[Dramatis Personae?]

After reading Gabriel's comments, I'm thinking about the novels of William Faulkner. His first big book, "As I Lay Dying," was told from multiple points of view. Each segment (many of them too short to be called "chapters") is named for the narrator of the segment, certainly an experimental writing style when he wrote it in 1930. Sort of like the folks today who indicate the point of view at the top of the segment.

I'm also thinking about Faulkner's more confusing novels like "the Sound and the Fury," where you go to the back pages appendices of some editions to check out a dramatis personae to keep apart the fact that there are two Quentins (different generations and different genders) and that "Caddy" can refer to sister Candace or to a golfer's caddy. But Faulkner is probably an exception, since he's deliberately playing confusion mind-games on his readers.

I think the author might find access to a dramatis personae useful, especially as a way of keeping straight the alternate names for real people, as in James Savik's story. But I'm not sure what purpose it serves the reader. The first names in the Savik family seem to repeat in different generations, but there isn't any more confusion about it than in real life, since in real life as in the story people use distinguishing epithets to keep the referents apart ("John" ande "Big John" for example, or "Jimmy" and "Uncle James"). If your reader can't tell them apart in the telling of the tale, then you've written badly (unless of course you're trying to deliberately create a situation of confusion).

--Rigel

[Angel by Gabriel Duncan]

Gabe,

I was thinking today about your statement " I just feel slighted by all of these marathon writers and their large . . . stories." My mind went to remembering some of the best stories I've ever read, where condensation down to the fewest possible words meant everything, and brought about an intensity in the writing. I'm thinking now of Tilllie Olsen's "Tell Me a Riddle"--something like a novel condensed into a short story. Her writing style is incredibly polished and intense; she was NOT a prolific author. Two aged characters are having an argument about continuing to live a dependent/independent lifestyle:

-----

"What do we need all this for?" he would ask loudly, for her hearing aid was turned down and the vacuum was shrilling. "Five rooms" (pushing the sofa so she could get into the corner) "furniture" (smoothing down the rug) "floors and surfaces to make work. Tell me, why do we need it?" And he was glad he could ask in a scream.

"Because I'm use't."

"Because your use't. This is a reason, Mrs. Word Miser? Used to can get unused!"

-----

At this point, you realize that the author of the story is truly a Word Miser herself, using as few words as possible to create a vivid scene of vacuuming that tells you volumes about the two people arguing. (Read the whole story if you haven't--it's a great read, though of course a completely different genre from what you'll find at AwesomeDude.)

Our comments a few weeks ago where everyone admired EleCivil's story where Andrew says "I'm a moron," is an appreciation of that same sort of condensation, which builds intensity.

It's not how many words you use. It's what you do with them.

--Rigel

[Angel by Gabriel Duncan]

Some stories I read for the plot, though I must say that a lot of plots are pretty similar. Gay boy thrown out of home by father who doesn't understand (always the father, mother is always sympathetic)... Seeks shelter with friend/relative... The genre has rules which are recombined in new inventive ways but are as predictable as an old Scottish ballad.

But this story--I read for the writing! When I came to Part 5 and halfway through it realized that it was from a different point of view, I backed up to the beginning of the Chapter, and re-read, but the re-reading renewed my commitment to following the tale. And now with Part 9--(how do I phrase this without introducing any spoilers?)--having it narrated from that point of view is brilliance!

Looking forward to further developments.

--Rigel