• The Musicks
    • Chad
    • Kisstopher
    • Rasta
    • About Us
    • Supporters
  • Podcast
    • Podcast (with transcripts)
    • Podcast feed
    • Blubrry
    • iTunes
    • PlayerFM
    • PodBean
    • RadioPublic
    • Spotify
    • Stitcher

The Musicks in Japan

  • The Musicks
    • Chad
    • Kisstopher
    • Rasta
    • About Us
    • Supporters
  • Podcast
    • Podcast (with transcripts)
    • Podcast feed
    • Blubrry
    • iTunes
    • PlayerFM
    • PodBean
    • RadioPublic
    • Spotify
    • Stitcher
Home  /  Writing  /  One event, multiple perspectives
07 August 2019

One event, multiple perspectives

Written by Chad Musick
Chad Musick
Writing Comments are off

In narrative writing, there are always at least two perspective’s: the writer’s and the reader’s. Works with one first-person narrator may add only this third perspective, but writers can add more perspectives without adding more points of view.

Let’s suppose we’re writing a single first-person scene involving more than one character. The main character will do something (perhaps they will merely think, which is itself an act, but let’s let them do something more dynamic) and tell us about it. This is our perspective on it.

But we don’t receive this information in a context-free way. As a reader, we bring along our own set of feelings and experiences. If the character’s action is wonderful or exciting or repugnant, we feel those things, independently of how the character feels. If the author has written about or implied things beyond the narrator’s words, that’s another perspective (and distinct from the character’s).

And now, on top of these three perspectives, we add the other character. They, too, will have some reaction to the main character’s action. In first-person narration, that reaction will be filtered through the main character’s voice, so we will have to reconstruct it, just as the author had to construct it in the first place.

To convey this multiplicity of perspectives, the goal should not be that all accounts of it are consistent with one another. This doesn’t happen in life, and it’s not very powerful in storytelling. Instead, the goal should be that all accounts of it convey the import of the actions through the lens of each witness, distorted by the lens of each reporter.

Having multiple perspectives doesn’t help us merely to understand what has happened. It helps us to understand the characters better. Sometimes, we can learn more about them from how they react to actions (what emotions did they express? what emotions did they have but deny? etc.) than from what they do.

For me, “what happened?” is often the least interesting question. “How did it reveal our change the characters?” is the question that keeps me reading.

Chad Musick
Chad Musick

 Previous Article Happiness Challenge for August 6, 2019
Next Article   Rocking natural hair in Nagoya

Related Posts

  • Writing in becalmed seas

    November 13, 2019
  • Surf (a poem)

    November 6, 2019
  • Writing as a standalone skill

    October 16, 2019

Ways to show support

Become a Patron!

  • Connect on Facebook
  • Connect on Twitter
  • Connect on Instagram

Recent Posts

  • Episode 82: The nature of privilege (transcript only)
  • Introducing my girlfriend to my mother
  • Wanting to be a father
  • Relationship pacing
  • My Japanese Friendships

Latest Podcasts

  • Episode 159: Medical Care in Japan vs the U.S.
  • Episode 158: Socializing in Japan vs the US
  • Episode 157: Studying for a PhD in the U.S. vs Japan

bloompixel

Archives

  • November 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Social Media

  • Connect on Facebook
  • Connect on Twitter
  • Connect on Instagram
© Copyright 2018, Chad and Kisstopher Musick, unless otherwise noted.