Hey Ma, look how good my writing is!

[Seif]

Hands up all those who are guilty of author(ial) intrusion...(I am).

According to John D. MacDonald author intrusion is 'My God, mamma, look how nice my writing is.'

Other than the comedic element of this quote it does resonate with almost every aspiring writer or published author who has written that 'masterpiece.' But it is a heart wrenching reality to confront when you must let go. My novel is guilty of this but I have seen worse in so many other published and hihgly praised books.

Particularly the worst offenders are the so-called classics, Jabe Eyre comes to mind, simply atrocious and so ful of pretense that I wanted to...anyway, have any of you guys committed such offenses and can you give any examples?

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[Reilly616]

Me neither.

[IdiotsRUs]

This is why it is essential to murder your darlings.

[Takvah]

Breaking down the "4th wall" or inserting some pithy commentary into your piece from some omnipresence aka the author... is what I'm guessing the OP is referring to. I've done it, sparingly and I am always keen to wonder how I'm going to feel about it when I'm editing the thing a couple of weeks or months later. I'll tell you, so far I have yet to keep something like that in. When you go back and read something you wrote and you're digging the vibe there is nothing worse than being taken out of it by what you thought at the time was witty insertion. Likewise, I don't imagine readers are going to appreciate it either... if I have some message or morality to convey, let it be through my characters, not some "Oz" that pops a quip in now and then.

[SPMiller]

Postmodern writers do this all the time. It doesn't fit my stories, however, so I don't use this trope.

[Makai_Lightning]

I'm not really sure what the OP meant, but I think it has to either be "breaking the 4th wall" as mentioned before, or possibly writing things that are "cool" just to be cool? I guess that because of the OP's reference to pretentious writing, like that "look how amazing I am" attitude from the writing itself.

To both: no, I don't think I've done either before. I've experimented with different odds and ends before, and different styles, but I only use them if I can make them serve a purpose, and if it turns out they don't, I cut.

Still not really sure how to answer this though. I tried.

[Toothpaste]

I use author intrusion, and I know for me it has nothing to do with showing off. It's a literary device. Like all literary devices it can work and not work depending on the author and the type of book.

I think you aren't talking about actual "author intrusion" though. I think you are talking about authors showing off in their writing. Authors going "I am so magnificent I will use the most purple prose you have ever read to demonstrate that". Yeah. That can be annoying.

However, I personally don't find Jane Eyre pretentious at all. It's a romantic melodrama, as in the literary genre, not the derogatory term we use today, and so of course every emotion, every description is heightened. Now you of course might not like this kind of literature, but to say the author was trying to show off. . . I dunno. How do you prove something like that?

[scheherazade]

I think it depends whether you're using it consistently through the piece, or just once. It can be fun or quirky to break that fourth wall (if that's what you meant). I'm sometimes inclined to make snarky asides when describing things in prose, because I tend to do that when I speak as well. Sort of like: "Jenny had a wardrobe full of shoes - but of course, that's mainly why she dated so many men, so she could get people to buy her shoes - and she couldn't imagine having to pack up all those shoes just to move to the apartment next door."

I workshopped a very short piece that had only one such aside, and everyone found it intrusive. But if it had been expanded into a larger piece where asides were a regular feature, then it wouldn't have seemed so out of place. Also, it depends whether the reader gets the sense that this is the narrator making tangents that will help you undersand what he/she is getting across (or the protagonist's mind shifting to some related thought), or whether the reader thinks, oh, hey, what's the author doing chipping in? Like a painter has painted a landscape with a barn and a tractor and some fence, then over top a clump of brown blobs, he's pencilled in the word "cows", as if the piece would otherwise not convey that idea. In that case, yeah, it would be pretty artificial. So it depends how you use it.

[kuwisdelu]

I use author intrusion, and I know for me it has nothing to do with showing off. It's a literary device. Like all literary devices it can work and not work depending on the author and the type of book.

I think you aren't talking about actual "author intrusion" though. I think you are talking about authors showing off in their writing. Authors going "I am so magnificent I will use the most purple prose you have ever read to demonstrate that". Yeah. That can be annoying.

As a fan of postmodernism, I do this a lot, too. I love the irony and enjoy acknowledging the absurdity of writing/reading a book in general. I'll often write about characters writing about themselves, insert books within books, let the text refer to itself and become self-aware, address the reader directly. Really, it's a wonderful device. I don't think it has to be pretentious or showing-off. That's a completely different thing from postmodern author intrusion and the self-aware text.

I think it depends whether you're using it consistently through the piece, or just once. It can be fun or quirky to break that fourth wall (if that's what you meant). I'm sometimes inclined to make snarky asides when describing things in prose, because I tend to do that when I speak as well. Sort of like: "Jenny had a wardrobe full of shoes - but of course, that's mainly why she dated so many men, so she could get people to buy her shoes - and she couldn't imagine having to pack up all those shoes just to move to the apartment next door."

I workshopped a very short piece that had only one such aside, and everyone found it intrusive. But if it had been expanded into a larger piece where asides were a regular feature, then it wouldn't have seemed so out of place. Also, it depends whether the reader gets the sense that this is the narrator making tangents that will help you undersand what he/she is getting across (or the protagonist's mind shifting to some related thought), or whether the reader thinks, oh, hey, what's the author doing chipping in? Like a painter has painted a landscape with a barn and a tractor and some fence, then over top a clump of brown blobs, he's pencilled in the word "cows", as if the piece would otherwise not convey that idea. In that case, yeah, it would be pretty artificial. So it depends how you use it.

I go off on so many tangents and asides, and am so used to writing that does this kind of thing well, that I wouldn't blink at such an aside. Okay, if it were the only one in a story, and so obviously out of place? Yeah, that's bad.

[Gynn]

I think you aren't talking about actual "author intrusion" though. I think you are talking about authors showing off in their writing. Authors going "I am so magnificent I will use the most purple prose you have ever read to demonstrate that". Yeah. That can be annoying.



I have this problem. I'll overdo a description of a scene or something else because I'm afraid that it looks too "plain".

I'm sure there's a happy medium between dull and extravogant.

[ClaudiaGray]

Why do people insist on judging prose from 200 years ago by modern styles?

I am not saying that "classics" are safe from any and all criticism or are flawless. But it is frustrating to me to see people knock them for incorporating the styles and tropes that were beloved/in-demand in their day.

To offer something to the discussion at hand, yeah, beware of showing off. Besides, when you hit on something truly good -- instead of grasping for it -- IMHO, you generally know.

[Seif]

I think you aren't talking about actual "author intrusion" though. I think you are talking about authors showing off in their writing. Authors going "I am so magnificent I will use the most purple prose you have ever read to demonstrate that". Yeah. That can be annoying.


If you read the post I used someones interpretation of author intrusion as a platform for discussion and what you said is consistent with the message he was trying to convey.

I've read some prose that though lyrical are distracting to the overall story. I am in some cases guilty of this and in trying to reconcile my own ego with the demands of the story I wish to learn from other writers experience.

I used Jane Eyre as an example because it's something I recently re-read (my WIP is also in first person). I don't wish to diss 'classics' but it was fresh in my head.

[tehuti88]

I'm probably guilty of this (the original point of the thread, not authorial intrusion--I do that once in a great while, but knowingly, and definitely not to say how good my writing is :D ), but not consciously. I just write the way I write and make it the best I can. I'm certain, though, that there will be plenty of people who find what I write pretty lousy, longwinded, repetitive, melodramatic, etc. etc. But some other people might like it, and that's what matters, since I'm not seeking publication (and what gets published is, yet again, merely someone's matter of opinion).

That's all it ever seems to boil down to. Somebody will think something is fantastic, somebody else will wonder what the heck the author was thinking. You think Jane Eyre is lousy; I've never read it, probably never will, but it must be considered a "classic" for a reason--SOMEBODY thought it was written well.

I'd never write something just to think, "Look how wonderfully I can write!" Sure, I'll HOPE I'm writing wonderfully, and I might like what I write, but I'm not going to show off just for showing off's sake. That's a weird concept to me so I can't really explain it better.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Breaking down the "4th wall" or inserting some pithy commentary into your piece from some omnipresence aka the author... is what I'm guessing the OP is referring to.
Oh. Well most of my stuff is in first person, of course there's pithy commentary from the author. :)

Otherwise, the only time I did pithy commentary in a piece was in experimentation. Serious third person pieces get serious treatment. No author anywhere.

[Takvah]

Oh. Well most of my stuff is in first person, of course there's pithy commentary from the author. :)



You know the deal, take all suggestions with a grain of salt and keep writing :D

[Cybernaught]

Dumas intrudes in The Count of Monte Cristo a lot, but I dig it. He'd write something along the lines of, "Now our readers will remember how young Edmond Dantes ended up in Chateau d'if...." It felt like I was actually being told a story the good old fashioned way, around the campfire. Pretty cool stuff.

[seun]

Dumas intrudes in The Count of Monte Cristo a lot, but I dig it. He'd write something along the lines of, "Now our readers will remember how young Edmond Dantes ended up in Chateau d'if...." It felt like I was actually being told a story the good old fashioned way, around the campfire. Pretty cool stuff.

That's because he did it well. Done badly, however, and you end up with...well, bollocks.

[Use Her Name]

Jane Eyre was written in 1847. This is so long ago, you can consider it a completely different culture. What may seem atrocious and full of pretense about it may have been the way they thought, wrote, and communicated. Omniscient tense was used often then, in 100 years, it might be again, and we will all seem quaint and old-fashioned. I can't say I am a fan of Gothic literature of over 100 years old, but the best in that genre has survived much longer than the work of most of us writing in this era. That's kind of like saying Mozart wrote crap just because all you listen to is Green Day.

[Phaeal]

.
Particularly the worst offenders are the so-called classics, Jabe Eyre comes to mind, simply atrocious and so ful of pretense that I wanted to...anyway, have any of you guys committed such offenses and can you give any examples?

Yeah, Jabe Eyre is a worthless rip-off. Jane Eyre, on the other hand, is very tasty.

Jane Eyre is written in a nice tight first person, btw, not omniscient. There are no authorial intrusions.

[Use Her Name]

Jane Eyre is written in a nice tight first person, btw, not omniscient. There are no authorial intrusions.

Yes. Sorry, I was only giving an example of something done 100 years ago that is not looked upon as conventional at this moment. I should not have included it. At least the words were spelled correctly. :)

[angeliz2k]

Hands up all those who are guilty of author(ial) intrusion...(I am).

According to John D. MacDonald author intrusion is 'My God, mamma, look how nice my writing is.'

Other than the comedic element of this quote it does resonate with almost every aspiring writer or published author who has written that 'masterpiece.' But it is a heart wrenching reality to confront when you must let go. My novel is guilty of this but I have seen worse in so many other published and hihgly praised books.

Particularly the worst offenders are the so-called classics, Jabe Eyre comes to mind, simply atrocious and so ful of pretense that I wanted to...anyway, have any of you guys committed such offenses and can you give any examples?

I'm sorry. I can no longer listen to anything you have to say, and I mean this (mostly) teasingly. Jane Eyre is my favorite book of all time!! It's not pretentious at all (you have to realize that there's a high level of irony and humor), and it certainly isn't attrocious. And if you're going to insult a literary classic and many people's favorite book, please do at least spell it correctly.

[RG570]

I don't know, I think the height of pretension is not self-indulgent writing (especially when you have the ability to back this up), but picking on certain techniques in isolation and calling out everyone who likes to use them.

A novel can be so many things, it seems a shame to just use it as a vehicle to inject a mainstream movie into someone's head. Story really isn't always everything.

[Cybernaught]

That's because he did it well. Done badly, however, and you end up with...well, bollocks.

Of course, and Dumas kept the intrusion very minimal. I'm sure that a talented writer could convey it well these days, though.

[Seif]

I'm sorry. I can no longer listen to anything you have to say, and I mean this (mostly) teasingly. Jane Eyre is my favorite book of all time!! It's not pretentious at all (you have to realize that there's a high level of irony and humor), and it certainly isn't attrocious. And if you're going to insult a literary classic and many people's favorite book, please do at least spell it correctly.

No need to apologise, you have as much reason to praise a novel as I have to critique it. And if you are going to insult someones intelligence please do at least spell 'atrocious' correctly.

Please can the subsequent posts be directed towards the issue of author intrusion rather than the admittedly weak example I had given of it (Jane Eyre)? Just because I may have sounded ignorant and condescending does not mean that others may follow suit. Such comments are not helpful to the discussion at all.


Thanks to Shadow Ferret, Takvah, seun and Cybernaught for their helpful comments.

[veinglory]

I like a little authorial intrusion. RA MacAvoy for example. He inserts a few comments on what the characters are doing from a humorous omniscient perspective.

[angeliz2k]

No need to apologise, you have as much reason to praise a novel as I have to critique it. And if you are going to insult someones intelligence please do at least spell 'atrocious' correctly.

Please can the subsequent posts be directed towards the issue of author intrusion rather than the admittedly weak example I had given of it (Jane Eyre)? Just because I may have sounded ignorant and condescending does not mean that others may follow suit. Such comments are not helpful to the discussion at all.


Thanks to Shadow Ferret, Takvah, seun and Cybernaught for their helpful comments.

Take it easy, I was being mostly facetious, though I do disagree with your assessment of Jane Eyre. I wasn't insulting your intelligence at all, just saying that there's a lot of humor and irony. If you were insulted, I apologize. No need to get up in arms.

And since you so, er, nicely mentioned keeping on-topic . . .

I think the authorial intrusion you're talking about (the author drawing attention to him/herself with their language, not literally "intruding")is probably a confidence issue. Consciously or not, the writer feels the need to draw attention to this amazing little piece of writing because they don't feel the rest is quite up to snuff. A more confident writer will keep a more even keel and believe that all the words are equally good.

[Seif]

I think the authorial intrusion you're talking about (the author drawing attention to him/herself with their language, not literally "intruding")is probably a confidence issue. Consciously or not, the writer feels the need to draw attention to this amazing little piece of writing because they don't feel the rest is quite up to snuff. A more confident writer will keep a more even keel and believe that all the words are equally good.

Thanks for the reply.

I would like to think I am a good a writer but upon reflection of my WIP I am convinced otherwise as I have inserted my voice into the subtext of the novel. My overly critical beta has shredded the whole thing to pieces and urges me to reevaluate the characterisation and dialogue, which I admit is extremely weak on account of my emphasis on atmosphere and setting. But the one thing that I am guilty of (hands up) is inserting my own thoughts and mixing the voices up whilst thinking that it is an interesting piece of commentary/introspection. I know why this is, because of writing all those essays during my masters degree were I concentrated on my thoughts and passed my judgments. How do I do this without overwhelming the story; dulling characterisation and mixing the voices? And most importantly of all how do I avoid insulting the reader by inserting 'clever verses' that convey the supposed brilliance of my mind?

[Toothpaste]

Seif, would you mind defining what you mean by "authorial intrusion" as right now everyone is just guessing your meaning. It would help further the discussion! :)

[Seif]

Seif, would you mind defining what you mean by "authorial intrusion" as right now everyone is just guessing your meaning. It would help further the discussion! :)

1. Author inserting their own thoughts/judgments and shoving them down a characters voice in an obvious manner that it makes you think that the author is both conceited and patronizing.

2. Author writes prose that are better left out as they are distracting and confusing but s/he thinks they are too beautiful to leave out.

But people have their own interpretations.

Hope that helps,

[Toothpaste]

Well actually no, people don't have their own interpretations. "Authorial Intrusion" as it is used as a writing technique is neither of those definitions. It's when the narrator steps in and speaks to the reader outside of the story, like Lemony Snicket in A Series of Unfortunate Events. It's a technique used by many authors which can not be categorised as either negative or positive. It is simply a device like writing in the first person vs third, and depends on the talent of the author to pull it off.

What you are talking about is a negative thing. An author putting his own values into the mouths of the characters and acting all preachy. Or an author showing off how well she can write by using as many four syllable words as possible. Basically when you read a book and can totally see behind the trick - you aren't just reading a story anymore, but also almost writing it along with the author.

Talking about the technique "authorial intrusion" vs what you are calling for want of a better term authorial intrusion, results in two different conversations altogether.

Now that that has been officially cleared up (and thank you for that), the debate can be more focussed.

And now I shall add to it.

I agree, total pain. The worst comes in children's writing I find (though more often than not unpublished children's writing), when adults are trying to teach lessons to kids, and it is so obviously preachy. The moral is just right there in your face as if kids aren't smart enough to figure it out by themselves. Grr.

[Seif]

I agree, total pain. The worst comes in children's writing I find (though more often than not unpublished children's writing), when adults are trying to teach lessons to kids, and it is so obviously preachy. The moral is just right there in your face as if kids aren't smart enough to figure it out by themselves. Grr.

Hey, I didn't come up with the definition. It developed from the quote (see first post). If you have issues with it speak to John D. MacDonald in the preface to 'Nightshift' by Stephen King in which he spoke of writers trying to be too clever and showing of. You are right in that it is a technique but it may also be more than that as John suggested. As soon as someone interprets something its an interpretation as simple as that and you can't deny it. Definitions are different in that they give the illusion of being more concrete but you can continue that conversation with a language philosopher (abstractions, contextualisation, cultural-relativism etc).

And I agree with you with regards the preachy aspects of writing. However, I think that a lot of 'adult' novels are guilty of this too except that it may be too subtle to recognise.

Thanks for cleaning this up Toothpaste, (get it? ;))

[Toothpaste]

Oh adult novels definitely do do it too for sure. But I guess the children's book thing is a personal pet peeve. I think people tend to underestimate children a bit more (at least obviously) than adults, and that's what gets my goat. Also . . . I read a lot of kids books, so I am very familiar with it.

[kuwisdelu]

For the sake of clarity, how about we call what Seif is thinking of "authorial disruption"? I think that implies negative entrance of too much author in the story?

[Prozyan]

Nah, what Seif is thinking of is technically authorial intrusion. All it is, basically, is any manifestation of the author within the story. This can range from the form of a character speaking a particular monologue that portrays the author's beliefs much more than the characters to excruciating overwriting (the "Look how smart I am, Ma!" example specifically raised by Seif). It really a very broad term that encompasses a lot of techniques.

All that said, it is really kind of hard to judge the merit of using authorial intrusion as a technique. It really falls under the "Dan Brown" test: If it works, it's good. If not, it's bad.

[Toothpaste]

Grand. But Seif has clarified this particular meaning and therefore I would have to disagree with the "if it works . . " argument, since what is being discussed is a negative thing. When the author gets in the way of his own work, basically. I can't actually think of a time it could be positive, where we can see the author showing off and it is a good thing (except if it is trying to be satirical or something). Hmm . . .can anyone think of a positive example?

[kuwisdelu]

Nah, what Seif is thinking of is technically authorial intrusion. All it is, basically, is any manifestation of the author within the story. This can range from the form of a character speaking a particular monologue that portrays the author's beliefs much more than the characters to excruciating overwriting (the "Look how smart I am, Ma!" example specifically raised by Seif). It really a very broad term that encompasses a lot of techniques.

I agree with Toothpaste. Some of what Seif is talking about is authorial intrusion (mostly bad authorial intrusion), but not all of it. I would hardly call excruciating overwriting "authorial intrusion" in the sense of the literary technique--I'd just call it bad writing.

[Seif]

Grand. But Seif has clarified this particular meaning and therefore I would have to disagree with the "if it works . . " argument, since what is being discussed is a negative thing. When the author gets in the way of his own work, basically. I can't actually think of a time it could be positive, where we can see the author showing off and it is a good thing (except if it is trying to be satirical or something). Hmm . . .can anyone think of a positive example?

You're right it depends on the piece.

1984 anybody?

[Prozyan]

Really, where is the "discussion" as it pertains only to the negative aspect?

Bad is bad, not really much discussion to it. If solely focused on the negative, there really isn't any discussion to be had, other than a bunch of "yeah, that's bad" posts.

If there is going to be a discussion (or, at least, a good discussion) about authorial intrusion, it needs to contain both the positive and negative. In my view, at least.

[Shweta]

Just for the record, nobody owns threads.
So it's fine to ask people to go back to the original topic, but much less fine to complain that they are discussing your examples, and you didn't want that.

[Toothpaste]

I'm sorry if I'm getting in the way of the natural course of this thread. I think I could maybe step aside. I just was worried people were going to start talking about the "authorial intrusion" I mentioned (the Lemony Snicket kind), and we had a thread going on that like two days ago, and Seif seemed to be talking about something different and I thought that was cool.

And Prozyan, my question was genuine. As pertaining to Seif's definition, can you think of a positive form of that kind of intrusion? Because at the moment I can't, and I would love it if someone could give one.

[Shweta]

I think your point's extremely pertinent, Toothpaste. Especially since authorial intrusion itself isn't a bad thing at all.

And is a totally different animal from "look how good my writing is".

[Prozyan]

And Prozyan, my question was genuine. As pertaining to Seif's definition, can you think of a positive form of that kind of intrusion? Because at the moment I can't, and I would love it if someone could give one.

I know your question was genuine, but it is also subject to personal taste. The original example Seif used, Jane Eyre, could very easily be argued as having a positive form of authorial intrusion. But, as seen by Seif's dislike of it and another member's love of it, that is subject to personal taste.

Another one mentioned here, The Count of Monte Cristo has authorial intrusion. The Sword of Shannara is another that lapses into authorial intrusion. A lot of older romances do as well, particularly Sea Five.

All that said, in my view, it is mostly a literary technique of the past and most audiences today won't go for it at all. Though, I still have to say it is all about the execution and maintain if it works, it is good. If not, it is bad. Omni POV can be much the same way in that the pro/con of it lies mostly in the execution.

I think that I should also add that Seif's second definition in post #30 would reference the "only the negative aspect" comment I made earlier. That form of authorial intrusion (extreme as it may be) would pretty much universally be seen as bad, and therefore there isn't any real discussion to be had about it.

[Shweta]

All that said, in my view, it is mostly a literary technique of the past and most audiences today won't go for it at all.

I wouldn't go so far in predicting the future as that :)
I'd say it's a technique that is currently out of fashion, probably because it's been done badly so often in the past (sort of like fantasy prologues that way). But done well, it therefore has the charm of novelty.

Many, many stylistic trends are cyclical.

[kuwisdelu]

All that said, in my view, it is mostly a literary technique of the past and most audiences today won't go for it at all.

I completely disagree. Postmodernism loves author intrusion. It's an important part of metafiction (wherein the fact that the reader is reading a fictional novel is acknowledged or alluded to, often in ironic fashion). In modern fiction, Vonnegut has used it in Slaughterhouse Five, referring to his own writing of the novel. Tim O'Brien uses it in both The Things They Carried and In the Lake of the Woods. In the former, many of the stories are about story-telling, and O'Brien appears as a character. In the latter, the reader is addressed by some "author" through footnotes, and the fictionality of the novel is made known again and again through the "author's" "imagining" of many different outcomes for the characters. In Jonathan Safran Foer's Everything Is Illuminated, one of the two main characters is an author named "Jonathan Safran Foer" writing about the events in the novel, whose self-written "chapters" appear in the novel as chapters. Author intrusion is alive and well in (post)modern fiction. Postmodernism has not only given it a big revival, but upped the ante on it. And modern audiences are eating it up.

I think that I should also add that Seif's second definition in post #30 would reference the "only the negative aspect" comment I made earlier. That form of authorial intrusion (extreme as it may be) would pretty much universally be seen as bad, and therefore there isn't any real discussion to be had about it.

I would argue that Seif's second definition isn't "authorial intrusion" by the classical definition, at all, though. It isn't deliberate. It's just bad writing. By similar logic, I could argue a typo or spelling error is author intrusion, because it calls attention to the author and his or her presence in the writing as well, as would a plot hole, etc.

[Prozyan]

I'm not sure what you've referenced is authorial intrusion as much as they are examples of metafiction, particularly Mr. O'Brien. And yes, they are two different things. The primary difference is metafiction spans an entire work, never truly giving the illusion that one is reading fiction, whereas authorial intrusion interrupts to burst that illusion.

You are correct, however, a lot of people love metafiction.

I would argue that Seif's second definition isn't "authorial intrusion" by the classical definition, at all, though. It isn't deliberate. It's just bad writing. By similar logic, I could argue a typo or spelling error is author intrusion, because it calls attention to the author and his or her presence in the writing as well, as would a plot hole, etc.

I can agree with that.

[Prozyan]

I wouldn't go so far in predicting the future as that :)


Didn't mean to imply into the future. Was simply speaking of today :)

[AndrewHallOnline]

Toothpaste wrote:
"I can't actually think of a time it could be positive, where we can see the author showing off and it is a good thing..."

Tom Jones. The author has a wonderful time showing off for the reader, and it's a brilliant book.

[Seif]

Just for the record, nobody owns threads.
So it's fine to ask people to go back to the original topic, but much less fine to complain that they are discussing your examples, and you didn't want that.

Just for the record I didn't lay claim to a thread, just making a valid point as you are now.

I feared that the discussion was moving away from the discussion of author/ial intrusion(AI) and towards the literary merits of Jane Eyre, which were directed towards me so am I not justified in clarifying my argument? Discuss what you wish just so long as you don't misinterpret another's argument and if you do then ask.

But the discussion is flowing well. I also asked for examples from posters that have committed AI themselves and how they have overcome it as it would aid me in correcting the many errors I have made and preventing others in doing likewise.

[Use Her Name]

I was always taught that the best sort of writing was ego-free, and served the story-- in other words decisions were made which were a result of the actions in the story, not the will of the author. Also, the writer should remain as invisible as possible. I have seen authorial intrusion, but mainly in travelogues of the 1800's and early 1900's. Other authorial intrusion is usually seen in chatty memoirs and children's books. It is usually in the form of the "storyteller," either a real writers like A. A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh), or Rudyard Kipling (Just So Stories), or a pseudonym like Lemony Snicket (A Series of Unfortunate Events). You'll notice these are Children's books.

[Shweta]

You'll notice these are Children's books.

Your examples are limited to children's books. Let's add a few others. Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell. Most of Terry Pratchett's books. Much of Nabokov's work.

My sense is that the categories are: children's books, humor, experimental writing, and books aiming for a period feel. Mostly because having a strong narrator voice is intrusive when the narrator is supposed to be invisible -- but while this is the default at this point, any time you can have a storyteller voice, or whenever going meta is a good thing, visible narrators are quite a fine thing.

[LLivingston]

I was always taught that the best sort of writing was ego-free, and served the story-- in other words decisions were made which were a result of the actions in the story, not the will of the author. Also, the writer should remain as invisible as possible. I have seen authorial intrusion, but mainly in travelogues of the 1800's and early 1900's. Other authorial intrusion is usually seen in chatty memoirs and children's books. It is usually in the form of the "storyteller," either a real writers like A. A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh), or Rudyard Kipling (Just So Stories), or a pseudonym like Lemony Snicket (A Series of Unfortunate Events). You'll notice these are Children's books.


Ooh. I'm forced to beg to differ on this one.

TOM ROBBINS.

Nothing but gleeful ego and mad flights of authorial intrusion in his stuff. It's his signature style and it's fabulous. In one book ("Jitterbug perfume", I think?) he actually completely derails the narrative for a good chunk of an entire chapter to describe how he is forced to paint his typewriter blood red in order to be able to finish telling the story. It is a digression that has nothing to do with the story whatsoever while, at the same time, serves it brilliantly.

And his stuff certainly ain't chatty memoir and it for damn sure isn't for kids!!

Just my point oh-two.

[Seif]

My sense is that the categories are: children's books, humor, experimental writing, and books aiming for a period feel. Mostly because having a strong narrator voice is intrusive when the narrator is supposed to be invisible -- but while this is the default at this point, any time you can have a storyteller voice, or whenever going meta is a good thing, visible narrators are quite a fine thing.

But there must be a pint when you notice that the narrator/author is intruding on the text and using a character as a mouthpiece to convey the authors own views. For example, in Maps for Lost Lovers Nadeem Aslam uses the story of two Muslim lovers who have run away and in hiding as a platform for a vehement attack on Islamic values. He may have issues regarding the faith, however his diatribes went on for so long that it disengaged the me from the story to consider his statements and I blatantly knew that he was forcing characters to say HIS view even though they neither contributed much to the story nor to the development of the plot.

1984 is another example of an author using a book to convey their own thoughts but I'll allow George Orwell because I don't think it was done too bad except for the major info dump when Winston reads The Book.

It annoys me when authors try to be too clever and insert their own 'nuggets of wisdom' and it is so blatant that it is distracting to the overall story and forces you out of the 'fictive dream'.