There are some big problems with POV in this book. Some are just mistakes. How would a dog know that a TV is a tube, that a rawhide bone feels like fiberglass, that he's running like a cruise-missile? These are similes and metaphors that are almost unseen in a person's vernacular, but would be unknown in a dog's. Even more annoying are the asides that the author tells you there is no way Thor would know. That really pulls me out of the reading. If you are deep into Thor's POV, you can't tell the reader what Dad is thinking. This is standard stuff for people who can't tell the difference in the types of 3rd person narration. Not all 3rd person is cut from the same cloth. It is an interesting read, and Smith gets in some really good moments with Thor. Some of the problems stem from his letting his guard down and slipping in things that Thor would never think. I can deal with that. The outright pulling into another POV is a little harder to stomach. It breaks illusion that books like: Bunnicula, Call of the Wild, White Fang, Watership Down, The Rats of Nimm, etc do so well. The POV is what makes Cycle of the Werewolf a good read, but ruins "Silver Bullet" (the movie which sprang from its literary loins). That exact thing happened with "Bad Moon," the movie version of this novel. That movie is the reason I held off so long on reading this book. The book is still an enjoyable read, despite some flaws. The movie was not enjoyable at all. It is good to see what works and what doesn't. I'll pay more attention to the animal scenes in my own book to make sure I don't fall into the same trap that Smith does.
Posted by AaronBennett at February 26, 2004 12:01 PMMr. Bennett
I wonder if you have any tips for a person who wants to get his novel published? I was surfing the web trying to get a line on Wayne Smith to ask how he went about getting "Thor" noticed. So far I've had no luck, then I saw your site. Your comments are very interesting.
I've written my own novel, also dealing with werewolves. I bought a copy of "Writer's Market" after reading "Stephen King's On Writing" and have written several agents and publishers, so far with only rejections to show for it. I think one problem is being unable to sell myself well, as far as composing a good introductory letter. But I'm still working on it.
On the subject of King and your own interests---I remember his book, "The Stand" had a couple of scenes from the POV of the dog, Kojak, which I thought were very unique. I believe another of his novels---it may have been CUJO---had some stuff from the dog's viewpoint that I thought were interesting, and new, at least to this reader. As for my own werewolf story, I've mostly described them from the POV of those having to face them, except for one troublesome sequence depicting the monsters in a group, on the hunt. That part is still giving me a bit of trouble.
Well, sir, if you have any tips or comments I'd love to hear them. Thanks so much for your time---Chuck Eagle.
Dear Chuck Eagle,
I can tell you to go to www.shocklines.com and check what publishers are publishing your type of novel. Also check out the msg board. Many authors and publishers hang out there. It will help to get a feel for what's up in the small-press horror field. I would go to the market listings pages and get info and guidelines for those publishers.
http://www.ralan.com/
http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/
http://www.spicygreeniguana.com/
For info on agents:
http://www.literaryagents.org/
Also, Preditors & Editors above also covers agents.
I'd check to make sure they are a member of:
http://www.aar-online.org/
To be a member, an agent must follow strict guidelines that weed out the shameless scammers out to make a fast buck off of writers. You don't have to have an agent though. It is one of those Catch 22's that the agent you can get for your first book isn't the agent you want. You might want to get a list of ones you would like and query publishers. If a publisher wants it, you'll often have agents who then want to represent you. I know that seems backward, and you've done the hard part; but I know people who did that and the agent paid for him/herself after contract negotiations. If you are comfortable, you can negotiate your own contract and save on the fees. I know of authors who do that as well.
It is a lot of research, but you'll thank yourself later when it is put out right. The research will also help to make sure you are hitting the rights houses/agents. I would avoid vanity publishers and Publish America. You might also look into joining your genre organization. Those groups have many things to aid up-and-coming writers. Horror Writers Association is the one for horror. Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America is another. As far as cover letters and queries, I'm not to good at those either. If you get to know the people in the field through genre organizations and some conventions, you might have editors ask to read your manuscript. I know many deals that have gone down in the bar at a convention.
Good luck. Keep me posted on the progress. I love seeing good new werewolf books out there.
Sorry you didn't care for the changes in POV in Thor. They weren't accidental, however, but quite deliberate. The story was too complex to be told entirely from Thor's POV. If the reader only knew and experienced what Thor did, the story wouldn't make any sense. This isn't a problem for dogs, of course, who don't worry about the great many inexplicable things their human owners do. For readers, however, I think it would be extremely annoying.
Multiple POV's are not particularly unusual in novels. Anne Rice's The Mummy (which I don't recommend) has a different POV in each chapter (which must have been exhausting for her).
As for similies involving human things like cruise missiles and fiberglass, obviously these are to give the reader an idea of the feelings, not to reflect what Thor was thinking. I'm sure dogs don't compare the experience of running to anything; if they think about running, they simply think about running. But human readers often enjoy prose that uses similies.
Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you very much for your comments. I always love hearing from the author. It helps me understand the mindset of the writer, the purpose of this blog. As I said above, the similes and metaphors were not that obtrusive. I can see how most people would not be bothered at all by them.
The problem I had with the POV shifts were how they were handled, not that they existed. A few of the shifts between the father and Thor happened rather suddenly (once in the same paragraph), and it pulled me out of the world of the novel for a second. The head-hopping annoyed me in some of Rice's later books as well, so it is interesting that you bring up The Mummy. Most novels I have read differentiate between POVs by a double space, or some other device. I am not a stickler for POV like some of my colleagues, and I think that this minor formatting change alleviates many of the confusion problems.
I think one of the reasons this was so evident to me was that I struggled with it myself. We see in others....
Overall, I think the novel was an enjoyable experience; well worth the price of admission. Thank you again for your comments. If you wish, you may email me at:
ibarman [at] hotmail {dot} com
I believe Faulkner initially investigated the cost of using different color inks for the POV shifts in The Sound and the Fury. The book ended up with brief stretches of italics to indicate a transition.
Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at March 26, 2005 9:19 PMI think different colored inks would have been a good idea. Italics and underlining can be another good way to set off the POVs. One of my critique partners used it quite well when he had to deal with the interior thoughts of a character, and then the thoughts of the demon that half-possessed him.
The italics can get annoying if done for long stretches. If I remember correctly, "Absalom, Absalom" had more problems than "The Sound and the Fury" in clarity issues. Although I could be thinking about the stretches of stream-of-concious writing that takes place in that book. Regardless of what caused them, the confusing passages may cause readers to put the book down. Some books, like Danielewski's "House of Leaves" necesitates a careful reading to delve into the meat of the book. The merits of such a tactic are often outweighed by the negatives, unless done in such an exceptional manner as to transcend what would normally be considered faults.
I do think there is a double standard in our reading. Most readers will take something from Toni Morrison or Bill Faulkner that they wouldn't from others. Part of that has to do with the strength of the story/characters/etc.
I believe the story should come first. If the story is better served by trying some avant-garde technique, then go for it. The writer also must realize the risk they are taking if such an endevour fails. On the writing end, I think it is always better to try, and stretch your writing muscle. How else do we as writers become better? But sometimes that exercise fails. That may be hard for a writer to come to terms with, but it can happen. If it's something that the writer feels they can improve on, so be it: if it is something the writer feels just won't work, they at least learned something in the process.
By the way, I was amused that you mentioned the Rats of NIMH. I didn't read the book, but was annoyed by one glaring lapse in the movie -- as soon as the rats gained human intellegence, they were able to read, which leaves the widespread human illiteracy something of a mystery.
(Yes, I too am a stickler for details...)
That annoyed me a little as well, but that was when I was younger and didn't understand the differences necesitated by turning a book into movie. The book did go into greater detail about how they gained their superintelligence, and how they learned to read. I as well felt that it was an important part that was left out in the movie version. Without that knowledge, the viewer wonders why the other animals don't have the same level of sophistication.
Perhaps the screenwriters were figuring on the viewers already knowing the backstory from reading the book. Personally, I think this is a huge mistake that screenwriters should never do, but it does happen. "Queen of the Damned" is a good example of that mindset. If you hadn't read the books first, you would be very confused with much of the plot intertwinings. That mindset does not make a movie that has broad appeal. How many people watch "The Lord of the Rings" who haven't read the books? You can't cut any important parts that are integral to the plot if you want the non-reading viewers, but you do need to cut some of the chaff to make it a viewable length. (I am among the people who were glad that the Tom Bombadil chapters were cut.)
Thank you again for your comments. They have been insightful, and have helped me in my continuing struggle to understand the writer's mind.
Dear Chuck Eagle:
Sorry I didn't respond to your post earlier, but here's what I can tell you.
Your biggest problem with selling a werewolf novel, I'm afraid, is that the horror genre is "on hiatus" in the literary world. To put it bluntly, no one is buying horror novels today. In fact, the genre was virtually dead by the time I finished writing Thor (circa 1991), and it was only rescued from the dustbin by a publisher with a soft spot for dogs.
Your best bet, if your story has a unique or unusual angle to it, is to write a screenplay. As I'm sure you've noticed, horror movies are alive and well. Personally, I gave screenwriting a try and it didn't agree with me. The basic difference between novels and movies is that novels tend to be internal -- you feel what the characters feel -- while movies are external -- you only see what's happening. I'm just not interested in writing what happens without writing how it affects the characters involved.
If you're still trying, I suggest you forget any advice you may have gotten from books on writing query letters. Every one I've seen tells how to write flat, uninteresting q's. I write q letters exactly as I would write the back-cover blurb on a paperback, for a simple reason -- the query letter and the cover blurb both serve the same purpose, to sell the book. So my queries read like this:
Dear So-and-so:
Tom Burke has a problem. He's in debt up to his neck to a mob shylock, and he just lost his job. And worse, there's a dead body in his bedroom, and he doesn't know how it got there.
That kind of thing.
You have to make the agent want to read the story (and learn the surprise ending). Unfortunately, even if you get an agent, her chances of selling the book to a publisher are slim at best (right now). I went through this, two years after Thor was published, with a vampire novel. My agent tirelessly shopped it around for over a year, finally getting down to micro-presses, before he gave up. Lots of editors liked it, but not enough to buck the book-buying trend (i.e., that horror is dead).
If you want to try the screenwriting route, I suggest Lew Hunter's Screenwriting XXX (I forgot the number). He's widely recognized as the top screenwriting teacher in the country, if not the world.
Good luck,
Wayne Smith
P.S. I finally threw in the (horror) towel, and am hard at work on a dystopian future novel, similar in tone (but not content) to 1984.
Posted by: Wayne Smith at February 23, 2007 1:31 AM