Two different things. Some prefer the two be one of the same, I don't.


It is a perfectly valid and excellent way to approach point of view,
but it is not the only kind of Third Person POV.


I never said it was the only kind. Read my post again.

There are four kinds of 3rd person:

1) Omniscient
2) 3rd limited
3) 3rd limited close
4) 3rd limited objective (camera view)

I said I didn't prefer 3rd limited close -- that a "deep" character POV with the character's voice is unnatural to me, especially when there are multiple viewpoint characters in the novel. The switch jars me -- it's neither a neutral 3rd person nor 1st person.

That's all I said. I didn't say you could only write one way or another. I simply gave my opinion.


Do you mean a four-year-old wouldn't be able to 'tell the story' the way it is told in that whole passage?


But it's NOT the four-year-old who is telling the story. It's not a four-year-old saying "she ran and ran." It's a narrator, who takes over the four-year-old's voice when describing how the actual four-year-old character ran.

Again, there's a difference between "viewpoint" and voice.


If we are very careful, we can present a character voice using words and organization that are slightly more advanced and articulate than the character would actually use.


Now you're contradicting yourself. If you're using a character's voice but also have more organization, are more advanced and articulate in word choices, etc. then you're not really in the character's voice, are you? There is, indeed, a narrator, then.


We are not reproducing reality, remember. We are creating a fiction.


It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and disregard coherence and consistency.


If many of my readers say to themselves ... 'this doesn't sound like a real little girl,' then I have failed and I should have used wiser, more astute wording.

There's a difference between the character speaking and the narrative. You're saying you want to narrative to reflect how the character speaks and thinks, too (deep 3rd person). I'm saying you don't have to. The readers are not going to say "the 3rd person narrative doesn't sound like a four-year-old girl." They really don't. They instinctively realize that the narrative is separate from the character, because it's in 3rd person. It's called "3rd person" for a reason, and not "1st person."


That I might fail in my goal of vivid, engaging four-year-old's POV should not discourage others from attempting it.

You don't have to sacrifice the "viewpoint" because you're not using the character's voice. As David said, there are different levels of narrative distances. The beauty of 3rd limited is that you can zoom in and out without breaking the POV. You can still be vivid and engaging, without sacrificing that narrative coherence.

Once again, the voice and the viewpoint are two different things.



Yes.


Then you do agree that there is a narrator, separate from the character herself, then. And thus by default you're agreeing that the narrator is imitating/assuming the character's voice in creating that narrative that sounds like a four-year-old, meanwhile the narrator is capable of telling part of the story that the four-year-old has no way of comprehending...


I'm not getting this.
When I use the POV of a four-year-old I don't have her think about tribadism or nuclear physics. There isn't any jarring content while I'm in her voice.

When you're in a her voice -- when you sink to the deepest level and directly quoting her thoughts and feelings. Yes. Absolutely. But the point is, your narrative can't forever be in that space, on that level. Eventually, there will be a distance, and your narrative will have the describe or talk about things the four-year-old could not understand. Intricate human relationships, for example.

No it's not First Person.
Ummm ... Perhaps an illustration:


I already said it's not first person.


Sinking deep into the character has always seemed to me to be a Very Good Thing.


Again, as David said, there are levels of distance. I don't presume you think you can stay with the deep character voice for the entire book?


If you always see a narrator on stage, then you do.


Did I say that?

Just because there's a narrator doesn't mean he's visible or in your face. I already said so much. But just because you can't really "see him on stage" doesn't mean he doesn't exist. All stories have a narrator. If it's 1st person, the narrator is the same as the character. If it's omniscient, the narrator is some God-like entity telling the story. If it's 3rd limited, by definition the narrator is NOT the character, no matter how deep you want to go. It's called 3rd person.

The difference is, you want the narrator to have the same voice as the character so it's totally invisible, as if you're really reading 1st person. But I countered: it's not really exactly like 1st person because you're still reporting on the character's action as a separate entity: he ran, he jumped, he opened the door, he got kicked in the head.


The O.P. asks -- 'Can I write from the viewpoint of a character, making him several different ages in the same book?'

I say, 'Go ahead.'

You would seem to say -- 'Don't write from the deep viewpoint of a character at all. Use a neutral narrator always. Then it won't sound like a kid or an adult. It'll all sound like a neutral, educated narrator.

I did not say that. I said *I* -- meaning I, an individual -- find deep 3rd person, especially when there are multiple POV characters in the story, distracting and jarring. I did NOT say "don't write it." I'm offering my opinion as: Why not try a neutral narrator throughout the book?

The decision, of course, lies in the OP as it's her story to tell.

Both honest pieces of advice, and both, I hope, useful to the O.P.

Agreed.

As miles said, somehow you're going to have to answer a question: who exactly is narrating? miles imagined the four-year-old girl actually being the narrator in the beginning, then the 19-year-old takes over. Or, maybe the 19-year-old writes about herself as a four-year-old... But the fact is, it's 3rd person, not first person. So who is the narrator? The four-year-old? The 19-year-old? Or someone else completely?

I think that's a question only the OP can answer.

[Jake Barnes]

Maestrowork said: I favor sticking to one narrative voice.

I think the narrative voice should be varied somewhat depending on the character. It wouldn't make sense to have a story told from the POV of a person with a 10th grade education to be using a lot of long words. Similarly if told from the POV of a ten-year-old. In my WIP I have one character who is anxiety-ridden and his chapters sound different from the chapters of the bad guy, who is logical and coherent, if evil. I think one of the criticisms of John Updike was that all his characters sounded the same whether they were a university professor or Rabbit Angstrom, who only had a high school education and wasn't too smart, to boot. Basically, they all sounded like John Updike.

[maestrowork]

Again, viewpoint and "voice" are two different things. And don't confuse narrative with dialogue or internal thoughts/monologues. Just because you're following a 4-year-old girl and a 45-year-old English professor doesn't mean your narrative has to be infantile, and then stuffy with long, difficult words. That's why I said "neutral." John Grisham, for example, often has a neutral narrative voice, even though he zooms in on his POV characters -- it's the dialogue and internal thoughts/monologues (and their actions) that set his characters apart.

Of course, I've said it before: that's just my preference. Dan Brown's characters sound the same, but it's not because he has one narrative. It's because his dialogue all sounds the same, as if he just dictated what Dan Brown would say and had the characters say it.


From wiki:
Third person limited became the most popular narrative perspective during the twentieth century. Third person limited is sometimes called the "over the shoulder" perspective; it shows the story as though the narrator could only describe events that could be perceived by a viewpoint character. It can be used very objectively, showing what is actually happening without the filter of the protagonist's personality, thus allowing the author to reveal information that the protagonist doesn't know or realize. However, some authors use an even narrower and more subjective perspective, as though the viewpoint character were narrating the story; this is very similar to the first person, allowing in-depth revelation of the protagonist's personality, but uses third-person grammar. Some writers will shift perspective from one viewpoint character to another.

In third person limited the narrator is outside of the story and tells the story from only one character's view. The character's thoughts are revealed through the narrator. The reader learns the events of the narrative through the perceptions of the chosen character. Third person limited uses pronouns such as he, she, they, their, herself, himself, themselves, etc.

To me, the two bolded lines are contraction to me. But oh well, that's just me: I'd either have 1st person or a true 3rd person.

Basically, what I said was I favor a more objective narrator throughout the entire book. Some of you like the "subjective" 1st person-like narrator (as if "the viewpoint character were narrating the story"). Of course, it's the individual writer's choice. My personal feeling is: I can deal with that if that character is the only viewpoint character in the book. If there are more than 2 or 3 viewpoint characters, then I find it distracting and I prefer a more objective, neutral narrator throughout the book.

[job]

But there is a narrator. Who wrote "he ran"? It's not a first person narrator, and it's not the character himself. So who wrote that?
I don't care if the readers actively imagine a narrator -- the fact is, there is a narrator. [my bold]


Ah. Here we come to the difference between us.

If the reader cannot see a narrator, doesn't notice, doesn't imagine, doesn't get distracted by, go to the viewpoint of, or be distanced by
a narrator,
then for the practical purposes of writing, the narrator aint there,
says I.


So what is happening here?

In Deep Third Person, there is no 'neutral narrator'.
Instead , readers accept a literary convention.

In Deep Third we use 'he ' and 'she',
not as the view from a narrator's eye,
but to express the characters' own thoughts, actions, speech and so on.

It is a convention.
We know a narrator is not speaking because the language used is not the language of a narrator. It is character language.

One may insist that this is all very illogical.
But the 'illogic' of this literary convention never brushes the reader's mind.




Now you're contradicting yourself. If you're using a character's voice but also have more organization, are more advanced and articulate in word choices, etc. then you're not really in the character's voice, are you? There is, indeed, a narrator, then.


This is the difference between representing reality and creating fiction.
We use art to make the little girl sound more like a little girl than the little girl really would.

Creating fiction this way does not insert a narrator.



Then you do agree that there is a narrator, separate from the character herself, then. And thus by default you're agreeing that the narrator is imitating/assuming the character's voice in creating that narrative that sounds like a four-year-old, meanwhile the narrator is capable of telling part of the story that the four-year-old has no way of comprehending...


We have not created a narrator sounding like a four-year-old.

Literary convention allows us to use 'he' or 'she' in character point of view without introducing a narrator.

Now you don't have to accept this literary convention.

You can say that instead of the girl thinking, feeling and experiencing the scene
and expressing it in her own language
what we really have is an invisible narrator
who speaks as if he were the little girl
thinking, feeling and experiencing the scene
from exactly the little girl's standpoint
and using exactly her language.

But, y'know ... when I try to think it's not my character
but
an invisible narrator who's running around pretending to be my character
I start bleeding from my ears.


there will be a distance, and your narrative will have the describe or talk about things the four-year-old could not understand.

Well you don't talk about that kind of thing when you're in the little girl's POV.

You just get a grip and restrain yerself.


Again, as David said, there are levels of distance. I don't presume you think you can stay with the deep character voice for the entire book?

In the last book, I was mostly in two character's POVs, fairly deep. That was maye 70% of the time.
But sometimes we went shallow.
I also slipped into the POV of two other characters very briefly.
And I used uninterrupted Limited POV in several scenes.



I did NOT say "don't write it." I'm offering my opinion as: Why not try a neutral narrator throughout the book?

And it's a good option for her to consider

[Alice.S]

Okay, I’ve decided to use the prologue as the start of the first chapter instead of a prologue, and write it from my main characters POV as an eight year old then at the end of that write something like "10 years later"...

[maestrowork]

Okay, I’ve decided to use the prologue as the start of the first chapter instead of a prologue, and write it from my main characters POV as an eight year old then at the end of that write something like "10 years later"...

Good luck, Alice. It sounds great.