You know how I mentioned yesterday that established traditional publishing people seem to be just as locked into a shallow, "editing makes it better" idea of craft as unskilled indies?
I saw a link to a post about "deep point of view." I am extremely interested in point of view issues. It's one of those issues which I have studied since I was in grad school, and still feel there is so much more to learn. (I won't tell you how long it has been since grad school.)
So I clicked eagerly on this link. I didn't expect a dissertation. Even some shallow insight can be useful....
And I found the author actually didn't know what deep point of view was. She thought the difference was editing. Take out the "he thought" or "she felt" phrases in a sentence and voila, it's different!
No no no no no no no NO!
I'm not against taking out "he thought" or "she felt." They're not necessary, and depending on narrative voice and sentence clarity, you probably want to cut most of them out.
But by themselves they don't actually affect the voice or the reading or the immediacy of the sentence. They're like tag lines; mostly invisible to the audience, except they are so frequent they clutter up the story and dilute the voice.
But weeding them out is editing, not voice. It's not a matter of substance, and it will not give you more control over your point of view.
But there's also a Yes yes yes yes YES.
Later in the article, the author actually did get into substantive things. Once you get to the part headed "Inside Out, Outside In" her advice is good. I don't agree with all of it, but she tells you about how to write in the voice of a character, and that is incredibly important to deep points of view.
So here's the link: What is Deep POV?
This inspires me to write more about the theory behind point of view, and how, like tense, a lot of smart people get it wrong. But not now.
See you in the funny papers.