Aug 5, 2016

Part 3 : The mechanics

I have had no formal instructions in the craft of writing. So, as I wrote, I'd often wonder if I was breaching some code on form or structure or point of view.

'The Mute Anklet' for example is written in deep third person point of view, but the POV switches quite a bit. The two protagonists share bulk of the narrative, but I also conveniently switch over to the antagonists, whenever I pleased. That switch over to the antagonists helped me establish the mystery much more easily before the protagonists caught up on it. There is even one switch to a minor character, a cop out that allowed me to describe Uma without having to go to the omniscient narrator view.

In my current novel, I have stuck primarily to the two major characters' viewpoints. Yes, there are some vignettes in other POVs, but those are embellishments, not central to the story. I must admit I still question that decision. It has made the job of establishing and tightening the mystery element all the more difficult. In fact, the first line of the book is the direct result of my anxiety around this dilemma.

I'd consider the central plot device of "A Time To Burnish" to be that of a quest, hastening a bit towards the end. Unlike my first novel that happens over many months, this one happens over a week. That got me into the interesting challenge of finding the time and space to at least hint on deeper connections, character arcs etc.

Dare I move to further challenges in my next book like [gasp] single POV? 

August 05, 2016