Q & A With Renni Browne
Invisible Authors and Omniscient Narrators
Q. I've just finished rereading the point of view chapter and I notice there you make an interesting point about "authorial transparency" in defense of a position (that I happen to very much agree with) that omniscient narration is seldom the best choice for a contemporary fiction. This got me thinking about your book as a whole and how much of the advice is really about keeping us writers from calling too much attention to ourselves in the writing and keeping readers attention to what's happening on the page.
One one hand I totally get the argument for authorial transparency, unobtrusiveness, etc. But on another, I feel like there's an argument to be made for the idea that the better a writer somebody is, the more their intrusions or more memorable turns of phrase might be assets to the novel rather than a liability and why there might be limits to the extent to which authorial transparency is a good idea.
Any thoughts on this? Aren't we handicapping our ability to make our mark on the world as 'good writers' if we make the author too transparent?
A. What a good question!
A brilliant writer can violate an "inviolable" principle of good writing and you don't mind (more likely you don't notice!) because you're enthralled by what's happening on the page. But that doesn't mean the writer won't know, at least on an instinctive level, the principle being violated. Don't you think brilliant abstract painters know how to draw?
None of the principles in SELF-EDITING FOR FICTION WRITERS are meant to be taken as hard-and-fast rules. They're guidelines, the use of which can make you look like a pro. Writing that calls attention to itself--brilliant or not--makes you look like an amateur. But wouldn't you agree that a really superb turn of phrase intensifies what it's meant to convey more than it calls attention to itself?
I think a firm grasp of the principles of good writing style frees writers to step outside the lines when the effect is worth it. If you've learned self-editing, if your stylistic mechanics are sophisticated, professional, you can get by with anything your talent supports.
To "Said", or Not to "Said"?
A. Go ahead and use "said" and don't fret about it. Readers don't react to "said" the way they do to other words--this elegant, invisible, most common verb for speech slips right past them. Having said that, if you have quite a few in a row following short dialogue lines, you should throw in a beat or two that will identify the speaker with no need for speaker attribution. But if the scene involves only two speakers, attribution may not be necessary for every dialogue passage from each of them. The content may make clear who's speaking.
Dialogue Mechanics
Q. Your advice on dialogue mechanics makes so much sense to me, but I can't help but notice that some of the writers who perennially dominate today's bestseller lists seem to make a habit of ignoring that sage advice. What gives?
A. Some, not all. And those who churn out bestsellers but have weak dialogue mechanics are selling despite them, not because of them. They may get knocked by some reviewers for their amateurish mechanics, too--although many reviewers don't pay attention to their new titles at all. Look at it this way: there are so many factors you can't control when it comes to what happens to your book in the marketplace, assuming it gets to the marketplace. Sophisticated, classy dialogue mechanics is one you can control. They're easy to learn and they make you a better writer.
Narration vs. Interior Monologue
Q. I loved your chapter on interior monologue but I'm still struggling with the difference between narration and interior monologue, especially when writing in the first person. I mean at the end of the day, isn't can't any narrative from the head of a first person narrator be considered I.M? Any thoughts on the gray area here would be appreciated and how I should treat the distinction!
A. The distinction isn't black-gray-white, actually, because "straight" narration can admit a touch of intimacy--intimacy being what characterizes Interior monologue to one degree or another. Let's say your character has to put down her oldest cat, Pandora. You could simply give the reader her trip to the vet with no thoughts whatsoever:
I drove to Duckworth Animal Hospital and held her for the injection. On the way home I bought a heritage rose bush to plant over her.
That's straight narration--and yet the fact that the narrator held the cat while she was being injected and bought a rose bush to plant over her tells the reader that she cared for the cat. Now see the same cat colored to show enough of the narrator's feelings to make it clearly interior monologue.
I drove straight to Duckworth Animal Hospital and held her, oh so gently, while they gave her the injection. On the way home I bought a heritage rose bush to plant over her. Pandora's remains would help it bloom.
So you don't need to struggle with the difference between narration and interior monologue. A strong, distinctive narrative voice will weave naturally back and forth between the two.
SEO by AceSEF