More on Telling and Omniscient Viewpoint

 As a viewpoint, omniscient goes against the grain of “show not tell,” often using telling to get the point across. The reason for this is that instead of seeing the scene through the character’s eyes, we have an outside narrator observing it.  That narrator might see a character get angry, might even dip into their thoughts, but the narrator is not going to experience that anger to show it.  Unfortunately, everyone’s so locked into following the “rules,” there’s virtually nothing on when to use telling or how to.

Part of the problem is that it’s not as black and white as “everyone” makes it out to be. I like this explanation from Editor Unleashed:

Telling is bad because it stops the story and forces the reader to receive information she doesn’t care about. But even I won’t say that telling is always evil. Indeed, in my Operation: Firebrand novels I invariably have a briefing scene in which someone tells the characters, and thus the reader, what’s going on and what has to happen. Isn’t that telling?

No, and here’s why: Telling stops the story and forces unwanted information on the reader. When the briefing scene comes in the Firebrand novels the story doesn’t stop—it can’t actually go forward without it. And the reader is interested in what’s going to be covered. Your reader will tolerate telling to the degree that she is interested in what is being told and to the degree that the story can’t advance without the information.

Emphasis mine.  One of the basic requirements is that the telling needs to be interesting.  I remember reading a Clive Cussler book where he used telling to give us a mini-biography of one of the characters.   Omniscient viewpoint allows this because the narrator is telling the story–the main character may have no idea of this information.  Telling works here because it’s a relatively minor character who will disappear once his mission is accomplished, but it makes him more memorable.  Showing all the same detail–in this case, developing it–would have consumed pages, but not added anything to the story because the character was so minor.

Telling also helps when showing forces unwanted information on the reader.  Can showing do that?  Sure.  Try Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  Near the end Harry runs into Voldemort, and the reader is shown everything.  That’s fine.  When Harry returns to Hogwarts, we get shown a fairly lengthy scene where Harry runs through what happened again.  The reader already knew, so a few sentences using telling would have been more effective and interesting because we would gotten into new information quickly.

Review of Derailed

Derailed: Five Lessons Learned from Catastrophic Failures of Leadership, by Tim Irwin, PhD discusses the principles of leadership and where some of the high level CEOs have failed and why.  Six CEOs are profiled, and the author identifies the lessons learned, thendescribes how to avoid the failures.

Derailed fell flat for me because it didn’t give anything that I didn’t know already, and there were areas I thought it should have addressed.  One of the things that never gets mentioned–and it is obvious to me–is that in each case when the CEO failed, he came in to fix a company that needed change.   When I was in the army, we had a bad leader who caused morale to sink to a new low.  We needed change, and when the old leader left, the new one rushed in to fix the problem.  She alienated everyone.  Yet, she’d been in this position twice before, quite successfully, but the difference was the change.  Would these leaders have been successful if they had come into a  company that was doing well and didn’t need change?   They certainly would have made different decisions.

The book felt a little like it was treating the symptoms and not getting at the underlying causes.

Disclaimer:  I received this book for free from Thomas-Nelson, the publisher, in exchange for doing this review.

Omniscient Viewpoint and Telling

One of the first “rules” every writer gets greeted with is “show, don’t tell.”  That is, don’t tell the reader what’s happening, but show the character experiencing it.  Kaye Dascus’ blog on Making Viewpoint Work For You says:

When we “tell” that a character saw something (She watched him running down the street), we are holding the reader back from truly being inside the head of the character. When I see something, I am not (usually) cognizant of the fact that I am in the process of “seeing.” I just experience the action going on outside of me.

But in omniscient viewpoint, the narrator is observing the scene and not inside the character’s head, viewing the scene through her eyes, so we do get more telling.  Good thing or bad thing?  When I first starting using omniscient viewpoint, I imitated writers who used it.  Then I got a crit and got the accusatory finger pointed at me because I was breaking one of the rules:  “You’re telling!”  And I’m thinking, “Yeah, but that’s the way the authors writing in omniscient viewpoint did it.”   I did have to relook at what I was writing to ensure that I wasn’t doing too much of it, but it’s tough because it’s breaking commonly accepted wisdom.  There isn’t any information outside of everyone rehashing “Show, not tell”–even though some telling is perfectly acceptable in the other viewpoints.

I think the first step is recognizing what’s good telling.  When I read a published author who writes in omniscient viewpoint and he does telling, it’s very different than reading an early draft from a beginning writer who is doing a lot of telling.  The telling needs to be interesting and engage the reader.  In Tamora Pierce’s book Squire, it opens using telling in omniscient viewpoint, but each bit of it pulls us further into the story.  We get something about the character, what’s going on, and we’re instantly in the story.  In pieces I’ve crtiqued where telling has been done badly, it’s dull and flat, and even difficult to get through.  It often doesn’t give us anything interesting, but maybe recites backstory or tries to set up the character. 

What are some other ways to identify good telling from bad?

Remembering Desert Shield’s First Day

Hard to believe now Desert Storm was 19 years ago. 

One of my published articles on an experience I had immediately following Desert Storm is going to be read at a DAR meeting on November 11.  At this time, in 1990, I would have been in Saudi Arabia eleven days.   We arrived at 10:00 at night.  First thing I noticed getting off the plane was that it was 80 degrees and humid.  And we did what soldiers usually do:  Hurry up and wait.  We were marched off the runway in a hurry so the plane could leave, and then we waited for the buses.

Then the buses arrived, and we waited and waited.  And waited.  One of the bus drivers even strung this hammock under the bus and took a nap (we were a transportation company–this is so a no-go.  Big safety hazard, and a great way to get run over).  Eventually we were finally able to board the buses.  Nothing like I’d ever seen.  The seats were like velvet, and there were curtains on the windows.  It was good that the seats were comfortable, because we got lost! 

By the time we arrived at the staging area, we were all exhausted.  It must have been about two in the morning.  The staging area was located in a truckport–that’s a carport for trucks near a port.  The whole thing was very disorienting because no one really told us where we going or what was going on.  Our sergeants and officers just told us what we needed to do and that was it. 

We were like zombies when we dragged our duffel bags off a truck, and I was very glad my squad leader had insisted on marking ours distinctively with engineer tape (a white cloth tape we used to mark everything)–it made the bags easy to find.  My squad took over a spot under the truckport, dropped our bags, and squeezed in between them to try to get some sleep.  My friend Theresa just flopped onto her bags and went to instantly sleep.  She was like a cat–in a most uncomfortable looking position and out cold.  Me?  I dragged out my poncho liner to put on the ground, but I was so exhausted that I couldn’t sleep. 

All night long I smelled the truck oil that had soaked into the asphalt.

Story Arcs

There’s a couple of TV shows that were good but didn’t make my list because they contained story arcs.  These are stories that encompass the entire season.  Bad guy shows up in the first episode, and then he’s defeated in the season finale.  Or, in the case of other series, the arc continues as long as the series lasts (The X files) or resolves at the end of the run (Babylon 5).

These don’t hold up well for me over time.  Great in the first run, but not when I come back to it.  Much harder for me to get into.  The problem is that they need to be watched in order in entirety to get the story, and I need to see the entire season.  Worse, if the story arc doesn’t work, it isn’t an episode or two that’s affected–it’s the entire season (Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s 6th season).   One of the B5’s DVDs was not available so I was sent the next DVD, which created a lot of confusion for me because I didn’t know what was going on.  I couldn’t just tune into an episode at random.

I’ve also seen the same thing in some books.  There was a urban fantasy writer I picked up because I liked the title.  There were whole sections that referenced the previous part of the series in a vague sort of way, and it essential to understanding what was going on.  But I hadn’t read the first book, so I couldn’t get into the story.  I never took the time to read the author again.  On the other hand, I’ve picked up books with underlying story arcs that are less dominant–Jim Butcher–with a stong story that has a resolution.  Those are written so that a reader could pick it up at any point in the series, read the book, enjoy the story, and maybe want to get the first book to start reading the entire series.

On  the other end of the spectrum, there are also both TV series and books where they ignore what’s happening in previous books.  One of my bottom five TV shows, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, was like that.  The crew would encounter an alien or a monster trying to take over the world and act like it was the first time it would happened.  Whereas, in shows like NCIS, they bring a character back who appeared in one episode in another season, and everyone knows her from that.  Not necessary for us to have seen the episode, but it might make us want to see the episode.

A good story arc in a series should allow us to pick up at any point along the way and not require readers or viewers to have prior knowledge.

 

My Bottom Five TV Shows

Now for the bottom five shows.  These are shows I watched and liked years ago, but now, for various reasons, the shows aren’t the same any more.  Some of this is because of my last book–I’ve learned a lot and it’s changed my perspective.  I expect better.  Here they are, in no particular order:

Bottom Five:

Beauty and the Beast.  When I originally watched this, I thought the show was fantastic.  At the time this aired, there wasn’t much on TV like this for women.  Women characters didn’t get a lot of action roles of any kind, and here, we had this character who hits the bad guys, which was a novelty.  But  it’s painfully dated.  Though Catherine can defend herself, she still needs Vincent to rescue her.

MASH.  After I came back from Desert Storm, watching MASH was not the same because a lot of it is true.

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Action, submarines, monsters, underwater.  I was a huge, huge fan of this show, and of one of the show’s stars.  Yeah, yeah, I know it had a lot of bad monsters, but it was fun.  Where it went adrift for me is that the producer was pretty sloppy.  He’d kill off a character in scene 2 and bring the actor back in scene 4, figuring no one would notice.  And there were an increasing number of these as the series progressed, and they were really obvious.  What really did it for me though was a military officer two steps away from a flag repeatedly getting on an intercom to demand from the bad guys what they wanted with him. 

Star Trek.  Yes, the original series makes the list.  I was a big fan of the show and was into Star Trek fandom.  I went to many conventions and collecting Star Trek stuff.  But when I watch the show now, I find it incredibly dated.  Not the special effects, but the stories.  They’re too preachy–and about subjects that are not the same any more.

Stingray.  This is the one with Corvette Stingray, not the puppets.  There are two excellent episodes–the one about the Indians, and the one in Vietnam.  But the rest were … disappointing.  All the elements that made it unique at the time–the music, the wheels–just feel like filler instead of actually adding anything.

My Top Five TV Shows

I’ve always been a fan of TV, particularly science fiction TV and action shows.  I found though with the writing of my latest book, my tastes have really changed.  Things that I have liked for many years suddenly aren’t so good, while others are surprises that they’re still good.  Top Five, in no particular order:

NCIS.  It’s not just a crime show that sounds like CSI.  The characters–and actors–are the show.  The characters are who they are.  I actually didn’t start really watching it until after the third season.  But once I watched the characters I was hooked.

Stargate SG-1.  Great stories and some wonderful characerization.  I love the character of Jack O’Neill.  Granted, I have a hard time believing he would be a full bird colonel (and later a general), but that’s a suspension of disbelief I can make.  

Airwolf.  Okay, action, helicopters, spies, and again–well done characters.  One of my favorite characters was Michael Archangel, and I liked the political shenangians that went on with the Firm.  It added a different element of danger and subterfuge that most shows don’t have. 

The Equalizer.  I was kind of expecting this one to not to be good.  But Edward Woodward is a good actor, and the show had solid stories–at least so far, since only the first season is available.

Emergency!  Good story, a lot of action, and solid characters.  Every show you can expect a lot of rescues and a big one at the end.  Some people today will find it slow because it does portray the fire department factually.  You’d never see on a TV show today a fireman getting a call, and then getting the call cancelled.

Happy Halloween!

Author Web sites – the Nuisance Factor

When I was working with a cowriter, we had a Web site together.  We wanted to promote it, so we put up book-related articles.  The articles included:

• Writing Tips
• Word XP for Writers 
• Military Rank/Awards
• Civil War Firearms (the project was set in the Civil War)

I had read somewhere that you can help promote a book by posting articles and links to topics related to the book.  Little did I realize that, with the exception of the writing tips, all the articles turned into a big headache.  With the Word tips, people would email me to ask how to do something in Word.  If I was nice and explained how, I would then get another question.

With the military articles–and there were only TWO very general articles–I ended up getting an email from this woman wanting to know how to request her husband’s awards.  I looked it up online, found the DOD site, and sent it to her.  She promptly sent me a nasty email back saying that wasn’t what she was looking for (by the way, it did answer her question.  Certificates she could get, medals, she couldn’t.  She wanted a different answer). 

Then there’s the gun articles, easily the most popular thing on the site.   About once or twice a week, I’d get an email from someone who had a Civil War firearm and wanted to know what it was worth.

I ended up taking down most of the articles because they became a nuisance.   People emailing me were only interested in not doing the work, not in what we were writing.  If you’re thinking of doing content other than writing subjects for your site, carefully consider what the content will be so that you don’t end up being the Ann Landers of (fill in the subject).

Bookseller War

Over the last few weeks, a book price war has erupted between places like Amazon and Target, which are selling best-selling books for under ten dollars.  The Washington Times reports today that the DOJ has been asked to look into predatory pricing.

I have mixed feelings on this price war.  From the perspective of being a writer, this kind of thing is probably going to make it harder for first time writers to sell books.  The bean counters are already focusing on trying to get instant hits and that’s ultimately going to erode the entire industry.  TV did it years ago, and now we have good shows that get cancelled in two episodes.  An award-winning show like MASH would have never made it past five episodes (it took about three years to really catch on).  A lof the best sellers today needed about three books to catch on.

From the reader’s perspective, I would buy more books if they were cheapter.  I stopped by hardbacks ten years ago after I got one too many books that were awful.  Twenty-five dollars is a lot when the book’s lousy.  But even the paperbacks are expensive.  I’d like to seen an option of maybe a shorter work, novella size perhaps, that’s more price friendly.  Or maybe better pricing in eBooks.  I mean, what’s better–a $25 book that sells so-so or a $5 book that picks up the impulse buyers and sells very well?

Obviously, the answer’s not that easy.  I think the publishing industry does need to change–and probably quite drastically, but change is not something big businesses like to do.  It’s very likely that many publishers will hang onto what they have until it fails, just like what the music industry did.  Maybe this pricing war with the big box stores will force them to look at other options.