Crime, Mysteries & Thrillers discussion

Marie-Jo wrote: "Chris wrote: "To me it depends how the book reads, both can be good reads."

I totally agree with that. A good book is a good book."

So do I. If the story line, the character development and the actual writing is poor, doesn't what whether it is first-person or not. And I find that if the book is good, I don't notice whether it is written one way or the other.

I also find that present and past tense doesn't bother me, as long as it is consistent. Passive verbs do however bug me, especially in a mystery.

Janet wrote: "Steven wrote: "All,
I've heard about some weird other choices. Second person singular? Present tense? Anyone read books written this way? I can't imagine getting through something like that.
Anothe..."

Sorry you didn't enjoy Mantel's books, Janet. I thought the present tense was effective in drawing the reader in. Past tense would have perhaps made it feel like I was reading a history book, and it was a novel first and foremost.

Steven wrote: "Janet,
I never would have guessed that. Historical novel and present tense seems like an elaborate oxymoron. The last prize winner I read, though, was Garcia Marquez (in the original Spanish), so w..."

Exactly what I thought. Fortunately I browsed through before buying.

All,
An update: I've just reviewed a book for Bookpleasures, reposted it to Amazon (author's request), and will repost it to my blog next week (author's request). It's an unusual book in the following sense: Like the one Janet mentioned, it's present tense, but it's also first person. As an author/reader/reviewer, I was a bit leery. But it worked! I don't think Steve, the author, will attempt it, though. LOL.
r/Steve

FIrst person present tense…can be good, can be limiting. Even first person past tense can be tedious (all the "I" "I" "I''s). I like 3rd person past with an OCCASIONAL or RARE transition into a different character's POV if it adds depth to the story. LIke Steven, I browse through the first chapter before choosing to read.

I tend to prefer books written in the third person but that is not to say some written in the first are not as good.

I tend to find that first person books are better where it is written from the view of someone other than the main character. Something like some of the Poirot books where they are in the first person as Captain Hastings.

However, nothing bugs me more than someone talking about themselves in the fourth person. Anyone who does this should be made to live as a hermit for three months.

Mike,
Talking about himself or TO himself? :-) I talk to my characters all the time, and somedays I'd like to be a hermit.
I just finished Eleven by Carolyn Arnold. She flipped between first (MC) and third (others) and it was effective; I just read it for R&R, like any reader. I do that in my detective series too. My 90+ -year-old neighbor just finished #1 in that series and loved it.
Here's an adage about fiction: if it works for enough readers, OK; if it doesn't, rethink what you're doing. No one will like everything. That's why readers have favorite authors.
r/Steve

I'm still trying to figure out "fourth person," Mike.

Steven….your adage works for nonfiction, too. That's why computers have a delete key. If an approach isn't working across a variety of readers, scrap it.

Steven wrote: "Mike,
Talking about himself or TO himself? :-) I talk to my characters all the time, and somedays I'd like to be a hermit.
I just finished Eleven by Carolyn Arnold. She flipped between first (MC) a..."

Talking about themselves such as a certain person wanting to become US president keeps doing.

I sometimes do talk to myself, my excuse when asked by the boys I teach is that I can be assured of intelligent conversation that way.

M.A.R. wrote: "I'm still trying to figure out "fourth person," Mike.

Steven….your adage works for nonfiction, too. That's why computers have a delete key. If an approach isn't working across a variety of readers..."

An example would be when Donald Trump (ugh saying that name makes me feel dirty all over) says "Donald Trump is going to do....'

Oh, you Urban Grammar folks, making it up as you go along and citing dubious sources. Argue all you want. Your example is third person limited. Just as Queen Victoria's "royal we" is an example of first person (plural). Your example--"Donald Trump (he) is going to do..." It doesn't matter who the narrator is. English has three personal pronouns (Point of View) 1st (I, we), 2nd (you), 3rd (he, she…it).

I can only go by what I was taught by my English language teacher when I was at school. In that talking about yourself (1st person) by using your name (third person) at the same time makes it the fourth person.

Whether it is third or fourth it still irritates me when people do it.

Sorry. Your English language teacher needs a refresher course. (English prof/writer/editor speaking here). POV refers to the pronoun used. I agree that when a person speaks about himself/herself in 3rd person, it's annoying, irritating, and an invitation to scream in order to drown out the sound. How's that?

She will probably have retired by now as this was back in 1994 when I was sitting my GCSEs and she had been at the school many years before I started there in 1989.

It grates on me almost as much as people saying "expresso" rather than "espresso"

M.A.R.,
Sorry. POV is more than the pronoun used. Certain POVs go with certain persons, of course, but what about omniscient? That's often used in sci-fi, for example, when the author is world-building (specific to sci-fi but more precise than "narrative").
The classic work on POV is Card's Characters and Viewpoint. Using it correctly isn't that easy. I know; it was a learning process for me. One good reviewer (in a review that was more than the thumbs-up-and-down reviews most Amazon reviews reduce to--OMG, I'll end a sentence with a prep...an omniscient G!) was nice enough to call me to task for it early on. Ironically, I had already read Card's tome. I've been careful with POV ever since.
Mike,
"Espresso" is Italian and has an uptight je ne sais quoi feel to it, but coffee bar espressos in the U.S, compare poorly to Rome's. We tend to borrow from other languages, the word becoming a part of English. It's amusing when we have the perfectly good word "express" that could be used. "Expresso" is a bastardization.
I once had a debate with a French friend (we both worked in Bogota) about his use of "le weekend." He insisted it was French and we stole it from them. Their alternate would be "le fin de semaine" or similar, comparable to Spanish's "el fin de semana," both a bit kludgy. I guess Latinos are more purists about language than the French! :-)
M.A.R. & Mike,
My apologies. I'm feeling a wee bit pedantic this morn'. Perhaps I need an espresso instead of my usual two mugs of good old joe?
r/Steve

M.A.R. wrote: "Sorry. Your English language teacher needs a refresher course. (English prof/writer/editor speaking here). POV refers to the pronoun used. I agree that when a person speaks about himself/herself in..."

They always change the rules. I still insist on the "Oxford comma" even though others insist it's not needed.

Kirsten,
I use the "Oxford comma" too. It just seems more logical to do that. I think we'll see a lot more rules change as this texting generation (e.g. millennials) becomes writers. Of course, when I see Kelper streaming across a news feed on TV instead of Kepler, I begin to wonder about the future of the English language. ;-) But maybe that was just an auto-correct from a computer program? I hate that. I'm still trying to teach MS Word the difference between it's and its. And my version dares to tell me that I'm confused!
r/Steve

Our local news station - we joke - lets 15-year old boys type up the text for the news stories. That's the only excuse for all the misspellings.

I love it! We're now into my pet peeves on grammar. And the discussion on people speaking about themselves in the third person struck a real chord with me because I got something yesterday where the person wrote a whole message in which he acted as if the individuals he was writing about (himself and his wife) were someone else. I wanted to throw something!

I understand it with royalty or a president because they are often speaking about a bigger situation -- a company, a country, etc. -- but if you're writing about something that happened to you -- as an individual or a couple as the case may be -- don't be coy about it.

And there, I have taken us completely away from the subject of this thread! :)

Kirsten,
What about the 15-year-old girls? ;-)
I really don't care who types them up, but someone should edit them. I can't remember specific cases, but some of those news feeds come out hilarious.
I don't use a smart phone, but I've heard from those who do that they hate the auto-correct. I guess memory limitations make it a lot more stupid on the phones than in WP packages. Ah, technology...isn't it great?!
r/Steve

Steven wrote: "M.A.R.,
Sorry. POV is more than the pronoun used. Certain POVs go with certain persons, of course, but what about omniscient? That's often used in sci-fi, for example, when the author is world-buil..."

POV and pronoun referent are intertwined. HOW the authors deals with it can vary. Although some people like to say omniscient is a "different animal," it uses the same referent as 3rd person, so it is generally referred to as "3rd person omniscient." There are methods of interjecting narrator's voice, etc. For a relevant discussion from an editor/writer, see: http://theeditorsblog.net/2012/07/26/...

M.A.R.,
We're now in violent agreement. ;-)
I guess I object to "3rd person omniscient" because the "3rd person" seems superfluous (I'm a minimalist writer). I can' imagine "1st person omniscient" (ecclesiastical Russian?) or "2nd person omniscient." I'll have to check Card to see if he makes any distinction.
Card's title underlines another nexus: POV and person are related to characterization.
I love it when we discover that things aren't binary--there are fifty shades of gray.
Pamela,
I think the digression was a logical one. Handling POV well is part of grammar in a sense, at least for a writer. Of course, my MS Word grammar checker doesn't check for POV errors, but I never trust it anyway. For example, it calls attention to every passive phrase as if I committed a mortal sin. Scientific narrative (world-building in sci-fi) often has to be passive (maybe nixing that "third person" addition to "omniscient"?)
r/Steve

Steven…look at the discussion I referenced. Somehow you're now playing a word game. If "3rd person" is superfluous (or redundant), then you have confirmed omniscient POV as 3rd person omniscient. Card explains various ways to employ POV and multiple POVx. Minimalist or not, do you use pronouns when you write about characters? Or, as in CATCH-22 style, do you redact everything but the pronouns? (Just a joke)

M.A.R.,
Actually, I don't. I tend to avoid pronouns when I can. Whether first or third person, pronouns are often superfluous. Minimalist writing (sometimes called hard-boiled in crime writing) often skips the pronoun. Why say "I could have gone down that road" when "Could have gone down that road" works just as well (that even mimics how people speak). Many languages do that as a matter of course (Russian and Spanish come to mind).
Don't try to shore up a shaky nexus between person and POV. They're really two different things that often handshake, and if you don't realize that, you're not a writer. And let's get back to topic. This thread is about person, not POV.
But you're right...it's all just semantics. You say po-tah-toe; I say po-tay-toe. A writer should know the rules; choices made about which ones to follow is part of her or his style. Too many are inventions created by English professors who have can't write a good story. For me, the story is key. 'Nough said.
r/Steve

It depends on the story. I like both. I prefer 1st person because, like many have said, it invests you into the characters more. You as the reader become that character. I also like a really well written third person. Like I said, as long as the story is good and the characters are strong, I can go either way.

Rebecca,
For the author, it's matching the story (your observation) and a question of style(her or his preference). It's not an easy decision to make, but an author should always expect some readers will be uncomfortable with her or his choice.
The same can said about a lot of writing choices, of course.
r/Steve

I agree, Steven. I write as well. I like using first person. But will use third as well. Sometimes one just works better with a certain story. :)

Steven wrote: "M.A.R.,
Actually, I don't. I tend to avoid pronouns when I can. Whether first or third person, pronouns are often superfluous. Minimalist writing (sometimes called hard-boiled in crime writing) oft..."

Hmm. I'm not the first person (no pun intended) to mention POV…why the attack? Of course, it's all part of characterization, my mentioning pronoun referents was just a way of describing "person."