"Where'd it go, all that precious time?"

[greygirlbeast]

Cooler and, more importantly, less humid, here in Providence. I actually had to put on a sweater this morning. We had several days of hot, spectacularly humid weather, so this comes as a relief.

Today, I very much need reader comments, if only to help me stay grounded. Thank you.

Not a lot of progress on the book though. On Thursday, I wrote 1,081 words, about normal for me, for any given day. But then yesterday, a combination of self doubt and misbehaving blood pressure (thank you, meds) left me such a mess that I only wrote 14 words (I shit you not). Today, I'll try to do better.

But the truth is, almost a year after conceiving of the story that has, eventually, become The Drowning Girl, and just a couple of months shy of the two-year anniversary of having finished The Red Tree, it isn't going well. It's hardly going at all. Do I know why? I have a bucketful of conjecture, but no, I don't know for sure. I only know it's put me in a truly terrifying place.

---

Lots of thoughts yesterday on convention in novels. Conventions in first-person narratives. Such as, how so few readers pause to consider the existence and motivations of the "interauthor." When you're reading a first-person narration, you're reading a story that's being told by a fictional author, and that fictional author— or interauthor —is, essentially, the central character. Their motivations are extremely important to the story. The simple fact that they are telling the story, in some fictional universe, raises questions that I believe have to be addressed by first-person narratives. Why is the interauthor writing all this down? How long is it taking her or him? Do they intend it to be read by others? Is it a confessional? Reflection? A warning? Also (and this is a BIG one), what happens to the interauthor while the story is being written, especially if it's a novel-length work of fiction?

In my case, it takes anywhere from a few months (The Red Tree, Low Red Moon) to years (my other novels) to write a novel. I assume this is the case for most people who sit down to write something that's seventy- to one-hundred-thousand words long. These are not campfire tales. These are major undertakings by their interauthors. So, the narrators stop and start writing the documents over and over and over while it's being written. But rarely are we shown what happens to her or him while the story is being told (Mark Z. Danielewski's House of Leaves is a brilliant exception, and sure there are other exceptions). Some things will almost certainly occur that are important enough that they will intrude upon the narrative.

A first-person narrative occurs in a minimum of two time frames: the present (when the story is being written down) and the past (when the story occurred).

And it baffles me that so few readers or writers pause to consider these facts, and that so few authors address these problems in the text. A first-person narrative is, by definition, an artifact, and should be treated as such. Rarely do I use the word "should" when discussing fiction writing.

The other thing I thought about a lot yesterday was the convention of chapters, especially as it applies to first person and the interauthor. Does the interauthor actually bother dividing her story into chapters, especially if she's only writing for herself? If so, why? It seems patently absurd to me. She might date each section of her manuscript. She might divide sections with hash tags or asterisks. But chapters? No. That's absurd.

If I can ever get The Drowning Girl written, it may have no chapter divisions. To use them would be a ridiculous adherence to convention that makes no sense within the context of the artifact of the story.

One more thing: Most readers do not want to read books that are, to put it bluntly, smarter than they are. Such readers get very pissed, and resentful, and interpret their emotional reactions as a mistake or shortcoming on the part of the author (transference). This phenomenon will never cease to amaze and confound me.

---

Last night, we watched Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell (2009). It was appropriate to kid night: over-the-top goofy camp. Not sure if I liked it or not. It was fun, I suppose. Spooky probably liked it better than I did. For me, it was the sort of film I mostly enjoy while I'm watching it, but pretty much forget as soon as it's over. We also watched another episode of Nip/Tuck. We finished Season Two on Thursday night. And I have to say, the last episode of Season Two is one of the best, most-harrowing hours of television I have ever seen. I'm very glad I didn't give up on this show halfway through Season One, as I almost did.

Not much reading. It's almost impossible for me to read fiction while trying to write a novel.

And now...another fucking day...

Comments

[sovay]

She might date each section of her manuscript. She might divide sections with hash tags or asterisks.

I like both of these ideas.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

I like both of these ideas.

I'll likely use one or the other.

Assuming...

[cithra.livejournal.com]

Since you asked for comments, I'll share a speculation on continuity in first person narrative, as a compulsive diarist... I've kept a paper journal since I was 12, a little over 30 years now, and early on I fell into writing it to some sort of audience, initially the diary itself (I named them) as a friendly letter. Later that convention fell away, but I still find myself feeling as though I'm addressing someone, either my future self or some distant reader, most likely after I'm dead. Considered as a narrative, my journals have huge gaping holes in them, where I simply didn't feel the urge to write, where something was so intense to me that even confiding it to paper seemed unwise or dangerous; and I've moved enough over my life to think there are probably volumes/notebooks gone missing.

More to a point, when I read other first person narratives, even ones that are not structured in letter or diary form, I believe I take for granted that those sorts of gaps appear. Not only because of looking back on my own fairly-well documented yet fragmentary memoir, but with the added knowledge that most people don't even write this stuff down, and memory is tricky. (I began my journal because I wanted to remember correctly what I was thinking and feeling at the time...)

I don't know if that exactly addresses what you were considering, but it's some thoughts. As an aside, what I've found as a mildly amusing artifact of this journal-habit is I have a really hard time not writing fiction in a sort of broken first person narrative, so far, when I've essayed it.

Added: I often feel like chapters are a result of editorial insistence or an attempt at cliffhanger, so if they are balking you as artificial-seeming, perhaps that's worth listening to, at least in the first draft or so.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

You've opened various other cans of worms...

I've kept a paper journal since I was 12, a little over 30 years now, and early on I fell into writing it to some sort of audience, initially the diary itself (I named them) as a friendly letter. Later that convention fell away, but I still find myself feeling as though I'm addressing someone, either my future self or some distant reader, most likely after I'm dead. Considered as a narrative, my journals have huge gaping holes in them, where I simply didn't feel the urge to write, where something was so intense to me that even confiding it to paper seemed unwise or dangerous; and I've moved enough over my life to think there are probably volumes/notebooks gone missing.

If anything, this points out how first-person narratives ought to be marked, frequently, by discontinuity. This is almost never the case. They are handled as straight-forward linear narratives, which seems very unrealistic

As for writing to a reader, that's something the extra-author has to determine if the interauthor means to be doing.

and memory is tricky.

A fact most authors of first-person narratives simply choose to ignore. Try recalling a complete conversation from only a week ago. Now try a month. A year....

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

If we don't ask ourselves who and why writes down the events in third-person novels, why should we care about it in first-person novels?

Wrong.

A first-person narrative is an entirely different beast than a third-person narrative. The latter does not insist upon the existence of the interauthor. It's more like watching a movie (at least, the sort without a first-person narration). The interauthor is a character with motivation and must be addressed. Which is why the reader should care? Why is it important that this story is being told by a character (not an omniscient third-person extra-author)?

[count-01.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of setting aside chapters for a first-person narrative. Real life happens in scenes, not neatly-cut chapters. Some seem to take forever (like waiting for the dentist) while others take forever to describe but happen in a moment (like a first kiss.)

And yes, like most readers, I hate it when a book tries (often unsuccessfully) to be smarter than I am. Do you hear me, Robert Ludlum? That is why Bourne Identity sucked. It's supposed to be a neat, action-packed mystery/thriller, and it pretends to be a Great Work, which may I point out, very few really great works pretend to be.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

And yes, like most readers, I hate it when a book tries (often unsuccessfully) to be smarter than I am.

You're making an assumption: That the author has tried to be more intelligent than you are. How can you know that? Because it happens to feel that way to you? How can you any weight on such inherently subjective assumptions, as you cannot know the intent of the author?

Do i know what X was thinking when she wrote a novel? No. All assumptions as to her intents are circumspect.

[brienze.livejournal.com]

A few disjointed comments...

Any moderately educated reader subliminally understands negative space. Web pages that lack it are unreadable. I doubt the interauthor would write "Chapter 2" at the top of a page unless they're intending the work for publication, but I bet they'd leave extra blank lines between blocks of text sometimes, or go on to the next page without filling the previous, etc, just because it will be easier on their own eye.

Chapters in books do often create artificial cliffhangers. As a reader, I cruise right through chapter breaks and bookmark and stop reading when the narrative lags or I get to a Tolkien-esque block of description... so as a writer, maybe that artificial chapter break is better than the implied insult to any slow bits in the text?

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

but I bet they'd leave extra blank lines between blocks of text sometimes

Which is why I suggested hash tags or asterisks. Simple space breaks would suffice.

first person narrative

[ghasmarii.livejournal.com]

A regular reader from Germany here, delurking for the first time.
A rather special case of a first-person narrative in which several of the issues that you mention have been thought through, and handled (I think) well, is Gene Wolfe's Soldier books. Don't know if you have read them, but I imagine that you might like them. (Gene Wolfe is someone who certainly doesn't care if readers may be displeased on finding, reading his books, that the book/author is much smarter than they are.)

Re: first person narrative

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Gene Wolfe's Soldier books. Don't know if you have read them, but I imagine that you might like them.

Sorry. I've not read them.

(Gene Wolfe is someone who certainly doesn't care if readers may be displeased on finding, reading his books, that the book/author is much smarter than they are.)

A fact for which he is to be commended.

[kaz-mahoney.livejournal.com]

I like what Jonathan Carroll did with The Marriage of Sticks: although he did use 'chapters' they weren't identified in that way, either through the word 'Chapter' or by numbering them. Each section of the novel is preceded by a heading/title, which sort of tricked me - as a reader - into not thinking of them so much as chapters.

I suppose it's the same thing, really, but it was a bit different - which I liked.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

I like what Jonathan Carroll did with The Marriage of Sticks: although he did use 'chapters' they weren't identified in that way, either through the word 'Chapter' or by numbering them.

Frank Herbert did the same thing in Dune, and did it brilliantly, dividing sections only with epigraphs from fictional books.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Why a first-person narrator might use chapters: he or she has read many novels.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Why a first-person narrator might use chapters: he or she has read many novels.

This is an interesting proposition. It's not unreasonable.

[mastadge.livejournal.com]

Immediate impressions with which I may no longer agree after a few minutes' consideration:

I think it's become more common over time to have the first-person be just a hip, clever voice more or less trustworthily relating his or her adventures.

Just glancing at the shelves, The Tale of Genji is framed in several layers of storytellers and incorporated commentary. Frankenstein is a manuscript transcribed from dictation nightly and sent with letters. Even more straightforward first-person narrations, from Robinson Crusoe to Gatsby to any number of works by, for instance, Poe, are understood to be related by people of various motives and levels or reliability. More recently, Nnedi Okorafor and James Sallis have both provided first-person narrations that were told that way for very specific reasons bound up in the tales they were telling.

But I think over the past several decades, there has been a shift away from a first-person narrative as a narrative told/written/related by a real first person, for personal and not always apparent reasons, and toward a first-person narrative as a way of dazzling the reader with particularly clever observation -- the first person is less a real person than a voice-over narrating a cinematically conceived adventure. It's a narration rather than an artifact produced by a person. It's a form often adopted for fun rather than for reasons intrinsic to the story and the way the story has to be told. (Again, certainly not always, but frequently.)

It might also have something to do with the increasing popularity of the memoir, which is more often than not presented in first-person, chronologically, in chapter format, rather than in a stream-of-consciousness form that reads like the following of memories and associations and discovering discrepancies between memory and fact and all that. But I haven't read enough memoirs to fairly gauge the way the authors most often construct and present themselves and how similar or different it is to the construction of first-person novels.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Just glancing at the shelves, The Tale of Genji is framed in several layers of storytellers and incorporated commentary. Frankenstein is a manuscript transcribed from dictation nightly and sent with letters. Even more straightforward first-person narrations, from Robinson Crusoe to Gatsby to any number of works by, for instance, Poe, are understood to be related by people of various motives and levels or reliability. More recently, Nnedi Okorafor and James Sallis have both provided first-person narrations that were told that way for very specific reasons bound up in the tales they were telling.

Good examples, on and all.


But I think over the past several decades, there has been a shift away from a first-person narrative as a narrative told/written/related by a real first person, for personal and not always apparent reasons, and toward a first-person narrative as a way of dazzling the reader with particularly clever observation -- the first person is less a real person than a voice-over narrating a cinematically conceived adventure. It's a narration rather than an artifact produced by a person. It's a form often adopted for fun rather than for reasons intrinsic to the story and the way the story has to be told.

True, at least in part. But I also think it's a hold over from the primitive storytelling, and the stories we are first told as children.

I'm not sure I've ever read a non-fiction memoir.

[lupa.livejournal.com]

Now that online journaling has become blogging, I note that the standard for someone putting down their story is not to use only a date, but a date and a title. Additionally, there might be multiple titles for a single date. Titling one's journal/blog entries to me suggests chapters, though the format tends to make the blog-chapter much shorter than the novel-chapter. So if someone is writing something down, telling the story, the question for me becomes *in what format* the character is writing. In The Red Tree Sarah was typing, and on a manual typewriter, which is vastly closer to longhand and thus titles wouldn't have made sense. (I really liked how you explained the organization, by the way.) If someone was typing online, whether in a private location or public, I'd expect titles or some kind of similar framing.

Also, when online the tool one uses online makes a difference, because then I firmly believe one unconsciously tailors the writing to the way in which the audience (whether it's one's self or someone else) reads it. When I was writing on Livejournal, I tended to make multiple short posts because of the way in which I knew my audience - which were my friends - was reading. On Blogger, both before and after LJ, I wrote much longer post-pieces with titles, in which topical items were separated by a keyboard iconography of some kind.

I don't know if that helps, nor do I mean it to sound like a recommendation. It's all merely my own thoughts about a first-person writing project on which I've been toodling.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Now that online journaling has become blogging, I note that the standard for someone putting down their story is not to use only a date, but a date and a title.

The only reason I title these journal entries is because I hate "no subject" and default-date titles. The interauthor of a non-electronic manuscript would not face these problems. LiveJournal forces my hand, which would not happen if this were being written longhand, on a typewriter, or even in MS Word. I don't intend ever to write a novel in blog format.

[dragau.livejournal.com]

You address here many issues that I have while reading first-person narratives, particularly what occurs during the writing and how those most recent events, thoughts, emotions and most particularly, hindsights affect the narrative. Another question that generally remains unanswered is why the interauthor is such a good writer in the first place. Although Atonement blurs the identity of the narrator, Ian McEwan handled this issue with stark improvements in the writing quality from one part to the next.

Most readers do not want to read books that are, to put it bluntly, smarter than they are.

I am not one of them. Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon was a great novel that plunged forward whether the reader understood the underlying math or not. However, in Anathem, a novel dealing directly with a caste system imposed by secret knowledge, Stephenson does not even summon a sufficiently advanced technology to challenge the reader.

The author knows something and I as a reader want to learn it. I want a book to send me to Google. This is why over the last decade I have read as many textbooks as I have novels. Thank goodness for Dover Publications and their affordable reprints of classic texts.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Another question that generally remains unanswered is why the interauthor is such a good writer in the first place.

This is an extremely important point, and one I will address tomorrow.

The author knows something and I as a reader want to learn it. I want a book to send me to Google. This is why over the last decade I have read as many textbooks as I have novels. Thank goodness for Dover Publications and their affordable reprints of classic texts.

In my opinion, this makes you an ideal reader.

[pisceanblue.livejournal.com]

Most readers do not want to read books that are, to put it bluntly, smarter than they are. Such readers get very pissed, and resentful, and interpret their emotional reactions as a mistake or shortcoming on the part of the author (transference). This phenomenon will never cease to amaze and confound me.
I had this very argument with someone who did not care for The Red Tree and I was actually angered by some of the "issues" he raised; I felt he was entirely resentful of the characterization of Sarah, for example, and it struck me as patently absurd.

If you'll indulge me a moment of "gushing:" your intellect is one of the aspects I treasure most about your writing and your person and fie to those who resent intelligent people who are not afraid to display their intelligence to the world at large.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

I had this very argument with someone who did not care for The Red Tree and I was actually angered by some of the "issues" he raised; I felt he was entirely resentful of the characterization of Sarah, for example, and it struck me as patently absurd.

Not knowing the cause for his resentment, I can say that reader insecurities and prejudices, come into play.


If you'll indulge me a moment of "gushing:" your intellect is one of the aspects I treasure most about your writing and your person and fie to those who resent intelligent people who are not afraid to display their intelligence to the world at large.

Thank you.

[corucia.livejournal.com]

A first-person narrative occurs in a minimum of two time frames: the present (when the story is being written down) and the past (when the story occurred).

And the interval of time between those two is also vitally important. If the events are being written as journal entries or the like at a very close remove from the primary action, then the interauthor might be unwilling to write down particularly upsetting events (perhaps only using a "something major happened today I don't think I can talk about" marker) but then bits of the event will creep into the narrative in later entries, possibly with a major unveiling and discussion later. On the other hand, if a significant amount of time has passed and the interauthor is writing down everything to make some sort of record, then she's going to be much more likely to do it in a linear fashion.

Another facet of the interauthor that the author has to address before the writing can get going...

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

These are all good points.

[easter-lane.livejournal.com]

I actually had this argument about first person narratives last year with an ex. I had given her a copy of "The Lover" and she came back to me saying she "felt sorry for the guy" because the girl--the narrator--seemed, in her words, "cold" in her description of their affair. I was really taken aback, as this is one of my favorite books and it devestates me every time I read it. I pointed out that the narrator was a much older woman telling the tale of not only her first love affair, but all the familial and political ties that tore them apart, and that naturally an older woman was going to use different, sometimes harsh or 'cold' language to convey such a personal, hurtful time than the teenager she was would, but that didn't mean there was any passion lacking.

I believe I also mentioned that often we are not the greatest vessels to tell our own tales in an objective manner, because everything is filtered through the prism of our own experience. Our perspective on people, motivations and events will be tainted by that. My ex still didn't get it. I finally gave up and said, "Well, she's French you know," and left it at that.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

"Well, she's French you know," and left it at that.

Good reply, given the circumstances.

I fear that some people are more interested in judging characters than trying to see things from the point of view of those characters. I've seen this with Sarah Crowe.

[vintage-witch.livejournal.com]

Just finished "The Red Tree" and thus discovered your livejournal.

Your question about time is an interesting one - when it takes you so long to write a novel, how do you account for the difference between the time the interauthor takes to write it and how long it takes you to write it? I mean, in the narrative. Obviously it would be ridiculous to expect that the novel should only take the time of the narrative space to write.

I tend to shy away from first person because it does pose some weird problems. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading a really good first person account - especially when the text is treated as an artifact.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

when it takes you so long to write a novel, how do you account for the difference between the time the interauthor takes to write it and how long it takes you to write it? I mean, in the narrative. Obviously it would be ridiculous to expect that the novel should only take the time of the narrative space to write.

This seemed like an odd question, and I had to sit here and think about it a moment. Truthfully, I don't take this differential into account. I don't see a relationship between the time it takes me to write a book and the time the interauthor needs. Typically, I need a year or so to write a novel. That may differ radically from how long the interauthor needs.

[bellarabesques.livejournal.com]

One of the things I cherish about your books is that they introduce me to so much. This week you've given me littoralis, which is a beautiful word and one I am glad to know, and St. Thomas Aquinas' almost humorously indulgent division of gluttony.

Jean Genet divided his books plainly, with space breaks, and since his narratives are so personal I have always thought it suited him.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Jean Genet divided his books plainly, with space breaks, and since his narratives are so personal I have always thought it suited him.

Good example.

[kurtmulgrew.livejournal.com]

I loved "House of Leaves" also.

Is it not the point of reading to gain knowledge by reading someone smarter than yourself. I thought so...

The best thing about art is that you can do it whatever damn way you please. Guess the scientist in you wants to weigh all the options before coming to the conclusion. Which isn't a bad thing to do.
What should ya do? Depends all on your character's style and intelligence and background and so on.

Good Hunting... and sorry that wasn't very helpful.

p.s. just started readinmg "SILK" and I just thought it was cool how Niki was in Myrtle Beach since I been there a bunch a' times. Just wondering if you have been there.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Is it not the point of reading to gain knowledge by reading someone smarter than yourself.

For me it is one of the reasons, yes.

The best thing about art is that you can do it whatever damn way you please.

Unfortunately, when publishing and editors are involved, this isn't really true, not when your income is entirely reliant on your art. It is, in that case, on theoretically true.

Just wondering if you have been there.

Yes. Last time was in 1996.

[amethyst-clan.livejournal.com]

One more thing: Most readers do not want to read books that are, to put it bluntly, smarter than they are. Such readers get very pissed, and resentful, and interpret their emotional reactions as a mistake or shortcoming on the part of the author (transference).

Ugh, yes. I really hate this. I think it's a result of our society's current trend of wanting entertainment to be dumbed down, so you can just stare at it and zombie out.

Gods forbid we actually have to think...

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

I think it's a result of our society's current trend of wanting entertainment to be dumbed down, so you can just stare at it and zombie out.

Agreed.

[cucumberseed.livejournal.com]

This is one of those times where I feel slightly ashamed for simply accepting a thing without examining it (though, now that I look through my memories, this was a slightly less blameworthy case of encountering this problem much earlier and with much less experience, filing it away as "something I cannot resolve now" and my brain taking that as the same thing as being resolved. Ah, brains). So what comes out of my head is going to be raw and anecdotal, but I agree there is something to contend with here, and something that, with the little bit of information I have is going to be extremely important to what I know of your story and how I perceive the way you write.

And now it's going to be more of a factor in the way I write, too, which is, I think, for the best, having just gotten a story in first person returned to me (for many reasons).

Anyway, passing by the really obvious things, one of the questions I would really want to answer is how the narrator organizes her thoughts, what goes where, what goes when, what groups together, what gets divided out... That suddenly sounds very daunting, even though it's something we do naturally (it kind of reminds me of the panic attacks when I am very tired when I suddenly start believing that breathing requires my concentration to accomplish. Ah, brains.).

I see a couple of things upthread that resonate to me. nihilistic_kid makes a point I want to echo. We organize our thoughts the way we're taught to organize them.

Of course, then there is the trope of the surprisingly literary interauthor for a non-literary character, and that one... I can only follow you into the woods, I think you see them better than I do.

The only potentially useful bit I might have is that artists of various types have very different narrative priorities depending on their art. And the usefulness of that, even if it lives up to its potential is...

You've given me a lot to think about. If something useful to me occurs, I'll share it.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Of course, then there is the trope of the surprisingly literary interauthor for a non-literary character,

This is something I strive to avoid...more on this tomorrow, I think.

The only potentially useful bit I might have is that artists of various types have very different narrative priorities depending on their art. And the usefulness of that, even if it lives up to its potential is...

As for as this book is concerned, that's a very important point. How do sculptors think? Can I think like a sculptor?

Thank you...

[alumiere.livejournal.com]

I'm slowly working my way through The Ammonite Violin and I wish more people read short story collections. This book should have a gigantic "audience" of intelligent, voracious readers.

These are dark and gorgeous - the title story in particular. You have this ability to make me forget I'm reading a book at all, and to start visualizing the characters, hearing the music, smelling the sea, that few other writers can match. You do this in your novel length works as well, but to my mind it's the short stories where this talent really amazes - how does she evoke so many sensations in so few words?

But given the splendid way in which you transport my brain to the sea over and over again, I have no doubt that The Drowning Girl will be incredible when you find your way through it.

Re: Thank you...

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

This book should have a gigantic "audience" of intelligent, voracious readers.

Thank you for saying so.

[mrs-ralph.livejournal.com]

Do you think maybe you are over-thinking things? All of the points you have made seem to be good ones but perhaps all of the thinking about technique and format should go by the board and you should just let yourself create. "Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead" or something to that effect.

I will say that I rarely pay attention to the chapter divisions. I will read any quotes or dates at the top of the page but otherwise I prefer to be absorbed in the story, not counting chapters or even pages. Frankly, if I am noting page numbers or chapters that only shows that I am not engaging with the story.

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

Do you think maybe you are over-thinking things?

Probably, yes.

[captaincurt81.livejournal.com]

I actually enjoy when the author knows something I don't. I read to learn as well as to be entertained. I also would not be put off by a lack of chapter breaks. I love immersion in a good story. The only purpose they serve for me is when I must stop my reading to go to work or rest, providing a natural stopping place so I may resume later without halting mid-scene, etc. Write it the way it works best for you. I love what you do. You are fiercely original and that's why I read your work.

It's the middle of the night, really, I can't think of one...

[jessamyg.livejournal.com]

This, truthfully, is not the time to get into thinking about first-person narratives, but the one problem I find with some first-person narratives, especially as an example "Lovecraftian" fiction, is the way the narrator continues to write as something squamous and loathsome shambles through the house towards them. Even if there were no obvious avenue of escape I doubt I would continue writing. Anyway, this has been a digression, 3/4 of the way through 'The Red Tree' and thoroughly enjoying it. I tend to find, however detestable or unlikeable the narrator, that I can empathise with them and identify with them, but I sometimes feel that this is one of the hazards of bi-polar disorder. Whatever, I live and cope with my neuroses. A good writer puts you in the characters head and shows you things you might never see, makes you experience feelings and events you may never be exposed to. I hope to the Gods that this is coherent, but you have my sympathies and well wishes in regards to your writing.

Re: It's the middle of the night, really, I can't think of one...

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

but the one problem I find with some first-person narratives, especially as an example "Lovecraftian" fiction, is the way the narrator continues to write as something squamous and loathsome shambles through the house towards them.

For all my fondness of Lovecraft, I am in utter and complete agreement. The Red Tree was structured to way it was to avoid this very problem.

[laudre.livejournal.com]

I've known several people who seem to be actively hostile to any work of fiction, in any medium, being more than a standard deviation more intelligent or intellectually challenging than the mean. Some of them are people for whom watching a film or reading a book is a way to simply "shut off [their] brain[s] for awhile" (their words), but others who've expressed this sort of opinion are people I know for a fact thoroughly enjoy intellectually engaging material of all kinds. One of these people is a hobbyist writer who is quite competent in structuring plot, writing dialogue and prose, and mostly good at creating and developing interesting, three-dimensional characters; further, when he reads for pleasure, he reads diverse, sometimes quite intricate fiction. However, he's got an inexplicable hostility to things that veer too much from expectations of convention; he can't seem to abide anything published in a comics format that doesn't follow the established conventions of the superhero genre, for example, and he's on record as describing Neil Gaiman as "pretentious" (I'm quite sure that this person knows what the word means, but I've no idea how he came to think it in any way applies to Neil).

I don't really understand this viewpoint -- much of what I read I read specifically because it challenges me on some level, either intellectually (Gene Wolfe, House of Leaves) or in terms of my expectations of story and resolution (I've come to realize that I have an unusually strong understanding of dramatic structure and cues for someone who has never formally studied such; it's very rare that I can't predict the vast majority of plot developments in any sort of story presented, and one of my great pleasures is when I get surprised by someone who can defy my predictions without cheating, so to speak). That being said, I have little patience with writers/filmmakers/what-have-you who are clearly trying very hard to show you how clever they are, but without actually delivering the level of work that someone that clever should be able to do. I want intelligence and thought and innovation, but being ostentatious about it? It's just obnoxious and off-putting.

(My other pet peeve? When someone who is good, and unusually so, starts believing their own press too much, and stops self-criticizing and just assumes everything they do is awesome, because they did it.)

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

However, he's got an inexplicable hostility to things that veer too much from expectations of convention; he can't seem to abide anything published in a comics format that doesn't follow the established conventions of the superhero genre, for example, and he's on record as describing Neil Gaiman as "pretentious" (I'm quite sure that this person knows what the word means, but I've no idea how he came to think it in any way applies to Neil).

The abuse of the word "pretentious" as a dismissive adjective, by people who usually do not understand its meaning (all literature pretends to something), galls me. And yeah, I've heard it applied to Neil. And I get it all the damn time.

[bbluemarble.livejournal.com]

After reading this post and the prior comments I've come to the conclusion that there are (in effect) two types of first person narratives: First Person Found Artifact and First Person Really Just a Bastardization of Third Person Limited.

I think this happened because every writing book ever written tells amateur writers that first person is easier to write and it's a shortcut to reader empathy. These are lies. Writing first person as found artifact is really hard to do well.

Maybe that's why it's all but disappeared in favor of first person bastardization of third. I can't say that I remember the first book I read that didn't explain why it was in first person (remember when that used to be a rule? Explain that this narrative is an artifact and what sort of artifact it is or the audience will be unable to suspend disbelief!) but I do vividly remember the most unrealistic pseudo-explanation for the narrative being in first person that I ever read. It was something along the lines of "I'm thinking stuff. Right now. These are my thoughts that I'm sending out to the world in the hopes that someone will hear them and maybe write them down." Adhering to that convention actually pulled me right out of the story with thoughts along the lines of "What?! She's a vampire that's psychic enough to compel some random person to write her dying-moments memoir but she can't psychic her friends to help her escape? What a stupid superpower." In that case, it would have been better for the story to just dispense with the whole first person construct and do it in third person limited (but I get the feeling that editors/publishers/the powers that be to working writers thought the average teen reader may have trouble empathizing with a sometimes psychotic vampire that goes on occasional killing sprees and feels no remorse so. . . I know, write it in first person! Instant empathy!).

If you want a good book that uses first person as found artifact, try Blindsight by Peter Watts. It also has a realistic alien species and an unreliable narrator to a mind-blowingly subtle degree. It hurt my brain to read this book (in a good way).

[greygirlbeast.livejournal.com]

After reading this post and the prior comments I've come to the conclusion that there are (in effect) two types of first person narratives: First Person Found Artifact and First Person Really Just a Bastardization of Third Person Limited.

I think this happened because every writing book ever written tells amateur writers that first person is easier to write and it's a shortcut to reader empathy. These are lies. Writing first person as found artifact is really hard to do well.

Yes! Thank you.

If you want a good book that uses first person as found artifact, try Blindsight by Peter Watts. It also has a realistic alien species and an unreliable narrator to a mind-blowingly subtle degree. It hurt my brain to read this book (in a good way).

I have to try Watts. He's been recommended to me several times now.