I cannot possibly tell you how weird and trepidatious I feel doing this. MIKE FORD did this.
I take great comfort in Sturgeon's Law, however, which I conceive to also apply in Liavek.
> 200 words a day steadily soon adds up.
Yes, it does. Experience suggests it will be more at some point, at least if somebody will kindly buy the damned book.
> POV multiplication is weird. I think POV > generally is one of those things where most of > the ways of thinking about it come from > literary criticism and therefore picking it up > from the wrong end for writing.
It's one of the things I learned to do at some point while trying to learn other things, so frankly I have seldom let what writing guides say about it influence me one way or the other. At least, any given POV is like that. Their interactions and arrangement verge on structure, a place where I am notoriously weak.
> I'm finding omniscient really strange -- > what's called omniscient is actually about six > different things. I have a new theory about it, > which is that there was an omniscient narrator > voice, as used by Austen and Trollope, and > Dickens picked it up, dropped and broke it, > making his form of omniscient which developed > into the detested Bestseller Omniscient as seen > today.
Oh dear, now I want to reread all that stuff. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt a bit.
How do you think the viewpoint of THE FALL OF THE KINGS fits into this? I'm pretty sure that my problems with that book, if not solely internal to my state of mind, have to do with viewpoint. I don't mean it isn't well done, because of course it is. However.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-12-07 06:48 pm (UTC)> Ooh, invented plays.
I cannot possibly tell you how weird and trepidatious I feel doing this. MIKE FORD did this.
I take great comfort in Sturgeon's Law, however, which I conceive to also apply in Liavek.
> 200 words a day steadily soon adds up.
Yes, it does. Experience suggests it will be more at some point, at least if somebody will kindly buy the damned book.
> POV multiplication is weird. I think POV
> generally is one of those things where most of > the ways of thinking about it come from
> literary criticism and therefore picking it up
> from the wrong end for writing.
It's one of the things I learned to do at some point while trying to learn other things, so frankly I have seldom let what writing guides say about it influence me one way or the other. At least, any given POV is like that. Their interactions and arrangement verge on structure, a place where I am notoriously weak.
> I'm finding omniscient really strange --
> what's called omniscient is actually about six
> different things. I have a new theory about it, > which is that there was an omniscient narrator > voice, as used by Austen and Trollope, and
> Dickens picked it up, dropped and broke it,
> making his form of omniscient which developed
> into the detested Bestseller Omniscient as seen
> today.
Oh dear, now I want to reread all that stuff. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt a bit.
How do you think the viewpoint of THE FALL OF THE KINGS fits into this? I'm pretty sure that my problems with that book, if not solely internal to my state of mind, have to do with viewpoint. I don't mean it isn't well done, because of course it is. However.
Pamela