Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime

Third Person Objective

Third Person Objective has almost become totally forgotten. I like it, I've always preferred it. And for purists it is the 100% SHOW.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Life-of-Riley-ebook/dp/B0055UKX16/

Take a look at the sample - comment if you wish.
«1

Comments

  • Hello not see you on here for a while!
  • [quote=kateyanne]Hello not see you on here for a while! [/quote]

    I've been busy!

    http://www.hardpressed.org.uk/previews.html
  • I notice you are giving yourself 5 star reviews on Amazon, Michael!
  • Did you watch that programme Life of Riley?
  • Hello Michael. Welcome back.

    Interesting philosophy on Hard Pressed home page -

    "In an urban environment, beyond a certain age, children who continue to read books are referred to as bookworms or nerds, neither of these terms are used in a particular endearing manner. In adulthood, the nerds put pen to paper, and evolve into writerly types, penning stories for their younger selves. In western society two separate types of child develop; the nerds with books, and the others. And so the tail wags the dog. The others are the majority, and therefore - normal. Until the other children are catered for, they will continue to dunk nerds heads into toilet bowls and steal their expensive trainers."

    Is this what you think, Michael ?
  • [quote=lexia]Is this what you think, Michael ? [/quote]

    Well, er, yes.

    Little boys' heroes like Wayne Rooney ain't never appearing on Richard and Judy's book review club. Okay, so Wayne Rooney isn't a member of Mensa . . . but why not?

    It's not just what I 'think'. It's what the data shows you. Sport is a popular subject of conversation. It is part of most people's lives. But there are comparatively few books on sport. No doubt somebody will cite the guy who wrote all those books on horse racing, and the odd contribution from Nick Hornby, but you can clearly see that it's not big amongst 'writers'.

    Look at your own threads.

    This weekend; News of the World shut down, England got knocked out of the World Cup on penalties (again). Has the latter subject had a mention?
  • [quote=kateyanne]Did you watch that programme Life of Riley? [/quote]

    No.
  • [quote=Michael Scott]Little boys' heroes like Wayne Rooney ain't never appearing on Richard and Judy's book review club. Okay, so Wayne Rooney isn't a member of Mensa . . . but why not?[/quote] Because his brains are in his feet and not in his head also he`s an idiot in other ways(just my opinion of course) [quote=Michael Scott]England got knocked out of the World Cup on penalties (again). Has the latter subject had a mention?[/quote] and these were the womens football team and they never get mentioned , well not a lot.
  • Womens football is still a dirty word, which is a pity as at grass roots level it is very much a growing sport. Some of the girls outclass the boys talent wise.

    Maybe if they cut the egotistical male footballers pay to something reasonable they could invest more in the womens. It really irritates me that people like Rooney are paid so much for what they do.
  • [quote=Neph]Maybe if they cut the egotistical male footballers pay to something reasonable they could invest more in the womens. It really irritates me that people like Rooney are paid so much for what they do.[/quote] I really agree with those comment Neph
  • [quote=Michael Scott]Look at your own threads.[/quote]

    That comment makes it clear that you don't see yourself as part of this forum. Why?
  • [quote=claudia]That comment makes it clear that you don't see yourself as part of this forum. Why? [/quote]

    Because I haven't been here for a couple of years?
    Because I don't agree with the views of the majority here?

    I always wonder where the scriptwriters got this characterisation from.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGeDS9UGA1g
  • Ah right... so this character was taken from you Michael ? Now I understand ;)

    How can you say you disagree with "the majority" when you also say you haven't been here for a couple of years ?
    Who's the majority then ?
  • [quote=Michael Scott]Because I haven't been here for a couple of years?[/quote]

    You are here every six months,

    [quote=Michael Scott]Because I don't agree with the views of the majority here?[/quote]

    And that is important, why? Or do you mean you think you are better than the majority?
  • "I've finally finished my skinny book. (98 pages) - I don't expect the average reader to be too impressed. It probably wasn't written with the average reader in mind." Michael Scott, Talkback

    This comment seems to sum up your attitude, Michael.
    Did you find anyone impressed with your book ?
  • [quote=Neph]You are here every six months, [/quote]

    Are you stalking me?

    [quote=lexia]And that is important, why? Or do you mean you think you are better than the majority? [/quote]

    My original statement "Because I don't agree with the reviews of the majority here" seems self-explanatory.
  • [quote=lexia]"I've finally finished my skinny book. (98 pages) - I don't expect the average reader to be too impressed. It probably wasn't written with the average reader in mind." Michael Scott, Talkback

    This comment seems to sum up your attitude, Michael.
    Did you find anyone impressed with your book ? [/quote]

    Yes.

    Lala (Memphis, TN)

    Michael D. Scott's Arbitration is a comedy with an impressive pace. I kept waiting for the hilarity to slip, but the author skillfully maintained it through the book, right to the end. It's a fun read with such clever offensiveness, one can only respect the author's logical observation of the stupid things people do. This entertaining book offers clear and concise satire with a big twist of pop culture. This book easily made me laugh, but at the same time, I found myself eager to pick out all of the pop culture references. Long after I read it, I was still rolling the book's themes around in my head. It made me giggle and gave me something to think about--a refreshing combination.
  • [quote=Michael Scott]Neph wrote: You are here every six months,

    Are you stalking me?[/quote]

    No just wanted to point out that you were wrong in your statement, which leads me to believe that you are possibly wrong in some of your other sweeping statements too.
  • edited July 2011
    [quote=Neph]No just wanted to point out that you were wrong in your statement, which leads me to believe that you are possibly wrong in some of your other sweeping statements too. [/quote]

    But you didn't prove anything. You simply made yourself look like a pedantic stalker.

    No, I have not been an active user of this site for a couple of years. The fact that I may have may 6 monthly comments makes no difference.

    Even I didn't know when I'd last been here.
  • [quote=Michael Scott]always wonder where the scriptwriters got this characterisation from.[/quote]

    Thought it was hillarious. I'm sure there's a lot of TBer partners that secretly giggle when it's on.
  • [quote=Michael Scott]But you didn't prove anything. You simply made yourself look like a pedantic stalker.[/quote]

    Your opinion, I was just helping you with the facts.
  • "Even I didn't know when I'd last been here."
    You can find that out in your accounts page Michael by looking at posts you contributed to.

    Talkback is a fairly easy going place most of the time, except when there's an occasional hiccup and the Moderators are needed to sort it out.
  • Well, I think this thread has answered all of its own questions.

    The OP was about 3rd person objective. People are more interested in when I was last here. So, no, I probably don't agree with the views of most people here. I'm only interested in discussing (new) writing, and related topics.
  • [quote=Michael Scott]
    lexia wrote: And that is important, why? Or do you mean you think you are better than the majority?
    I didn't say this, Michael. Think Neph did.

    My original statement "Because I don't agree with the reviews of the majority here" seems self-explanatory.[/quote]


    And you didn't answer my question of who "the majority" is.

    Well done on Lala's opinion/review.
  • edited July 2011
    Sorry Michael
    I must be thick . I really do not get the meaning of your post. Do you want to comment on here or not? Your choice. I personally do not care when you were last on here or not. If you don't agree with some of the views , well that's fine. There are probably lots of things on here that lots of us disagree with or have our own point of view. As past post will attest to . Have you posted so we can praise your work? or boost your confidence(no I don`t think you lack in that) By starting this thread you yourself seem to have instigated a non writing topic , which if I have read correctly was something you are anti about.Or are you courting controversy ?
    What exactly are you trying to convey ?????
  • Hi Michael
  • I wasn't sure if we were to comment on Michael's Amazon comment. Personally I'd have re-read it before going live - but that's only because I'm pedantic and hate typos, especially those written by writers. Wasn't sure if the plot needed the plaster to be Polish.
  • [quote=Jennymf]I must be thick . I really do not get the meaning of your post. Do you want to comment on here or not? Your choice. I personally do not care when you were last on here or not. If you don't agree with some of the views , well that's fine. There are probably lots of things on here that lots of us disagree with or have our own point of view. As past post will attest to . Have you posted so we can praise your work? or boost your confidence(no I don`t think you lack in that) By starting this thread you yourself seem to have instigated a non writing topic , which if I have read correctly was something you are anti about.Or are you courting controversy ?
    What exactly are you trying to convey ????? [/quote]

    Yes, I'm going to have to agree that you are thick.

    Topic = 3rd person objective POV. (Rarely used in novel writing).

    - An example is provided.

    Everybody else wants to discuss everything from my views on this site; to my definition of the 'majority'.

    To be clear; I do not require my work to be appraised or appreciated by anybody else. The subject was 3rd person objective, preferable in the present tense. If you can find another example, use that instead.
  • [quote=Michael Scott]Yes, I'm going to have to agree that you are thick.[/quote]
    Michael, keep it friendly. You weren't very clear about what you actually intended to be discussed here, and your snappy answers to reasonable questions didn't really push this discussion in the direction that your last post claims to. Perhaps this could be more constructive if you outline why you value 3rd person objective so highly yourself - opening a discussion rather than berating people for not answering a question that hasn't been asked.
  • edited July 2011
    Don`t worry Webbo I left myself wide open for that one, not a problem. I just did not understand his previous comments, Will not get into a dog fight with him. He is as much entitled to think what he wants to, as am I . I could say more but there has already been too much of that sort of nonsense on here, so will not lower myself to be drawn into name calling. Whatever I wish him luck as much in life as in his writing.
  • Yes, I'd be interested to hear an explanation of third person objective as I've not heard of it before. I couldn't find a sample on the link. Does it mean writing in the third person but not entering that character's thoughts?
  • [quote=Lou Treleaven]Does it mean writing in the third person but not entering that character's thoughts?
    [/quote]

    From what I know that is correct Lou.
  • edited July 2011
    [quote=Lou Treleaven]Does it mean writing in the third person but not entering that character's thoughts?[/quote]
    Exactly Lou. I think Michael's point about purity is that it doesn't allow you any wiggle room for your character's philosophy, only their actions. It can seem quite distant, but gives more freedom in allowing the reader to know more about the wider world of the narrative than a character does, which you can't achieve in subjective third person. You can in omniscient though...
  • [quote=Lou Treleaven]Yes, I'd be interested to hear an explanation of third person objective as I've not heard of it before. I couldn't find a sample on the link. Does it mean writing in the third person but not entering that character's thoughts? [/quote]

    Write a play or a script - it'll all make sense. It makes for a very 'interactive' read. It also forces the writer address any pacing issues. It's fantastic for suspense thrillers etc. All in all it's just a new 'tool'. You'll have a hard time selling it to writers though.
  • I see - it's more like reporting the actions and speech of a character. That would be a bit too distant for me, though I can see how it would work for suspense thrillers as you could keep the reader in the dark more. It's probably not new, though, is it? And from what I can understand I wouldn't describe it as interactive - more like the opposite?
  • [quote=Lou Treleaven]I see - it's more like reporting the actions and speech of a character. That would be a bit too distant for me, though I can see how it would work for suspense thrillers as you could keep the reader in the dark more. It's probably not new, though, is it? And from what I can understand I wouldn't describe it as interactive - more like the opposite? [/quote]

    Interactive was not the right word. For certain types of reader it provides a very engaging experience. On the one hand people are preaching 'show don't tell' but the US lowest common denominator style of writing undoes all of your good work. From what is 'shown' to the reader, the reader must draw their own conclusions from the action as shown. The writer can keep the intrigue going for ages.

    As with real life, what people say, and their actions, don't often match - rather than tell the reader what the character is thinking (which isn't normally done in other media. That is another 'divide' debate. Aspiring writers really need to stop using US techniques - Brits hate most of them).
  • LizLiz
    edited July 2011
    I think a good writer can keep a reader guessing whether they are party to the thoughts of a protagonist or not.

    Are you saying it is an American technique, to be in the mind of a character?
  • edited July 2011
    [quote=Michael Scott]As with real life, what people say, and their actions, don't often match[/quote]

    That's what I like about seeing inside a character's mind; the conflict between what they mean and what they do. I love the 'unreliable narrator' technique where we can't trust what we see in his or her mind, eg Engleby. The reader can still be kept guessing even though they are able to see into the narrator's head.
  • I didn't write that! LOL! You can change it though, Lou, by just editing and changing the name in the brackets.
  • [quote=Liz!]I think a good writer can keep a reader guessing whether they are party to the thoughts of a protagonist or not.

    Are you saying it is an American technique, to be in the mind of a character? [/quote]

    What I'm saying can be seen by watching British TV and Film and comparing scenes the US equivalent. By definition character thoughts cannot be portrayed on film.

    Brit Film: Female Character A is in love Male Character B - The actors will be required by action to impart this information, delicate, intricate, subtle, skilled work.

    US Film: Female Character A bats eyelashes at Male Character B - Just in case you missed it, an orchestra's entire string section will fire up. And because you might still not get it, let's soften the picture slightly . . . just to be sure.

    When depicting a scene, if I have to tell you what a character's thinking. I feel like I'm cheating.

    [For me] all these techniques come from the well researched "US attention span" (go, google). The same screenwriting techniques that allow me to watch, and follow, Hollywood films with my back to them have filtered into writing. They allow you to scan, as opposed to read, an entire novel, and not miss anything.

    As far as I'm concerned - If go to the effort of writing it, the reader will read it. If you don't 'get it', I'm not going to dumb it down.
  • LizLiz
    edited July 2011
    I think you must be reading the wrong authors!

    [quote=Michael Scott]When depicting a scene, if I have to tell you what a character's thinking. I feel like I'm cheating.
    [/quote]

    That reminds me of my son - when he was very small, I couldn't understand why he wouldn't answer people's questions, even though I knew he knew the answers. After one particularly frustrating episode, I asked him why he hadn't answered the question. He told me he knew the answer already, and it would be cheating just to say it. He thought you had to work out the answer for yourself! I thought it gave an interesting insight into how perplexing the world is for young children - he was three, and precociously articulate for his age, and was able to put into words what a difficult place the world is for a child - they must have to 'work out' what is happening a lot.

    And we do this throughout life - most communication (is it 70%?) is through body language, not words. We don't need things dumbed down, but I'm not sure taking away all the thoughts of the characters is the only way to keep the reader in the dark.
  • Horses for courses. I've never used it, it lacks intimacy for me. Agree with Liz, a good writer can make a reader guess, and if clever enough, manipulate the reader. That's the kind of writing I like to read and write.
  • I think the Atlantic stretch comparisons you've made are slightly unfair. America has some of the greatest television being made right now. Sure what you describe may be used in day time soaps and cheap shows but that's the same the world over.

    I also think you are building battlements against readers rather than lowering a cultural bridge of access to all. It is possible to engage the reader within an intelligent contract that doesn't feel like a duty. Most readers will make an effort to 'get it' if you also offer a well written and entertaining story for them follow. There's no need to be defensive about dumbing down as any true reader will probably throw that sort of book across the room and most who need a dumbed down novel will be infrequent buyers anyway.

    As a writer you have a duty and hopefully a desire to share your story with as many people as possible. If you try to alienate readers who you deem to be unworthy of owning your book then you become a literature snob. That's the sort of writer who usually has a short career and a long bitterness. There is a balance that also includes clear communication and some universality. If a writer has no desire to bother with those two items then I can't understand why they would even want to put pen to paper in the first place.
  • [quote=SilentTony]I think the Atlantic stretch comparisons you've made are slightly unfair. America has some of the greatest television being made right now. Sure what you describe may be used in day time soaps and cheap shows but that's the same the world over. [/quote]

    Disagree. Don't theorise, try it. Write a novel and then convert it to a screenplay, you are forced to translate any exposition via though to another medium, brits avoid voiceover - the reader is required to simply work things out.

    Ambiguous resolutions are no longer allowed. Again we can see this by remakes of old films (most major publishers are media companies therefore your novel needs to work across several platforms).
    - Look at the re-worked endings of 'The Italian Job' and 'Assault on precinct 13'.

    Submit something with a similar outcome to 'Romeo and Juliet' or 'The Pied Piper of Hamelin' - You'll find these things are unacceptable during these changed times.
  • I think you make generalisations which you don't enlarge upon regarding the differences between and the characteristics of "US" and "Brit" film/television.
    Also, I don't think "By definition character thoughts cannot be portrayed on film" is quite correct.
    If a good writer has written the character's thoughts well then a good actor should be able to portray them and communicate them to the watcher.
    I agree with what's been said about clear communication. There is no skill or craft if this doesn't happen.
  • You are forgetting something in your argument,Michael. Films are acted by actors skilled in portraying the very inner thoughts you are suggesting are 'hidden'. That's why books are 'inside' the head of characters - they cannot be shown, with all their body language communication. Plays are written for actors to perform and bring their character's motivation to the notice of the audience.
  • [quote=Michael Scott]Don't theorise, try it. Write a novel and then convert it to a screenplay,[/quote]

    Funny you should say that because I did. While I found the reworking into a script to be liberating I missed the actual emotional connection with the story.You see a screenplay isn't even a film, a film is a film. Like a novel is just a book until it comes alive in a person mind where they choose to add or subtract whatever narrative attachments they like. It's the same with a screenplay. A screenwriter is giving the production team a starting black. Once in the hands of the director and cinematographer it becomes something different altogether.

    There is a reason scripts are written like that .It's to allow the colours to be shaded and the emotion to be injected by the director, his editor and production team. That is why great actors are appreciated and used over and over again. They can transform the written instruction and dialogue into an emotional language using reaction. Of course novels are changing and always will. There will be evolutions and revolutions and more calls that the novel is dead. This is nothing to do with the narrative used from one period or another however.

    When we have so many exciting toys to play with why limit ourselves to just one? If you favour a more realist narration with a camera eye then fine. If you want to write in a free indirect style then go ahead. Most writers these days mix it up a bit. That's because it is boring to be the camera all the time, as it is boring to be too omnipresent all the time also. Sure if you only write in this objective style you will have a tighter and more direct narration. But if you have an indirect style with unreliable narration written from a realism point of view then you have it all. You will have an exciting novel that will also be intelligent enough to not appear 'dumbed down' yet still accessible to the majority.

    Isn't that the Holy Grail for literature?
  • [quote=Liz!]You are forgetting something in your argument,Michael. Films are acted by actors skilled in portraying the very inner thoughts you are suggesting are 'hidden'. That's why books are 'inside' the head of characters - they cannot be shown, with all their body language communication. Plays are written for actors to perform and bring their character's motivation to the notice of the audience. [/quote]

    This isn't strictly true.

    At a base level. The actor takes instructions from the writer ( the director, will clarify anything unclear). The higher up the scale you get, the less influence the author has. At the top level - the script is a very flexible guideline.
  • [quote=SilentTony]Isn't that the Holy Grail for literature? [/quote]

    It think you're missing my point. As many aspiring writers miss the greater points. There is no way to write. Ergo, I am against 'How to' books and 'Writing courses'. I think that it far better to write your way. Try different methods.

    Eventually, you will be able to approach any scene, any way. Subsequently, you develop your own style and skill set. The comment from an agent which sticks in my mind is "Over the years the manuscripts arriving on my desk have become much of a muchness."
Sign In or Register to comment.