Narrator
I have this idea that at least as important as conflict and character and setting there must also be Voice. That means, the writer really ought to know who the narrator is. And yes, this means tight third. The assumption that tight third means there is no narrator--just a neutral writer-down of text--smashes many stories flat.
Has the Hot New Thing, i.e. camera-eye POV, introduced in the thirties or so, had a deadening effect on literature? Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammet could pull it off (though the latter I confess I can only read in very short snips before I get bored) but in others' hands it was a trick, and one that no longer is shiny and new. The extreme version was that the narrator is a camera--unbiased, dispassionate--reporting only what it sees. So for instance in a Hammet story we see a hand reach for a light switch, we see the light spring on, a pajama'd arm withdrawing, fumbling for cigarettes, and then the phone rings. Now the lens widens to include the stubble-bearded lead character (no protagonist, or hero) who answers the phone, and we only hear his short replies, and at no time do we ever get an inkling of what he thinks unless he tells another character. But he's far too cool to ever admit to any emotion except maybe anger. The sentences are short, tight. This is noir tough guy prose, no emotion possible--when a woman enters the scene, the comments are imbued with sexual attraction, but no emotion beyond that. She's as cool and neutral as he is.
First person and omni demand a voice--though the latter is not as obvious as the first. But I really think limited third, tight third, whatever you want to call it, needs some thought about the narrator, and the narrative voice as well, to hook in the reader and keep the story exciting. If one wants neutral background and explanation, then the conflict and setting and character have to be just that much more compelling
So I say this, but wow is it a struggle to try to implement.
Has the Hot New Thing, i.e. camera-eye POV, introduced in the thirties or so, had a deadening effect on literature? Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammet could pull it off (though the latter I confess I can only read in very short snips before I get bored) but in others' hands it was a trick, and one that no longer is shiny and new. The extreme version was that the narrator is a camera--unbiased, dispassionate--reporting only what it sees. So for instance in a Hammet story we see a hand reach for a light switch, we see the light spring on, a pajama'd arm withdrawing, fumbling for cigarettes, and then the phone rings. Now the lens widens to include the stubble-bearded lead character (no protagonist, or hero) who answers the phone, and we only hear his short replies, and at no time do we ever get an inkling of what he thinks unless he tells another character. But he's far too cool to ever admit to any emotion except maybe anger. The sentences are short, tight. This is noir tough guy prose, no emotion possible--when a woman enters the scene, the comments are imbued with sexual attraction, but no emotion beyond that. She's as cool and neutral as he is.
First person and omni demand a voice--though the latter is not as obvious as the first. But I really think limited third, tight third, whatever you want to call it, needs some thought about the narrator, and the narrative voice as well, to hook in the reader and keep the story exciting. If one wants neutral background and explanation, then the conflict and setting and character have to be just that much more compelling
So I say this, but wow is it a struggle to try to implement.