latent omni
Oct. 15th, 2006 12:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennyThe Mirador, Chapter 5: 10,808 words
I've realized something. And this is at least the second time I've realized it, so I'm going to write it out in the hopes that maybe I won't have to reinvent the wheel a third time.
What I've realized is that every book I write has to be written in latent omni.
By which I do not mean every book must be written in omniscient. That would be a silly thing to say, since all of my books to date have been written in limited first person* with multiple narrators. I mean that the deep structure of the book (pick your metaphor: backstage, or the reverse side of the tapestry, or whatever works for you) has to make sense from all perspectives.
That is to say, the antagonist's actions have to make sense from his or her point of view. I've blogged about this before. But it's more than that, which I think is why I had to have the epiphany again. My books (and, please notice, I'm not saying this is true for anybody else--it might be, and I think it might help as a thing to keep in mind, which is the other reason I'm posting this, but, on the other hand, it could just be that I'm on crack) need to have the constant potential to swing wide and zoom in on somebody else. Because if I can write them like that, I won't hit the problems I hit in The Virtu, and that I've hit in The Mirador, where various characters' actions are perfectly logical in service to the plot, (i.e., as part of the surface structure), but make no sense when contemplated in terms of that character's own motivations, goals, and plans. This way lies cardboard villainry, and that is a thing I most emphatically do not want.
I know I won't get Summerdown right on the first pass, and I am (trying to be) at peace with that. But I'm hoping that at least I can make some new mistakes, instead of these boring old ones.
---
*It is quite possible to write in omniscient first person. The Victorians did it all the time.
I've realized something. And this is at least the second time I've realized it, so I'm going to write it out in the hopes that maybe I won't have to reinvent the wheel a third time.
What I've realized is that every book I write has to be written in latent omni.
By which I do not mean every book must be written in omniscient. That would be a silly thing to say, since all of my books to date have been written in limited first person* with multiple narrators. I mean that the deep structure of the book (pick your metaphor: backstage, or the reverse side of the tapestry, or whatever works for you) has to make sense from all perspectives.
That is to say, the antagonist's actions have to make sense from his or her point of view. I've blogged about this before. But it's more than that, which I think is why I had to have the epiphany again. My books (and, please notice, I'm not saying this is true for anybody else--it might be, and I think it might help as a thing to keep in mind, which is the other reason I'm posting this, but, on the other hand, it could just be that I'm on crack) need to have the constant potential to swing wide and zoom in on somebody else. Because if I can write them like that, I won't hit the problems I hit in The Virtu, and that I've hit in The Mirador, where various characters' actions are perfectly logical in service to the plot, (i.e., as part of the surface structure), but make no sense when contemplated in terms of that character's own motivations, goals, and plans. This way lies cardboard villainry, and that is a thing I most emphatically do not want.
I know I won't get Summerdown right on the first pass, and I am (trying to be) at peace with that. But I'm hoping that at least I can make some new mistakes, instead of these boring old ones.
---
*It is quite possible to write in omniscient first person. The Victorians did it all the time.
