They’re published, well loved but they got away with WHAT?

[Jack_Roberts]

Guys, I’m editing my MS as per the last beta read. One of my personal problems is some POV head swaps. I’m over halfway finished fixing this thing.

So anyway, my brain is picking out errors everywhere I read, including the book I’m currently reading for fun.
This is the first time I’ve ever read C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe”. So in chapter 3 we start with Lucy’s POV and then, right in the middle with no break of any sort we switch to Edmund’s POV.
Big, famous book series, well respected author and countless adaptations, most recently a movie series, and the author head swaps!
I think I caught some tell instead of show, too.

Does this ever happen to you? You’re trying to make your MS perfect so an agent will want to represent it, and you see glaring errors in stuff that’s already published? Why did they get away with it? Why can’ we get away with it?

I don’t mean that last question as a means of excuse. I’m going to continue to fix and fix some more until an agent is willing to look at me.

I’d just love to hear everyone’s general thoughts on this.

[maestrowork]

Oh yeah. I was reading a John Grisham book and almost threw it across the room when I found a blatant POV violation mid sentence. The good thing is, he didn't do that often.

But I also know I'm not John Grisham...

[giftedrhonda]

Keep in mind how long ago that book was published. Standards were different then.

As far as current books that do things like that: it's easier for a well-established author to continue doing things in a certain way (that's considered his/her "style"). Unfortunately, that doesn't mean editors want to see new authors doing those things, like head-hopping and such.

It all comes down to execution, in my opinion. Rules can be broken, but it should be deliberately. If you're doing it on accident, you probably don't know your craft well enough yet.

(you = generic "you"...i'm not talking about anyone in specific). :D

JMHO,

Rhonda

[Susan Gable]

What is considered strong craft changes over time. The craft "guidelines" (I refuse to call them rules) shift, just like those POV changes.

That said, I will confess, all my books, published within recent times, have had scenes where I have changed POV in a deliberate, controlled manner with no break to indicate it. A controlled switch does not a head-hop make, IMHO. OThers have different opinions. That's up to them.

But the biggest reason for the differences you're noticing is that writing conventions have changed over time.

Susan G.

[Jack_Roberts]

Oh yeah. I was reading a John Grisham book and almost threw it across the room when I found a blatant POV violation mid sentence. The good thing is, he didn't do that often.

But I also know I'm not John Grisham...

None of us are, BUT he had to start at the bottom at one point ,too.

[PeeDee]

I always imagine having Tolkien or C.S. Lewis (or John Steinback, or Charles Dickens) here, and I would be deeply embarassed to talk to them about show versus tell, POV jumps, et. al. I realize it's necessary to talk about, because it doesn't come naturally to some writers.

I just like that some writers wrote very well without majorly discussing these issues with anyone in particular. Obviously Tolkien and Lewis talked about writing, just like I bet Charles Dickens did, and Steinback...But I have never read an article from Steinback explaining why he felt it was important to jump from POV to another, or to show versus to tell, or anything.

I'm not being critical (I realize it sounds like it), I'm just musing.

[PeeDee]

All sorts of authors POV jump. Charles de Lint does it a LOT. His books are still wonderful.

You can do anything, including POV jump, show or tell, or whatever else you want....so long as you do it well, and you tell a good story.

[swvaughn]

Danielle Steel. 'Nuff said. :D

[PeeDee]

Danielle Steel. 'Nuff said. :D

Ouch. Game, set, match. :D

[giftedrhonda]

Agreed - anything can be done, so long as it's done well. :D

[engmajor2005]

Early in an author's career, they can't make mistakes. They have to be at peak form, show flawless technique, and concoct breathlessly amazing plots filled with well-developed characters that jump off the page. When they've got the point that people will buy anything--I mean anything!--that they write, and the publishing house is content to throw their stuff on the shelf so it will generate money for them, they can write anything they want. They can head-hop in a prologue to a first-narrative, and the publisher will take them on and people will buy anything they write.

There are two sets of rules in publishing: one for nameless wannabes and one for the Grand Masters. It's a sad truth but it's a truth none-the-less.

Now, as for Lewis, I'm not sure where he was at in his career when he wrote the Narnia books; I don't think they were his first books, just his big break. But it is true that they were written in the past, and all things change. But one thing that will never change is that the greats can get away with all kinds of things us humble scribblers could never sell a book on. Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, John Grisham, Tom Clancy, Danielle Steele--all of these are either well-respected writers or greater movers of merchandise (or both), so they could write a 600 page epic about having a bowel movement and it would sell, so your publishing houses would buy it.

In short, don't base what is "okay" in your book based on what is "okay" in the books out there, especially the books out there by the greats.

[Jack_Roberts]

The real lesson is the “done well” part. We still have to know the craft and work the hardest we can. All we can do is our best and hope our stories have what the public want.

[PeeDee]

Nope, my adage still applies. Because even if Stephen King head-hops in Cell, his latest-ish....he is in top form, and he tells a magnificant story. It's not because they have big names on their books and could sell the phone book. It's because the reason they're at their height is, they've spent a career getting better and better. At this point, I woudl forgive Stephen King the error, because the story is powerful, the characters are brilliant, and it keeps entertaining on every page.

If your story fumbles AND you're doing confusing things with POV and all the other little thinggummies, then you're not going to keep a reader. I don't care what the name on your cover is.

[C.bronco]

Do most of the readers (i.e. non-writers) actually care about that or do they just wannna hear the story? I know that I can read through an info. dump happily if it's interesting, as it was in the DaVinci Code, but skip over a long paragraph of beautifully written description because I want to find out what is going to happen in the story.

[PeeDee]

Do most of the readers (i.e. non-writers) actually care about that or do they just wannna hear the story? I know that I can read through an info. dump happily if it's interesting, as it was in the DaVinci Code, but skip over a long paragraph of beautifully written description because I want to find out what is going to happen in the story.

Exactly. Tell me a good story, and I don't care WHAT little glitches you may have.

I'm a writer, and I still don't notice half the time.

[Jack_Roberts]

they've spent a career getting better and better.

Bingo. :)

[maestrowork]

While it's true about "do what works" and that the masters could get away with it because they tell such great stories... it's a confusing idea for someone who's not at that level yet. We must learn and polish our basic skills as writers. We wouldn't tell an art student to skip all his technical training and fine art study and just go right ahead to create his masterpieces. Even raw talent needs nurture and polish.

I think it's good thing to remember that anything is possible if you do it well, but HOW do you do it well? It's through learning, practicing, and more learning and practicing. And talent of course, but mostly learning and practicing.

[giftedrhonda]

EXACTLY - if you're going to break rules, know what the rules are first. LOL

[PeeDee]

I agree with Ray. And it's why it does no good to say "Golly, C.S. Lewis shows and doesn't tell! What is this? This is crazy!"

He did what he did. He, however, is neither you nor me. How you and I do it will be entirely different, from him and from each other.

[PeeDee]

Neil Gaiman quotes one of his childhood teachers as saying "You must know the circles before you can be properly eccentric."

I like that.

[maestrowork]

Awareness is the first step, though. How many of us actually knew about POVs until we started learning fiction? And now we read books and we notice stuff like POVs, show vs. tell, dialogue tags, etc. It's a great thing. Because now we see the brushstrokes and not only the painting. That can only be good to our own work.

[MidnightMuse]

Learn as much as you can, write the best that you can, and maybe someday a bunch of writers will gather together and ask: But how did Jack Roberts get away with doing this, when we're all taught not to do that?

[PeeDee]

Awareness is the first step, though. How many of us actually knew about POVs until we started learning fiction? And now we read books and we notice stuff like POVs, show vs. tell, dialogue tags, etc. It's a great thing. Because now we see the brushstrokes and not only the painting. That can only be good to our own work.

I think I learn more from being flattened by great fiction, from having a good book suck me in and spit me out the other side, not nearly the same as I was before. It is the painting that takes your breath away, not the individual coarse lines of the brush on the canvas.

Yes, you should learn the details, you should be aware of them. It doesn't hurt to know them when they appear in books. But I think I'd be miserable if I picked up a Timothy Zahn book and spent the whole time going "OKay, now we're switching POV's and we're going to slightly recap the previous scene, I notice we've skipped a critical action sequence which we'll recap in dialogue while they in between do computer work that builds toward the next revelation...."

[maestrowork]

Nope. That's not what I meant. Even if when I beta read or crit for someone, I don't just jump right into the analytical part. The first read is also for leisure -- as a reader. No analysis. Just see if the story will transport me to a different time and place and keep me there. If they succeed, then we have a winner. Usually, though, when something is wrong and the story doesn't hold me, the analysis later often points to technical issues show vs. tell or head-hopping or something that generally mars my experience as a reader.

[PeeDee]

Nope. That's not what I meant. Even if when I beta read or crit for someone, I don't just jump right into the analytical part. The first read is also for leisure -- as a reader. No analysis. Just see if the story will transport me to a different time and place and keep me there. If they succeed, then we have a winner. Usually, though, when something is wrong and the story doesn't hold me, the analysis later often points to technical issues show vs. tell or head-hopping or something that generally mars my experience as a reader.

Beta reading or crit reading, sure. ANd I'm not saying YOU do it. I'm just pointing out that some writers don't just read anymore, because the writerly/editorial bit of their brain starts worrying about the fiction they're reading and how it's working. Like trying to look at your car's engine while driving it at the same time.

[giftedrhonda]

That's me, Pete - I have a really hard time just enjoying a book anymore...I end up analyzing it to death. LOL

[Jack_Roberts]

VERY good advice.
They are words to write by!
Get it? Words to write by?
I crack myself up!

*returns to edits*

[jodiodi]

That's me, Pete - I have a really hard time just enjoying a book anymore...I end up analyzing it to death. LOL

Not me. I'm a great audience, ready and willing to be drawn into whatever world the author has created. I still, however, find books, especially in my genre, that I look at and think, "How did they get published? The characters are one- maybe two-dimensional at best, the stories and writing are stereotypical and cliched, and seem to be written on a fourth or maybe fifth grade level of complexity. There's nothing subtle, nothing nuanced." Sometimes such concerns will jerk me out of my enjoyment of the book.