You’ve articulated why I've been dissatisfied with several novels I've read recently. As an editor, I disagree with some of the comments here about this being a characteristic of deep third POV. IRL, humans don't always have such clarity in their own thoughts nor an ability to state them so succinctly when they're entangled in whatever situation they're in. As a reader, it feels condescending to be told the themes so directly. Let me think about the story and put the pieces together! That's part of what I love about reading.
Babel in particular is a one-dimensional didactic novel. It’s not a historical novel so much as an explication of 21st-century postcolonial theory in historical drag. So it’s no wonder that the author beats the reader over the head with its themes.
I so agree. And I had to sit with the idea of this potentially being deep third POV. But ultimately, I think this is something else. I've done enough comparing (and writing for that matter) to recognize the difference.
Gina, why do you think this kind of thing makes it past editors at Power 5 publishers? I've been wondering lately if craft might be dead, at least in the eyes of those curating traditional publishing. It is hard to imagine a Willa Cather on the cover of TIME in 2024.
100% - my mind is a racing storm of different themes at the best of times - there is no way I’d be able to think so clearly when in the midst of a crisis or panic attack
I would like to think you are right on this, but I can't help but wonder if these are actual thoughts that the authors want to represent the characters as having, because so much of literary discourse seems to encourage us to have these kinds of thoughts, to overthink and over clarify, basically putting us into a cohesive story even where there may not be one.
A possible reason is the Author wants to increase the readership for their works.
I remember in class (high school) the teacher mentioned in summary our performance grades achieved in English reading, writing and comprehension.The teacher genuinely wanted the class to improve. Only a few achieved higher grades. This means that not all students comprehend and understand equally - otherwise there would be a class of all A grade students.
Similar to readership market for Novels, why assume there is equal understanding for an Author's work ? clearly everyone has different levels of understanding and comprehension skills. So what these Author's are doing I think by crushing subtlety and explication is they are trying to boost their readership for wider levels of skills.
Maybe it is similar to political candidates offering their policies for election to the electorate. Candidate A with simple easy to digest polices are easier to sell than Candidate B with subtle policies that can not get the message across.
In the end it pays to communicate well to a wide range of people - have you noticed that some multi million best selling novels, the author uses no more five word per sentence ? Also there is a readability index out there somewhere .
Nicholas you always have these insightful responses. It could totally be a way to expand readership. It's kind of like letting everyone in on the secret by just not making it a secret. I think another commenter suggested something similar, but your point is well taken. Thanks as always.
Yep this is pretty much exactly what I think too. Ye olde days literature was meant to be elitist in a sense, and drew some of its power from its impenetrability. We had to sit in class breaking our brains about ‘what the author was trying to say’ and that was the point. This is an attempt to ‘bring literature to the masses’ - and whether it’s done for cynical reasons as potential higher readership, reasons of necessity (the publishing market is flooded so being obscure is a great way to literally never get read), or a personal belief that art should be made more accessible to the layperson, I don’t know. Possibly a mix of all these?
Just side note: the reference to high school reminded me, with a chuckle, how that it is in almost every movie we see about high school there is that scene in the English class where the teacher turns around, after writing something significant on the blackboard, and says “So what do you think the author was trying to say?” And this is used as an almost universal approbation for education as it confronts the dimwitted student to try and summon up some scintilla of intelligence and penetration into the dark mysteries of literature.
interesting... "good marketing" is how a lot of self-published authors sell books, but do they sell through again and again? I'm in a couple of groups right now where the self-pubbed folks are struggling to keep readers and I suspect it's because they're doing a great job of marketing less-than-stellar work. I've read a few of those .99 steals in Kindle and they were... not great.
I can say from experience that editors ask for this. Not all editors—I’ve had 6 editors over 14 books and 2 of them asked me to do something like this. In both cases, I caved and did what they asked, figuring they had a better perspective on the reader’s experience than I did. If they thought the reader was lost, maybe the reader was lost.
But guess what? Readers love those lines. If I’m giving a talk or visiting a book club about either of those books, someone will inevitably say, “There’s one line in here that really spoke to me, where is it…” and I can tell them exactly where it is, because it’s always, and I do mean always, that one cringey line.
This is both fiction and nonfiction, all with major publishers.
This reminds me of what writer Paul McVeigh teaches, which is show AND tell. Sophisticated readers will understand from what you show. But if you then also tell, other readers will catch up and the sophisticated readers will feel gratified because they already understood what you meant. I don't think this phenomenon is necessarily what he meant but it does kind of make sense
This is called close third-person POV, also known as deep third-person POV. It differs from the more familiar third-person POV, also called objective POV, in that you get as deep into the minds of the characters as you might in first-person POV. It's not a new style of writing, and, admittedly, I'm a fan of it, but I think the way Rooney uses it makes the reader more aware of the fact that the character is telling the story than in ways I've seen other authors use it.
Interestingly, I've had other conversations about this narrative style recently, so maybe it is having a moment right now in contemporary literature. Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps there is an assumption that readers don't have the attention spans to think critically about the underlying themes. This POV provides some instant gratification. Or maybe authors feel the knowledge of HOW to think critically about literature is being lost within our culture, so they write in this way to avoid being misunderstood?
What draws me, personally, to close third-person POV is the intimacy of it. I enjoy feeling deeply connected to the characters' thoughts and emotions, which is why I enjoy first-person POV as well. Maybe authors are falsely assuming this is the case for most readers. There are also certain advantages to writing in third-person POV that may make it easier and more desirable than first-person for writers who still want to create that intimacy with characters. For instance, being able to break up the novel by writing multiple little stories within it. Writing an entire novel from one character's view can become exhausting. Another example: the ability to describe a situation from multiple points of view rather than just one to give the reader a fuller perspective of it.
I recommend this book for understanding all the different types of POV: "Point of View" by Sandra Gerth. It's a quick, straightforward read.
I have always thought that when I get to certain sentences or paragraphs that tell me explicitly what to think in any prose, that the author was told by an editor to insert this information here. I think editors are doing this.
It is a huge turnoff for me in nonfiction to have a writer basically use a metaphorical sledgehammer on my mind. It’s usually heavy handed ideological stuff that makes me question whether the writer or editor really understands that critical readers / thinkers are allowed to challenge the ideas in books. It’s arrogant to think otherwise. But it’s also in fiction too.
Thank you, Kern for bringing this to everyone’s attention.
I never even considered the editors, which is odd because they play such a huge role in the writing process. I'm also not very fond of it though. It just feels weird, almost condescending. Like let me figure this out myself.
“Crying in H Mart” by Michelle Zauner did this and it very much felt like an editor had inserted condescending statements to certain readers to instill guilt. It felt like an unnecessary sentiment that wouldn’t age well. It just took me out of getting into her personal narrative about her mother and connecting to her mother’s culture. As if I couldn’t ever understand this from a universal perspective. Because of this I couldn’t get a good sense of whether I was meant to be the audience for this book about loss and grief or if I was meant to be side-eyed for being the audience reading it. Even though I had also experienced the loss of my mother to cancer and had sought this book out for that particular reason.
I found it odd that an author writing a memoir about the loss of her mother to cancer and the strangeness of grief would do this because grief is something we all experience. Like I said, I felt like an editor inserted it.
You know, I think I agree with this. There are times when my editor says I should insert more information, but I look through what I've written and go...nope. As an indie writer, though, I have that freedom.
As a reader, I totally agree; part of the art and pleasure of literature is the complexity that you can only enjoy by thinking deeply/re-reading. You don't want it all spelled out for you.
As a writer, I feel stymied by a fear of being misunderstood or even, dread thought, "cancelled" (although in my case that's a bit ridiculous since for all intents and purposes I only exist to very few readers and my mom won't cancel me. I hope.) I've been wanting to write an essay along the lines of "Is fiction really even allowed to exist anymore?" I feel like we've collectively lost the nuanced understanding for a lot of humor already and now fiction is slipping, too. I used to think that fiction was a world where I was allowed to experiment and play, but now I worry that there are so many ways I can go wrong that if my fiction world isn't populated by the right mix of people or if I portray anyone who experiences something that I haven't personally, if a female character is helped or comforted by a male character, if someone makes a choice that is ill-advised or not "best practice", I am at high risk of censure. Sometimes I think the only fiction I'm allowed to write is me, surrounded by shadowy gray shapes and noise. (Actually. . .now I want to write that as a satire. . .) And this is not based on idle worry, but on comments I see mostly on other people's work but to a small extent even from early feedback on my own book.
All that is to say that those scenarios do sort of beg one to say, "She found comfort in his embrace NOT BECAUSE HE WAS A MAN AND SHE WAS A WOMAN BUT BECAUSE SHE LOVED AND TRUSTED HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL COMPLETELY APART FROM HIS GENDER" or "She glanced at the Census information and noticed that Maine is 92% WHITE AND REFLECTED THAT THAT MUST BE WHY HER FRIEND GROUP IN MAINE 'LACKS DIVERSITY'" or "Lacey needed therapy but LACKED THE EXPERIENCE TO KNOW THAT or THE FUNDS TO PAY FOR IT or A BASIC TRUST IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES."
One more thing and I promise I'll wrap this up: the other day, I was saying that an early reader hadn't picked up on some important character building/foreshadowing in my book and told me the chapter was unnecessary. My husband theorized that this is due to a generation of English teachers that read "stupid" symbolism into everything so that people reject that whole notion. I, as both writer and English teacher, was miffed, which wasn't what he was going for. But he was really talking about literary criticism, not a literary device like foreshadowing. That's too complex a subject to get into here, but I think it might hint at something relevant. I wouldn't toss out all literary criticism, but he might be right that some students who are taught to read into literature things that may not be there (or that they believe aren't there, even) might become distrustful of anything that's not spelled out explicitly.
My dream is to write a book that can be enjoyed at surface level by the casual reader with treasures to be excavated by the more committed, but it's a tall order.
I think it's sad that you (meaning writers, not just you personally) have to put this much thought into writing fiction. Stories should come from your heart, mind, and imagination. Any other consideration is intrusive (or can be intrusive). I do think there is a balance of readers that appreciate digging a little bit while enjoying what's on the surface.
Yes, for sure. Unfortunately often the complainers give the most feedback, but, putting my reader hat back on, it's a good reminder to give positive feedback to writers I enjoy. I've tried to make a habit of that, but I've let it slip.
So interesting. Thank you for putting this in words. I have been feeling kind of beat over the head by some of the books I’ve read lately. Like I’m being talked down to. I think you’re in to something.
One more thought - no doubt some readers have always not been able to infer from between the lines what's actually important about the story. They might have been tired, or can be strap-hanging on the train, or not experienced in reading that kind of book.
In the past, they just grumbled at the librarian or the bookseller, and didn't buy the author's next book. Now, they go onto The Online Retailer Who Must Not Be Named, and Badreads, and give it one star reviews because (to them) it was boring and baffling and stupid and then it broke their kindle.
And the algorithms are such that writers - thin-skinned at the best of times - often feel they have to take notice of that and change what they do.
This is so interesting. As a published writer, one of the pieces of feedback I have started receiving from editors is that I need to * explain more * - specifically after a character has spoken, how does she feel? Er, isn't that usually obvious from the situation and the dialogue and doesn't the reader want to figure that out for herself rather than being whacked on the nose with it? What's interesting to me is that when I was writing more literary work, no one told me to do this. As soon as I went more commercial, writing psychological thrillers / drama, more explaining was needed, apparently. I think readers are smart. I think they need me to immerse them in a story. I don't think they need me to jump up in front of them as they read and tell them what to think.
So interesting that you're getting that feedback from your editors and that it seems to be specific to genre writing/commercial fiction. Maybe things are changing, but I think some things in storytelling are true no matter what. Not placating your readers is one of those things.
This is the same feedback my students and clients have gotten, and they were similarly mystified as the characters had often just spoken or acted in a way that felt quite transparent. Perhaps this is a trend of more mass market writing, then, or a desire to reach wider audiences as someone mentioned above.
I agree. I also wonder if it's the ubiquity of TV and movies as mass market entertainment. There is a lot of content and plot, but less in depth analysis of characters and perhaps editors think readers expect characterisation to be shallower and more obvious in books too.
I say what happened, she wants to know what it meant. I can't fathom anybody being unable to figure out what it means when the main character's mouth twitches downward and widens in a determined smile while stress wrinkles deepen between her eyebrows. But if I wanted to sell her a story, I would need to explain-- and be willing to be misquoted on the line that makes me cringe the most.
Hmm...I'll have the think about this. I do see a difference between characters explicitly philosophizing on theme vs the author/narrator doing it. Sometimes when a character does it I think it can serve to express that character rather than the theme itself, even if they're being explicit. But when a narrator or author does it then I get much more bugged.
Agreed, I wouldn't have a problem at all if the characters were saying this, but this is narration. This is us being told by the narrator what is happening/going to happen or what we should pull from the story.
It's possible that it could also be coming from a deep-POV narrative style. I haven't read the books you mentioned, so don't know what POV they're written in. But I can say that in most deep-POV books I've read, including in my own novels-in-progress, the POV character's thoughts and musings are expressed directly in the prose. Because you're in that character's head for the scene, so you can assume that the thematic statements being made are the character's own processing. This particular style removes the distance between the reader and the character to convey the thoughts they're having directly, even when not verbalized through dialogue.
That makes sense for first person, but these novels are written in third person. With Babel, I would say third person close because it hyperfocuses on one character's perspective. But Normal People is third person with two main characters so it can't possibly be close, or at least not in the way i understand that narrative style.
Third person can be written in deep or close style just as much as first person. Plenty of multi-POV books use this style, where multiple POV characters get their own scenes from their perspective. It's especially common in fantasy and sci-fi, where expansive plots show multiple characters doing different things in different parts of the world or universe.
When I read the excerpts you posted from Normal People, my first instinct is that it's written in deep/close POV. We're in either one of the two main character's heads, and we see them internally processing their thoughts. The present tense threw me off a bit, but other than that, it doesn't seem like it's an external narrator saying these things - it's the character's narration by showing exactly what's happening in their mind beat by beat.
Same with the excerpts from Babel - it's not the author coming out and saying these things as if it was an external narrator telling you this story, but rather the current POV character arriving at certain convictions and plans through their internal process.
Learn something new every day. Thanks for the POV lesson. I love when someone gives me some new perspective. The second half of your comment is a bit more fuzzy for me. Are you saying that the narrator is essentially a character in third person close? So they get the same privileges as a character would when it comes to sharing their perspective and insights? I'm not sure I all the way agree with that because the narrator, even in close, should always be "other," no? Like yes, it's close so they can speak "almost" like the character, but to come right out and say things that could've better been discovered in dialogue is still where I'm at.
Haha, no problem, and I love talking about this stuff because there are so many different ways to write a story, and none of them are either right or wrong.
The way I've come to understand it, the whole purpose of deep/close perspective (whether in 1st or 3rd person) is to completely *remove* the sense of there being a narrator at all. The reader should essentially be able to enter into the character's experience, seeing through their eyes and learning with them as they learn.
I think this narrative style is growing in popularity, because it gives the reader an escape, letting them live through a fantastical experience vicariously through the character. Personally, I'm most familiar with it in YA SFF (what I write and a lot of what I read) and adult fantasy (Brandon Sanderson is the key author using this style who comes to mind).
agree. what sarah is describing as “deep third POV” is actually a narrative technique called free indirect style/free indirect discourse that has been around since the 19th century, used by authors like jane austen, flaubert, kafka, edith wharton, james joyce, etc. kern, check it out and see what you think. it has a long history of use and isn’t really new. maybe it’s just resurfacing in popularity with editors or smthng
Okay, I've never heard of free indirect style before but will be checking it out. I love research so I'll indulge myself in the rabbit hole :) thanks for the info!
Without having read these books, I can't be certain, but it does feel like a deep third-person POV to me as Sarah G. Young is describing. This type of POV allows the author to show a character's interiority. I generally enjoy books written in this style, and I'm working on a novel using this type of POV. I have discovered, though, that it can be challenging to write interiority that isn't a bit heavy-handed. It's definitely something I'm trying to keep in mind. Here's an article that gives a good explanation of the different types of third-person POVs, in case you're interested. https://janefriedman.com/understanding-third-person-point-of-view-omniscient-limited-and-deep/
Oh I am always interested in craft. And I love Jane Friedman so I will dive into this one. Thank you! That said, I think you're right to be cautious about the heavy-handedness. For me, it just feels unnecessary sometimes. I'm up for knowing what's in the character's mind, but more so from the character themself or within the action. But I'm also noticing that more writers are taking this deep, third person POV so maybe I just need to be more open to this as a writing style...
Yeah, just to chime in here as well, it is difficult, and interiority is the thing I always go back and edit the most. I want it to sound natural, like it's coming directly from the character's mind, but the advantage of using 3rd person is that it allows me to use vocabulary or phrasing that the character might not use in everyday speech. So yeah, it's a delicate balance.
You're welcome--yes, Jane Friedman's blog is great! I agree, it's a bit of a balancing act to be sure that interiority sounds like the character (and not a narrator). If it's done well, it can really provide an immersive character experience for the reader. Thanks for your post--I always enjoy the topics you explore!
I think with everyone on the internet being a book critic many very loudly proclaim their confusion over books that aren’t ’on the nose’ like this. I see lots of reviews on marketplaces and the dreaded Goodreads that are like ‘two stars, book was well written but I didn’t get this:’ and then go on to list things that are (imho) fun things to ponder and dissect in a story!
Unfortunately when common trends happen in the reader sphere, publishers and authors that want to be marketable chase being palatable to the most readers possible. I’ve seen it called ‘dumbing down’ books for new generations because nobody wants to think anymore, which is sad.
The best books to me are the ones where a bunch of us can read it and discuss and take totally different things out of it, and get excited about that!
Rooney may be stating the characters' feelings for each other, but the characters likely do not know each others' feelings yet. The rest of the novel is for them to discover them.
There are occasions when stating intent outright works. I have presented my fiction in the form of non-fiction monographs, journalism, and oral history interviews. The readers may recognize the format immediately, but they need to discover the content for themselves.
Hmm, that's an interesting take. So you think that sometimes it's better to just let the reader know what they are in for or what they should take out of the story from the very get go?
I tend not to read new books anymore. I look for classics or maybe books that were published around my grandmother’s time. Or if there are reviews that make clear the prose is worth investing time in, I’ll grab it. But the YA section in particular has provided me with disappointment after disappointment. Trust me - YA readers can handle some mystery, some prose, they don’t need to be TOLD what’s coming on page 10
Dear Kern, I look forward to the day we actually disagree on something :)) I wholeheartedly agree with you. I haven’t noticed this as a trend, but I dislike this approach of overstating, over explaining when I encounter it. I take offence as a reader because I feel that the writer doesn’t trust that I’m intelligent enough to “get it”. It’s condescending and in my humble opinion - a sign of bad writing. Perhaps this is why I love plays so much. All you have is dialogue. No inner thoughts, no explanations, and so much subtext to be interpreted any way you want to experience it. I feel that the job of the writer is done once the book is published, and now it’s for the reader to interpret it, even if they read it completely differently, or even, the “wrong” way.
As for Normal People… please don’t hate me people but I wasn’t at all impressed. A friend recommended the series so I watched it and bawled my eyes out. I loved it because it reminded me of the heartache of my first love. I immediately ordered the book. And I was so disappointed. The acting in the TV series added so much warmth and subtext, which I felt Rooney’s writing lacked. And in the tv series you couldn’t explain inner thoughts, or comment on the themes. It was much more vulnerable. It’s been a while since I read the book, but I remember I much preferred the series, which is rarely the case with any adaptation.
Hello my friend, I certainly don't hate you and always appreciate your opinion. And to be honest, as much as I loved Normal People (the novel), the writing wasn't my favourite, for more reasons than what I stated here. I do think it's a wonderful story, though, and heart-wrenching at certain parts. And yes, the heavy-handedness does feel a bit condescending, which is what I think first made me feel thrown off. My initial reaction was "why are you telling me this?" Weird.
In the meanwhile, I had another thought… narration in the third person limited is quite different to the omnipresent perspective. In this case you can play with what you choose to reveal. You can be privy to one character’s interpretation of things but not the entire story. Personally, I find this a more exciting choice. And thank you for not hating me :)
You’ve articulated why I've been dissatisfied with several novels I've read recently. As an editor, I disagree with some of the comments here about this being a characteristic of deep third POV. IRL, humans don't always have such clarity in their own thoughts nor an ability to state them so succinctly when they're entangled in whatever situation they're in. As a reader, it feels condescending to be told the themes so directly. Let me think about the story and put the pieces together! That's part of what I love about reading.
Babel in particular is a one-dimensional didactic novel. It’s not a historical novel so much as an explication of 21st-century postcolonial theory in historical drag. So it’s no wonder that the author beats the reader over the head with its themes.
I so agree. And I had to sit with the idea of this potentially being deep third POV. But ultimately, I think this is something else. I've done enough comparing (and writing for that matter) to recognize the difference.
Gina, why do you think this kind of thing makes it past editors at Power 5 publishers? I've been wondering lately if craft might be dead, at least in the eyes of those curating traditional publishing. It is hard to imagine a Willa Cather on the cover of TIME in 2024.
I know you didn't ask me, but I think it comes down to budget and low staff with inexperienced editors being all they can afford.
100% - my mind is a racing storm of different themes at the best of times - there is no way I’d be able to think so clearly when in the midst of a crisis or panic attack
I would like to think you are right on this, but I can't help but wonder if these are actual thoughts that the authors want to represent the characters as having, because so much of literary discourse seems to encourage us to have these kinds of thoughts, to overthink and over clarify, basically putting us into a cohesive story even where there may not be one.
Exactly 👍
Condescending is exactly the word I’d use. I want to think and feel and explore when I’m reading. I don’t want a lecture.
Totally agree. That's not deep third POV, it's telling, not showing.
I agree with you Kern -- what is going on.
Good marketing ?
A possible reason is the Author wants to increase the readership for their works.
I remember in class (high school) the teacher mentioned in summary our performance grades achieved in English reading, writing and comprehension.The teacher genuinely wanted the class to improve. Only a few achieved higher grades. This means that not all students comprehend and understand equally - otherwise there would be a class of all A grade students.
Similar to readership market for Novels, why assume there is equal understanding for an Author's work ? clearly everyone has different levels of understanding and comprehension skills. So what these Author's are doing I think by crushing subtlety and explication is they are trying to boost their readership for wider levels of skills.
Maybe it is similar to political candidates offering their policies for election to the electorate. Candidate A with simple easy to digest polices are easier to sell than Candidate B with subtle policies that can not get the message across.
In the end it pays to communicate well to a wide range of people - have you noticed that some multi million best selling novels, the author uses no more five word per sentence ? Also there is a readability index out there somewhere .
Nicholas you always have these insightful responses. It could totally be a way to expand readership. It's kind of like letting everyone in on the secret by just not making it a secret. I think another commenter suggested something similar, but your point is well taken. Thanks as always.
Yep this is pretty much exactly what I think too. Ye olde days literature was meant to be elitist in a sense, and drew some of its power from its impenetrability. We had to sit in class breaking our brains about ‘what the author was trying to say’ and that was the point. This is an attempt to ‘bring literature to the masses’ - and whether it’s done for cynical reasons as potential higher readership, reasons of necessity (the publishing market is flooded so being obscure is a great way to literally never get read), or a personal belief that art should be made more accessible to the layperson, I don’t know. Possibly a mix of all these?
Just side note: the reference to high school reminded me, with a chuckle, how that it is in almost every movie we see about high school there is that scene in the English class where the teacher turns around, after writing something significant on the blackboard, and says “So what do you think the author was trying to say?” And this is used as an almost universal approbation for education as it confronts the dimwitted student to try and summon up some scintilla of intelligence and penetration into the dark mysteries of literature.
interesting... "good marketing" is how a lot of self-published authors sell books, but do they sell through again and again? I'm in a couple of groups right now where the self-pubbed folks are struggling to keep readers and I suspect it's because they're doing a great job of marketing less-than-stellar work. I've read a few of those .99 steals in Kindle and they were... not great.
An excellent point. 👏
I would call this over-writing, and I have seen it a lot recently. Whatever happened to "show, don't tell?"
"Show don't tell" is a suggestion not a law of nature. Sometimes telling is necessary. 19th century authors did it a lot.
I think what's being discussed here is a specific sort of telling, and one that I'm not keen on.
Okay so it's not just me. Maybe it is a real trend that's happening, or a shift in narrative style?
Exactly the old saw that was going through my head as I read this. Good advice!
Don’t be your own Cliff Notes.
Yes!
I can say from experience that editors ask for this. Not all editors—I’ve had 6 editors over 14 books and 2 of them asked me to do something like this. In both cases, I caved and did what they asked, figuring they had a better perspective on the reader’s experience than I did. If they thought the reader was lost, maybe the reader was lost.
But guess what? Readers love those lines. If I’m giving a talk or visiting a book club about either of those books, someone will inevitably say, “There’s one line in here that really spoke to me, where is it…” and I can tell them exactly where it is, because it’s always, and I do mean always, that one cringey line.
This is both fiction and nonfiction, all with major publishers.
Wow, so intriguing that readers are referencing those lines. I'm not even sure what to make of that LOL.
This reminds me of what writer Paul McVeigh teaches, which is show AND tell. Sophisticated readers will understand from what you show. But if you then also tell, other readers will catch up and the sophisticated readers will feel gratified because they already understood what you meant. I don't think this phenomenon is necessarily what he meant but it does kind of make sense
Wow, very interesting as well as disappointing
This is called close third-person POV, also known as deep third-person POV. It differs from the more familiar third-person POV, also called objective POV, in that you get as deep into the minds of the characters as you might in first-person POV. It's not a new style of writing, and, admittedly, I'm a fan of it, but I think the way Rooney uses it makes the reader more aware of the fact that the character is telling the story than in ways I've seen other authors use it.
Interestingly, I've had other conversations about this narrative style recently, so maybe it is having a moment right now in contemporary literature. Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps there is an assumption that readers don't have the attention spans to think critically about the underlying themes. This POV provides some instant gratification. Or maybe authors feel the knowledge of HOW to think critically about literature is being lost within our culture, so they write in this way to avoid being misunderstood?
What draws me, personally, to close third-person POV is the intimacy of it. I enjoy feeling deeply connected to the characters' thoughts and emotions, which is why I enjoy first-person POV as well. Maybe authors are falsely assuming this is the case for most readers. There are also certain advantages to writing in third-person POV that may make it easier and more desirable than first-person for writers who still want to create that intimacy with characters. For instance, being able to break up the novel by writing multiple little stories within it. Writing an entire novel from one character's view can become exhausting. Another example: the ability to describe a situation from multiple points of view rather than just one to give the reader a fuller perspective of it.
I recommend this book for understanding all the different types of POV: "Point of View" by Sandra Gerth. It's a quick, straightforward read.
I write in close 3rd but I avoid using it to explain anything. It can be done for intimacy's sake but as a different level of infodump? Nope.
I have always thought that when I get to certain sentences or paragraphs that tell me explicitly what to think in any prose, that the author was told by an editor to insert this information here. I think editors are doing this.
It is a huge turnoff for me in nonfiction to have a writer basically use a metaphorical sledgehammer on my mind. It’s usually heavy handed ideological stuff that makes me question whether the writer or editor really understands that critical readers / thinkers are allowed to challenge the ideas in books. It’s arrogant to think otherwise. But it’s also in fiction too.
Thank you, Kern for bringing this to everyone’s attention.
I never even considered the editors, which is odd because they play such a huge role in the writing process. I'm also not very fond of it though. It just feels weird, almost condescending. Like let me figure this out myself.
“Crying in H Mart” by Michelle Zauner did this and it very much felt like an editor had inserted condescending statements to certain readers to instill guilt. It felt like an unnecessary sentiment that wouldn’t age well. It just took me out of getting into her personal narrative about her mother and connecting to her mother’s culture. As if I couldn’t ever understand this from a universal perspective. Because of this I couldn’t get a good sense of whether I was meant to be the audience for this book about loss and grief or if I was meant to be side-eyed for being the audience reading it. Even though I had also experienced the loss of my mother to cancer and had sought this book out for that particular reason.
I found it odd that an author writing a memoir about the loss of her mother to cancer and the strangeness of grief would do this because grief is something we all experience. Like I said, I felt like an editor inserted it.
You know, I think I agree with this. There are times when my editor says I should insert more information, but I look through what I've written and go...nope. As an indie writer, though, I have that freedom.
That's what I said. Overtly ideological pap.
As a reader, I totally agree; part of the art and pleasure of literature is the complexity that you can only enjoy by thinking deeply/re-reading. You don't want it all spelled out for you.
As a writer, I feel stymied by a fear of being misunderstood or even, dread thought, "cancelled" (although in my case that's a bit ridiculous since for all intents and purposes I only exist to very few readers and my mom won't cancel me. I hope.) I've been wanting to write an essay along the lines of "Is fiction really even allowed to exist anymore?" I feel like we've collectively lost the nuanced understanding for a lot of humor already and now fiction is slipping, too. I used to think that fiction was a world where I was allowed to experiment and play, but now I worry that there are so many ways I can go wrong that if my fiction world isn't populated by the right mix of people or if I portray anyone who experiences something that I haven't personally, if a female character is helped or comforted by a male character, if someone makes a choice that is ill-advised or not "best practice", I am at high risk of censure. Sometimes I think the only fiction I'm allowed to write is me, surrounded by shadowy gray shapes and noise. (Actually. . .now I want to write that as a satire. . .) And this is not based on idle worry, but on comments I see mostly on other people's work but to a small extent even from early feedback on my own book.
All that is to say that those scenarios do sort of beg one to say, "She found comfort in his embrace NOT BECAUSE HE WAS A MAN AND SHE WAS A WOMAN BUT BECAUSE SHE LOVED AND TRUSTED HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL COMPLETELY APART FROM HIS GENDER" or "She glanced at the Census information and noticed that Maine is 92% WHITE AND REFLECTED THAT THAT MUST BE WHY HER FRIEND GROUP IN MAINE 'LACKS DIVERSITY'" or "Lacey needed therapy but LACKED THE EXPERIENCE TO KNOW THAT or THE FUNDS TO PAY FOR IT or A BASIC TRUST IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES."
One more thing and I promise I'll wrap this up: the other day, I was saying that an early reader hadn't picked up on some important character building/foreshadowing in my book and told me the chapter was unnecessary. My husband theorized that this is due to a generation of English teachers that read "stupid" symbolism into everything so that people reject that whole notion. I, as both writer and English teacher, was miffed, which wasn't what he was going for. But he was really talking about literary criticism, not a literary device like foreshadowing. That's too complex a subject to get into here, but I think it might hint at something relevant. I wouldn't toss out all literary criticism, but he might be right that some students who are taught to read into literature things that may not be there (or that they believe aren't there, even) might become distrustful of anything that's not spelled out explicitly.
My dream is to write a book that can be enjoyed at surface level by the casual reader with treasures to be excavated by the more committed, but it's a tall order.
I think it's sad that you (meaning writers, not just you personally) have to put this much thought into writing fiction. Stories should come from your heart, mind, and imagination. Any other consideration is intrusive (or can be intrusive). I do think there is a balance of readers that appreciate digging a little bit while enjoying what's on the surface.
Yes, for sure. Unfortunately often the complainers give the most feedback, but, putting my reader hat back on, it's a good reminder to give positive feedback to writers I enjoy. I've tried to make a habit of that, but I've let it slip.
Yes: Too many Millennial MFA writers. 'Program fiction' as Elif Batuman calls it.
So interesting. Thank you for putting this in words. I have been feeling kind of beat over the head by some of the books I’ve read lately. Like I’m being talked down to. I think you’re in to something.
Judging by these comments, I think I might be, too.
One more thought - no doubt some readers have always not been able to infer from between the lines what's actually important about the story. They might have been tired, or can be strap-hanging on the train, or not experienced in reading that kind of book.
In the past, they just grumbled at the librarian or the bookseller, and didn't buy the author's next book. Now, they go onto The Online Retailer Who Must Not Be Named, and Badreads, and give it one star reviews because (to them) it was boring and baffling and stupid and then it broke their kindle.
And the algorithms are such that writers - thin-skinned at the best of times - often feel they have to take notice of that and change what they do.
This is so interesting. As a published writer, one of the pieces of feedback I have started receiving from editors is that I need to * explain more * - specifically after a character has spoken, how does she feel? Er, isn't that usually obvious from the situation and the dialogue and doesn't the reader want to figure that out for herself rather than being whacked on the nose with it? What's interesting to me is that when I was writing more literary work, no one told me to do this. As soon as I went more commercial, writing psychological thrillers / drama, more explaining was needed, apparently. I think readers are smart. I think they need me to immerse them in a story. I don't think they need me to jump up in front of them as they read and tell them what to think.
So interesting that you're getting that feedback from your editors and that it seems to be specific to genre writing/commercial fiction. Maybe things are changing, but I think some things in storytelling are true no matter what. Not placating your readers is one of those things.
This is the same feedback my students and clients have gotten, and they were similarly mystified as the characters had often just spoken or acted in a way that felt quite transparent. Perhaps this is a trend of more mass market writing, then, or a desire to reach wider audiences as someone mentioned above.
I agree. I also wonder if it's the ubiquity of TV and movies as mass market entertainment. There is a lot of content and plot, but less in depth analysis of characters and perhaps editors think readers expect characterisation to be shallower and more obvious in books too.
I don't know, I see this tendency more in literary work.
You just explained me and my mother-in-law.
I say what happened, she wants to know what it meant. I can't fathom anybody being unable to figure out what it means when the main character's mouth twitches downward and widens in a determined smile while stress wrinkles deepen between her eyebrows. But if I wanted to sell her a story, I would need to explain-- and be willing to be misquoted on the line that makes me cringe the most.
Hmm...I'll have the think about this. I do see a difference between characters explicitly philosophizing on theme vs the author/narrator doing it. Sometimes when a character does it I think it can serve to express that character rather than the theme itself, even if they're being explicit. But when a narrator or author does it then I get much more bugged.
Agreed, I wouldn't have a problem at all if the characters were saying this, but this is narration. This is us being told by the narrator what is happening/going to happen or what we should pull from the story.
It's possible that it could also be coming from a deep-POV narrative style. I haven't read the books you mentioned, so don't know what POV they're written in. But I can say that in most deep-POV books I've read, including in my own novels-in-progress, the POV character's thoughts and musings are expressed directly in the prose. Because you're in that character's head for the scene, so you can assume that the thematic statements being made are the character's own processing. This particular style removes the distance between the reader and the character to convey the thoughts they're having directly, even when not verbalized through dialogue.
That makes sense for first person, but these novels are written in third person. With Babel, I would say third person close because it hyperfocuses on one character's perspective. But Normal People is third person with two main characters so it can't possibly be close, or at least not in the way i understand that narrative style.
Third person can be written in deep or close style just as much as first person. Plenty of multi-POV books use this style, where multiple POV characters get their own scenes from their perspective. It's especially common in fantasy and sci-fi, where expansive plots show multiple characters doing different things in different parts of the world or universe.
When I read the excerpts you posted from Normal People, my first instinct is that it's written in deep/close POV. We're in either one of the two main character's heads, and we see them internally processing their thoughts. The present tense threw me off a bit, but other than that, it doesn't seem like it's an external narrator saying these things - it's the character's narration by showing exactly what's happening in their mind beat by beat.
Same with the excerpts from Babel - it's not the author coming out and saying these things as if it was an external narrator telling you this story, but rather the current POV character arriving at certain convictions and plans through their internal process.
Learn something new every day. Thanks for the POV lesson. I love when someone gives me some new perspective. The second half of your comment is a bit more fuzzy for me. Are you saying that the narrator is essentially a character in third person close? So they get the same privileges as a character would when it comes to sharing their perspective and insights? I'm not sure I all the way agree with that because the narrator, even in close, should always be "other," no? Like yes, it's close so they can speak "almost" like the character, but to come right out and say things that could've better been discovered in dialogue is still where I'm at.
Haha, no problem, and I love talking about this stuff because there are so many different ways to write a story, and none of them are either right or wrong.
The way I've come to understand it, the whole purpose of deep/close perspective (whether in 1st or 3rd person) is to completely *remove* the sense of there being a narrator at all. The reader should essentially be able to enter into the character's experience, seeing through their eyes and learning with them as they learn.
I think this narrative style is growing in popularity, because it gives the reader an escape, letting them live through a fantastical experience vicariously through the character. Personally, I'm most familiar with it in YA SFF (what I write and a lot of what I read) and adult fantasy (Brandon Sanderson is the key author using this style who comes to mind).
It's free indirect style.
agree. what sarah is describing as “deep third POV” is actually a narrative technique called free indirect style/free indirect discourse that has been around since the 19th century, used by authors like jane austen, flaubert, kafka, edith wharton, james joyce, etc. kern, check it out and see what you think. it has a long history of use and isn’t really new. maybe it’s just resurfacing in popularity with editors or smthng
Okay, I've never heard of free indirect style before but will be checking it out. I love research so I'll indulge myself in the rabbit hole :) thanks for the info!
Without having read these books, I can't be certain, but it does feel like a deep third-person POV to me as Sarah G. Young is describing. This type of POV allows the author to show a character's interiority. I generally enjoy books written in this style, and I'm working on a novel using this type of POV. I have discovered, though, that it can be challenging to write interiority that isn't a bit heavy-handed. It's definitely something I'm trying to keep in mind. Here's an article that gives a good explanation of the different types of third-person POVs, in case you're interested. https://janefriedman.com/understanding-third-person-point-of-view-omniscient-limited-and-deep/
Oh I am always interested in craft. And I love Jane Friedman so I will dive into this one. Thank you! That said, I think you're right to be cautious about the heavy-handedness. For me, it just feels unnecessary sometimes. I'm up for knowing what's in the character's mind, but more so from the character themself or within the action. But I'm also noticing that more writers are taking this deep, third person POV so maybe I just need to be more open to this as a writing style...
Yeah, just to chime in here as well, it is difficult, and interiority is the thing I always go back and edit the most. I want it to sound natural, like it's coming directly from the character's mind, but the advantage of using 3rd person is that it allows me to use vocabulary or phrasing that the character might not use in everyday speech. So yeah, it's a delicate balance.
So true! :)
You're welcome--yes, Jane Friedman's blog is great! I agree, it's a bit of a balancing act to be sure that interiority sounds like the character (and not a narrator). If it's done well, it can really provide an immersive character experience for the reader. Thanks for your post--I always enjoy the topics you explore!
I think with everyone on the internet being a book critic many very loudly proclaim their confusion over books that aren’t ’on the nose’ like this. I see lots of reviews on marketplaces and the dreaded Goodreads that are like ‘two stars, book was well written but I didn’t get this:’ and then go on to list things that are (imho) fun things to ponder and dissect in a story!
Unfortunately when common trends happen in the reader sphere, publishers and authors that want to be marketable chase being palatable to the most readers possible. I’ve seen it called ‘dumbing down’ books for new generations because nobody wants to think anymore, which is sad.
The best books to me are the ones where a bunch of us can read it and discuss and take totally different things out of it, and get excited about that!
Rooney may be stating the characters' feelings for each other, but the characters likely do not know each others' feelings yet. The rest of the novel is for them to discover them.
There are occasions when stating intent outright works. I have presented my fiction in the form of non-fiction monographs, journalism, and oral history interviews. The readers may recognize the format immediately, but they need to discover the content for themselves.
Hmm, that's an interesting take. So you think that sometimes it's better to just let the reader know what they are in for or what they should take out of the story from the very get go?
If you're not using a straightforward fictional narrative form, it helps.
Ahh gotchu. Okay, that makes sense.
I tend not to read new books anymore. I look for classics or maybe books that were published around my grandmother’s time. Or if there are reviews that make clear the prose is worth investing time in, I’ll grab it. But the YA section in particular has provided me with disappointment after disappointment. Trust me - YA readers can handle some mystery, some prose, they don’t need to be TOLD what’s coming on page 10
I enjoy a full-on breach of the fourth wall; but little wormholes remind me of the pub comedian digging me in the ribs, saying "get it?"
Lmaooooo good analogy!
Dear Kern, I look forward to the day we actually disagree on something :)) I wholeheartedly agree with you. I haven’t noticed this as a trend, but I dislike this approach of overstating, over explaining when I encounter it. I take offence as a reader because I feel that the writer doesn’t trust that I’m intelligent enough to “get it”. It’s condescending and in my humble opinion - a sign of bad writing. Perhaps this is why I love plays so much. All you have is dialogue. No inner thoughts, no explanations, and so much subtext to be interpreted any way you want to experience it. I feel that the job of the writer is done once the book is published, and now it’s for the reader to interpret it, even if they read it completely differently, or even, the “wrong” way.
As for Normal People… please don’t hate me people but I wasn’t at all impressed. A friend recommended the series so I watched it and bawled my eyes out. I loved it because it reminded me of the heartache of my first love. I immediately ordered the book. And I was so disappointed. The acting in the TV series added so much warmth and subtext, which I felt Rooney’s writing lacked. And in the tv series you couldn’t explain inner thoughts, or comment on the themes. It was much more vulnerable. It’s been a while since I read the book, but I remember I much preferred the series, which is rarely the case with any adaptation.
Hello my friend, I certainly don't hate you and always appreciate your opinion. And to be honest, as much as I loved Normal People (the novel), the writing wasn't my favourite, for more reasons than what I stated here. I do think it's a wonderful story, though, and heart-wrenching at certain parts. And yes, the heavy-handedness does feel a bit condescending, which is what I think first made me feel thrown off. My initial reaction was "why are you telling me this?" Weird.
In the meanwhile, I had another thought… narration in the third person limited is quite different to the omnipresent perspective. In this case you can play with what you choose to reveal. You can be privy to one character’s interpretation of things but not the entire story. Personally, I find this a more exciting choice. And thank you for not hating me :)
I also loved the Normal People tv series. I actually had no idea it was originally a book. Glad to know I consumed the better version of that story!