Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Writing: Use of mirror characters

I saw this information on a writing message board and it made a lot of sense to me. Thought I'd share.

I read somewhere that that's why they introduced Robin to the comicbooks: the writers (and probably the readers, too) were tired of having Batman talking to himself so much.

Hey, what great timing! I'm working on a story right now where I realized I was going to have to use a lot of internal monologue. And since that is something I don't do well, I needed a solution. So I decided to bring in Lucy as a 'sounding board'. It's great to see I'm doing this right

(Of course, the only reason I brought in Lucy was because I don't do internal monologue well. I wish I'd realized sooner that it was an approved technique )

ML

Sounds like a good technique...but what I don't get is why the hero (man) rates a capital "H" but the heroine (female) only gets a lowercase "h". Does that seem fair to y'all?

I have to say that this has always been a method I've particularly not enjoyed in fiction. It really has to be done well, otherwise it simply becomes boring exposition.

Maybe I just haven't seen many good examples of it so far. Or it reminds me too much of TV shows where the character informs the audience "Oh, look, here's Brian" when we can see perfectly well for ourselves that Brian just walked in the door.

OTOH, if it's going to be done effectively, our authors are the ones to do it. Maybe some of them will change my mind in the future. <g>

Interesting too to read that romance readers expect introspection as I'd been of the impression that - in common with most published novel genres - introspection was something to avoid when writing a modern romance novel. Learn something new.... <g>

LabRat

They could also be referred to as a big "h" and a little "h" -- and men are generally bigger than women.

As far as introspection and exposition, it's a matter of balance. I have one friend who is often heard saying "It's ALL in the execution." Boring exposition versus boring introspection? It's still boring.

Original post edited because after rereading this again, I answered my own question <g>.

Anyway, since I'm here, I agree about the expository problem of having characters launch into dialogue just to have information disseminated. It's very annoying to be treated like we can't figure out stuff ourselves.

I've always understood that any character in a story should serve a purpose, and I have a hard enough time doing that without adding characters whose sole reason for existence is to provide an invisible friend for the hero or heroine. Maybe I'm just a lazy writer <g>.

But I have to concede that too much internal dialogue and introspection does get tedious, so perhaps there is a happy medium.

Lynn

Ah, something I actually know something about to pull me out of deep lurk mode.

There is one major element to take into consideration when talking about introspection in romances as opposed to other genres and that's the almost routine use of dual perspectives in the romance novels of today. Thirty years ago, romances were almost exclusively HER story and not his. Most of the time then it was rare to even get a clue to what he was thinking much less feeling until the end of the book and even then readers couldn’t be sure. A situation that eventually led to some major discontent within the genre's readership and basically a writing revolution as authors began experimenting with the tried and true format.

Nowadays, romances are for the most part THEIR story and it's a big distinction with regards to introspection and points of view. It's actually uncommon to find a romance today that doesn't have both the hero's and heroine's point-of-views intermingled more or less equally. Sure sometimes that gets to the point of head-hopping but that is not always the sin it sounds like in the hands of a good romance writer and especially in love scenes.

More than anything else, though, one of the cardinal rules of romance writing today is that romance readers expect to know what's going on in HIS head and heart right along with hers. They want to experience that total emotional journey of TWO people coming together and that's when introspection becomes of immense importance.

And let’s not forget to mention the total sensory aspect of love scenes themselves. I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the romances author's I've read who are able work conversations into love scenes without ruining the mood.

So, yeah, romance readers probably do expect more introspection but it's not necessarily because of the emphasis on internal conflict alone. Put it this way, keeping all the above in mind, consider this - as much as romance authors might want to use conversations and actions to convey these emotional internalizations, is there not a limit on how much one can realistically expect a MAN to vocalize, or even act on, what he's thinking and feeling? (ducking)

Seriously, though, I doubt that most other fiction genres encounter THAT particular problem on a routine basis even when multiple points of views are used in stories. Even poor Clark, as sensitive as he was portrayed on L&C, had a strong tendency to clam up most of the time when it came to romantic issues instead of having those "important" conversations.

It’s definitely all about finding that balance within the context of what’s expected in the genre.

Beverly :-)
http://www.booksanctuary.com

Interesting point you bring up about POV. Silhouette is bringing out a series this year that will detour from the norm and be written solely in the hero's POV. I'm looking forward to it.

I've heard about this and I'm definitely curious about how successful it will be, although I do tend to view it as another grand experiment that may or may not succeed at all. Okay, let me rephrase that so that it doesn’t seem like I’m not even willing to give them a chance because I am. I am really interested in how romance readers in general receive them, myself included.

Playing with limiting the stories to the hero’s POV is also probably the next logical step in the “evolution” of romance novels but I don’t think it’s necessarily a step forward. In terms of variety it could easily be seen that way if done in limited amounts but, as a long time reader, I would not want to see it become the norm because I’m quite happy with the dual perspective format.

If nothing else having some books in the hero’s POV could provide a type of balance, though, because there are the occasional romances written entirely from the heroine’s point of view (limited third person) today that do work quite well. There are also those written in first person heroine POV but they’re even more rare because there one doesn’t have the benefit of the occasional views of support characters to help flesh out the story and action. (Not to mention that I hate reading love scenes in the first person. Ugh.) Generally, though, limited third and especially first person viewpoints require additional plot elements than the core romance to work for me, personally, and usually that additional thing is a mystery of some type.

Mystery there means not just a whodunit but anything from whodunits to paranormal happenings to secret identities to hidden supernatural abilities – whatever might put the role/motives/identities of the “other” in question. Think traditional Gothic romance. Consider the difference if Superman’s story had originally been told entirely from Lois’ point of view, at least until the revelation happens. In any of those instances a very logical argument can be made for keeping the reader in the dark to enhance the final impact. IOW, to me there at least has to be a logical reason for choosing to present a romance that way or I become one very frustrated romance reader, so I'm really curious to see what the publishers and authors think are good reasons for presenting hero POV romances.

Beverly :-)
http://www.booksanctuary.com

The only books in first person heroine POV that I enjoy reading are Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum books. And the love scenes are usually limited to a smidgeon of foreplay and then an "OHMIGOD!" Most of it is left to the reader's imagination.

Harlequin/Silhouette is constantly looking to evolve the romance novel. They've added new lines (Flipside - longer romantic comedy and Luna - paranormals) and within existing lines new guidelines have been drawn up. My favorite line is Desire which is heavy on the emotion and sensuality but not as explicit as the Blaze line. Desire got a new editor last year and she's put the kibosh on elements of intrigue and too much comedy. Also the use of children in Desires has been discouraged -- hard to get the H and h together when they're tending to the kids. I personally hate to see any elements limited because I could name favorites that included humor, intrigue and a secret baby.

Interesting idea about the Lois and Clark story being told exclusively from one POV or another -- up to the revelation. Or imagine if it was told say from Perry's POV. Or Cat's!

I have a question here? Do men think the way women do about problems in their lives?

The reason I ask is this is that I wrote a story once and gave it to a friend to read. After she read the story, I asked what she thought and she said: 'Do men think that much?'

Anyway, when I thought about it, it occurred to me that the way I discuss problems with the men and the women in my life is quite different. When I talk to women, I find that we spend most of our time talking about the emotions behind the problem. When I talk to men, they seem to be looking for the solution. So is it the same when we think? Do men think about finding the solution more than they dwell on the emotions?

Any men (in particular) out there who would care to enlighten me?

ML

A wise sage once told me<g>. A man thinks in a straight line from point A to point B. A woman thinks in circles all around it. Men and Women think differently. It is a proven fact. Different parts of our brains are active. If you have ever read Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, you will understand the differences better<g> That was a delightful book that came out early 90's I believe. It is a fun way to explain our differences. Laura

I was going to mention the Mars/Venus book but Laura beat me to it. One thing that men need to learn is that when a woman comes to him with a problem, she doesn't want a solution; she just wants a sounding board.

I can't say for sure, but men probably do think a lot. They just don't verbalize about it. I'll be anxious to see if any of the fellas post here.

The Plum books are also some of the few I like in first person but then again technically they’re not romances. I forget but they’re either listed as straight fiction or mystery. Personally, I think they’re more comedy than anything else but that’s just me. <VBG> Another set I like that’s not romance but mystery with romantic elements and is in first person is the Amelia Peabody series by Elizabeth Peters.

I have run across at least one or two romances within the last year or so written in first person and that did have extended love scenes. All I can say is that frankly I always find those scenes in particular to be just weird reading in first person. Thing is, though, that I don’t normally have any problem reading a mystery or even the occasional fantasy in first person but it does tend to drive me crazy in a romance unless there’s a logical reason for it as I explained earlier. So much so that I’ve developed the theory that the reason I feel that way is because first person romances without any other plot focus tend to have an extremely narcissistic quality to them that I do not personally enjoy. Dual perspective is like a healthy whole by comparison. All of which explains why I’m sticking way clear of the new wave of Chick Lit because so many of those ARE intentionally written in first person, have barely any romance and absolutely no extra plot. (Think Bridgett Jone’s Diary.) Oye.

I don’t think I could ever feel completely comfortable writing in first person but I’ve been playing with Lois’ POV in limited third idea at least until the revelation in at least one of my own WIP for years now. It’s an interesting exercise because we’ve become so used to “seeing” through Clark’s eyes that we don’t normally take into account how those things that the others aren’t supposed to know really affects their reactions. Superman’s story is one of those where we as “readers” can’t go back and unlearn what we already know, so it’s really difficult to put myself in that place at times. It really would be nice to have the benefit of Herb’s time machine.

An interesting tip I’ve picked up from romance writers is to color code and/or thread the POV of the various characters so that they can be separated out even if you plan to use them all. That way, you can visually “see” what each person is saying, thinking and feeling to see if you’ve overlapped where you weren’t supposed to or if you need to use another character to tell that part of the story instead. It also lets you more easily see if that character stays in character, too.

Beverly :-)
http://www.booksanctuary.com

A really good romance novel written throughout in the first-person POV of the heroine?

Simple. Jane Eyre.


Wendy

Count me in on those who avoid chick lit. I've only read one that I enjoyed -- STRAPLESS by Leigh Riker -- and it was NOT done in first person. Many reviewers also don't feel that it's true chick lit either.

As for Jane Eyre, I know it's a classic, but like lots of other classics, I just couldn't wade through it. My husband and I were having a discussion last week about un-favorite authors. The Bronte sisters, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne topped the list for both of us. Of course we each had a few favorites in common and a few that one liked and the other didn't. Just shows how everyone's tastes are varied.

Jane Eyre? Are you kidding? /me starts looking for a place to hurl. I've been forced to read that book for one class or another around 10 times. Like all things labeled as "classics", it's depressing. Hate it. I'd rather read something that makes me laugh and have a good time. I'm not fond of wallowing, and they seem to do a lot of it. Give me Evanovich any day--the mental images are *priceless*.

Laura (who has to read a lot of "classics", because she's an English major)

I'm sorry you guys hate it... personally, the Brontes and Jane Austen are among my favourite writers ever. But, regardless of whether or not you like it, Jane Eyre is a classic and much-loved example of a first-person POV heroine... and it works precisely because we have no idea what Rochester is really up to and whether he really loves Jane or was simply leading her on the whole time.

You should try reading it again when you're not being forced to read it for English class, Laura. I know I appreciated Wuthering Heights far more re-reading it as an adult than I did when it was on my Leaving Certificate syllabus.


Wendy

<revolted> Wuthering Heights? Yuck. That's probably among my most hated books. And not all of those were for classes, actually. My grandma is a big believer in classics--she conned me into reading Jane Eyre at the tender age of 12. It has not improved upon successive rereadings. None of the Bronte's stuff has. I hate the style. The heroines don't move me, and I don't care what happens to them.

Tolkein is more fun, and he's long winded...

Laura