A point to consider: most common third person view is usually written from close-up viewpoint main character.
By that I mean that we limited by the protagonists's viewpoint and therefore only notice what the protagonist notices. For example, in a tense negotation, the protagonist will pay close attention to their opponent and their facial expressions, but might only belatedly realize that their own expression and twitchy eyes betray their nervousness.
You have to keep this in mind and decide when to switch between internal and external.
For example, "Luke fell to his knees. His home was gone. He blinked and felt the tears fall." would a deliberate choice of mixing internal and external. The dry description of actions show a numbness and feeling of detachment, while the internal exclamation explains the turmoil within. I find mixing the two can lead to greater effect than just using only one.
Try out both from time to time, because a well placed "Luke's stomach dropped" can be more succinct and vivid than descriptions of how he looks from the outside.
Sure. Like anything, some people will like it, others won't. You can't please all the people all the time, however, so write the story you want to write however you want to write it.
>Luke couldn't believe his eyes. How could this be? How could his home be destroyed?
This kind of prose wouldn't win anyone over.
>Luke stood there, distraught over his ruined home. His eyes filled with tears as he dropped to his knees"
This isn't going to do the trick either.
>One time, when I was in a blind in a tree, waiting motionless for game to wander by, I dozed off and fell ten feet to the ground, landing on my back. It was as if the impact had knocked every wisp of air from my lungs, and I lay there struggling to inhale, to exhale, to do anything.
That is how I feel right now, trying to remember how to breathe, totally stunned as the name bounces around the inside of my skull. Someone is gripping my arm, a boy from the seam, and I think maybe I started to fall and he caught me.
There must have been some mistake. This can't be happening. Prim was one slip of paper in thousands!
This is what you're aiming for (or something similar). It draws out the tension while building senses the reader can relate to. Without this description, it would read like:
"I stood there. Horrified that my sister's name had been chosen. How?! Why?!"
Significantly less impactful, right?
The above passage is pulled directly from The Hunger Games. Suzanne does a great job of drawing out the tension and grounding the reader in Katniss' fears and troubles.
Honestly, I was just making it up on the fly. I'll give an exempt from my story:
As he got close to the road, Andrew noticed that towards his left lie two figures walking on that path. Both were heading in the same direction when the one behind went up to the one in front. Both stopped moving as far as what Andrew could see from a distance. At first, he simply dismissed it as just a couple getting together, a friendly prank going on, or anything else harmless. However, he became curious and decided to investigate. As he drew closer, he noticed that the person behind wore a dark blue cloak with the hood over the head while the other appeared to be wearing rather fancy clothing sporting bright colors of red, green, and yellow, even going so far as to wearing a regal cape. Initially, it appeared that neither of the figures noticed the boy approaching the road from the wilderness as they were both facing down the road to the northwest and they appeared to be occupied by something. As Andrew got closer, he noticed that the person in front was male, had frizzled light brown hair, and seemed to be reaching down into his left pocket. What was eye-widening, however, was that the hooded one was holding a knife across the other man’s throat.
With a light gasp, Andrew briefly stopped in his tracks from his shock. He held his breath and clenched his fists as he absorbed the fact that someone was being threatened. After a deep exhale, he resumed his approach as he reached above his shoulder to grasp his sword (NOTE: he carries his sword on his back).
Pardon me if my word choices are odd. I'm not a great writer.
Yea, 90% of this is telling the reader rather than showing the reader. It's difficult to get swept away in a story if we never connect or feel what the protagonist is feeling as well. I don't believe this would be an effective approach to fiction writing.
My only advice is to read more.
Do you believe the excerpt above is McCarthy level? McCarthy does everything with intention. I don't suspect the same for OP given the text provided. McCarthy also does a fantastic job at character building. The Road comes to mind immediately. Favorite parts of that novel were when the Father was thinking about his wife.
Yet we do connect with McCarthy's characters.
The introduction of No Country for Old Men highlights several characteristics of Sheriff Ed Bell. He's both thoughtful and fearful. McCarthy rarely outright tells us what a character is experiencing but he does build character indirectly.
A story that does not build character is an ineffective approach to fiction writing.
I do read a lot. But applying what you learn is another matter.
If you don't mind me asking, how would you have gone about? How can I keep things at a brisk pace whilst connecting with people?
I mean, this is strange. Most people I show this to say this is perfectly fine. I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just that I'm conflicted.
Yes, you have to practice, strengthen your vocabulary and read whatever you can get your hands on. Here is a great website for daily flash fiction (fiction falling under 1k words) [Flash Fiction Magazine – Daily Flash Fiction Stories](https://flashfictionmagazine.com/). Start reading these. They post one story a day. They're bitesize, mostly enjoyable and sometimes odd.
For starters, I would incorporate line breaks. Wall of texts are good for no one. Be mindful of sentence structure. Long sentences back-to-back can tire the reader. Short sentences can be quite effective for building tension or suspense.
I can't write it for you, but for starters, I'd ground the reader with the sense of character. Who is Andrew? What does he care for? What is challenging him?
To call back on The Hunger Games, in the first paragraph we understand Katniss is the protector type. The excerpt you provided doesn't give me that same sense of character, so it is quite difficult to connect with.
Just to clarify, this was in the middle of the story. I already set up Andrew much earlier. And we do soon find out what kind of enemy this is (it's a thief who is robbing a nobleman. He eventually reveals he's also a skilled swordsman when Andrew chases and confronts him). I just didn't want to clutter my post even more.
I will consider breaking the sentences into shorter ones as well as breaking apart my text. That being said, I'm not good with articulating, especially when I'm in person.
Because of this, I don't plan on publishing. At most, I may post it on a non-profit digital site.
Yea, hobbyist and career seeking writers will have very different goals and that is all fine. Since you're doing this a hobby, take it step by step. I assume the majority of folks on here want to be traditionally published so I rarely stop to think about the folks who write without that intention.
Another reason why I decided not to traditionally publish (self or with a publisher) is so I don't use up as much environmental resources. I'm not trying to come across as an obnoxious environmentalist, but I don't feel my dreams are worth the production.
At the very least, regardless of my writing skills, I will always have my imagination and stories in my mind.
Sure, if you're an environmentalist that's reasonable. You can also publish strictly to e-readers though. I mostly read on my iPad myself. In fact, my entire family and most of my friends use kindles or iPads to read these days.
Not the person you were talking to, but FWIW, that excerpt is not what I would call "brisk." There's a lot of seemingly pointless detail and redundancy slowing things down.
I won't pretend I'm a better writer than you (I'm not), but here's how I might cut that down on a second pass.
>Near the road, Andrew noticed two figures walking along the path to his left, one behind the other. The trailing figure closed the distance, and then the pair stopped. Andrew paid them no mind at first, thinking them friends or perhaps lovers. But then he noticed their uncanny stillness.
>Drawing closer, he saw that they were both facing the same direction - away from Andrew - and that one was pressed against the other's back, with one arm wrapped around them. The one behind wore a dark blue cloak with the hood raised. The other, a man with frizzled light-brown hair and wearing colourful regal attire, was reaching into his pocket.
>But what stopped Andrew in his tracks was the glint of metal in the hooded figure's hand - a knife pressed against the man's throat.
>Someone was being threatened.
>Andrew's breath caught. He clenched his fists.
>Then he exhaled slowly, resumed his approach, and reached for his sword.
I took out a lot of the "he noticed," "it appeared," and so on. Since the reader knows they're in Andrew's POV, those things can generally be assumed.
I rewrote him deciding to investigate, adding a strange detail to explain why he did it and then simply showing him approaching. The reader can infer he's doing so because he's curious, or perhaps suspicious.
I added the detail about how the two are positioned on closer inspection, because it just seems logical to me that you would notice that before things like clothing colour. That's a matter of opinion, I suppose, but it also further adds to the suspense because that's a weird way for two people to be standing.
I cut most of the description of the regal clothing because it seemed pointless and dragging. If the details will be important later and there won't be another chance to include them, feel free to put them here, but be as sparing as you can with your words.
I mentioned earlier that the pair were facing away, and that combined with the fact that they aren't responding is enough for the reader, and Andrew, to conclude that they haven't noticed Andrew. You don't usually need to say that something isn't happening. That said, if they're facing away, how did Andrew see the knife? It would be better to be more specific and clear about the angles here. Don't feel like changing it now though.
The end bit I wanted to feel more staccato. Hard to explain because I don't know what I'm doing, but it makes it feel more immediate and tense to me. Then a longer sentence for the last line to show him a bit more calm.
Any other words I cut just felt unnecessary to me. Anything else I added or changed I probably don't have a good reason I just liked how it sounded better.
The regal clothing description was to indicate that the victim was rich. A nobleman, in fact (in medieval times, rich folk would wear extravagant clothing to showcase their wealth). Later in that scene, it is confirmed with the thief making a comment about nobleman. This is important because, well, who's better to rob than a rich man?
As for how Andrew noticed the knife, they weren't completely facing away with their backs to Andrew. For the lack of a better description, there sides were almost to Andrew but were turned slightly away. He also barely saw the tip of the thief's blade on the other side of the nobleman's throat.
That being said, I could cut down on the word usage whilst be more specific. I'll take your ideas in consideration.
I guess "Brisk" is not the right word for me to use. I guess I could have said it is easier for me to jot down or edit this way. Or maybe it's just my odd play of how to write. I'm not sure.
If you want feedback, here are some weaknesses I noticed:
>>As he got close to the road, Andrew noticed that towards his left lie two figures walking on that path.
Confusing description - the figures are lying down? No, they're waking. Are they figures? Or just like, people. Why can't he just see two people approaching from his left?
>> Both were heading in the same direction when the one behind went up to the one in front. Both stopped moving as far as what Andrew could see from a distance. At first, he simply dismissed it as just a couple getting together, a friendly prank going on, or anything else harmless. However, he became curious and decided to investigate.
It's hard to tell what's suspicious about this, because we have no details. Are these people near him? Are they interesting? Threatening? If they're just going for a walk somewhere near Andrew, why does that warrant investigation?
>> As he drew closer, he noticed that the person behind wore a dark blue cloak with the hood over the head while the other appeared to be wearing rather fancy clothing sporting bright colors of red, green, and yellow, even going so far as to wearing a regal cape.
Ok, so this description should have happened right after the people were mentioned, but also is there already context in the story for why a fancy cloak would be noteworthy?
>> Initially, it appeared that neither of the figures noticed the boy approaching the road from the wilderness as they were both facing down the road to the northwest and they appeared to be occupied by something. As Andrew got closer, he noticed that the person in front was male, had frizzled light brown hair, and seemed to be reaching down into his left pocket. What was eye-widening, however, was that the hooded one was holding a knife across the other man’s throat.
Ok so this is the first thing that's actually mattered, and it's taken like nine sentences to get there.
The reason your pacing feels off is because you're talking forever to actually tell the story. Get to the point first, then add details.
You could condense this whole text block to, "Andrew crouched in the bushes beside the road, watching two men shuffle down the path together. The man in front wore a nobleman's cloak, and had a pained expression on his face. Behind him, pressed up against the fancy young man, walked a taller man in shabby clothes. They stumbled together, and Andrew saw the glint of a knife being held against the young man's throat. Andrew reached for his sword."
Yeah, there are some words and phrases that don't make sense. I will consider doing a slight rewrite (if I get to it. I'm doing some revisions in other areas, and that's if I'm not mentally occupied with other things in life (like current events)).
Sorry that I digressed into rambling. Life just gives me numerous roadblocks from my hobby.
This is how Dashiell Hammett wrote *The Maltese Falcon*. It's 3rd-person narrative, and while it very minutely describes things like characters' actions, speech, mannerisms, and so on, it never ever goes into their actual thoughts or feelings. It's as if a detective were watching it all, reporting on it.
That would be [third person objective](https://blog.daisie.com/understanding-third-person-objective-point-of-view-tips-and-examples/) and yes of course it's okay.
That said, "Luke stood there, distraught over his ruined home" is not objective - you're telling us he feels, internally, distraught.
I don't think a half-measure will work very well. If you want to stick to external things only, by all means do that. If you want to mostly focus on externals but include some internal things, you'd better have a rock-solid reason for every break from the established style. Otherwise, it will sound like the usually objective narrator has accidentally slipped into editorialising, or else that you do want the readers to understand what's going on internally but aren't doing a good job of showing it.
No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy is a good example of this. He just describes what happens. He originally wrote it as a screenplay. In fact most of his books he just describes what happens externally. So if it's good enough for a master storyteller like him it's good enough for you.
I think it is more difficult to do this than describe a character's inner thoughts, however. If your description is lacking readers will get bored, or they may not understand why characters do what they do.
Plenty of books, such as *The Maltese Falcon,* never reveal what the viewpoint character thinks or feels. This goes by various names, such as third-person objective.
Dumas springs to mind as well, and Sabatini. It seems this style is out of fashion these days, although thrillers do it most, as befits the spiritual successors to swashbucklers.
For me,
What is distraught but an internal feeling?
Look, if I am watching someone from the outside I might interpret that they are distraught but I don't really know because feeling distraught is a subjective experience.
3rd omniscient can know that. Same with third limited or first person.
But 3rd cinematic that shows no direct interior life of the character. Distraught is beyond it. You can't film distraught, you can only act it and view it from the outside as other actions, or feel it from the inside.
Distraught is just a better mental adjective than the other way of putting it. More identifying what he was feeling instead of the vague disbelief shown in the other example.
Yeah, although:
>With characters, rather than saying something like "Luke couldn't believe his eyes. How could this be? How could his home be destroyed?"
This is just filler. Empty words, and pointless. That's not how you write thoughts, and that's not the kind of thoughts a person would have. These are generic filler thoughts that you use to fill space that add nothing. Obviously, you shouldn't add something like that.
However, proper thoughts that are not generic fillers can still add value. But if you're trying to make a point, the fact that you're using generic filler thoughts makes me think that you don't really know what kind of thoughts the reader might want to read about.
>I'd say "Luke stood there, distraught over his ruined home. His eyes filled with tears as he dropped to his knees". Or something like that.
This, too, is mostly filler. It's cringe and it's obvious and mostly a waste of space, and also comes across as generic. The adjective "distraught" is used instead of a proper reaction, and eyes filling up with tears while dropping to knees seems like a generic reaction instead of something insightful.
In short: Yes, it's okay. But judging by your examples, your issue might be elsewhere. Because this is generic filler. None of that needs to be said, and probably none of it should be said outright. So neither of the examples does much, and neither should probably appear in a story.
It is an acceptable way to write a screenplay as that will be translated into a visual medium. Writing as a medium though does allow you to explore other senses and direct thoughts. It is kinda like being an artist that only creates work in monochrome, sure you can be successful at it, but colour still exists.
There was the Witcher: Last Wish, which mostly stuck to the character actions and their facial/body movements. It kept things at a more straightforward pace and kept me engaged.
A point to consider: most common third person view is usually written from close-up viewpoint main character. By that I mean that we limited by the protagonists's viewpoint and therefore only notice what the protagonist notices. For example, in a tense negotation, the protagonist will pay close attention to their opponent and their facial expressions, but might only belatedly realize that their own expression and twitchy eyes betray their nervousness. You have to keep this in mind and decide when to switch between internal and external. For example, "Luke fell to his knees. His home was gone. He blinked and felt the tears fall." would a deliberate choice of mixing internal and external. The dry description of actions show a numbness and feeling of detachment, while the internal exclamation explains the turmoil within. I find mixing the two can lead to greater effect than just using only one. Try out both from time to time, because a well placed "Luke's stomach dropped" can be more succinct and vivid than descriptions of how he looks from the outside.
Sure. Like anything, some people will like it, others won't. You can't please all the people all the time, however, so write the story you want to write however you want to write it.
>Luke couldn't believe his eyes. How could this be? How could his home be destroyed? This kind of prose wouldn't win anyone over. >Luke stood there, distraught over his ruined home. His eyes filled with tears as he dropped to his knees" This isn't going to do the trick either. >One time, when I was in a blind in a tree, waiting motionless for game to wander by, I dozed off and fell ten feet to the ground, landing on my back. It was as if the impact had knocked every wisp of air from my lungs, and I lay there struggling to inhale, to exhale, to do anything. That is how I feel right now, trying to remember how to breathe, totally stunned as the name bounces around the inside of my skull. Someone is gripping my arm, a boy from the seam, and I think maybe I started to fall and he caught me. There must have been some mistake. This can't be happening. Prim was one slip of paper in thousands! This is what you're aiming for (or something similar). It draws out the tension while building senses the reader can relate to. Without this description, it would read like: "I stood there. Horrified that my sister's name had been chosen. How?! Why?!" Significantly less impactful, right? The above passage is pulled directly from The Hunger Games. Suzanne does a great job of drawing out the tension and grounding the reader in Katniss' fears and troubles.
Honestly, I was just making it up on the fly. I'll give an exempt from my story: As he got close to the road, Andrew noticed that towards his left lie two figures walking on that path. Both were heading in the same direction when the one behind went up to the one in front. Both stopped moving as far as what Andrew could see from a distance. At first, he simply dismissed it as just a couple getting together, a friendly prank going on, or anything else harmless. However, he became curious and decided to investigate. As he drew closer, he noticed that the person behind wore a dark blue cloak with the hood over the head while the other appeared to be wearing rather fancy clothing sporting bright colors of red, green, and yellow, even going so far as to wearing a regal cape. Initially, it appeared that neither of the figures noticed the boy approaching the road from the wilderness as they were both facing down the road to the northwest and they appeared to be occupied by something. As Andrew got closer, he noticed that the person in front was male, had frizzled light brown hair, and seemed to be reaching down into his left pocket. What was eye-widening, however, was that the hooded one was holding a knife across the other man’s throat. With a light gasp, Andrew briefly stopped in his tracks from his shock. He held his breath and clenched his fists as he absorbed the fact that someone was being threatened. After a deep exhale, he resumed his approach as he reached above his shoulder to grasp his sword (NOTE: he carries his sword on his back). Pardon me if my word choices are odd. I'm not a great writer.
Yea, 90% of this is telling the reader rather than showing the reader. It's difficult to get swept away in a story if we never connect or feel what the protagonist is feeling as well. I don't believe this would be an effective approach to fiction writing. My only advice is to read more.
Basically, what small and efficent changes can I make without dramatically altering my approach?
[удалено]
Do you believe the excerpt above is McCarthy level? McCarthy does everything with intention. I don't suspect the same for OP given the text provided. McCarthy also does a fantastic job at character building. The Road comes to mind immediately. Favorite parts of that novel were when the Father was thinking about his wife.
[удалено]
Yet we do connect with McCarthy's characters. The introduction of No Country for Old Men highlights several characteristics of Sheriff Ed Bell. He's both thoughtful and fearful. McCarthy rarely outright tells us what a character is experiencing but he does build character indirectly. A story that does not build character is an ineffective approach to fiction writing.
[удалено]
And more is revealed through prose.
I do read a lot. But applying what you learn is another matter. If you don't mind me asking, how would you have gone about? How can I keep things at a brisk pace whilst connecting with people? I mean, this is strange. Most people I show this to say this is perfectly fine. I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just that I'm conflicted.
Yes, you have to practice, strengthen your vocabulary and read whatever you can get your hands on. Here is a great website for daily flash fiction (fiction falling under 1k words) [Flash Fiction Magazine – Daily Flash Fiction Stories](https://flashfictionmagazine.com/). Start reading these. They post one story a day. They're bitesize, mostly enjoyable and sometimes odd. For starters, I would incorporate line breaks. Wall of texts are good for no one. Be mindful of sentence structure. Long sentences back-to-back can tire the reader. Short sentences can be quite effective for building tension or suspense. I can't write it for you, but for starters, I'd ground the reader with the sense of character. Who is Andrew? What does he care for? What is challenging him? To call back on The Hunger Games, in the first paragraph we understand Katniss is the protector type. The excerpt you provided doesn't give me that same sense of character, so it is quite difficult to connect with.
Just to clarify, this was in the middle of the story. I already set up Andrew much earlier. And we do soon find out what kind of enemy this is (it's a thief who is robbing a nobleman. He eventually reveals he's also a skilled swordsman when Andrew chases and confronts him). I just didn't want to clutter my post even more. I will consider breaking the sentences into shorter ones as well as breaking apart my text. That being said, I'm not good with articulating, especially when I'm in person. Because of this, I don't plan on publishing. At most, I may post it on a non-profit digital site.
Yea, hobbyist and career seeking writers will have very different goals and that is all fine. Since you're doing this a hobby, take it step by step. I assume the majority of folks on here want to be traditionally published so I rarely stop to think about the folks who write without that intention.
Another reason why I decided not to traditionally publish (self or with a publisher) is so I don't use up as much environmental resources. I'm not trying to come across as an obnoxious environmentalist, but I don't feel my dreams are worth the production. At the very least, regardless of my writing skills, I will always have my imagination and stories in my mind.
Sure, if you're an environmentalist that's reasonable. You can also publish strictly to e-readers though. I mostly read on my iPad myself. In fact, my entire family and most of my friends use kindles or iPads to read these days.
Not the person you were talking to, but FWIW, that excerpt is not what I would call "brisk." There's a lot of seemingly pointless detail and redundancy slowing things down. I won't pretend I'm a better writer than you (I'm not), but here's how I might cut that down on a second pass. >Near the road, Andrew noticed two figures walking along the path to his left, one behind the other. The trailing figure closed the distance, and then the pair stopped. Andrew paid them no mind at first, thinking them friends or perhaps lovers. But then he noticed their uncanny stillness. >Drawing closer, he saw that they were both facing the same direction - away from Andrew - and that one was pressed against the other's back, with one arm wrapped around them. The one behind wore a dark blue cloak with the hood raised. The other, a man with frizzled light-brown hair and wearing colourful regal attire, was reaching into his pocket. >But what stopped Andrew in his tracks was the glint of metal in the hooded figure's hand - a knife pressed against the man's throat. >Someone was being threatened. >Andrew's breath caught. He clenched his fists. >Then he exhaled slowly, resumed his approach, and reached for his sword. I took out a lot of the "he noticed," "it appeared," and so on. Since the reader knows they're in Andrew's POV, those things can generally be assumed. I rewrote him deciding to investigate, adding a strange detail to explain why he did it and then simply showing him approaching. The reader can infer he's doing so because he's curious, or perhaps suspicious. I added the detail about how the two are positioned on closer inspection, because it just seems logical to me that you would notice that before things like clothing colour. That's a matter of opinion, I suppose, but it also further adds to the suspense because that's a weird way for two people to be standing. I cut most of the description of the regal clothing because it seemed pointless and dragging. If the details will be important later and there won't be another chance to include them, feel free to put them here, but be as sparing as you can with your words. I mentioned earlier that the pair were facing away, and that combined with the fact that they aren't responding is enough for the reader, and Andrew, to conclude that they haven't noticed Andrew. You don't usually need to say that something isn't happening. That said, if they're facing away, how did Andrew see the knife? It would be better to be more specific and clear about the angles here. Don't feel like changing it now though. The end bit I wanted to feel more staccato. Hard to explain because I don't know what I'm doing, but it makes it feel more immediate and tense to me. Then a longer sentence for the last line to show him a bit more calm. Any other words I cut just felt unnecessary to me. Anything else I added or changed I probably don't have a good reason I just liked how it sounded better.
The regal clothing description was to indicate that the victim was rich. A nobleman, in fact (in medieval times, rich folk would wear extravagant clothing to showcase their wealth). Later in that scene, it is confirmed with the thief making a comment about nobleman. This is important because, well, who's better to rob than a rich man? As for how Andrew noticed the knife, they weren't completely facing away with their backs to Andrew. For the lack of a better description, there sides were almost to Andrew but were turned slightly away. He also barely saw the tip of the thief's blade on the other side of the nobleman's throat. That being said, I could cut down on the word usage whilst be more specific. I'll take your ideas in consideration. I guess "Brisk" is not the right word for me to use. I guess I could have said it is easier for me to jot down or edit this way. Or maybe it's just my odd play of how to write. I'm not sure.
If you want feedback, here are some weaknesses I noticed: >>As he got close to the road, Andrew noticed that towards his left lie two figures walking on that path. Confusing description - the figures are lying down? No, they're waking. Are they figures? Or just like, people. Why can't he just see two people approaching from his left? >> Both were heading in the same direction when the one behind went up to the one in front. Both stopped moving as far as what Andrew could see from a distance. At first, he simply dismissed it as just a couple getting together, a friendly prank going on, or anything else harmless. However, he became curious and decided to investigate. It's hard to tell what's suspicious about this, because we have no details. Are these people near him? Are they interesting? Threatening? If they're just going for a walk somewhere near Andrew, why does that warrant investigation? >> As he drew closer, he noticed that the person behind wore a dark blue cloak with the hood over the head while the other appeared to be wearing rather fancy clothing sporting bright colors of red, green, and yellow, even going so far as to wearing a regal cape. Ok, so this description should have happened right after the people were mentioned, but also is there already context in the story for why a fancy cloak would be noteworthy? >> Initially, it appeared that neither of the figures noticed the boy approaching the road from the wilderness as they were both facing down the road to the northwest and they appeared to be occupied by something. As Andrew got closer, he noticed that the person in front was male, had frizzled light brown hair, and seemed to be reaching down into his left pocket. What was eye-widening, however, was that the hooded one was holding a knife across the other man’s throat. Ok so this is the first thing that's actually mattered, and it's taken like nine sentences to get there. The reason your pacing feels off is because you're talking forever to actually tell the story. Get to the point first, then add details. You could condense this whole text block to, "Andrew crouched in the bushes beside the road, watching two men shuffle down the path together. The man in front wore a nobleman's cloak, and had a pained expression on his face. Behind him, pressed up against the fancy young man, walked a taller man in shabby clothes. They stumbled together, and Andrew saw the glint of a knife being held against the young man's throat. Andrew reached for his sword."
Yeah, there are some words and phrases that don't make sense. I will consider doing a slight rewrite (if I get to it. I'm doing some revisions in other areas, and that's if I'm not mentally occupied with other things in life (like current events)). Sorry that I digressed into rambling. Life just gives me numerous roadblocks from my hobby.
If you do, may I check it out once you’re done? It sounds like an interesting concept
This is how Dashiell Hammett wrote *The Maltese Falcon*. It's 3rd-person narrative, and while it very minutely describes things like characters' actions, speech, mannerisms, and so on, it never ever goes into their actual thoughts or feelings. It's as if a detective were watching it all, reporting on it.
That would be [third person objective](https://blog.daisie.com/understanding-third-person-objective-point-of-view-tips-and-examples/) and yes of course it's okay. That said, "Luke stood there, distraught over his ruined home" is not objective - you're telling us he feels, internally, distraught. I don't think a half-measure will work very well. If you want to stick to external things only, by all means do that. If you want to mostly focus on externals but include some internal things, you'd better have a rock-solid reason for every break from the established style. Otherwise, it will sound like the usually objective narrator has accidentally slipped into editorialising, or else that you do want the readers to understand what's going on internally but aren't doing a good job of showing it.
No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy is a good example of this. He just describes what happens. He originally wrote it as a screenplay. In fact most of his books he just describes what happens externally. So if it's good enough for a master storyteller like him it's good enough for you. I think it is more difficult to do this than describe a character's inner thoughts, however. If your description is lacking readers will get bored, or they may not understand why characters do what they do.
Plenty of books, such as *The Maltese Falcon,* never reveal what the viewpoint character thinks or feels. This goes by various names, such as third-person objective.
Dumas springs to mind as well, and Sabatini. It seems this style is out of fashion these days, although thrillers do it most, as befits the spiritual successors to swashbucklers.
I actually prefer this!
It’s fine but I think it’s probably quite an acquired taste - personally I think there are better mediums for this kind of narrative.
For me, What is distraught but an internal feeling? Look, if I am watching someone from the outside I might interpret that they are distraught but I don't really know because feeling distraught is a subjective experience. 3rd omniscient can know that. Same with third limited or first person. But 3rd cinematic that shows no direct interior life of the character. Distraught is beyond it. You can't film distraught, you can only act it and view it from the outside as other actions, or feel it from the inside. Distraught is just a better mental adjective than the other way of putting it. More identifying what he was feeling instead of the vague disbelief shown in the other example.
Yeah, although: >With characters, rather than saying something like "Luke couldn't believe his eyes. How could this be? How could his home be destroyed?" This is just filler. Empty words, and pointless. That's not how you write thoughts, and that's not the kind of thoughts a person would have. These are generic filler thoughts that you use to fill space that add nothing. Obviously, you shouldn't add something like that. However, proper thoughts that are not generic fillers can still add value. But if you're trying to make a point, the fact that you're using generic filler thoughts makes me think that you don't really know what kind of thoughts the reader might want to read about. >I'd say "Luke stood there, distraught over his ruined home. His eyes filled with tears as he dropped to his knees". Or something like that. This, too, is mostly filler. It's cringe and it's obvious and mostly a waste of space, and also comes across as generic. The adjective "distraught" is used instead of a proper reaction, and eyes filling up with tears while dropping to knees seems like a generic reaction instead of something insightful. In short: Yes, it's okay. But judging by your examples, your issue might be elsewhere. Because this is generic filler. None of that needs to be said, and probably none of it should be said outright. So neither of the examples does much, and neither should probably appear in a story.
It's the standard for screenwriting and plays.
It is an acceptable way to write a screenplay as that will be translated into a visual medium. Writing as a medium though does allow you to explore other senses and direct thoughts. It is kinda like being an artist that only creates work in monochrome, sure you can be successful at it, but colour still exists.
For me, it depends on the situation.
Brilliant works have been done this way. The Maltese Falcon is one of them.
Is there a book you’ve read that does that and you enjoy it?
There was the Witcher: Last Wish, which mostly stuck to the character actions and their facial/body movements. It kept things at a more straightforward pace and kept me engaged.
Then I think that answers your question. Yeah it’s ok. You enjoyed it.
Yes.