At 07:11 PM 5/24/02 +0000, you wrote:
> >I suspect that in general audio books would work
better
> >from the first-person viewpoint.
>Not always. A couple of mine have gone into
audiobook, with a woman
>reader of course. She's ok when she's Dido Hoare, but
when she reads
>dialogue "she do voices". The real life role model
for Ernie Weekes
>(no, I don't usually do this, it's a family joke) has
refused to allow
>his mother to listen to the tapes. As for
Barnabas....
>
>I too am very doubtful that there is anything
specifically hard-boiled
>(or not) about the point of view. First person maybe
allows a more
>intimate insight into a character, but the truth it
voices is obviously
>only objective about the character's own limited
vision with any
>resulting errors. It expresses character, it doesn't
form it. Third
>person can provide either an objective view of the
personality of the
>protagonist, or a limited insight (hello, Dr Watson),
or stick very
>intensely to the experience of the main character in
a book or a section
>of a book: D Sayers and J Ellroy, for instance? (Now
that coupling I
>just couldn't resist. I may be
hysterical.)
Hi Marianne,
I have found when writing in this genre (or in any genre, for
that matter) that first person is more difficult to pull off
than either third person omniscient or limited third person
(e.g. your example of Dr. Watson). Your discussion of the
relative strengths of each has me curious though. Which is
your preferred method of exposition?
Brian
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 27 May 2002 EDT