# Narrative Framing



## Conker (Oct 31, 2013)

So here's something I think about often, and maybe I don't need to. 

When you read a book, do you ever take into account the framing of the narrative: how the story is told? An epistolary novel should read a certain way because it's comprised of letters and journal entries, a first person past narration should read a certain way because the narrator is remembering a time lived long ago, etc. 

If you read a first person past novel and the main character dies at the end, do you go "so wait, but how was he telling me this story if he's dead?" 

I had a professor bring this up to me a long time ago when I wrote a dream sequence and had it fade away upon the character's awakening. He said, "but how do we get this if he forgets it right away?" And I thought about that. He was right, I figured, though I was using a third person past narration so maybe he wasn't all that right. I made some mild changes and we were both satisfied.

Let me just vomit out a bunch of examples since I find those easier to work with:

1) _Twilight_ is written in the first person present, and Bella often has very foreshadowing dreams which she promptly forgets upon awakening. How do we get this information if she doesn't have it? She's the narrator afterall. 

2) _The Name of the Wind_ and it's sequel are framed with Kvothe telling his life story. Kvothe remembers much too much to be believable, and he's a long winded bastard to boot. It took me out because I kept thinking, "how does he remember all of this? I can't remember most things from a few weeks ago, but this guy can recall giant chunks of conversation from his childhood." The books themselves are segmented with third person past parts in the beginning and end, both well written. The problem with these parts is that they confirm much of Kvothe's character, meaning his narration isn't unreliable. 

3) _The Hunger Games_ features Katness saying things like "[radaradarada] I think" which drove me nuts because no one thinks in that fashion. People don't narrate their own thoughts. 

4) _Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter _didn't really read like a set of journals, which is what the story was framed to be. I mean, it read like someone from yee olden times wrote it, but the journals themselves either contained way too much information or not enough information to be believable. It didn't feel genuine and that took me out of the story.

I could probably come up with more, and these issues all involve not using third person past, but perhaps you get the idea.

Do any of you think about this when writing or reading? I know it's really killed the immersion for me at times, and it's really cemented the fact that "first person present isn't a voice that should be used for an entire novel" since most authors just can't do it right.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Oct 31, 2013)

I do tend to enjoy it when a first-person narrative takes into account (in the writing style) the personality of the character narrating, instead of being bog-standard. It helps to make a connection to them in a way, as well.



Conker said:


> If you read a first person past novel and the main character dies at the end, do you go "so wait, but how was he telling me this story if he's dead?"



This kills it completely. In more ways than one, actually. For me, I tend to overthink the narrative, so if a story is written in first-person, I immediately know that (if this is a well-written story, mind) that character will not die. That's a pretty big spoiler right there.



> 2) _The Name of the Wind_ and it's sequel are framed with Kvothe telling his life story. Kvothe remembers much too much to be believable, and he's a long winded bastard to boot. It took me out because I kept thinking, "how does he remember all of this? I can't remember most things from a few weeks ago, but this guy can recall giant chunks of conversation from his childhood." The books themselves are segmented with third person past parts in the beginning and end, both well written. The problem with these parts is that they confirm much of Kvothe's character, meaning his narration isn't unreliable.



With these, it's sometimes best to just go with it. Again, a time where overthinking it kills the mood, and some things should just be taken as they are, not questioned, in order to get the best experience.


----------



## Conker (Oct 31, 2013)

AlexxxLupo said:


> I do tend to enjoy it when a first-person narrative takes into account (in the writing style) the personality of the character narrating, instead of being bog-standard. It helps to make a connection to them in a way, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You might be right with the latter, though at a point, I was so pissed at how poorly paced that book was that I was just looking for more problems  

But it did bother me, truly.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Oct 31, 2013)

Conker said:


> You might be right with the latter, though at a point, I was so pissed at how poorly paced that book was that I was just looking for more problems
> 
> But it did bother me, truly.



That's true. Although if a first-person book was to be completely true-to-memory, it would have a whole other heap of problems. It wouldn't flow properly, dialogue would be pretty terrible, etc.


----------



## Jags (Oct 31, 2013)

I think the main issue is that, when we think in someone else's shoes, we tend to think very literally. As in, in a situation, they'd have one reaction and emotion, and one single thought process. Some authors can separate from this, though I can't find any examples right about now, but in some cases it's fairly obvious that they lost some depth in being simply a figment of the imagination.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 31, 2013)

I've read only two first person perspective series. _The Last Vampire_ and _Maximum Ride_

The only thing I noticed was that James Patterson doesn't know the mind of a 14 year old girl.


----------



## ACraZ (Oct 31, 2013)

AlexxxLupo said:


> This kills it completely. In more ways than one, actually. For me, I tend to overthink the narrative, so if a story is written in first-person, I immediately know that (if this is a well-written story, mind) that character will not die. That's a pretty big spoiler right there.


A pretty recent story I wrote was written first person past, and actually used that knowledge to make the ending a bigger shocker when the narrator does die in the end. Yes it raises the exact question, how was the story recollected, but it can be pulled off in more than a few ways (for instance my story had a main character of an ordinary rabbit, so if you are wondering how it can be put into sentient thoughts at all you will lose the story. That argument would lead to only stream of consciousness writing. One way to pull it off I believe, though I'm not good at explaining, read the story if you care to).
What it really comes down to with all narration and parts of writing is how the author uses them to affect the reader. Like you said, Conker, it was first person present in _Twilight _(never read it myself, going off what you said) so she has these dreams that the _reader_ sees but, being that its present tense, Belle herself forgets because she only experienced it in the moment. Maybe not though, _Twilight_ is not exactly _For Whom The Bell Tolls. 
_There are no "Rules of Writing" that anyone must follow, so everything is under the jurisdiction of the author for what they put in and what they use, and it is all judged by the reader. _The Sound And The Fury_ and _Moby Dick_, great literary works, both completely separate writing style.


----------



## Conker (Oct 31, 2013)

AlexxxLupo said:


> That's true. Although if a first-person book was to be completely true-to-memory, it would have a whole other heap of problems. It wouldn't flow properly, dialogue would be pretty terrible, etc.


That's true, and it's own problem. I guess in the case of _The Name of the Wind_, I wanted some acknowledgement that it was a story being told, even though the whole framing acknowledged that. Kvothe was too good at everything, so him going, "I might be forgetting things" or "this might not be exact" would have humanized him a bit. 

Though that's simply one example. 

It's never an issue with third person though. I've always found some kind of complaint with first person stories, since some things just don't seem to add up, but realistically I suppose they couldn't.


----------



## ACraZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Conker said:


> That's true, and it's own problem. I guess in the case of _The Name of the Wind_, I wanted some acknowledgement that it was a story being told, even though the whole framing acknowledged that. Kvothe was too good at everything, so him going, "I might be forgetting things" or "this might not be exact" would have humanized him a bit.
> 
> Though that's simply one example.
> 
> It's never an issue with third person though. I've always found some kind of complaint with first person stories, since some things just don't seem to add up, but realistically I suppose they couldn't.


I think I have the same thing, I am MUCH more judgmental of first person than third person. I think that's because first person is coming straight from the character's mind, and you will judge that person more than some disembodied voice of third person.


----------



## Conker (Nov 1, 2013)

ACraZ said:


> I think I have the same thing, I am MUCH more judgmental of first person than third person. I think that's because first person is coming straight from the character's mind, and you will judge that person more than some disembodied voice of third person.


That's optimistic of you. 

I consider first person to be a red flag because so many shitty books are written in first person and it seems to be the "thing" to do for young adult novels. I don't know why it's becoming so popular since it's so limiting and much harder to use than third person past.


----------



## ACraZ (Nov 1, 2013)

I think that's a little crazy to call something as common as what view point is used a red flag. That is completely judging a book by its cover. _For Whom The Bell Tolls_ is first person, so is _Anthem,__ The Bone Season, All but my life_, and so, so many more. All great books, all first person. To assume that you can dismiss any writing for what is it composed of instead of what it actually is. That's just.. ridiculous.

I know you have read a lot of Steven King, who generally uses third person (I believe) but Steven King should NOT be your model for good writing. He is a good writer, in the way that he pleased his audiences, but his writing is so popular because it is simple and made for the masses to easily digest. This is not to dismiss him by any means, but his _On Writing_ is not to be followed as a bible. It is a guide on how to get writing done and avoid the pitfalls that un-experienced writers may fall into, it is not something to be read in any college class, or even advanced high school English class. King even says it is for those _entering_ the craft of writing.

The work in question was published after the famous _On Writing Well_ by William Zinsser. Zinsser's work was a guide to writing with depth and complexity, understanding literature more than simple enjoyment that anyone can pick up and read. _On Writing_ is (in the title itself) a book on how to write for those who have never written before, how to write and it be acceptable, not great, not memorable in more than the story, just acceptable. (It is also an autobiography of King himself).


----------



## Conker (Nov 1, 2013)

ACraZ said:


> I think that's a little crazy to call something as common as what view point is used a red flag. That is completely judging a book by its cover. _For Whom The Bell Tolls_ is first person, so is _Anthem,__ The Bone Season, All but my life_, and so, so many more. All great books, all first person. To assume that you can dismiss any writing for what is it composed of instead of what it actually is. That's just.. ridiculous.
> 
> I know you have read a lot of Steven King, who generally uses third person (I believe) but Steven King should NOT be your model for good writing. He is a good writer, in the way that he pleased his audiences, but his writing is so popular because it is simple and made for the masses to easily digest. This is not to dismiss him by any means, but his _On Writing_ is not to be followed as a bible. It is a guide on how to get writing done and avoid the pitfalls that un-experienced writers may fall into, it is not something to be read in any college class, or even advanced high school English class. King even says it is for those _entering_ the craft of writing.
> 
> The work in question was published after the famous _On Writing Well_ by William Zinsser. Zinsser's work was a guide to writing with depth and complexity, understanding literature more than simple enjoyment that anyone can pick up and read. _On Writing_ is (in the title itself) a book on how to write for those who have never written before, how to write and it be acceptable, not great, not memorable in more than the story, just acceptable. (It is also an autobiography of King himself).


Now you're presuming much. 

I like Stephen King, and I've been enjoying his books , but he's not perfect and that's beside the point. 

You have to remember that Hemingway is the exception to the rule, and _Twilight_ seems to have really brought the first person present back into focus because that book was a financial success. I'll gladly read books that were written ages ago, because they've stood the test of time and are probably not shit.

Doesn't excuse thigns written today

And most things in first person present already bring forth questions of "how is this being told to me?" There is a reason why third person is the norm. It kicks away the inherent plot holes of other persons.

_Moby Dick_ is one of my favorite books, and that's in first person past. "Call me Ishmael" it starts. But Melville is an exception to the rule.


----------



## ACraZ (Nov 1, 2013)

Oh my bad. I didn't realize that good books were the exception of your rule that everything written in first person is bad. So if we forget about all the good books being written still today in first person then yes, I completely agree! If we ignore that there are good books, all books are bad! That is logic, after all. But if we don't forget all the good books written and being written now that are first person we see that saying that writing in one of the two style of writing (ignoring the few exceptions for a moment like second person and stream of consciousness) makes it immediately bad and on par with _Twilight is _simply narrow minded, not thought out, and ridiculous.


----------



## Conker (Nov 2, 2013)

ACraZ said:


> Oh my bad. I didn't realize that good books were the exception of your rule that everything written in first person is bad. So if we forget about all the good books being written still today in first person then yes, I completely agree! If we ignore that there are good books, all books are bad! That is logic, after all. But if we don't forget all the good books written and being written now that are first person we see that saying that writing in one of the two style of writing (ignoring the few exceptions for a moment like second person and stream of consciousness) makes it immediately bad and on par with _Twilight is _simply narrow minded, not thought out, and ridiculous.


I'm kinda drunk yet, so forgive me if I miss the point.

There are exceptions to every rule, and not every first person novel is bad. I've named a good one and you've named a few good ones. But in this day and age, I do see it as a red flag. When a Friend told me to grab _The Name of the Wind_ and it's sequel, I did assuming his tastes weren't garbage. When the narration jumped into first person, my hopes plummeted, and those hopes were proven correct.

In reality, there are simply too many books for me to make a statement like I did. I've only read a handful of books when it comes to how many get published, but in my experiences, first person in any way is a red flag for "this will wind up being bad for some narrative reason." So far, I haven't been wrong. 

I do believe it can be done right and well, and I'd like to dabble in it myself more than I have. 

But as it stands, I think it's a bad idea for those who don't have experience with writing, since it makes life all the more difficult and forces you to write as a specific character and in a specific way. 

And that ignores the plot holes it might create.


----------



## chesse20 (Nov 2, 2013)

Sometimes I do.
applegate has this weird style where the book is first person but in each new book your a different person. Like your the smart black guy with OCD and then suddenly your the blue space alien with four legs.


----------



## ACraZ (Nov 2, 2013)

In this day and age? Bad books have been around as long as the first man learned to write! You are obviously drunk if you are even making an argument that half of all the books ever written (as in, first person) are bad because of the narration that use! The reason you don't see any bad books from long long ago is because they are forgotten. No bad or new writing is going to write a good book, period, no matter if they choose first person or third person. You want a list of books written today that are great and first person? Or a list of books written today that are bad and are third person? 

No, I'm not defending first person because its so great or dear to my heart, I'm explaining to a drunk why you cant take something as basic that half the books written are composed of and nullify them all because you cant be bothered enough to find a good book for yourself. If most young adult crap is bad lets look at what narration they used! Not that fact that the writing is poor, the plot is sappy, and the characters are clitche and flat, nonono, that would be crazy, just look at what narration they used! That must mean that first person is crap for EVERY genre! 

Maybe your problem isn't with first person, maybe its that you read nothing but shit books which the genre to which they belong is predominantly first person because the author wants to make the reader feel like they are Belle being swept off her feet. I can guarantee that if Twilight was written third person it would have made no difference in the story. You need to expand your horizons and stop reading crap if you are going to complain about it to the rest of us that the books you read are crap. That's. Logic.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 2, 2013)

Not to impose or anything, but I think the idea is that there's a fad going on right now because of Twilight's success, wherein the market is being flooded with poorly-written YA supernatural romances (or whatever) written in first-person.  So I don't think the point is that 'first-person = bad', but rather that if you pick up a modern book and see that it's written in first person, you should be a bit more wary of it _because of the presence of the Twilight fad_.  Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but I think that's the argument being made.

Anyway, the only thing I'm biased against is second person (you do this, you do that), which seems most useful for Choose Your Own Adventure stories or things like that.  I read an article (for some reason, probably out of sheer boredom) about the American Girl line of dolls, and I guess some of the dolls came with storybooks about the doll that were written in second-person so the little girl who bought it could more easily associate herself with the doll, or something.  I don't know.  That style of narration seems cheap, to me.  
But I generally have few problems with first or third person narration.  I tend to write in limited third, which is like first in terms of p.o.v. but written with third person pronouns, i.e. a kind of mix between the two.  First or limited third does require a little more forethought... I'm thinking about those 'found footage' movies that are so popular now, and how the biggest problem with them tends to come down to 'who is filming this, who is editing this, and why?'  And you can fall into that trap in first pretty easily as well, yeah.  But when you pull it off right it tends to have this nice campfire feel to it, something a little more organic and old-fashioned.  So does it throw me out if I find out the narrator dies at the end?  I guess if it's not ever set up throughout the narration that that was the case, sure, but again that just comes down to bad writing and has little to do with the choice of first-person.  You know... I'd liken it more to trying to use a saw to remove nails from a piece of wood (i.e. if that's the kind of story you want to tell, you might be using the wrong tool).


----------



## Conker (Nov 2, 2013)

It's not like I'm saying every book written in first person is crap or bad. I mean hell, I've specifically agreed with you that there are quite a few good books written in different forms of first person. 

But I do have problems with the first person perspective because it brings up questions of agency and reason. Why is someone telling me this story? It also takes out some of the tension since the teller of the story isn't bound to die at the end, for if that happens, how can he be telling me the story at all? To _The Name of the Wind's_ credit, that was all set up and set up well. Hell, it was even set up in _Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter_ though much more poorly. But if I look at something like _Ready Player One_, Wade is just talking to talk. Sure, he's got a story, it's not really a good one, but I don't know why he thinks I should be listening to it. 



			
				M LeRenard said:
			
		

> Not to impose or anything, but I think the idea is that there's a fad  going on right now because of Twilight's success, wherein the market is  being flooded with poorly-written YA supernatural romances (or whatever)  written in first-person.  So I don't think the point is that  'first-person = bad', but rather that if you pick up a modern book and  see that it's written in first person, you should be a bit more wary of  it _because of the presence of the Twilight fad_.  Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but I think that's the argument being made.


Pretty much this, yeah. It might be one of those things where I've only noticed now due to a random connection between a small sample of books, but that is the point I'm making. 

_The Hunger Games_ would be leagues better if it had been written in some form of third person, and I get this cynical feeling that it was written in first person present because that's just part of the YA genre. 



> But I generally have few problems with first or third person narration.   I tend to write in limited third, which is like first in terms of  p.o.v. but written with third person pronouns, i.e. a kind of mix  between the two.


I lurves me some limited third. You get the intimacy of first person but without the narrative issues.


----------



## ACraZ (Nov 2, 2013)

Well there you go. Stop reading bad YA adult books. Actually, no, stop reading all first person books. They wont miss you. And why? Because there are so many books being written, and so many of those are first person, and so, so many people are going to read them and judge them on the merit of the writing and story that no one is going to care for the tiny minority of people who judge the book by the cover. You are only depriving yourself and looking at the wrong things by reading crappy books and then assuming that if any part of that book or its crappy genre is used in a completely genre and book then it must too be crap.
And limited third person is the most common form of third person, the only other kind is third person omniscient, which is almost as rare, if not more so, than second person. I actually have to ask, and I am sorry and don't mean to insult you, but what form of English education did you get? I only mean if it was non-American so you may have learned different terms for these things, because we seem to be misunderstanding each other


----------



## Conker (Nov 2, 2013)

ACraZ said:


> Well there you go. Stop reading bad YA adult books. Actually, no, stop reading all first person books. They wont miss you. And why? Because there are so many books being written, and so many of those are first person, and so, so many people are going to read them and judge them on the merit of the writing and story that no one is going to care for the tiny minority of people who judge the book by the cover. You are only depriving yourself and looking at the wrong things by reading crappy books and then assuming that if any part of that book or its crappy genre is used in a completely genre and book then it must too be crap.
> And limited third person is the most common form of third person, the only other kind is third person omniscient, which is almost as rare, if not more so, than second person. I actually have to ask, and I am sorry and don't mean to insult you, but what form of English education did you get? I only mean if it was non-American so you may have learned different terms for these things, because we seem to be misunderstanding each other


I try to avoid YA novels like the plague, though there are a few good ones out there. I listen to a lot of audiobooks, and sometimes audible goes "hey, this one is super cheap" so I gamble because why not? Five bucks for an audio book is a damned bargain and I need something to listen to at work. 

But to think that most people judge books on the merit of their writing and story is naive as hell. If that were at all true _Fifty Shades of Grey_ wouldn't be the best seller that it is.

But I think you're also missing the point of this thread, which isn't to say that all first person novels are terrible or that the perspective should be avoided at all costs. But it requires a different level of thinking to make it work, and when that thought isn't used, it takes me out of the story. "Does it bother you when this happens" isn't "ALL BOOKS LIKE THIS ARE SHIT." I wanted to see if others felt the same. For the books I've listed, some minor plot holes with how the story is told is the least of their problems, but it was just one more thing to go, "so the author didn't think about this either."  

I'm a fan of Lovecraft, and almost every short story he wrote is in some level of first person, but you know what, he sets those stories up in logical ways so it doesn't matter (well, most of the time). "I'm writing this down because if I do, maybe it will leave my head" and then the story goes on kind of thing. I want to say _A Princess of Mars_ and its two sequels do the same thing, but I can't quite remember. 

When I see the phrase "limited third person" I think of something like _Game of Thrones_ where the books are narrated as if the character's emotions were directly affecting the narrator. Stephen King does this quite often as well. So there's just following one character around and narrating that, and then there's narrating that with a bit more umph. I figured that's what Renard was talking about, and I'm quite a fan of that. Perhaps I'm operating under an incorrect definition, though Wikipedia seems to say otherwise.

And I don't know what you're getting at when you're saying third person omniscient is rare :\ Shit's used everywhere. To quote Wikipedia, "Historically, the *third-person omniscient* perspective has been the most commonly used; it is seen in countless classic novels, including works by Jane Austen, Leo Tolstoy, Charles Dickens, and George Eliot.  A story in this narrative mode is presented by a narrator with an  overarching point of view, seeing and knowing everything that happens  within the world of the story, including what each of the characters is  thinking and feeling"

I majored in English and have a bachelor's degree.


----------



## ACraZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Alright I understand and will say that that makes sense, a book that the author doesn't think out will fail, though that does go for almost every kind of book, as I said before. The point of this thread that I saw was an opinion on first person and some questions that I didn't understand the point of asking (why a story is being told seemed like such a minor detail to me and few books, great or poor, have bothered to address.)
And yes, people do not judge a book truly by its value, but come on, that's no excuse for anyone who considers themselves serious about literature. In the defense of that mommy porno book, most people have not read it and assume from its infamous reputation that it is terrible. It probably is, but it is a best seller because it is porn. We are on FA, we all know porn sells and to that extent fifty shades is great writing. It did what it set out to do.
Btw are you saying you have a bachelors degree or the person who wrote the Wikipedia article you read from for the definition of third person omniscient? And Wikipedia is infamously not the most reputable source of knowledge. I over-assumed for omniscient, I will admit, which generally can kill most stories if the narrator truly knows all thoughts and all events. Who would read a mystery where you are told everything? Not sure though. A better source than Wikipedia could clarify, if you look under the sources for the wiki pages you can actually find some really good information.
Anyway I think overall you are influenced pretty heavily by the authors and works you love, and that's from everything you have said, and most everything that you have a problem with is stuff that is no used in those works. Some books are good, some are bad, and its very easy to be swayed by a book you fall in love with, and sometimes when you compare that book to a equally well written book that takes a different approach you feel that those things are negative. A question you could ask in third person (most anyway, there are a few that explain who/what the narrator is) is What is the disembodied voice doing talking to me and why is it stalking these characters and taking note of it? That question would usually go unasked because the story is being reported or it would not exist, which can answer the first person question as well. Very few books feel the need to address this unless the character is aware of what they are doing (ex: writing a journal, telling a story around a campfire).


----------



## Conker (Nov 3, 2013)

ACraZ said:


> Alright I understand and will say that that makes sense, a book that the author doesn't think out will fail, though that does go for almost every kind of book, as I said before. The point of this thread that I saw was an opinion on first person and some questions that I didn't understand the point of asking (why a story is being told seemed like such a minor detail to me and few books, great or poor, have bothered to address.)


As soon as a character is doing the telling and not some omniscient deity, I feel the need to ask that question. A third person narrator usually doesn't have a personality and is acting like a camera of sorts, so there's no issue. A first person narrator is also a character with motives and a personality, and when all of that is combined, I start to go "why?" I'll fully admit that I'm probably overthinking things, as I've already said, but it has taken me out of stories before. 

One of the best examples of narrative framing gone awry is _Pamela_ who is writing letters to her sister or friend or somesuch. Don't remember. Anyways, there are points when she's writing, and to keep things current and "in the moment" the lord trying to woo her shows up and chases her around, and we get passages of her writing while she is being chased and flirted with and it's all such a bother! But that of course makes no sense because she'd write that after the fact and not during. 

Fast forward to _Dracula_ which is also an epistolary novel and a god damned good one that makes sense within its framing and you go, "oh shit. This can be done not only well, but very well indeed." 


> And yes, people do not judge a book truly by its value, but come on, that's no excuse for anyone who considers themselves serious about literature. In the defense of that mommy porno book, most people have not read it and assume from its infamous reputation that it is terrible. It probably is, but it is a best seller because it is porn. We are on FA, we all know porn sells and to that extent fifty shades is great writing. It did what it set out to do.


I've read excerpts, the book is poorly written smut and nothing more. Quantity of sales does not equate to quality and it never has. Look at the Michael Bay _Transformers_ movies for an obvious example of that.


> Btw are you saying you have a bachelors degree or the person who wrote the Wikipedia article you read from for the definition of third person omniscient? And Wikipedia is infamously not the most reputable source of knowledge. I over-assumed for omniscient, I will admit, which generally can kill most stories if the narrator truly knows all thoughts and all events. Who would read a mystery where you are told everything? Not sure though. A better source than Wikipedia could clarify, if you look under the sources for the wiki pages you can actually find some really good information.


I have the degree. And Wikipedia is only ever a bad source when it contradicts your own thoughts, at least in terms of internet arguments. Almost every book I own is written in third person omniscient. It's the "go to" for fiction.


----------



## ACraZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Conker said:


> I've read excerpts, the book is poorly written smut and nothing more. Quantity of sales does not equate to quality and it never has. Look at the Michael Bay _Transformers_ movies for an obvious example of that.


This is basic knowledge.. what's your point?
Anyway if you use Wikipedia as your source in any kind of essay you get points taken away in all of my classes. Anyone can say anything in Wikipedia, its the most unreliable source of information next only to opinion pieces on the internet. I'm not being petty and saying your source is wrong because I disagree (or in this case wasn't thinking of the definition), I'm saying that because its true and common knowledge, people here can vouch, or you could go look up credible sources.
 I feel like this has gotten off topic into you attacking what I'm saying and missing the points I make. If you are asking the question of why the first true English novel had problems... well I cant even find where to begin. I never said popularity means anything, I'm saying that we are having a discussion on literature and you have a degree, you cant use that excuse that other people judge a book by irrelevant factors so that means you can. Just by saying that means you are completely undermining everything you have said "Well other people don't think very much" doesn't help any argument. I glanced at your age and realize that you probably got your education before the time of the internet so its understandable that you don't know about Wikipedia; Wikipedia can be edited and written by everyone, and everyone is not an expert at what they say. As I said, if you use it in any paper or essay the paper's reliability goes down the drain. Granted the internet is not an English class, but if we are discussing as intellectuals we cannot, once again, say "Well other people do" as a point, or this stops being an argument and turns into a shout-fest.


----------



## Conker (Nov 3, 2013)

ACraZ said:


> This is basic knowledge.. what's your point?


My point is you said this, "It probably is, but it is a best seller because it is porn. We are on FA,  we all know porn sells and to that extent fifty shades is great  writing. It did what it set out to do." which equates to "it sold well so it must be good." 


> Word vomit


So, that high horse, it nice up there?


----------



## ACraZ (Nov 3, 2013)

You have stopped making sense or points... word vomit? What is that? And you missed the point completely. Fifty shades did its job as in women got "so hawt" by reading it and bought it, so the book did the job it wanted to do. If you don't understand what I am saying now that I have tried to explain, three times, something that explains itself then we cant discuss this. I cannot comprehend you anymore...
I never said word vomit. If you want to put words in my mouth for some reason, I thought we were talking about the merits of narration, not just trying to say "I WIN".


----------



## Conker (Nov 3, 2013)

ACraZ said:


> You have stopped making sense or points... word vomit? What is that? And you missed the point completely. Fifty shades did its job as in women got "so hawt" by reading it and bought it, so the book did the job it wanted to do. If you don't understand what I am saying now that I have tried to explain, three times, something that explains itself then we cant discuss this. I cannot comprehend you anymore...
> I never said word vomit. If you want to put words in my mouth for some reason, I thought we were talking about the merits of narration, not just trying to say "I WIN".


Just because that book did it's job doesn't mean it's good writing. _Transformers_ did it's job in that it was a stupid action flick with explosions, but that doesn't make it good film. I have know idea how there is confusion there. 

I didn't feel like quoting the last half of you so I paraphrased, since what you said amounted to word vomit that doesn't bear discussion. You've spent almost all of this thread talking down to me and I'm finally sick of it.


----------



## ACraZ (Nov 3, 2013)

Ah, now I understand the word vomit thing. Yes, I suppose I did talk down to you which is the result of feeling like you kinda blew me off. With that aside I never said it was good writing, I even said that it was probably terrible. You are trying to prove a point that I never refuted. At this point you've just straight up attacked what I said with little more than "Nope you are wrong I'm right" and that's not the debate I'm trying to have. All I want to do is discus narration as the title "Narrative Framing", but ignoring half of what I say doesn't make it go away. Oh well, I suppose I'm done on this thread then. Judging books by the narration they have alone is silly and almost moronic, fifty shades of grey is bad writing but did exactly what it wanted to do, and Wikipedia is a faulty source whether you pretend it is or isn't. Those are my bullet points.


----------



## Conker (Nov 3, 2013)

ACraZ said:


> Ah, now I understand the word vomit thing. Yes, I suppose I did talk down to you which is the result of feeling like you kinda blew me off. With that aside I never said it was good writing, I even said that it was probably terrible. You are trying to prove a point that I never refuted. At this point you've just straight up attacked what I said with little more than "Nope you are wrong I'm right" and that's not the debate I'm trying to have. All I want to do is discus narration as the title "Narrative Framing", but ignoring half of what I say doesn't make it go away. Oh well, I suppose I'm done on this thread then. Judging books by the narration they have alone is silly and almost moronic, fifty shades of grey is bad writing but did exactly what it wanted to do, and Wikipedia is a faulty source whether you pretend it is or isn't. Those are my bullet points.


Whatever whatever whatever. 

At this point, the fifty shades thing boils down to semantics and I no longer care.

And I haven't attacked you at all, other than maybe the fifty shade's thing which was a pointless tangent at best and poor devil's advocacy at worst. 

I've yet to ignore anything you've said other than the one paragraph, but that's my own damned fault. 

And you still haven't seemed to understand that I don't judge books by narration alone because, as you said, that is stupid. I'm not in the mood to requote myself though. All of that's in the previous page. The only thing I didn't do was use the clarification "contemporary" for a few sentences, but I'd like to think the context of my posts sort of made that obvious. Woops there.

Wikipedia is fine for stupid internet arguments like this one. I'm not going to hunt down some scholarly source simply because you said something that was factually wrong. Third person omniscient is everywhere, but believe what you bloody well want.


----------

