Post History
Usually the narrator knows about the thoughts. And the narrator will know that the thoughts are illogical, and thus can distance himself/herself from the thoughts. Of course that only works if the ...
Answer
#5: Post edited
by
celtschk
·
2020-11-20T10:01:21Z (over 3 years ago)
Slightly improved the text
The narrator knows about the thoughts. And the narrator will know that the thoughts are illogical, and can distance himself/herself from the thoughts. Of course that only works if the narrator isn't the villain in first-person.For example, you might write something like:> Dick thought about his problem. How on earth could he lock a door that did not even have a lock? Sure, he could block it from the inside, but that would mean he would have to be inside, and that was not possible. He could order someone else to stay inside, but his people were unreliable, so that was not really an option either. So what to do?>> Finally he had what he considered the perfect idea: Just put a sign on the door: “This door is locked. Any attempt to get inside is futile.” Dick was sure: Yes, that would definitely work. He was absolutely convinced that nobody would ever even try to open that door. After all, it was written there plainly that trying was futile, so why should they waste their time? They couldn't know that it was a lie.>> Dick was happy about that solution he thought he had found, and immediately went to ordering such a sign.Note how the narrator always explicitly attributes the logic to Dick. The formulations should make it clear that the _narrator_ doesn't think it is a reasonable strategy, and since the narrator knows that it is stupid, it is clear that the author knows it, too.**Edit:**The question was edited to state that the narrator only knows the actions, but not the thoughts of the characters.For that case, notice that even if the narrator does not know the thoughts, he/she can speculate about them, or draw conclusions from previous behaviour. Or the thoughts might be uttered by the character, and then the narrator can directly comment on them.For example, with the new restriction, the door sign “solution” might be introduced like this:> Dick was wandering around, constantly murmuring: “How on earth can I lock that door?” It apparently was a hard problem for him, given the time he spent on it. And granted, locking a door that had no lock is not an obvious problem to solve.>> Then suddenly his face brightened. He called out for his personal assistant: ”Order a sign, saying ‘This door is locked. Any attempt to get inside is futile.’ And make sure that sign is put on the door to the chamber.”>> The servant momentarily looked confused. But that passed quickly; after all, it wasn't the first time he had been given orders of questionable utility. And he was smart enough not to contradict. Just to be sure he didn't misunderstand, he asked: “You mean the special chamber behind the storage room?“>> “Sure,“ Dick replied angry, “what else should I mean?”>> “It's as good as done,” the assistant said, as he hastened away. Probably not so much due to solicitude, as due to self-protection. When Dick was angry, it was not a good idea to be close.
- Usually the narrator knows about the thoughts. And the narrator will know that the thoughts are illogical, and thus can distance himself/herself from the thoughts. Of course that only works if the narrator isn't the villain in first-person.
- For example, you might write something like:
- > Dick thought about his problem. How on earth could he lock a door that did not even have a lock? Sure, he could block it from the inside, but that would mean he would have to be inside, and that was not possible. He could order someone else to stay inside, but his people were unreliable, so that was not really an option either. So what to do?
- >
- > Finally he had what he considered the perfect idea: Just put a sign on the door: “This door is locked. Any attempt to get inside is futile.” Dick was sure: Yes, that would definitely work. He was absolutely convinced that nobody would ever even try to open that door. After all, it was written there plainly that trying was futile, so why should they waste their time? They couldn't know that it was a lie.
- >
- > Dick was happy about that solution he thought he had found, and immediately went to ordering such a sign.
- Note how the narrator always explicitly attributes the logic to Dick. The formulations should make it clear that the _narrator_ doesn't think it is a reasonable strategy, and since the narrator knows that it is stupid, it is clear that the author knows it, too.
- However, what to do if the narrator only knows the actions, but not the thoughts of the characters, as the edited question now states?
- For that case, notice that even if the narrator does not know the thoughts, he/she can speculate about them, or draw conclusions from previous behaviour. Alternatively, the thoughts might be uttered by the character, and then the narrator can directly comment on them.
- For example, with this restriction the door sign “solution” might be introduced like this:
- > Dick was wandering around, constantly murmuring: “How on earth can I lock that door?” It apparently was a hard problem for him, given the time he spent on it. And granted, locking a door that had no lock is not an obvious problem to solve.
- >
- > Then suddenly his face brightened. He called out for his personal assistant: ”Order a sign, saying ‘This door is locked. Any attempt to get inside is futile.’ And make sure that sign is put on the door to the chamber.”
- >
- > The servant momentarily looked confused. But that passed quickly; after all, it wasn't the first time he had been given orders of questionable utility. And he was smart enough not to contradict. Just to be sure he didn't misunderstand, he asked: “You mean the special chamber behind the storage room?“
- >
- > “Sure,“ Dick replied angry, “what else should I mean?”
- >
- > “It's as good as done,” the assistant said, as he hastened away. Probably not so much due to solicitude, as due to self-protection. When Dick was angry, it was not a good idea to be close.
- Note again that the narrator makes it clear that the idea is flawed, implying that the author knows it, too.
- While in the examples above the logic is bad enough that nobody would likely have considered the author to believe it anyway, the same techniques can also be applied to ideas where it is not that clear.
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-13T09:04:47Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35968 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T08:46:03Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35968 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
The narrator knows about the thoughts. And the narrator will know that the thoughts are illogical, and can distance himself/herself from the thoughts. Of course that only works if the narrator isn't the villain in first-person. For example, you might write something like: > Dick thought about his problem. How on earth could he lock a door that did not even have a lock? Sure, he could block it from the inside, but that would mean he would have to be inside, and that was not possible. He could order someone else to stay inside, but his people were unreliable, so that was not really an option either. So what to do? > > Finally he had what he considered the perfect idea: Just put a sign on the door: “This door is locked. Any attempt to get inside is futile.” Dick was sure: Yes, that would definitely work. He was absolutely convinced that nobody would ever even try to open that door. After all, it was written there plainly that trying was futile, so why should they waste their time? They couldn't know that it was a lie. > > Dick was happy about that solution he thought he had found, and immediately went to ordering such a sign. Note how the narrator always explicitly attributes the logic to Dick. The formulations should make it clear that the _narrator_ doesn't think it is a reasonable strategy, and since the narrator knows that it is stupid, it is clear that the author knows it, too. **Edit:** The question was edited to state that the narrator only knows the actions, but not the thoughts of the characters. For that case, notice that even if the narrator does not know the thoughts, he/she can speculate about them, or draw conclusions from previous behaviour. Or the thoughts might be uttered by the character, and then the narrator can directly comment on them. For example, with the new restriction, the door sign “solution” might be introduced like this: > Dick was wandering around, constantly murmuring: “How on earth can I lock that door?” It apparently was a hard problem for him, given the time he spent on it. And granted, locking a door that had no lock is not an obvious problem to solve. > > Then suddenly his face brightened. He called out for his personal assistant: ”Order a sign, saying ‘This door is locked. Any attempt to get inside is futile.’ And make sure that sign is put on the door to the chamber.” > > The servant momentarily looked confused. But that passed quickly; after all, it wasn't the first time he had been given orders of questionable utility. And he was smart enough not to contradict. Just to be sure he didn't misunderstand, he asked: “You mean the special chamber behind the storage room?“ > > “Sure,“ Dick replied angry, “what else should I mean?” > > “It's as good as done,” the assistant said, as he hastened away. Probably not so much due to solicitude, as due to self-protection. When Dick was angry, it was not a good idea to be close.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2018-05-07T03:39:36Z (almost 6 years ago)
Original score: 61