Kruse addresses a captured Outlaw not by radio but by conduction through their space helmets. We are told, first, what he says and, secondly, that Davenant cannot hear it. Yet the following paragraph informs us that Davenant is surprised at the nature of the Outlaw's weapon. Thus, this paragraph is narrated from Davenant's point of view whereas the sentences telling us what Kruse said and that Davenant could not hear it could not have been narrated from Davenant's pov. In those sentences, the omniscient narrator directly informs the reader. Sorry to be a pov cop but, when you read texts this closely, you notice.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But you seem to have forgotten whether it was literarily effective to have such a "mixed POv" in a story. What is your opinion of it?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Writers of prose fiction found their way to certain rules. One rule is that each passage of continuous narrative (the smallest such passage being a chapter section separated by a double space from other such sections) should have only one pov unless there is a good reason why not. Certainly, povs should not change arbitrarily for no good reason as in Herbert's DUNE books. If I draw attention to a pov shift, then the question becomes: is there a good reason for it? And I cannot see that there is.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And those rules make sense to me. I would put down the reason for this mixed POV being due to Anderson still learning how to be a writer. THE SNOWS OF GANYMEDE had its first version pub. in 1954, which was still in Anderson's early phase.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment