Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48528
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

The process isn't the big deal others seem to think it is. I don't believe there are hard and fast rules to writing but I believe an author should apply a set of rules to a particular work.

Ask yourself a very simple question: what is the effect of continuing a scene after the 1st person narrator leaves the room?

Answer: the scene becomes third-person.

At this point you need to use your other tools (not rules). We can try to signify the transition by utilising tense. This reduces the third-person narrative to being retrospective hearsay, but, hey, we're not in a court of law.

"You're pregnant!" screams my mother. "I didn't raise you to be no whore." Her slaps stings. I run from the room in tears, the pain more emotional than physical. My brother's angered. "Did you just call my sister, your daughter - a whore?" Mother turned away from him. "She's upstairs crying right now. Did you mean it?" "I was angry," said my mother. "I'd hoped she wouldn't follow my path . . ."

Too many aspiring writers lack nuance and get bogged down in the technicalities without realising all aspects of the craft are related. An example of my own: "Little Miss Lightning" - I'll label the technique "active narration (story-telling)." The novel is the story of sporting, competitive siblings. It appears to be in third-person but scrutiny of the text reveals the narrator is breaking conventional rules. The narrative appears dithery and wordy and interjects 'God' into the narrative at every opportunity. It is not until chapter 8 (I think) that the narrator uses the word 'I'. Turns out the story is probably first-person but the narrator doesn't like to talk about himself. Because the story is in past tense the narrator is taking license to represent scenes in which he's not present.

Original score: 0