)
.This is the beggining of the Part 1, which takes place way before what I posted earlier. Enjoy (I hope )
Karen Helmholtz floated weightlessly in the center of a large chamber at the heart of the ISA docking center. She had her eyes closed and was listening to soft music playing in the background. The air flowed around her as images of a summer field surrounded her- long flowing grass below her, blue sky and white clouds above her, and seeds and flower pedals dancing around her as if the fan-blown air was a summer breeze.
The image of her husband, Joseph, appeared in the grass below. She heard his voice below her say, “Come down Karen, I want to say goodbye.” She opened her eyes and flipped herself around to face the “ground” where Joe was standing. She thrust her hands out as if she could fly, and sure enough she seemed to soar down to him. He reached his hands out to her, and she passed through him as if he was a ghost.
She hit the soft wall of the chamber and bounced back. “Lock environment to me,” she said in a flat voice that told the computer she was talking to it, rather than her husband, and immediately the “ground” followed her around the room- and Joe with it. She was locked so close to Joe that, were he really there with her, they could kiss. They looked into each other’s eyes and floated together through the room.
The environment around them changed and they seemed to be floating in sunset clouds with hues of pink. “I think the operators are watching us,” Karen said.
“At least they have a flare for romance.” They floated there for a moment, then Joe broke his gaze as if someone was talking to him. “Alright, Karen. Time’s up. You have to go now. Goodbye.” Karen looked sad, then sighed and turned off the environment so she could see the door. Joe’s image disappeared and she soared toward it- toward the cold sleep of her cryonization chamber to be loaded into her ship, the Ithuriel. She would be a lot older before she could see her husband again.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 09, 2004).]
What kind of music is it? Even angst-ridden, hard-core, punk metal could be playing softly in the background. Tell us what type of music it is... soft jazz? Classical? Elevator? Tell us.
One little touch like that will speak volumes about your character -- making her far more alive and real to me, and far more interesting overall. You could even go so far as describing why she had chosen that particular music, or better, a particular track... her husband's favorite, maybe? A song her mother liked?
And again with the soft wall? Why is it soft? What makes it soft? What is it padded with? Even "the soft, padded wall" would be better than soft alone.
Otherwise, I like it... but there is that POV issue Survivor mentioned...
Edit: I just noticed, I didn't say music playing softly, I said soft music in the background. I'll still add something to it though...
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 10, 2004).]
Sorry if I mislead you there... I certainly wouldn't ask you to write like OSC does. Everyone has their own voice.
I'm sorry you settled for new age.
I was listening to Led Zeppelin's Going to California when I wrote that, but it's in the futre, and only one character in this story listens to Zep. She's listening to a future musician playing some acoustic guitar. I'll add that in there in a sec (after I add it to the master file on my comp ).
Notes about edits: Damn this UBB psuedo-HTML stuff... argh.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited July 10, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited July 10, 2004).]
quote:
It's 3rd omniscient. I think you guys are trying to get me to write more in OSC's style. He gets much more personal with the character in his writing style to get you to feel connected with the characters. I'm trying to connect you with their actions...
This definitely isn't 3rd Omni. 3rd Omni, by definition, is quite impersonal and your 13 lines draw me into the heart of this character too much for it to be 3rd Omni. This segment is about a mood, not actions, not scene. I am so far into Karen that my heart aches for her when he reaches out to her and he passes through them, at the moment I realize he's not really there.
Totally so UN-3rd Omni.
Giggle. Hubby just caught a glimpse of what I was typing and thought we were discussing the Book of Mormon. 3rd Omni. 
IMO, at least.
Edit: and thanks, djvdakota. That was a nice compliment in a roundabout way...
(great, now I'm going to have Yes stuck in my head...)
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 10, 2004).]
quote:
toward the cold sleep of her cryonization chamber to be loaded into her ship, the Ithuriel. She would be a lot older before she could see her husband again.
I thought the point behind freezing is that you wouldn’t be a lot older, everyone else would.
2nd- she isn't going to be "frozen" when she does her work, now is she?
And, of course there's a 3rd omni. Just read a history book if you want to see a good example of 3rd omni.
Like Archer says--you want 3rd omni, read a history book. Even then, you might go into great detail on a particular person, but you generally don't dig deeoly into their heart, into their own personal views except in the form of quotes. Because the focus is so broad there just isn't the time or space to do it. That's why you use 3rd omni, isn't it? You do it to provide as broad a perspective as possible, to show as much as possible to your reader, but without the deeper penetration warranted by 3rd limited or 1st.
So I guess my objection isn't so much that you want to use 3rd omni. That's fine with me. My objection is that this passage so deeply involves my in the protag's heart that I have a hard time wanting it to be 3rd omni. So, the POV for the book is 3rd omni. Cool. But this passage, to me, is 3rd limited.
If I am completely up in the night I will await correction from the Great Guru of POV--Survivor.
And hey, Survivor. I think we confused poor Archer. True, there is no 3rd Omni. Not in the Book of Mormon anyway. That's why I put in the . There IS an Omni 1:3. Now how confusing will that be if people still think I'm talking about POV?
Just a note, non-relativistic Newtonion travel between stellar systems is usually one the order of centuries, and still takes decades for very near stars. So I'm guessing that she's just traveling in-system...but at those distances, video messaging would still be reasonable. And she isn't really seeing her husband now, she's just viewing his image at a lower-lag than will be the case for a long time.
Anyway, really do consider whether you have a good reason to use Full Omniscient. Even history books aren't written in Full Omniscient, they're written in Third Person Limited (if the historians are being honest, at any rate).
I dissagree about history books. If you read a good history of WWII, for example, would show what was happening on both sides of the conflict, and wouldn't be restricted to one side, or one person.
If you want a good example of 3rd omni in movies, watch Tora Tora Tora. This is the best example I've ever seen of showing both sides of a conflict.
If you want to write in full omni, then--as stated by others--you're not going to be able to afford the depth of mental penetration into your characters as in 3rd person limited omniscient. For example, you would not only describe Karen's setting, you would also describe her husband's. You'd be showing us something of what's in both of their heads--but not so much that it would be jarring for the reader when you switched.
Full omniscient is more difficult than 3PLO to write well, which is why it's so often trashed on these threads. But even if it weren't intrinsically more difficult, the problem is that 3PLO is more common, thus the reader expects it, thus if you do something else you have to do it even better than you would 3PLO.
Nothing in the passage you've given us would keep you from writing this in 3PLO. There may be other things later in the story (though it seems unlikely, since you can change viewpoints after a break), and if there are, then that's the way you have to write it. But understand what you're getting into.
Yeah... ok... I think I'm just gonna write it, and see what happens..
How the heck can you have two conflicting types of POV in one POV ... bah, whatevah
Anyway, who wants the rest when I write it?
(Edit) Wasn't it me who thought it a good idea to get into the habit of stating sending preferences? I prefer an MSWord document sent as an attachment.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited July 13, 2004).]
Historians do not have access to the thoughts and feelings of historical figure except through their known actions. Even though these known actions may sometimes include the writing of autobiographical accounts, we only have access to the third person limited perspective on what motivated those accounts, some of which are notoriously inaccurate and downright mendacious. But it isn't the historian's job to pretend direct knowledge of all events, only to present the story told by evidence. To the extent that an historical account falls into FO, it becomes a fictional account (assuming here that the historian is not actually omniscient).
POV is not everything, but it is much of how you tell a story. Do make an effort to figure out what POV you're using.
I was always told that 3rd omniscent means you use "he" "she", never use "I", and you know everything that happens. That's what this is. I switch perspectives, etc. Maybe not in the first section, but it's still 3rd omni.
I'd recommend OSC's CHARACTER AND VIEWPOINT.
He also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the different kinds, and that's important to know.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 19, 2004).]
Still, Full Omniscient is a pretty hard POV to write effectively, and if you're writing in standard 3PLO with multiple viewpoint characters, then every passage should read like 3PLO. Right now, this doesn't feel like either, it feels like slightly sloppy wandering POV.
Combined with the fact that you don't seem to know exactly what the correct term is for the POV you're using, it probably got everyone thinking the wrong thing.
Also, since you didn't specify that you had any more material (or how much more) that you wanted read, it is likely that the general presumption was that you only wanted feedback on these 20 (making a point of posting more than the guidelines allow also tends to suggest that you're only asking for feedback on the posted fragment). So it may be that everyone is simply critiquing what is posted rather than asking to see the entire thing.
For myself, I was just explaining why I wouldn't be interested in reading more. Then people started the POV discussion (and the "I thought you meant 3rd Omni in the Book of Mormon" joke), and you know I can't stay out of one of those conversations.
quote:
Hmm, interesting, but you need to watch your tendency to describe things as you see them rather than the way your POV character sees them.
I AM my POV character. That little floating point in space from which movies are seen. That's why I'm saying it's 3rd omni.
And please don't give me all of that high art BS about how books shouldn't be written like movies, etc. I'm not saying you were going to, but if you say that, I'm going to have to assume you're an intelectual snob.
But I'm going to assert that if your intention is to write in FO, then you are not the POV character, because the POV in FO is omniscient, which you are not.
quote:
I AM my POV character. That little floating point in space from which movies are seen. That's why I'm saying it's 3rd omni.
[This message has been edited by MaryRobinette (edited July 21, 2004).]
OSC has pointed this out in his workshops, so we don't feel that we're being intellectual snobs to argue in favor of it.
You can do whatever you want in your story, though. We just want you to be aware of the problems that a camera eye point of view involves and we want you to have VERY GOOD reasons for doing what you're doing.
Writers can go against convention, break the "rules" and so on, but they should know why the "rules" are there, and they should have VERY GOOD reasons for going against them.
And I wasn't contradicting myself there, Mary. Those were two ways of trying to describe the POV. My point in the post you quoted was that the narrator is the POV, but the narrator isn't a character in the story. The narrator is just some guy describing what happened in this story's world.
Edit: I said the intellectual snob bit about people who think books are better than movies as forms of art.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 21, 2004).]
I guess if you are writing this story for yourself, and yourself only, then go for it. Our collective opinion doesn't matter at that point. But, if you expect to get this thing published eventually. You had better take a long look at convention before continuing. Especially if you are a new writer. Publishers have a very hard time "taking risks" with new, unconventional writers.
Now I am not published, but just take a look at your options in the publishing world and that will tell you everything you need to know. Alot of houses won't even accept new writers without an invitation or recommendation, and definately don't want to risk anything on a story that "doesn't fit the mold" so to speak. That may not be the right way of saying it, but I think you get the idea.
I think you would be setting yourself up for a big letdown, if you continue with this line of action. Make your story inventive, colorful and well balanced. Add a few twists and turns that will really shake up your audience, but keep it within the confines of what everybody is used to reading. Especially in this genre.
I am just trying to find my way as well, so do what you will with my advice/opinion. -BA-
Voice over (considered hokey)
Character says what s/he's thinking (but can you believe him/her?)
Actor uses body language (works if you can believe the actor, and if the actor is good at acting)
Movies don't actually say what a character is thinking the way the written word can. Movies can only imply (unless they take the hokey option, above) what the character is thinking, and if the viewers don't "get it," the best acting in the world is wasted.
Written stories can just say "he thought...."
BTW, voiceovers aren't hokey if done right. Adaptation is the best example of this (even if it is making fun of voiceovers, Kaufman wrote it so well, and Cage's work is so brilliant, all the hokiness is gone).
TruHero, I just don't think what you're saying applies. It's mostly a case of too small a sample to determine the value of the POV right. Also, half the discussion isn't about my actual work, but what POVs are what, and what the right name for it is...
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 22, 2004).]
Archer, it's your story -- write it however you want. I don't think you should take offense to what anyone says here on hatrack... Keep in mind that they only wish to help you acheive your goal -- even if it appears otherwise.
For me, the thing that would make it clear that this is 3O POV is if there is clear narrator voice before we get to Karen. Some larger establishing thing, like a "once upon a time" but not that, obviously.
I'd also suggest, that rather than jumping on him saying, "3O POV is hard to do well, so if you do it you're wrong," that we help him do it well, since that's what he clearly wants to do.
I don't think it's necissary for the reader to know it's 3O yet. When they get to the next section (which is explaining a little more about this universe's situation), they'll see that it's outside any character's... well... POV.
Then when I get into the small groups and ship crews, I'm going to be giving thoughts from several characters in one section, to help keep the POV "outside" any one character (I'm just thinking this all up off the top of my head, but it sounds good to me).
quote:
I don't think it's necissary for the reader to know it's 3O yet.
The only thing I want to comment on is some of the word choices:
"She had her eyes closed"
change to:
"Her eyes were closed"
and:
"She heard his voice below her say"
to:
"Come down Karen," he said, "I want to say goodbye."
"They floated there for a moment"
to:
"The floated for a moment"
This would tighten the language a bit more and retain the PoV while brining the reader closer to the character.
She's closing her eyes, meaning she's making a decision to. Saying "Her eyes were closed" implies sleep, whereas "She had her eyes closed" implies relaxation (at least in this situation).
The last one is about mood. They didn't float for a moment, they floated there for a moment. It takes a beat away from the rythm of the sentance too.
But thanks anyway.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 24, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited July 24, 2004).]
Me, when I get into a place like where you were, with many voices telling me what I do not agree with, I tend to set the piece aside for a while and work on something else. This is to give myself the necessary objective distance from my own work. If, later, I come back to the piece and my opinion hasn't change, then I go ahead with it as I planned. That might work for you, or you might have a better way. If so, please let me know so that I can use it.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited November 28, 2004).]
Question: Is your name that of Yanos Aldrin?
Well, it's been quite a while, and I just now realized that I promised a few people that I'd send them more of my progress, and completely forgot about it in all the above POV discussion. If you still want it, let me know.