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).
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 describes below. 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...
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?
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.
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.
If you do find it, please share. And if you didn't see my other message, thanks for calling out the AI art. I genuinely didn't know but it has been changed. Artists gotta stick together.
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.
The idea may be that in a post digital world, the writer is giving the reader one surface level of a theme(s), while withholding deeper, less clear theme(s). I don't think great writers should write for readers, but I do think they should consider their time. Entertainment and culture has never had more competition for attention than it has now. That tight window we have to keep our genre relevant requires an rejection of nostalgia. Toni Morrison is an absolute GOAT but I often wondered what she would have written if she has focused her talent on what was coming as opposed to what had been. On embracing the language of the culture that was building around her. Maybe she did what she did so the person after her could do that, knowing the masterpieces she had made of the past.
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.
Lovely article. I actually think only some themes should be subtext, but not all. Not the main one, the BIG one each book has. This allows readers of different skill levels and time/attention to still get the value of those bigger themes. Hopefully those readers who are willing to look for subtler, deeper hints will the be rewarded with additonal themes that give the richer experience they are seeking.
Exactly. If the author wants to have a conversation about the big themes then I say, be bold and lets have at it. I read the story because I want their thoughts. (As long as it does not become preachy or repetitive of course.) Smaller themes then become like special treats I find as a reader. And a lot of those themes will probably add nuance to the larger theme as well, if executed effectively.
--i'm so glad you pointed this out, kern. it's an insightful take on what is likely a new trend. as a writer, i'm not great on theme. but as a reader, i think the passages you point out would bother me for some reason...which i would've struggled to articulate. thanks for doing it for me.
You're welcome, LuLu. Yeah, it's does seem to be a trend. I'd need to read far more books to state that definitely, but it's certainly something I've noticed.
I'll ask my intern. We've been talking about being more thoughtful with the art in these pieces and she finds the art for me. If it is, I'll change it.
I would call this over-writing, and I have seen it a lot recently. Whatever happened to "show, don't tell?"
Okay so it's not just me. Maybe it is a real trend that's happening, or a shift in narrative style?
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!
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).
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 describes below. 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...
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.
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.
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.
I haven't been able to find the interview, but apparently it was in conversation with Oprah. (the Toni Morrison quote.)
Yesssss, that was it. How did you know? Do you remember it too?
I went looking. :)
If you do find it, please share. And if you didn't see my other message, thanks for calling out the AI art. I genuinely didn't know but it has been changed. Artists gotta stick together.
I’ll keep looking as I’d like to hear it, but Oprah doesn’t release everything online so we’ll see.
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.
The idea may be that in a post digital world, the writer is giving the reader one surface level of a theme(s), while withholding deeper, less clear theme(s). I don't think great writers should write for readers, but I do think they should consider their time. Entertainment and culture has never had more competition for attention than it has now. That tight window we have to keep our genre relevant requires an rejection of nostalgia. Toni Morrison is an absolute GOAT but I often wondered what she would have written if she has focused her talent on what was coming as opposed to what had been. On embracing the language of the culture that was building around her. Maybe she did what she did so the person after her could do that, knowing the masterpieces she had made of the past.
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.
Lovely article. I actually think only some themes should be subtext, but not all. Not the main one, the BIG one each book has. This allows readers of different skill levels and time/attention to still get the value of those bigger themes. Hopefully those readers who are willing to look for subtler, deeper hints will the be rewarded with additonal themes that give the richer experience they are seeking.
Interesting. So you say big themes should be explicit and smaller themes should be more subtle?
Exactly. If the author wants to have a conversation about the big themes then I say, be bold and lets have at it. I read the story because I want their thoughts. (As long as it does not become preachy or repetitive of course.) Smaller themes then become like special treats I find as a reader. And a lot of those themes will probably add nuance to the larger theme as well, if executed effectively.
--i'm so glad you pointed this out, kern. it's an insightful take on what is likely a new trend. as a writer, i'm not great on theme. but as a reader, i think the passages you point out would bother me for some reason...which i would've struggled to articulate. thanks for doing it for me.
You're welcome, LuLu. Yeah, it's does seem to be a trend. I'd need to read far more books to state that definitely, but it's certainly something I've noticed.
This is so good! Don’t underestimate the reader. They’ll connect the dots!
I'd like to think so.
AI art?
I don't think so. Got it from a site I usually use.
The hands/fingers were what flagged for me.
I'll ask my intern. We've been talking about being more thoughtful with the art in these pieces and she finds the art for me. If it is, I'll change it.
as an artist it feels like an uphill battle, tbh, so thank you for caring.
agreed. it's AI, no doubt at all. (the books are also a mess and there's a weird head-as-bowl in a disturbing sort of way on the table/counter.)
it's disturbing that it's now entered a site that previously had art by human creators.
Just changed the image. It was AI so thanks to you both for calling it out. I'll be more vigilant next time.
thank you.