This week’s video shows how
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s beloved classic The Great Gatsby utilizes a surprisingly distant narrator to transform his
story.
Video Transcript: One
of the reasons readers love books more than movies or other storytelling media
is because books allow them to not just observe characters, but to get inside
their heads and see how they tick. This is the reason for the modern popularity
of what’s known as the deep, tight, or close POV, in which the narrative
itself, whether it’s told in the first or third person, is basically relayed
through the thoughts and in the voice of the narrating character. Most readers,
myself among them, prefer tight POVs. However, the more distant POV still has
its place and purpose. Some stories will be all the better for having been told
by a distant narrator.
One of those stories is F. Scott Fitzgerald’s beloved
classic The Great Gatsby. Now The Great Gatsby is actually told in the
first-person, a perspective inherently associated with deep POVs, since there
is no question whatsoever of our being in
the narrating character’s head. Most of the time, when you think of distant
POVs, you’re going to be thinking of third-person POVs that observe characters
without delving into their thoughts or
omniscient POVs in which the author allows the reader to peek into all the
characters’ minds. However, Gatsby
shows us how to get the best of both worlds.
In narrator Nick Carraway, we gain an intimate glimpse into
a character. However, because the story isn’t really about Nick, he is able to
offer a distant and objective narration of the sordid events of the story. Had
Fitzgerald chosen to tell this story from the first-person POV of a more
involved character, the tone would have been completely different. Instead of being
able to observe the characters’ downward spiral, readers would instead have
been dragged through it—and the book
probably would not have become the beloved classic it is today. So, although
this kind of distant narrator isn’t often the best choice for a story, it’s
definitely something worth keeping in your bag of tricks.
Tell me your opinion: Have you ever used a distant narrator?
Related Posts: Bring Your POV Characters’ Voices to Life
Story by K.M. Weiland
I used to write with a distant narrator in almost all my stories, probably because I read too many older books from before tight POV became much more fashionable. It was not the best idea since it tended to lead to more telling than showing, but Fitzgerald's compromise of a character not at the centre of the story seems like a great way of watching the story from a distance maintaining a strong narrative voice that entices agents, editors and readers.
Speaking of POV and narration, what is the current view of first person? I have read a few recent books on writing that leave me with the impression that it's seen as basic and easy, therefore bad, as if it is the hallmark of an amateur writer. That seems rather strong but I do wonder if it may cause problems for writers looking to sell their work, even though I very rarely utilise it myself.
If anything, first person is *more* difficult than third. Because of its inherent intimacy and its need of a strong narrative voice (stronger than any other type of POV), it takes a sure hand on the wheel to keep a straight course. This doesn't mean beginners *shouldn't* attempt it. Some people fall easily into first and emerge with a character with a naturally strong voice. But it's a false impression that first is an easy ride.
Many popular books are written in the first person, so there's definitely not any kind of professional frowning upon it.
I've always focused on the main character in my story... though I have considered doing a "Dr. Watson" style story.. showing the story through the eyes of a secondary character.
Thanks for a few hints and tips. :D
Dr. Watson is another great example of this technique. In that instance, the distant narrator is particularly necessary, since, had Conan Doyle told the story from Holmes's POV (which he actually did in a few stories), he would have had more difficulty keeping the reader from knowing the truth the moment Sherlock did.
Interesting idea, but there's an additional wrinkle: is Nick Carraway a RELIABLE narrator, as well as a distant one? At the Pima Writer's Workshop (Tucson, AZ) this past weekend, author/teacher Joshua Mohr suggested there's no such thing as a reliable narrator, so degree of reliability combines with degree of separation to give a fuller picture of the nature of the narrator and POV.
His very unreliability - to whatever degree - is inherent to the first-person POV. In my opinion (and I have a feeling most readers will agree with me), his unreliability increases the appeal of his narrative, since it gives it both an extremely human slant and opens up just that tiny edge of mystery that makes us wonder if his conclusions are really correct.
I've gone to a few forums were people seem outwardly hostile to first person narratives, and I can't understand why. It's the unreliability of the narrator that makes first person appealing—to write and read. My book coming out in July is in first person, from a male's perspective. It was quite challenging as I'm a female. In contrast, the current book I'm working on is in omni, and I can really feel the difference in that there's a definite loss of intimacy with the latter. In the end, it all depends on the type of story you want to tell.
I've gone from distant to first person and find the latter more appealing. There is just such a "connection" that makes the journey worthwhile.
I highly enjoyed the way Nick presented Gatsby's story and as you said, it would have lost so much had it been written from Gatsby's perspective. The same sort of pov was used in Conrad's Heart of Darkness though to a much lessor degree...
Personally, I love the mystery and elusiveness it creates
Fitzgerald was a literary genius!
@Eleni: I find that hostility interesting, since so many rabidly loved bestsellers (The Hunger Games and Twilight come to mind) are written in the first-person. Obviously, it didn't turn off those books' millions of fans.
@Traci: I've used a close POV in every one of my stories. I love that intimacy with the character and the ability to explore his personality. But I have *considered* distant POVs more than once. They have a lot to offer in certain situations.
@Chey: Conrad's use of a distant narrative was obfuscated to some degree by his technique of telling the story within story (within a story within a story). Fitzgerald achieves the same effect in a much more clean-cut fashion by allowing his narrator to a) be present on the scene of the story and b) address the reader directly instead of telling his story to an audience within the book.
Interesting! I recently wrote a post on how much Gatsby is set up like a memoir with a distanced narrator, in the sense that Nick is in a different time and place from the story he's relating. He can step back and put the events in perspective. What a rich book.
Past tense gives an inherent distance, which we don't always think about. The very fact of a book behind written in past means the narrator survived to look back on the events from later date.
I once wrote a short story about a graveside service told from the perspective of a gardener looking onto the family of the deceased loved one told in first and third person. It was fun to challenge myself to write from two different person-view styles (in his head - thoughts vs. third person observer).
I'm particularly fond of this technique in short stories, since it's easy to benefit from it without its coming across forced.
thanks for the post. it is most thought provoking. i love GG and most of what fitz wrote. nick is probably the most unique of narrators, and i agree the story could not have been told by gatsby or 3rd p omni.
Fitzgerald did some very interesting things. I find much of his work depressing, but there's no question he knew what he was doing in his later works.