This is an excellent post! Going into my saves to read again later good.
"FND is so nearly universal that it wouldn’t surprise me if someone told me that editors and publishers encourage or enforce it." Agents and editors have been hammering this is as the one true way for decades. I started the author thing in the early 2000's, and this was the gospel they preached then and in the 90's. When I had an agent between 2004-2008, I was advised on one story to zoom in more. At that time, nearly everything coming out in genre was third-person limited with even first-person being quite rare.
I believe it is still the common advice given. Deep POV is a very popular topic in the romance writing community, and I have read a couple of books on writing in this style. And people are going to write in the style they most commonly read, so it's self-perpetuating.
I've been so happy to read this article and Eric Falden's, because these are things I am focusing on for upcoming books and a book of mine that I am currently updating. I can't change the style I'm using in ongoing series, of course.
In the first disgustingly long novel I wrote (unpublished and seen by few save for an agent and a few editors) I started every chapter zoomed out and then brought the viewpoint in tight. It might have been one of the things holding me back in their world at the time.
I’m so glad you commented, this is all very good to hear! I thought I’d read similar things in writing advice books: “Don’t bother with long descriptions, if people want to know what something looks like they have the internet.”
I too went through a phase where I did hyper-tight FND for a whole manuscript, all 140k words. I even did limited POV and present tense. Eric Falden said not to, and it sparked a number of discussions, which led me to do some research and I discovered Narrative Distance. Ultimately he was completely right, not that FND can’t be done, but that I had unwittingly hamstrung myself.
I would love to see a revival like what you’re engaged in.
I've written over a million words of third-person limited with most of it at a fairly tight distance. The ones with more distance were more clumsily written because I wasn't confident in what I was doing at the time. I was younger then too.
I recently struggled with a scene because I couldn't figure out which viewpoint would be the best to use to convey everything that was going on. Like I said, I can't change much with an ongoing series. Five books in it's going to be the way it's going to be.
I really enjoyed (especially) your break down of Blood Meridian. He does that all the time (and I never really thought about it). You would think the zoom in/zoom out in such a tight word count would read like a janky rollercoaster. But I think it actually adds to the sweepingly epic feel of the novel.
I am reminded of The Battle of The Five Armies scene in The Hobbit. I remember feeling like it didn't quite fit... Maybe that's because it's one of the few times Tolkien pulls back the narrative view. (It's been a long time since I read that, though.)
You say authors tend to hold the camera really close. I wonder if this is because with a broader narrative view, it feels like telling vs. showing (even if it's not)?
Absolutely! That’s probably also why Battle of the Five Armies didn’t translate well to film. How could it at that broad distance?
It’s entirely possible that “show don’t tell” accounts for much of the close distance in contemporary writing. I have often felt that “show don’t tell” gets doled out a little unqualifiedly for that reason, especially when you consider the need for rote exposition. I do also believe that amid the ubiquity of visual media broad distances have simply been forgotten as an option.
I find it a shame that a broad narrative voice technique seems to both be forgotten by authors and by editors. I think the reasons you outlined are definitely part of it. Authors in recent decades and especially indie authors, seem to have been very sensitive to what those they perceive as experts tell them is the proper way to write. I've heard this from authors over and over that "oh, so and so says the best way to hook an audience is this way!" or "so and so says you have to open your story with way!" Or you should use the Save the Cat method! or the Story Grid method! or It always has to be a hero's journey! and so on.
I think a lot of this has arisen from the advent of writing coaches, writing seminars, online writing classes and has been made possible to be spread to the masses due to the internet. So many gurus have their own online programs now, peddling the age old "this is how I did it and so can you!" Writers become convinced that if it worked for that person, it must work for them too.
At least, I think that's another part of the problem. So too is the confusing of written media with visual media. And again, we have a lot of classes telling writers they need to write their works like movies (safe the cat, anyone?) because this is how most people today understand story - from the lenses of a movie.
But all these classes and seminars and writing how to books have influenced a whole generation of writers to write in these rigid corridors that has made a lot of fiction today sound exactly the same. Writers are locked into these silos of voice and narrative distance through bad advice or misapplied advise that has taken off with little understanding of the underpinnings of that advice (show don't tell anyone?) and really has harmed the quality of writing as a whole. I wish editors and writers would truly study the older stories ands top this idea that "you must write for modern audiences".
for instance, I was in discussions with another author months back who mentioned they have had problems along these lines. they write stories with a more old fashioned narrative distance but though the story was liked - a lot - by their alpha readers, they were told repeatedly that "but writers don't write this way anymore".
And my question is why? why can't authors write that way anymore?
Couldn’t have said it better myself! And what’s great about a platform like this is that we writers can actually receive immediate feedback from readers who can verify that yes, we do want this kind of narration!
This is so validating to read! I do third person variable distance, which I’ve always conceptualised like the camera from games like Black & White or Age of Empires (so the “video game camera” analogy threw me 😆). You can zoom WAAAY out for a top-down view of the whole map, pan halfway in to examine a particular section, snap to a character, zoom all the way in to watch over their shoulder… It just depends what’s happening.
Definitely! Rather than being technical or complex, I’ve found it to be liberating for my prose.
And yeah, I can see how an RTS video game camera would be a good way to describe variable zoom. I know when Falden coined that term he had in mind a first-person or over-the-shoulder game like Zelda or the Souls series.
Yeah, once I was mentally substituting "OtS camera" I could follow along alright. 🙂
Though, it's worth noting that video games rarely keep the camera constant - in BotW nocking an arrow moves you to first person, activating a distant device can make the camera pan over to it, boss fights generally start with a dramatic pulled-back view, and cut scenes use all sorts of cinematic approaches.
Which demonstrates your point that having a default "zoom" is all well and good, and makes for consistent framing which is easy to follow (and create), but it's important to know when to switch to something else (and what to switch to).
So rather than "video game camera" I think I'll call this phenomena "glued camera syndrome". 😄
I had been hoping I would find an article like yours, and lo and behold the Substack gods reward my diligence. I’m glad you mentioned classical literature, because when you defined Variable zoom, my immediate first thought was of The Epic of Gilgamesh, which opens with a zoomed out description of the city of Uruk before talking about Gilgamesh and Ishtar and Enkidu. I’m puzzled that folks would find Variable zoom immersion breaking, cause doesn’t it create a more vital sense of place? The analogy with video games was insightful, and suggests further comparisons, like Minecraft which lets you switch at will between four different perspectives would be an example of a variable zoom in a video game, or a game like Victoria, where you’re perpetually locked into a birds-eye view would be an extreme example in the other direction. The point of course is that POV has narrative consequences
Certainly, and great insights on the video game examples! If you enjoyed this I would highly recommend Eric Falden’s piece on the same topic. He focuses more on how certain narrative voice options will limit narrative distance, and what consequences that can have on stories overall.
Some excellent advice here. But I would also add that FND is sometimes just necessary. With a recent story I wrote I wanted it to come in under four thousand words. In a few scenes I did not have the budget to use close focus. My question was: what does the reader need to know? At one point the main character meets a beautiful girl. Do I describe her in detail or do I only allude to the effect her beauty has on him? For me the effect was key in terms of his character and the narrative development, not whether she was pale or dark, blonde or brunette, and so on.
However, I will certainly bear your advice in mind with my next fiction piece. "Zoom in for visceral" is essential.
Absolutely agree! Being broad or cursory when it is called for is exactly what I would advocate. Variable zoom is all about picking what serves the story best as opposed to remaining tight by default. I only touched on it, but one of the huge benefits of zooming out like what you’re describing is exactly what you mentioned: conserving words when that’s a constraint.
I think there is a benefit to purposeful restraint, it tends to make us more creative. I think of it like George Lucas in the Original Trilogy vs. George Lucas in the Prequels. When he had the tools to do whatever he wanted, he became less creative in his solutions.
I’m not a fantasy writer…and still…learned a lot here. Has me wanting to experiment with book 2. Early stages and it’s written present tense. If I convert to past tense…what opens up…? It will have a different feel for sure. But that is neither good nor bad. I’ve resisted past tense for <reasons>. This has me thinking “well, Sue, why don’t you just give it a try? You won’t know until you do. And it might give you a lot more room to ‘play’”.
I’m so glad you found it helpful, Sue! Interestingly enough, the first full draft of a book I ever wrote was in present tense. When I read it after a time, I realized I didn’t like the inherent restrictions. That’s not everyone’s experience, but it certainly was mine, and it helped me piece together some of the things I talk about here.
I think much of this prediction for FND stems from lack of confidence in the reader and also the expectation of having to produce a brick of a book. Writing coaches on the internet also have much to answer for with their constant 'show don't tell' approach. Many writers seem to have forgotten that 'less is more'.
I'm admittedly not super broadly read, but it boggles my mind how this is a discussion. Like this is just my natural inclination and the (I assumed) apparent way to tell a story. I guess third-person past omniscient POV, semi-limited variable zoom if you want to get more technical. The exact split depends on the story's scope but I will describe a character's internal thoughts or feelings and I will also give a disembodied history lesson to the reader without pause. What feels meaningful, what context enhances the journey are the bounds that guide the structure. I consider the POV the narrator's POV, so I never got hung up on maintaining one specific framing.
For sure! I'm finding based on replies to this piece that there are those who never even considered FND to be a rule, written or otherwise, and others who have worked with trad pub who are confirming that this has indeed been enforced for decades! I keep saying this in my replies, but what I would describe as ideal is not necessarily some florid tale with constantly expanding and collapsing zoom, but simply a story where the ideal narrative distance is chosen on an individual basis, which is what it sounds like you did!
Anecdotally, I can say even coming from a nontraditional publishing background that editors have a bit of a time with my use of variable zoom in my book. Likely because I chose a *pretend* third person limited perspective, and occasionally I put in bits that "tip the hand" to the reader that the narrator is not as unbiased and loyal as first appears.
Based on responses, this seems to be what we call "playing with fire." I figured the times where the narrator calls out the protagonist would maybe key that in, but it doesn't always seem to.
That said, I actually rather like sitting at a pretty fixed narrative distance most of the time. Specifically its the loss of information that I enjoy. When you have a whole world of plots spinning but only have one man's perspective from which to glimpse at them, you get so much opportunity for natural feeling mystery. Even his lover can become a terrible unknown—or *especially* his lover, as some might argue.
When I pull back, it can be because I want the reader clearly aware that the protagonist has missed something vital. Though, to what end, I don't reveal. I also pull back to yield the narrative to the passage of time and the mumblings of the people. Things the reader could reasonably assume the protagonist could observe himself over that time, so as to not break the reader's trust that I'll reveal the unknowns fairly, but still in a wide brush that fills in our void spaces quickly and moves us along.
Totally agree Connor, and remaining at a steady distance for a good portion of the story is naturally going to happen. But what you additionally did — and what I’m endorsing in this article — is choose the narrative distance that best fits your story at any given time. There are plenty of stories for which the narrative is tight throughout and that suits the piece just fine. FND has its strategic applications, my argument is to disabuse writers of the notion that it’s the only way to narrate.
Oh yes. I should have prefaced, I'm in total agreement on the central point of your article and Eric's. Following FNC like some rule is just plain boring if nothing else.
Excellent post and I fully agree. I was aware of this concept preciously, though I'd thought of it as the author being a little squirrel or some such, perching on a character's shoulder one moment, before scurrying up a tree for a wider view, but also doing the same thing through time if you see what I mean. It's nice when someone skilfully articulates the vague thoughts in one's brains so thank you. As far as I can remember narrative distance was never touched upon in my Eng Lit degree, regrettably.
One thing I disagree with slightly - for me, cinema uses variable zoom more often than suggested here - not just flashbacks and montages but every choice of shot angle, cut speed, music etc, can act as a narrative zoom-in or zoom-out. Although admittedly these choices might be made for the sake of visual stimulation rather than narrative distance. Theatre is surely the visual medium where FND is more inevitable.
I’m glad you liked it! And I like the image of the squirrel, I’ll keep that in mind. I write typically in omniscient, so I like to imagine myself as a narrator on a stage who can pause the action, walk between the actors, and even sometimes go out into the audience and look on with them.
I tend to favor Third-Person Limited for most of my work, but I can see where the limitations may be immersion-breaking.
I think first it is training wheels for perspective discipline to guard against "head-hopping." Many people of my generation who grew up reading SF/F and decided they wanted to write it, grew up on Tolkien, yes, but also Eddings, Feist, Brooks, etc. These guys wrote Third-Person Omniscient and might tell you what six different characters are thinking or feeling within a given scene. The amateur writer, of course, would be lax in how they go back and forth, and it would create confusion as to which character is the protagonist, and would lose momentum as it shifts focus constantly. Like you say, TPO is common in classic works, so older writers who came up in the Pulp Era and first-generation Fantasy renaissance post-Tolkien and -Howard tended to use that.
I was drawn to Limited, believe it or not, by Tom Clancy. In fact my first influences were Clancy, Crichton and Cussler, who accompanied me through my teens rather than Tolkien, who I came to as an adult. Cussler dips into Omniscient, but Clancy is a *stickler* for Limited. One of my favorite techniques of his was reading the same scene through opposing perspectives back-to-back, or encountering a character reacting immediately to what the other character just did. He didn't do it a lot, but when it happened, I perked up. So when I started reading Eddings and Feist, in particular, it was an adjustment to say the least.
I think the reason Limited occupies so much space in writer advice is because most advice is aimed at the beginning amateur, and Limited tends to keep the engine rolling in the right direction. It certainly helps me to be more conscious about what I am doing, and making sure the reader isn't getting information that wouldn't normally occur in that scene. The reason it works so well in thrillers is how it hides things and builds tension, ala the use of Present Tense in Hunger Games.
I tend to zoom out when describing surroundings, but I restrict it to surroundings the POV character could observe or has observed, without having to literally describe them actively looking at it, if that makes sense. The closeness of perspective is, perhaps, less related to camera aperture for me, but how fast the film is rolling and how much detail I want the reader to observe.
The section about Blood Meridian immediately made me think of Holdstock’s book Mythago Wood. It zooms in and out, and I feel it is genius too. This was a great article for me. Thanks!
This is an excellent post! Going into my saves to read again later good.
"FND is so nearly universal that it wouldn’t surprise me if someone told me that editors and publishers encourage or enforce it." Agents and editors have been hammering this is as the one true way for decades. I started the author thing in the early 2000's, and this was the gospel they preached then and in the 90's. When I had an agent between 2004-2008, I was advised on one story to zoom in more. At that time, nearly everything coming out in genre was third-person limited with even first-person being quite rare.
I believe it is still the common advice given. Deep POV is a very popular topic in the romance writing community, and I have read a couple of books on writing in this style. And people are going to write in the style they most commonly read, so it's self-perpetuating.
I've been so happy to read this article and Eric Falden's, because these are things I am focusing on for upcoming books and a book of mine that I am currently updating. I can't change the style I'm using in ongoing series, of course.
In the first disgustingly long novel I wrote (unpublished and seen by few save for an agent and a few editors) I started every chapter zoomed out and then brought the viewpoint in tight. It might have been one of the things holding me back in their world at the time.
I’m so glad you commented, this is all very good to hear! I thought I’d read similar things in writing advice books: “Don’t bother with long descriptions, if people want to know what something looks like they have the internet.”
I too went through a phase where I did hyper-tight FND for a whole manuscript, all 140k words. I even did limited POV and present tense. Eric Falden said not to, and it sparked a number of discussions, which led me to do some research and I discovered Narrative Distance. Ultimately he was completely right, not that FND can’t be done, but that I had unwittingly hamstrung myself.
I would love to see a revival like what you’re engaged in.
Things don't change unless we change.
I've written over a million words of third-person limited with most of it at a fairly tight distance. The ones with more distance were more clumsily written because I wasn't confident in what I was doing at the time. I was younger then too.
I recently struggled with a scene because I couldn't figure out which viewpoint would be the best to use to convey everything that was going on. Like I said, I can't change much with an ongoing series. Five books in it's going to be the way it's going to be.
A great post!
I really enjoyed (especially) your break down of Blood Meridian. He does that all the time (and I never really thought about it). You would think the zoom in/zoom out in such a tight word count would read like a janky rollercoaster. But I think it actually adds to the sweepingly epic feel of the novel.
I am reminded of The Battle of The Five Armies scene in The Hobbit. I remember feeling like it didn't quite fit... Maybe that's because it's one of the few times Tolkien pulls back the narrative view. (It's been a long time since I read that, though.)
You say authors tend to hold the camera really close. I wonder if this is because with a broader narrative view, it feels like telling vs. showing (even if it's not)?
Absolutely! That’s probably also why Battle of the Five Armies didn’t translate well to film. How could it at that broad distance?
It’s entirely possible that “show don’t tell” accounts for much of the close distance in contemporary writing. I have often felt that “show don’t tell” gets doled out a little unqualifiedly for that reason, especially when you consider the need for rote exposition. I do also believe that amid the ubiquity of visual media broad distances have simply been forgotten as an option.
Thank you very much for this article!
I find it a shame that a broad narrative voice technique seems to both be forgotten by authors and by editors. I think the reasons you outlined are definitely part of it. Authors in recent decades and especially indie authors, seem to have been very sensitive to what those they perceive as experts tell them is the proper way to write. I've heard this from authors over and over that "oh, so and so says the best way to hook an audience is this way!" or "so and so says you have to open your story with way!" Or you should use the Save the Cat method! or the Story Grid method! or It always has to be a hero's journey! and so on.
I think a lot of this has arisen from the advent of writing coaches, writing seminars, online writing classes and has been made possible to be spread to the masses due to the internet. So many gurus have their own online programs now, peddling the age old "this is how I did it and so can you!" Writers become convinced that if it worked for that person, it must work for them too.
At least, I think that's another part of the problem. So too is the confusing of written media with visual media. And again, we have a lot of classes telling writers they need to write their works like movies (safe the cat, anyone?) because this is how most people today understand story - from the lenses of a movie.
But all these classes and seminars and writing how to books have influenced a whole generation of writers to write in these rigid corridors that has made a lot of fiction today sound exactly the same. Writers are locked into these silos of voice and narrative distance through bad advice or misapplied advise that has taken off with little understanding of the underpinnings of that advice (show don't tell anyone?) and really has harmed the quality of writing as a whole. I wish editors and writers would truly study the older stories ands top this idea that "you must write for modern audiences".
for instance, I was in discussions with another author months back who mentioned they have had problems along these lines. they write stories with a more old fashioned narrative distance but though the story was liked - a lot - by their alpha readers, they were told repeatedly that "but writers don't write this way anymore".
And my question is why? why can't authors write that way anymore?
Couldn’t have said it better myself! And what’s great about a platform like this is that we writers can actually receive immediate feedback from readers who can verify that yes, we do want this kind of narration!
This is so validating to read! I do third person variable distance, which I’ve always conceptualised like the camera from games like Black & White or Age of Empires (so the “video game camera” analogy threw me 😆). You can zoom WAAAY out for a top-down view of the whole map, pan halfway in to examine a particular section, snap to a character, zoom all the way in to watch over their shoulder… It just depends what’s happening.
Definitely! Rather than being technical or complex, I’ve found it to be liberating for my prose.
And yeah, I can see how an RTS video game camera would be a good way to describe variable zoom. I know when Falden coined that term he had in mind a first-person or over-the-shoulder game like Zelda or the Souls series.
Yeah, once I was mentally substituting "OtS camera" I could follow along alright. 🙂
Though, it's worth noting that video games rarely keep the camera constant - in BotW nocking an arrow moves you to first person, activating a distant device can make the camera pan over to it, boss fights generally start with a dramatic pulled-back view, and cut scenes use all sorts of cinematic approaches.
Which demonstrates your point that having a default "zoom" is all well and good, and makes for consistent framing which is easy to follow (and create), but it's important to know when to switch to something else (and what to switch to).
So rather than "video game camera" I think I'll call this phenomena "glued camera syndrome". 😄
I had been hoping I would find an article like yours, and lo and behold the Substack gods reward my diligence. I’m glad you mentioned classical literature, because when you defined Variable zoom, my immediate first thought was of The Epic of Gilgamesh, which opens with a zoomed out description of the city of Uruk before talking about Gilgamesh and Ishtar and Enkidu. I’m puzzled that folks would find Variable zoom immersion breaking, cause doesn’t it create a more vital sense of place? The analogy with video games was insightful, and suggests further comparisons, like Minecraft which lets you switch at will between four different perspectives would be an example of a variable zoom in a video game, or a game like Victoria, where you’re perpetually locked into a birds-eye view would be an extreme example in the other direction. The point of course is that POV has narrative consequences
Certainly, and great insights on the video game examples! If you enjoyed this I would highly recommend Eric Falden’s piece on the same topic. He focuses more on how certain narrative voice options will limit narrative distance, and what consequences that can have on stories overall.
Sweet! I’ll check it out 🥰
Some excellent advice here. But I would also add that FND is sometimes just necessary. With a recent story I wrote I wanted it to come in under four thousand words. In a few scenes I did not have the budget to use close focus. My question was: what does the reader need to know? At one point the main character meets a beautiful girl. Do I describe her in detail or do I only allude to the effect her beauty has on him? For me the effect was key in terms of his character and the narrative development, not whether she was pale or dark, blonde or brunette, and so on.
However, I will certainly bear your advice in mind with my next fiction piece. "Zoom in for visceral" is essential.
Absolutely agree! Being broad or cursory when it is called for is exactly what I would advocate. Variable zoom is all about picking what serves the story best as opposed to remaining tight by default. I only touched on it, but one of the huge benefits of zooming out like what you’re describing is exactly what you mentioned: conserving words when that’s a constraint.
I think there is a benefit to purposeful restraint, it tends to make us more creative. I think of it like George Lucas in the Original Trilogy vs. George Lucas in the Prequels. When he had the tools to do whatever he wanted, he became less creative in his solutions.
I’m not a fantasy writer…and still…learned a lot here. Has me wanting to experiment with book 2. Early stages and it’s written present tense. If I convert to past tense…what opens up…? It will have a different feel for sure. But that is neither good nor bad. I’ve resisted past tense for <reasons>. This has me thinking “well, Sue, why don’t you just give it a try? You won’t know until you do. And it might give you a lot more room to ‘play’”.
I’m so glad you found it helpful, Sue! Interestingly enough, the first full draft of a book I ever wrote was in present tense. When I read it after a time, I realized I didn’t like the inherent restrictions. That’s not everyone’s experience, but it certainly was mine, and it helped me piece together some of the things I talk about here.
Yes. Book 1 is present tense. And (mostly) first person even. 🤪😱 Now that’s a sure way to get some people in a tizzy!
And…I *think* it (mostly) worked for what I was trying to accomplish.
But with book 1 under my belt and on Substack, I’m challenging myself to up my craft game.
The victory of book 1 was just to “write the damn thing”.
The goal on book 2 is to show I’ve learned something from writing book 1!
That’s fantastic! Write what works and I’m sure it will go well!
I think much of this prediction for FND stems from lack of confidence in the reader and also the expectation of having to produce a brick of a book. Writing coaches on the internet also have much to answer for with their constant 'show don't tell' approach. Many writers seem to have forgotten that 'less is more'.
I'm admittedly not super broadly read, but it boggles my mind how this is a discussion. Like this is just my natural inclination and the (I assumed) apparent way to tell a story. I guess third-person past omniscient POV, semi-limited variable zoom if you want to get more technical. The exact split depends on the story's scope but I will describe a character's internal thoughts or feelings and I will also give a disembodied history lesson to the reader without pause. What feels meaningful, what context enhances the journey are the bounds that guide the structure. I consider the POV the narrator's POV, so I never got hung up on maintaining one specific framing.
For sure! I'm finding based on replies to this piece that there are those who never even considered FND to be a rule, written or otherwise, and others who have worked with trad pub who are confirming that this has indeed been enforced for decades! I keep saying this in my replies, but what I would describe as ideal is not necessarily some florid tale with constantly expanding and collapsing zoom, but simply a story where the ideal narrative distance is chosen on an individual basis, which is what it sounds like you did!
Anecdotally, I can say even coming from a nontraditional publishing background that editors have a bit of a time with my use of variable zoom in my book. Likely because I chose a *pretend* third person limited perspective, and occasionally I put in bits that "tip the hand" to the reader that the narrator is not as unbiased and loyal as first appears.
Based on responses, this seems to be what we call "playing with fire." I figured the times where the narrator calls out the protagonist would maybe key that in, but it doesn't always seem to.
That said, I actually rather like sitting at a pretty fixed narrative distance most of the time. Specifically its the loss of information that I enjoy. When you have a whole world of plots spinning but only have one man's perspective from which to glimpse at them, you get so much opportunity for natural feeling mystery. Even his lover can become a terrible unknown—or *especially* his lover, as some might argue.
When I pull back, it can be because I want the reader clearly aware that the protagonist has missed something vital. Though, to what end, I don't reveal. I also pull back to yield the narrative to the passage of time and the mumblings of the people. Things the reader could reasonably assume the protagonist could observe himself over that time, so as to not break the reader's trust that I'll reveal the unknowns fairly, but still in a wide brush that fills in our void spaces quickly and moves us along.
Totally agree Connor, and remaining at a steady distance for a good portion of the story is naturally going to happen. But what you additionally did — and what I’m endorsing in this article — is choose the narrative distance that best fits your story at any given time. There are plenty of stories for which the narrative is tight throughout and that suits the piece just fine. FND has its strategic applications, my argument is to disabuse writers of the notion that it’s the only way to narrate.
Oh yes. I should have prefaced, I'm in total agreement on the central point of your article and Eric's. Following FNC like some rule is just plain boring if nothing else.
Excellent post and I fully agree. I was aware of this concept preciously, though I'd thought of it as the author being a little squirrel or some such, perching on a character's shoulder one moment, before scurrying up a tree for a wider view, but also doing the same thing through time if you see what I mean. It's nice when someone skilfully articulates the vague thoughts in one's brains so thank you. As far as I can remember narrative distance was never touched upon in my Eng Lit degree, regrettably.
One thing I disagree with slightly - for me, cinema uses variable zoom more often than suggested here - not just flashbacks and montages but every choice of shot angle, cut speed, music etc, can act as a narrative zoom-in or zoom-out. Although admittedly these choices might be made for the sake of visual stimulation rather than narrative distance. Theatre is surely the visual medium where FND is more inevitable.
I’m glad you liked it! And I like the image of the squirrel, I’ll keep that in mind. I write typically in omniscient, so I like to imagine myself as a narrator on a stage who can pause the action, walk between the actors, and even sometimes go out into the audience and look on with them.
I tend to favor Third-Person Limited for most of my work, but I can see where the limitations may be immersion-breaking.
I think first it is training wheels for perspective discipline to guard against "head-hopping." Many people of my generation who grew up reading SF/F and decided they wanted to write it, grew up on Tolkien, yes, but also Eddings, Feist, Brooks, etc. These guys wrote Third-Person Omniscient and might tell you what six different characters are thinking or feeling within a given scene. The amateur writer, of course, would be lax in how they go back and forth, and it would create confusion as to which character is the protagonist, and would lose momentum as it shifts focus constantly. Like you say, TPO is common in classic works, so older writers who came up in the Pulp Era and first-generation Fantasy renaissance post-Tolkien and -Howard tended to use that.
I was drawn to Limited, believe it or not, by Tom Clancy. In fact my first influences were Clancy, Crichton and Cussler, who accompanied me through my teens rather than Tolkien, who I came to as an adult. Cussler dips into Omniscient, but Clancy is a *stickler* for Limited. One of my favorite techniques of his was reading the same scene through opposing perspectives back-to-back, or encountering a character reacting immediately to what the other character just did. He didn't do it a lot, but when it happened, I perked up. So when I started reading Eddings and Feist, in particular, it was an adjustment to say the least.
I think the reason Limited occupies so much space in writer advice is because most advice is aimed at the beginning amateur, and Limited tends to keep the engine rolling in the right direction. It certainly helps me to be more conscious about what I am doing, and making sure the reader isn't getting information that wouldn't normally occur in that scene. The reason it works so well in thrillers is how it hides things and builds tension, ala the use of Present Tense in Hunger Games.
I tend to zoom out when describing surroundings, but I restrict it to surroundings the POV character could observe or has observed, without having to literally describe them actively looking at it, if that makes sense. The closeness of perspective is, perhaps, less related to camera aperture for me, but how fast the film is rolling and how much detail I want the reader to observe.
The section about Blood Meridian immediately made me think of Holdstock’s book Mythago Wood. It zooms in and out, and I feel it is genius too. This was a great article for me. Thanks!
You know. The Monty Python aside really sold me on the whole thing. Love it!