tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21671128.post3853861176673637922..comments2024-01-19T13:24:15.734+00:00Comments on ::Acquired Taste: Tim Strettonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08598897603628943741noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21671128.post-84586282617383263532008-06-18T11:28:00.000+01:002008-06-18T11:28:00.000+01:00Thanks for your comment, Sam. You're right, of co...Thanks for your comment, Sam. You're right, of course, that third person by definition must be more distancing than first, no matter how limited the third-person POV.<BR/><BR/>But I can imagine a tight third-person POV--the sort where all the "he's" could as easily be replaced by "I"--which is less tied into the authorial voice than the kind of highly stylised first-person narratives we find, say, in Chandler.<BR/><BR/>But as you suggest, any narrative is an artificial construct, and in a third-person narrative that's more obvious. It's the flipside of that--the fact the reader can't see the filter--that makes the unreliable narrator device so effective when working in first person.Tim Strettonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08598897603628943741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21671128.post-62678010621676091922008-06-18T08:50:00.000+01:002008-06-18T08:50:00.000+01:00Fascinating post, Tim. I think I'm more exhibition...Fascinating post, Tim. I think I'm more exhibitionist than ventriloquist but I have noticed that when writing in the POV or voice of characters other than the central character I tend more towards ventriloquism. Ventriloquism is infinitely easier in first person.<BR/>BTW, the book I just blogged about, Engleby, is a brilliant example of ventriloquism.Alishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18406189984167289987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21671128.post-10973948198697590802008-06-17T17:29:00.000+01:002008-06-17T17:29:00.000+01:00Hmm. I would say that if you're not writing in Fir...Hmm. I would say that if you're not writing in First Person, then you're automatically inserting a filter -- no matter how thin -- between the reader and the character. Just my 2 cents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21671128.post-25623041127701020712008-06-17T08:20:00.000+01:002008-06-17T08:20:00.000+01:00I think that having an intrusive authorial voice, ...I think that having an intrusive authorial voice, specific to the book, is ventriloquism. It would only be exhibitionism if you used the same voice in every book.<BR/><BR/>From what I've seen of your writing I'd put you firmly in the ventriloquism school. Expository prose is entirely consistent with that approach.<BR/><BR/>Must admit to never having heard the term "economies to scale"--but I was always crap at economics and only took it to avoid having to do a hard science subject...Tim Strettonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08598897603628943741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21671128.post-38782540621310396662008-06-16T21:33:00.000+01:002008-06-16T21:33:00.000+01:00I've never really thought of it like this before. ...I've never really thought of it like this before. I suppose I'm prone to write the bulk of any novel in deep POV, which means ventriloquism; but I can't keep it up forever, which is why I tend to write a few expository passages with the camera pulled way back.<BR/><BR/>In my last novel, Earthly Vessels, I have a possibly omniscient narrator who keeps intruding into chapters that are otherwise in reasonably tight character POV. This gives me a chance to riff and generally fool around, and one could argue that this narrator is the voice of the book, and extremely exhibitionistic. But, then, I stick to the voice of that unknown narrator, and he/she definitely isn't me, so maybe that's really ventriloquism...?<BR/><BR/>Now I'm confused.<BR/><BR/>And I think there's three kinds of people: those who call them "economies OF scale" and those who insist on "economies TO scale," and those who don't care.David Isaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04928598446742324391noreply@blogger.com