Meals And POVs

I am currently rereading Poul Anderson's second Rustum volume, which takes us forwards in time, and reading SM Stirling's second Black Chamber volume, which takes us backwards and sideways in time. (Also other works but let's stay focused.)

In Theater Of Spies, look out for more lovingly described meals (of course). I will not (yet) reproduce the menus here although I have frequently done so before.

Regular readers might remember that I am a pov cop. Pov is narrative point of view. A pov cop is sensitive to any changes in pov or to any apparent breaches of the usually accepted conventions for controlling and presenting povs. We are familiar with first person pov, second person pov and omniscient narrator. The culminating story in Brian Aldiss' single-volume future history has a second person pov:

"You never knew..."
-Brian Aldiss, Galaxies Like Grains Of Sand (London, 1979), NINE, THE ULTIMATE MILLENNIA, p. 157.

- and I attempted a narrative with a second person pov on a smaller scale here.

The omniscient narrator might be appropriate to describe an event like a supernova that had happened long before there were any observers. However, in the opening passage of Mirkheim, Poul Anderson writes:

"There may have been lesser worlds and moons; we cannot now say. We simply know that the giant stars rarely have attendants..."
-Poul Anderson, Mirkheim IN Anderson, Rise Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, 2011), pp. 1-291 AT Prologue, Y minus 500,000, p. 1.

Thus, this narrator not only acknowledges that he is not omniscient but also identifies himself as one scientifically informed member of Technic civilization addressing fellow members.

The shortest unit of continuous narrative is a section either of a short story or of a chapter in a novel, e.g., Y minus 500,000 is the opening section of Prologue. The second section, Y minus 28, beginning on p. 2, is a third person narrative with Benoni Strang as its pov character.

The usual convention is that each section has a single pov. In Theater Of Spies, look out for a chapter that is narrated from Luz's third person pov but that ends with the omniscient narrator describing a third party observing both Luz and Ciara. We are not given the third party's pov but we are told that he is watching without Luz's knowledge.

For CS Lewis' extraordinary stunts with povs, see The Ransom Trilogy.

Points Of View

Regular readers of this blog might remember that one of my interests, indeed one of my preoccupations, in works of fiction is the narrative point of view, or "pov," which Poul Anderson always handles extremely well. I want to discuss povs in general before returning to Anderson's presentation of them in his Time Patrol story, "The Sorrow of Odin the Goth."

I think that I have always been aware of povs and probably all readers are even if they think that they are not. Kevin, whom I meet once a month in the Gregson Centre, and I had both read a Hornblower novel. I drew attention to a pov shift and he said that he would not have noticed such a thing. But he would surely have been aware of povs at least while reading. A French guy was reading Dune in translation. I remarked that Frank Herbert's prose has no consistent point of view. The French guy replied, "I have read it!," meaning that he had noticed Herbert's pov inconsistency.

In Volume II of Stieg Larsson's Millennium Trilogy, while Blomkvist and Bjork converse, we are told that:

"Blomkvist worried..."

-Stieg Larsson, The Girl Who Played With Fire (London, 2009), CHAPTER 19, p. 318 -

- but also that Bjork thinks:

"How the hell could Blomkvist know anything about Zalachenko?"

-ibid., p. 319.

Indeed, the omniscient narrator informs his readers that, at this point, feelings and thoughts are tumbling through Bjork's head. Thus, in the course of a single conversation, the pov shifts from Blomkvist to Bjork - and back again because, almost immediately after Bjork's thought, we are informed that Blomkvist realizes that he is unscrupulous enough to double-cross Bjork and that he feels no guilt.

James Blish, writing as William Atheling, Jr., sets out why this is wrong while reviewing a short story entitled "Final Exam" by an author called Arthur Zirul:

"A conscientious editor, for instance, would have told Mr. Zirul that he had failed to make himself aware of so simple a technical problem in fiction-writing as that of how to handle the point of view. He would have pointed out that in "Final Exam" there is no consistent point of view; instead, the author is omniscient, and tells us what each and every character is thinking (including the horse). He would have explained that the author-omniscient method of handling this problem, while it is not necessarily always bad, is at the very least obsolescent, and that common practice in modern fiction is to assign a single point of view for a short story, or at the very most, a single point of view for each plot thread. This, the author would explain, is not an arbitrary rule, but instead is based upon a great deal of accumulated experience as to how a reader reads, and what techniques give the reader the greatest access to what is important in the story. Modern readers in particular, the editor would be able to point out, are not used to being forced to leapfrog from one character's mind to another's at the author's whim; instead, they have been trained to identify with some single central character, and to be admitted to his thoughts only. Certainly no modern reader is going to react favorably to a point of view which may shift from one paragraph to another, or even from one sentence to another."

-William Atheling, The Issue At Hand (Chicago, 1967), p. 85.

Some Points To Note

(i) Atheling/Blish refers explicitly to short stories whereas I also discuss novels. However, the same principle applies. A novel should not have a chaotic pov! The whole novel or at least each chapter or at least each section of a chapter, each discrete narrative passage, should have a single pov.

(ii) Although Atheling refers to "...the author-omniscient...," I think that the author and the omniscient narrator are different. The author, usually, is simply not present in a fictional text. Of course he can write himself in as a character or as a first person narrator but it has to be clear to the reader if that is what he is doing. In a third person narrative, it is surely an omniscient narrator who tells readers what the viewpoint character sees, feels, thinks etc. It is not the character that does this. But nor is the author directly addressing his readers as in an Introduction or Afterword.

(iii) I think that there has to be a single pov because otherwise the text does not describe anything that happens. If Blomkvist and Bjork converse, then what happens is that Blomkvist experiences the entire conversation from his pov and Bjork experiences it from his pov but there is no third pov jumping back and forth between them.

Another writer, CS Lewis, fully understood povs but broke the rules creatively:

Lewis as a writer and a Professor of Literature knew that authors must understand and control narrative points of view. If an entire novel is not written from a single point of view, then each Chapter or at least each section of a Chapter, each passage of continuous prose narrative between changes of scene, should have a single point of view. That Hideous Strength breaks some rules of points of view but in interesting ways. It contains:

several viewpoint characters;
one first person viewpoint character;
an imaginary observer;
a first person narrator of other passages in the novel;
an omniscient narrator of yet other passages in the novel.

I identify the first person viewpoint character with Lewis because he tells us:

"...I am Oxford-bred and very fond of Cambridge..." (2)

The opening and closing viewpoint character of the novel is Jane Studdock. The main continuing viewpoint character throughout the novel is Mark Studdock. In fact, the novel principally follows Mark's moral and  spiritual development. Temporary view point characters during the novel are Lewis, Ransom, Dimble, Frost, Wither, the tramp, Mr Maggs, Miss Hardcastle, Feverstone, Filostrato and Mr Bultitude. When Lewis is the viewpoint character, he narrates in the first person. However, a first person narrator, presumably also Lewis, sometimes imparts information about other characters. For example, of the fleeing tramp we are told:

"I have not been able to trace him further." (3)

At one point, this first person narrator invites the reader to imagine an observer placed high enough to see both a car carrying Mark and, later, a train carrying Jane from the town where they live. "...our imaginary observer..." has what we call a bird's eye, or god's eye, view of some English countryside. (4) An imaginary observer who saw not just at one place and time but at all places and times would be an omniscient observer and would thus share one attribute of the God in whom Lewis believed. Such an observer would have been promoted from a god's eye view to the God's eye view. The omniscient narrator who is present in much fiction and in some parts of this novel is presumably an omniscient observer who narrates some of what s/he observes.

Before leaving the first person narrator, Lewis, we can note that he sometimes adopts the first person plural, as when he refers to "...our imaginary observer...," thus getting the readers on his side. (4) When he refers to the British press as "...our papers...," he again identifies himself as one of us, a citizen who reads the same newspapers that we do. (4) The omniscient narrator would refer merely to "...the papers."

However, the omniscient narrator is also present and tells us things that the first person narrator could not have known: something that Curry thinks but immediately and permanently forgets; what Frost, Filostrato and Wither were thinking as they died. This narrator could have told us where the tramp went.

Mark confronts Dimble. Conventionally, their conversation should be described either from Mark's or from Dimble's viewpoint but not from both. However, the narrator of this passage tells us how they both felt. Dimble's effort not to hate Mark gives his face a fixed severity which Mark misinterprets as loathing.

"The whole of the rest of this conversation went on under this misunderstanding." (5)

The omniscient narrator would know this, of course, but Lewis might have learned it later by conferring with both men so we are not sure which narrator speaks here. The author has indeed complicated the viewpoint issue - as Isaac Asimov did at one point in the Foundation Trilogy when an "I" appeared unexpectedly in what had until then been the omniscient narrator's account of different modes of consciousness in the far future. In that case, one critic objected to the ambiguity in Asimov's narrative whereas I welcomed the extra layer of mystery presented by a narrator who, on the one hand, knew something about future mental powers but, on the other hand, admitted to the same level of ignorance as the readers about what it would be like to experience such powers.

There cannot be many parallels between works by CS Lewis and Ian Fleming. James Bond is Fleming's viewpoint character. However, one Fleming short story presents a bird's eye view of two converging figures crawling through long grass - towards a third party whom both intend to assassinate. This odd perspective is explained by the fact that three stories, including this one, were based on screen treatments for a proposed TV series.

Lewis the first person narrator came on stage on p. 136 of Out Of The Silent Planet, after Ransom had returned to Earth.

 "At this point, if I were guided by purely literary considerations, my story would end..." (6)

and:

"This is where I come into the story." (6)

We learn that Lewis has fictionalized the names of "Ransom" and "Weston" in order to publish as fiction an account that a very few readers will recognize as the truth. The postscript is "...extracts from a letter written by the original of 'Dr Ransom' to the author..." (7) In one extract, 'Ransom' addresses Lewis by name.

At the beginning of Perelandra, the first person narrator visits Ransom and is again addressed by name. 

"The Dark Tower" features Ransom, MacPhee and, as a first person narrator, an "Oxford man" who dislikes the nick-name "Lu-Lu" and who "...had been mixed up with..." Ransom's strange adventure described "...in another book..." and is indeed referred to as "Mr Lewis." (8)

"The Shoddy Lands" has a first person narrator visited in his college rooms at Oxford by a former student. 

The Great Divorce has a first person narrator who admired George MacDonald and is clearly Lewis. Here the story overlaps with that told in Lewis' spiritual biography Surprised By Joy.

Thus, whereas first person narrators are not usually identical with their author, in this case they are.

(1) CS Lewis, Out Of The Silent Planet IN The Cosmic Trilogy, London, 1990, pp. 1-144 AT p. 138.
(2) CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength IN The Cosmic Trilogy, London, 1990, pp. 349-753 AT p. 359.
(3) ibid., p. 719.
(4) ibid., p. 395.
(5) ibid., p. 578.
(6) Out Of The Silent Planet, p. 136.
(7) ibid., p. 139.
(8) CS Lewis, "The Dark Tower" IN The Dark Tower and other stories, London, 1983. pp. 17-91 AT pp. 17, 22, 29, 39.           

-copied from here.

  

Two POVs In One Chapter

(Turner's "Dutch Boats in a Gale" serves to illustrate Poul Anderson's account of Alori boats in a gale.)

CHAPTER XX on pp. 171-184 of Poul Anderson's The Peregrine (New York, 1979) is an excellent concluding chapter of a novel with, as I argue, just one literary flaw.

The chapter begins:

"Two nights later a gale blew from the southeast, out of the sea and over the island and out to the water again. Trevelyan heard it whistle as if it were calling him." (p. 171)

The opening sentence informs us of an objective condition, a sea gale blowing across an island. The second sentence presents a specific subjective point of view (pov). Trevelyan not only hears the gale but is affected by it in a particular way. Everyone on the island knows about the gale but only Trevelyan knows that it is as if it were calling him - unless and until he tells someone else but, even then, it remains his subjective experience. Others probably experience the gale differently but, even if, e.g., Nicki experiences it in exactly the same way as Trevelyan, it remains the case that the second sentence informs us of his subjective experience and not of hers. (Now I am laboring the point.)

We expect the narrative to continue presenting a single character's pov and it does. The third and fourth sentences read:

"He looked at Nicki, and she was very close and dear in the warm yellow light of his home.
"She smiled, and it struck him with a hideous chill that she might be killed in the escape." (ibid.)

We are told how Nicki looks to him, how he feels about her and what he suddenly fears for her. There is not and cannot be anything here about how he looks to her etc. The fifth sentence does inform us of her feelings but only insofar as she has already articulated them to him:

"But she would not hear other than that she should be with him." (ibid.)

The seventh sentence is less specific:

"The tree was snug, a hearthfire in an endless hooting dark." (ibid.)

The hollow tree which the Alori have given him as a dwelling, "...his home...," might look snug and recall a hearth fire to other observers? However, the eighth sentence reminds us that, so far, this narrative is being presented to us only as experienced by Trevelyan:

"Seated on the mossy floor, he felt the slight tremble of it under the thrust of wind." (ibid.)

(Incidentally, "hearthfire" can only be a comparison because there cannot be a literal fire inside the tree.)

In the ninth sentence, Nicki starts as the door curtain is opened. Although her starting informs us that she is startled, this startlement is described as observed by Trevelyan, not as experienced by her. When Joachim enters, we are told that his eyes look reckless in a way that "...they had never seen before." (ibid.) In isolation, this phrase might have expressed a collective pov encompassing Trevelyan, Nicki and even other Nomads who are not currently present. However, the fact that the entire passage so far has been narrated only from Trevelyan's pov means that it is Trevelyan alone who thinks that they, he and Nicki or he and others, have never seen Joachim like this before. The account of the descent to the beach and the boarding of the boat are all from Trevelyan's pov.

On the boat:

"Trevelyan gasped, shaking his drenched head with wonder. 'We made it,' he breathed." (p. 174)

In isolation, these two sentences might have expressed the pov of another character observing Trevelyan. Anyone can hear him gasp and speak, can see him shake his head and can interpret his head-shaking as expressing wonder. However, the following sentence confirms that we are still in Trevelyan's pov:

"He didn't quite believe it yet." (ibid.)

The following paragraph tells us what is to be seen and that both Trevelyan and Nicki stare straight ahead. That they are both staring might mean that the narrative focus is broadening out to a joint pov although the fact that Trevelyan is mentioned first suggests that the emphasis is still on him. The next paragraph after that begins:

"Joachim crept up the bows, saw the two sitting there, and smiled. Turning, he made his way back sternward, checking on his people." (ibid.)

It is possible that Trevelyan sees Joachim creeping, seeing them, smiling, turning and checking. So far, then, we have not necessarily left Trevelyan's pov. However, in the next three sentences, we do:

"No casualties so far, except poor Alan. Joachim wondered how he was going to tell it to the boy's father.
"When he came to the stern, he saw Sean and Ilaloa helping each other steer." (pp. 174-175)

With Joachim and within his pov, we have left Trevelyan and Nicki at one end of the ship and are now looking at another couple at the other end.

More About POV's

Orbit Unlimited, part four.

("pov" = point of view.)

I said before that Svoboda remains the viewpoint character in section 5. Careful reading confirms this. A single sentence:

"Svoboda was glad to oblige." (p. 126)

- is ambiguous. It could mean either that Svoboda felt glad (Svoboda's pov) or that he was visibly glad and obliging as observed by his companion (Coffin's pov). However, the immediately preceding sentence is:

"Coffin seemed eager to talk impersonally." (ibid.)

Here we are not told directly what Coffin wanted (Coffin's pov) but what he seemed (to someone else) to want (Svoboda's pov). And this confirms that "Svoboda was glad..." is also Svoboda's pov.

A friend who reads a lot of fiction told me that he never notices points of view but surely he must be aware of them without realizing that he is?

All of this matters. When two people, A and B, disagree and argue about what happened during an incident at which both were present, they can be insufficiently aware of the distinctions between (i) A's pov, (ii) B's pov and (iii) the total event which is more complex than either person's perceptions. Communication can fail completely. How often does this happen?

Hash Browns And Conversations

SM Stirling, The Protector's War (New York, 2006), Chapter Seventeen.

Mike Havel eats "...another fried egg...," then "...load[s] more hash browns on his plate." (p. 471)

A man after my own heart! So how many of each does he eat? Yesterday, we had a very short stop on our way to London so I bought a take-out breakfast including two fried eggs and two hash browns. Sometimes we have breakfast at a place where I load my plate with them.

This chapter is part of an extended section of the novel when the good guys discuss recent activities, interrupted by frequent lengthy flashbacks to those activities. Sir Nigel describes his meeting with the dictatorial "Protector," then a flash back passage recounts the meeting from Sir Nigel's pov. However we leave that pov before returning to the good guys' conversation because another short passage recounts a conversation between the Protector and his wife when they are alone. Whose pov is this? Most of it could be an externally observed dialogue. We might initially assume that it is the Protector's pov because the passage begins with him grinning when he is alone with his wife. So, if it is anyone's, it is going to be his pov unless we are informed otherwise. When we are told that he grits his teeth, it is even more likely to be his pov although the teeth-gritting is externally observable because her smile widens when the gritting happens. Finally, we are told what he is inwardly thinking so it is definitely his pov.

Pov is important. Poul Anderson and SM Stirling always get it right. The Protector and his wife are by-now-familiar Stirling villains. To them, other people exist only as means to their ends. Ideally, they would be prevented from exercising any power over anyone else. In practice, they are going to have to be killed - the sooner the better.

Two POVs In One Chapter II

For references, see the previous post.

CHAPTER XX stays with Joachim's pov until:

"Trevelyan and Nicki joined him..." (p. 177)

- "him" being Joachim. When, in the same paragraph, Trevelyan helps a woman who falls into the water after leaving the boat, (we think that) his action is described as seen by Joachim. The following sentence and paragraph tell us what Nicki, Ilaloa, Sean and the crew do.

Then, in the next paragraph after that:

"Trevelyan looked past the smoking surf, out to sea." (ibid.)

Of course someone else could see Trevelyan looking. Nevertheless, this sentence reads as if we are returning to Trevelyan's pov. We seem to be told what he is seeing:

"The Alorian boat was drawing up alongside the reef, where it shelved abruptly off." (pp. 177-178)

- and what he is thinking about it:

"They were here and the spacecraft were only meters away..." (p. 178)

- and, finally, there is no doubt that we are back inside Trevelyan's pov:

"He caught his emotions." (ibid.)

- where we remain until the end of the novel. Any further accounts of Joachim's actions or dialogue are delivered from Trevelyan's pov.

This pov-shifting would be easy to resolve. A double space before the paragraph beginning:

"Joachim crept up the bows..." (p. 174)

- and another before the paragraph beginning:

"Trevelyan looked past the smoking surf..." (p. 177)

- would clarify that the chapter is divided into three sections:

Trevelyan's pov, pp. 171-174;
Joachim's pov, pp. 174-177;
Trevelyan's pov, pp. 177-184.

A Roman or Arabic numeral in heavy type before each section would help.

THE TOUGHEST STORY WRITTEN BY POUL ANDERSON, by Sean M. Brooks

This essay had its origins in a comment by Dr. Paul Shackley in a blog piece he wrote called "Space, Time and Experience" (POUL ANDERSON APPRECIATION blog, Sunday, May 14, 2017): "If a fictional character has qualitatively different sensory experiences and/or thought processes, then how does the author convey these qualitative differences to his readers?"  The story by Poul Anderson which best fitted what Dr. Shackley said was "Night Piece" (to be found in the Anderson pocket paperback collection THE GODS LAUGHED, TOR, 1982).  It's my belief that "Night Piece" is the toughest story to understand of all the works of Poul Anderson.  And I meant that as a compliment, not a criticism, because Anderson strove in that story to give us some idea of what a truly alien, superior, non human mind might be like.

Unusually for him, Poul Anderson attached some fairly lengthy prefatory remarks to "Night Piece": "It's quite unlike anything else I've done.  But that's precisely why I'm fond of it."   Instead of writing "Night Piece" in a straight forward narrative fashion, Anderson experimented with very different methods, as he wrote: "I have no pretensions to being a Kafka or Capek, but it did seem to me it would be interesting to use, or attempt to use, some of their techniques."  Lastly: "Therefore "Night Piece" is at least three concurrent stories, two of them symbolic. I'm not likely to do anything of this sort very often--some of those archetypes scared the hell out of me--but I hope that I succeeded in getting across a small part of  that which I was trying to get across" (all quotes in this paragraph taken from pages 33-34 of THE GODS LAUGHED, to be mostly cited hereafter as "TGL"). 

The unnamed POV character was a scientist studying ESP phenomena, such as telepathy, and had been  working at his laboratory on an "ESP amplifier," a device apparently designed to sense the radiations from the minds of beings with ESP abilities.  This POV character had also hypothesized that another "intelligent" race had evolved on Earth alongside mankind with abilities so different from ours that normally human beings would not sense that other race's existence.  And, somehow, this amplifier had "sensitized" his mind so much that he had stumbled onto the plane of existence inhabited by Superior, at that simplest level of activity sometimes engaged in by Superior most like those familiar to mankind, conflict or strife.

I need to backtrack and give some explanation of how a race alien to and superior to mankind could  have evolved alongside ours on Earth.  The POV character, after briefly reviewing what unicellular life forms, plants, animals, and human beings had in common, such as tropisms, instincts, and varying degrees of intelligence, said of the human race: "Man, of course, has made this [conscious intelligence] his particular strength.  He also has quite a bit of instincts, some reflexes, and maybe a few tropisms" (TGL, pages 45-46).  This scientist then wondered WHAT would make such an alien race truly different from, or superior to ours: "To surpass us, should Superior try to out-human humanity?  Shouldn't he rather possess only a modicum of reasoning ability by our standards, very weak instincts, a few reflexes, and no tropisms?  But his speciality, his characteristic mode, would be something we can't imagine.  We may have a bare touch of it, as the apes and dogs have a touch of  logical reasoning power.  But we can no more imagine its full development than a dog could follow Einstein's equations" (TGL, page 46).

This scientist's wife asked what could be the unique speciality of a superior race which had evolved alongside mankind.  Her husband replied, "Conceivably in the ESP field--Now I'm letting my hobby horse run away with me again.  (Damn it, though--I am starting to get reproducible results.)  Whatever it is, it's something much more powerful than logic or imagination.  And as futile for us to speculate about as for the dog to ponder Einstein" (TGL, page 46).

I admit to finding the idea that an "intelligent" race could have a speciality, a characteristic mode of acting or "thinking" far beyond anything we can imagine to be puzzling.  How could such an alien race have "only a modicum of reasoning ability" and still be superior to ours?  How could such a race even be able to use this speciality and characteristic mode without also having the intelligence needed to know HOW to use it?  Would a mere "modicum of reasoning ability" truly be enough for Superior?

Another quote from "Night Piece," from pages 46-47 of THE GODS LAUGHED: "But, assuming Superior does exist....hm.  Do mice know men exist?  All a mouse knows is that the world contains good things like houses and cheese, bad things like weatherstripping and traps, without any orderly pattern that his instincts could adapt him to.  He sees men, sure, but how can he know they're a different order of life, responsible for all the strangeness in his world?  In the same way, we may have co-existed with Superior for a million years, and never known it.  The part of him we can detect may be an accepted feature of our universe, like the earth's magnetic field, or an unexplained feature like occasional lights in the sky; or he may be quite undetectable.  His activities would never impinge on ours, except once in a while by sheerest accident--and then another "miracle" is recorded that science never does find an explanation for."

The scientist's wife then asked whether these beings could have come from another planet.  He replied: "I doubt that.  They probably evolved here right along with us.  All life on earth has an equally ancient lineage. I've no idea what the common ancestor of man and Superior could have been.  Perhaps as recent as some half-ape in the Pliocene, perhaps as far back as some amphibian in the Carboniferous.  We took one path, they took another, and never shall the twain meet" (TGL, page 47).

Getting back to a point I mentioned earlier, how did this POV character, the scientist, stumble onto the Superior mode of existence?  Again quoting from "Night Piece": "He wasn't sure how he had blundered onto the Superior plane of existence, or, rather, how his mind or his rudimentary ESP or whatever-it-was had suddenly begun reacting to the behavior-mode of that race.  He only knew, with the flat sureness of  immediate experience that it had happened."  The next paragraph reads: "His logical mind, unaffected as yet, searched in a distant and dreamy fashion for a rationale.  The amplifier alone could hardly be responsible.  But maybe the remembrance of his speculative fable had provided the additional impetus necessary?" (TGL, page 47). 

Before grappling with how a Superior mode of existence might affect a human mind, I need to define more clearly what Superior's plane had in common with that of mankind.  The scientist had happened to stumble into accessing Superior's mode of acting at the point where it was most like that of mankind: "The activities of Superior were always and forever incomprehensible to him, but he could describe their general tendency.  Violence, cruelty, destruction.  Which didn't make sense!  No species could survive that used its powers only for such ends."  The scientist reasoned further: "Therefore, Superior did not.  Most of the time, he/she/it? was just being Superior, and  as such was completely beyond human perception.  Occasionally, though, there was conflict.  By analogy, mankind--all animals--behaved constructively on the whole--but sometimes engaged in strife.  Superior?  Well, of course Superior didn't have wars in the human sense of the word.  Conflicts of some kind, anyhow, where an issue was decided not by reason or compromise but by force.  And the force employed was (to give it a name) of an ESP nature" (TGL, pages 51 and 52).   

Poul Anderson mentioned in his prefatory comments to "Night Piece" : "I have no pretensions to being a Kafka or a Capek, but it did seem to me it would be interesting to use, or attempt to use, some of their techniques."  Which means I have to briefly discuss what kind of writer Franz Kafka was, what it was in his works that Anderson took over to use in writing "Night Piece."  In the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA'S  article on Franz Kafka I found this: "The characters in these works [of Kafka] fail to establish communication with others, they follow a hidden logic that flouts normal, everyday logic; their world erupts in grotesque incidents and violence.  Each character is only an anguished voice, vainly questing for information and understanding of the world and for a way to believe in his own identity and purpose" (ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, MICROPAEDIA, volume 6, page 678 [Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2002])

After the POV character in "Night Piece" was "sensitized" to Superior's mode or plane of existence, the scientist suffered strange torments and grotesque experiences of a truly Kafkaesque kind.  He first experienced Superior as alien sounding footsteps coalescing into this description: "The footsteps picked up. They weren't loud, which was just as well, for they seemed less human each second he listened.  There was a slithering quality to them: not wet, but dry, a scaly dryness that went slithering over dirty concrete. He didn't even know how many feet there were.  More than two, surely.  Perhaps so many that they weren't feet at all, but one supple length.  And the head rose, weaving about in curves that rippled and rustled--becoming less sinuous as the hood swelled until the sidewide figure eight upon it stood forth plain; a thin little tongue flickered as if frantic; but there was an immortal patience in the eyes, which were lidless" (TGL, page 37).  This should not be understood as being an actual description of Superior--rather, it was how the POV character strove to understand what he was experiencing in comprehensible metaphors.

One of the methods used by Kafka in his works is for his characters to lose contact with others, to fail in establishing communication with them.  Anderson first showed this as happening to his POV character's reaction to a police officer finding him: "For a moment he considered asking the policeman's help.  The fellow looked so substantial and blue.  His big jowly face was not unkind.  But of course the policeman could not help. He can take me home, if I so request.  Or put me in jail if I act oddly enough.  Or call a doctor if I fall boneless at his feet.  But what's the use?  There is no cure for being in an ocean" (TGL, page 40).    

An explanation of what made Kafka's works "Kafkaesque" and how it applies to "Night Piece" is necessary: "Many of Kafka's fables contain an inscrutable, baffling mixture of the normal and the fantastic, though occasionally the strangeness may be understood as the outcome of a literary or verbal device, as when the delusions of a pathological state are given the status of reality, or the metaphor of a common figure of speech is taken literally" (ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, MICROPAEDIA, volume 6, page 678).

The unnamed POV character stumbled into the Superior mode or plane of existence in that aspect most comprehensible to men: strife or conflict.  But this character could only "understand" Superior's plane of existence in an "inscrutable, baffling mixture of the normal and the fantastic."  Two beings of this Superior race were at fierce conflict with each other and one of the ways the human character perceived this strife was as a mountain: "Across many wild miles he saw the mountain rise from the waters.  Black and enormous it was lifted; water cascaded off its flanks, fire and sulfur boiled from its throat.  Shock followed shock, flinging him to and fro, over and under.  He felt, rather than saw; the whole sea bottom lifting beneath him" (TGL, page 49).

In his daze the POV character had sought refuge in a bar, and, after it closed he walked to a bus: "Habit had taken him over the street to the bus.  He stopped in front of the doors.  What was he doing here?  The thing was an iron box.  No, he must not enter the box.  The hollow people sat there in rows, waiting for him.  He must tear down the mountain instead" (TGL, page 50). Here we see another of this mix of the normal and the fantastic characteristic of Kafka's writings: ordinary things like walking across a street to a bus and perceiving it as a menacing iron box filled with "hollow people."

How did the scientist/POV character finally escape from perceiving what was to him Superior's intolerable plane of existence?  He had blundered into that mode partly because of both his speculations and the ESP amplifier he had been working on "sensitizing" him to that alien, non human mode of existing.  The means he found of saving his sanity and returning to the human plane of thought/existing was, oddly, to keep STILL.  As Anderson wrote: "Of course.  Consider the pattern.  Forward and backward, you are still moving within the currents.  But if you remain still--" (TGL, page 54).  But to do this "keeping still" would cause the POV character intolerable anguish.  However, he managed to get through this pain and entered the bus, thus snapping out of perceiving Superior's plane of existing. 

In one sense, the ending of Anderson's "Night Piece" is not characteristic of Kafka's style of writing, because the POV character SURVIVED.  In stories and novels like "The Judgment," "The Metamorphosis,"  THE TRIAL, AMERICA, THE CASTLE, etc., Kafka's POV characters die miserably and in anguish.  Poul Anderson chose not to have his POV character suffer a similar fate.  My view is that either kind of ending is legitimate, depending on many factors, such as the differences in authors characters and the logical ways the plots of the stories they were writing determining the most artistically satisfying endings for their tales.

Poul Anderson's "Night Piece" is not only the single most difficult to understand of his stories but also one of the toughest to  write about.  Because of both his use of Kafka's methods/techniques and striving to show us how a truly alien and superior "intelligent" species could have evolved alongside the human race on our Earth.  The very idea is difficult to understand for many reasons.  One being HOW two such races could co-exist with each other on the same planet without mankind eventually and unequivocally discovering such a species.  Even if Superior's mode of existing was based on him having powers or abilities impossible for men to naturally perceive, wouldn't both races need many of the same kinds of RESOURCES to merely live?  Wouldn't members of the Superior species need to EAT, for example?  How would human and Superior farmers be able to practice agriculture without getting in each other's way?  Or has Superior somehow transcended the need for food, clothing, shelter, etc?   I do not believe it is possible for an intelligent race with physical BODIES to somehow skip the need for such things.  Or could I be wrong?

I want to go back to a point made by Poul Anderson in his prefatory remarks about this story: "Therefore Night Piece is at least three concurrent stories, two of them symbolic" (TGL, page 34).  I argue that the non-symbolic story can be found largely in the POV character's discussion with his wife on WHAT would make Superior a race superior to mankind.  And the first symbolic story would be how the POV character reacted to blundering into Superior's mode of acting and existing.  And the second symbolic story is how the human character perceived Superior's mode of acting, with all the pain and anguish that gave him.

One last point should be discussed: Poul Anderson cited Karel Capek as one of the two authors whose works helped to inspire him in writing "Night Piece."  I focused on Franz Kafka's influence because I believe it was largely that writer's work whose mark is most clearly seen in "Night Piece."  That is why I have not thought it necessary to discuss Capek's possible influence on "Night Piece," aside from me noting here that he too wrote science fiction.

POV Cop

The Enemy Stars.

Each of the four opening chapters introduces one of the four men who will be mattercasted into the Southern Cross as it approaches the black star:

1 Terangi Maclaren

2 David Ryerson

3 Seiichi Nakamura

4 Chang Svedlov

Each of these characters is the third person viewpoint character of his introductory chapter. In 5, Maclaren and Ryerson meet and converse as they travel to a mattercaster station on the Moon. Characters can converse indefinitely without revealing a point of view (pov):

"David Ryerson remarked..." (p. 31)

"...said Maclaren." (ibid.)

"...said Ryerson shyly." (ibid.)

(This could just mean that he looks and sounds shy.)

"Maclaren nodded." (ibid.)

"'And...No. Forgive me.'" Ryerson shook his blond head." (ibid.)

We gather that Ryerson feels uncomfortable in the conversation but so far our clues are all external. We have not yet been told directly how he is feeling. Then, suddenly, Maclaren agrees with us:

"He thought he knew Ryerson's type, serious, gifted, ambitious, but awe-smitten at the gimcrack fact of someone's hereditary technic rank." (ibid.)

We are told what Maclaren thinks so he becomes our pov character.

"Ryerson looked alarmed..." (p. 32)

Looked, not felt: confirmation that Ryerson is not pov.

"...thought Maclaren." (ibid.)

"Ryerson was bewildered..." (p. 34)

We seem to be wandering into Ryerson as pov. Sure enough, we are told that he is "...irrationally afraid..." (ibid.) on the Lunar monorail and that:

"It took him a while to hunt down the reason: the ghost of his father's God, ranting at pride and sloth from the tomb which the son had erected." (ibid.)

Maclaren's dark face grinned. Now we see Maclaren from Ryerson's pov. The latter thinks something at the bottom of p. 34. Then, after two pages that are unequivocally Ryerson's pov, we are back with Maclaren who:

"...had sometimes thought..." (p. 37)

But, right at the end of the chapter:

"...Ryerson felt..." (p. 40)

It is unusual for Anderson's narrative point of view to zig zag in a single chapter. 

Van Rijn POV V

See Van Rijn POV IV here. For references, see here.

I have posted about Andersonian moments of realization. See here. Nicholas van Rijn has one. While discussing a common problem with fellow merchants, he comments that they need a scientific approach, then breaks off in mid-sentence:

"Abruptly he dropped his glance and covered a shiver by pouring himself another glassful. He had gotten an idea." (p. 155)

Like all of Anderson's problem-solvers, van Rijn does not disclose his solution immediately. That has to come as the surprise ending of the story. When, after a further hour of fruitless argument, he proposes:

"'...an agreement. A pool, or prize, or reward for whoever solves this problem. For example, ten percent of everybody else's Antarean profits for the next ten years.'" (p. 155)

- Firmage of North American Engineering understandably says:

"'If I know you, you robber, you've come up with an answer.'" (p. 156)

Maybe, but the answerer must handle the expense and risk of the (possible) answer... During the ensuing argument:

"Van Rijn smiled with infinite benevolence." (ibid.)

There is a modicum of humor here. The word "benevolence" is used ironically. Van Rijn always finds a neat match between his business need to make a profit and other people's needs of different kinds but how often does this happen in reality?

Pp. 156-158 present a second conversation between van Rijn and Torres, surprisingly narrated from van Rijn's pov. Or, rather, the pov shifts. The passage opens:

"Rafael Torres had considered himself unshockable by any mere words." (ibid.)

That is Torres' pov. Then we are told what both men say so the pov could be that of an observer. There is more humor. Van Rijn bellows:

"'...we had ideals, I can tell you. We would have boosted through hell's open gates if you paid us enough.'" (p. 157)

His ideal is to do anything for high enough pay! This humorous self-criticism is not accidental. With van Rijn, every word is calculated. With a different audience, he would make entirely the same point in an entirely different way. Later, he entices Chee Lan back into employment by offering high pay and Adzel by appealing to that being's sense of duty and responsibility - but Chee Lan can be relied on to watch Adzel's back.

The conversation with Torres' shifts to van Rijn's pov:

"Van Rijn stood quiet for a while. This was something he had not quite foreseen.
"His gaze wandered forth, out the transparency, to the narrow sea. A yacht was passing by, lovely in white sails and slender hull. Really, he ought to spend more time on his own. Money wasn't that important. Was it? This was not such a bad world, this Earth, even when one was being invaded by age and fat. It was full of blossoms and burgundy, clean winds and lovely women, Mozart melodies and fine books. Doubtless his memories of earlier days in space were colored by nostalgia...." (ibid.)

This paragraph about white sails and blossoms is in a pulp sf story about fighting aliens in outer space. Those who remember reading stories about van Rijn's flamboyant character might not as readily remember these inner reflections, in his very first story, about the loveliness of Earth?

A New Eon V

Greg Bear, Eon (London, 2002).

While reading Greg Bear's Eon, I learn that it is the opening volume of a trilogy. While exploring inside the Stone, the characters in Eon learn that this mysterious artifact's seventh chamber extends indefinitely beyond its external length. These experiences are curiously parallel.

The explorers of the Stone find records indicating that a nuclear war will start very soon on Earth. This puts them in a position similar to that of some time travelers in Poul Anderson's short story, "Wildcat." The difference is that the Wildcatters have reason to believe that they inhabit a single immutable timeline whereas the records in the Stone come from a future in which no Stone had entered the Solar System! If the Stone originated in timeline 1 but arrived in timeline 2, then the war is not inevitable in timeline 2.

POV shift: a guard looks towards Olmy who, however, is sure that his camouflage remains effective (thus, Olmy's POV); investigating more closely and glancing at the papers which Olmy had disturbed, the guard sees symbols "...reminiscent of the matrix symbols he had studied in flight school..." (p. 120) (thus, the guard's POV). I usually notice POV shifts because there is general agreement that each continuous narrative passage, e.g., at least each chapter or, sometimes, chapter section, should be written from a single POV. A narrative that jumps between POV's does not describe anything that could have happened. Any sequence of events is experienced in its entirety by each participant from his point of view but no POV moves back and forth between the participants.

Torrance's POV

"Hiding Place." (here)

After a double space between paragraphs:

"The captain stood on the bridge of the yacht,..." (p. 598)

So far, this is an objective description, with no pov (point of view). The sentence continues:

"...because it was a familiar place,..." (ibid.)

This is probably the captain's pov although, just possibly, it might instead be a narrator's inference about the captain's reason for standing where he does. The sentence concludes:

"...and tried to accustom himself to being doomed." (ibid.)

This is definitely Captain Torrance's pov. The narrator has taken us right inside Torrance's head and is directly informing us what of the captain is thinking which cannot be known simply by seeing a man standing on a bridge or anywhere else.

Torrance and Jeri Kofoed converse and kiss. Appropriately, the pov remains his. We are told how she feels under his palms but not how feels to her. By this stage, Frank Herbert would have been jumping back and forth between their two povs. 

There is an interruption. We are told that van Rijn appears in the door. But he does not yet appear to either Torrance or Jeri because for the moment they are otherwise engaged. Van Rijn stands, then flings down his churchwarden to shatter on the deck, then bellows. It is the shattering and the bellowing that grab the attention of Jeri, who wails - an objective description -, and Torrance, who feels rage - a subjective description. Thus, we have returned to Torrance's pov. But we were momentarily out of it between van Rijn's silent entrance and his loud response. OK. Pov Cop time. But what else am I supposed to do when I am laid up? I have finished rereading a very good John Grisham novel and have watched the TV afternoon news.

A Time Of Peace

"Star of the Sea," 17.

Janne Floris must persuade the prophetess, Veleda, that her deity, Niaerdh, has changed from a goddess of war to a goddess of peace. Is this possible? Floris quotes "olden wisdom," beginning:

"'To every thing there is a season..."

- and ending:

"'...a time of war; and a time of peace.'" (p. 613)

That does the trick with Veleda but they still have a warlike culture to contend with.

Whose is the point of view (pov) here? The opening paragraph about the smouldering sunset could have a collective pov. In the second paragraph, a hind shivers because of the weather and because he sees Wael-Edh. He reflects on her, mutters a spell and hastens home so the pov is his but then he is gone.

In the third paragraph, Edh approaches and enters her tower so the pov might be hers although only her externally observable movements and words are described. In the upper room, Janne Floris appears and the pov seems to become hers although again this might be an externally observed conversation between the two women. Finally, Floris subvocalizes and hears Everard's English language reply in her head. The pov is now definitely Floris's.

A POV Shift

Poul Anderson, Vault Of The Ages, Chapter 11.

(We are having dark and stormy weather with thunder overhead.)

There is a change of point of view in this chapter. Carl, who has been our viewpoint character until now, remembers something on p. 108 and thinks something on p. 113 whereas, on p. 115, at the very end of the chapter, the City Chief, Ronwy, is left alone watching the others, including Carl, depart and we are told what he whispers to himself. On p. 116, at the beginning of Chapter 12, we are back to Carl's pov.

Most of Chapter 11 describes actions and conversation by a group of characters without referring to pov. There is very little unclarity or slippage of pov in Anderson's works. Searching the blog for POV or pov discloses previous discussions of this narrative feature.

POV Shift

Poul Anderson, Orbit Unlimited, part one, 5, pp. 30-33.

Theron Wolfe and Jan Svoboda converse. We are told what each says so it is not clear whose is the point of view (pov). A policeman addresses them respectfully as they leave the jail so the pov is not the policeman's. Then:

"Wolfe's Jovian form preceded him into the car." (p. 31)

"...him..." refers to Svoboda so the pov is his. However, the concluding sentence reads:

"He glanced at the profile beside him, sharp against the stars. Even as he watched, it stiffened with a resolution which, nourished, could become fanaticism. Wolfe almost declared what was really in his mind, but stopped himself." (p. 33)

Svoboda glanced at and watched Wolfe's profile: Svoboda's pov. "Wolfe almost declared...": sudden shift to Wolfe's pov.

POV Cop

"Lodestar" (here) opens:

"Lightning reached. David Falkayn heard the crack of torn air..." (p. 633)

Clearly, Falkayn is the viewpoint character here and, if we have read the series consecutively to this point, then we know who he is. 

Does the narrative point of view remain consistent? This opening paragraph continues:

"...and gulped a rainy reek of ozone. His cheek stung from the near miss. In his eyes, spots of blue-white dazzle danced across night." (ibid.)

Still Falkayn's pov (point of view). It is he that smells ozone, feels a sting and sees spots. But a writer, particularly Poul Anderson, is not likely to switch povs within a single paragraph. 

Continuing:

"'Get aboard, you two,' Adzel said. 'I'll hold them.'" (ibid.)

The text has not switched to Adzel's pov. We are told what Falkayn and another companion hear Adzel say.

"Crouched, Falkayn peered after a target for his own blaster." (ibid.)

This sentence alone could be Falkayn's pov but could also be what someone else sees and infers from his actions. We can see that someone is peering and infer what it is that he is looking for. However, the next sentence after that confirms that the narrative remains within Falkayn's pov:

"He saw shadows moving..." (ibid.)

Moving forward through the text, we find Chee Lan addressing Falkayn and running towards the spaceship. When she is attacked by a native:

"Sick-hearted, Falkayn took aim." (p. 634)

Someone else would be able to see him take aim but it is Falkayn that feels sick-hearted.

"Hurry! Falkayn told himself." (ibid.)

At the bottom of this page and the top of the next, we read his italicized thoughts and are told that his mind groans: not his mouth, which could be heard by someone else, but his mind. Further down p. 635, we are told what he wants and what he thinks.

Thus, so far, the narrative point of view is consistent. There is an interesting change of pov later.

Serendipity And Some POVs

In recent posts, the telekinetic "haunting" of the spaceship in Poul Anderson's "Sargasso of Lost Starships" led to listing a few works where the genuinely supernatural has intruded into sf scenarios. My mention of a Jet-Ace Logan story reminded Sean M. Brooks of Anderson's "Superstition," which I had forgotten but then reread, and I also reread Anderson's "Fantasy in the Age of Science" because it is relevant and comes immediately after "Superstition" in the collection, Fantasy. Thus, "Sargasso...," from which I had not expected a great deal, has had some serendipitous spin-offs. Perhaps it is time to return to the interrupted "Sargasso..." but maybe not this evening. I am always trying to get back to other reading which it is sometimes interesting to compare with Poul Anderson.

POV Cop Routine 

In the opening sentence of the first narrative section of "Sargasso...," Martin hears whereas, in the concluding sentence of that section, Savage hopes so there has been shift of point of view (pov). 

In the opening sentence of the second narrative section:

"He went over the flight plan with Martin." (p. 237)

- "He" being Savage so we might expect his pov to continue. However, this section reverts to Martin's pov.

Later sections give us other povs but only the first section has a shift of pov. On p. 241, there should maybe be a double space between two paragraphs to indicate a change between narrative sections. That exhausts my pov analysis of this story.

A Blaster And A POV

"Territory."

Van Rijn must use his "...well-worn personal blaster..." (p. 8) against hostile natives just as, later in the Technic History, "Lodestar" begins with the trader team defending itself against native rebels on another planet. Fights with aliens was what I once thought that sf was all about. Now, of course, Poul Anderson has to show us that there is a lot more going on than just crossbows and blasters.

The narrative is from Joyce's point of view but she loses consciousness so suddenly we get van Rijn's pov instead. Ammonia stings Joyce's nostrils (that is her pov), van Rijn closes her faceplate, then sees that she is stunned (that is his pov). When she regains consciousness, we return to her pov. An unusual sequence of pov switches for Anderson.

The adventure begins on t'Kela.

A Unitary POV

When Jaan meets Ivar Frederiksen and Erannath, the meeting is described from Jaan's pov, e.g.:

"Jaan, who had never before seen an Ythrian in the flesh..."
-Poul Anderson, The Day Of Their Return IN Anderson, Captain Flandry: Defender Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 74-238 AT 15, p. 187.

Jaan thinks that Ivar's blue eyes stare whereas Erannath's golden eyes search. We are then told what the human and Ythrian eyes see:

"They saw: a young man, more short and stocky than was common among Orcans..." (ibid.)

There follows a description of Jaan. Has the narrative shifted from the unitary pov of Jaan to a composite pov of Ivar and Erannath? No, because we are being told what he knows they see.Thus, the pov remains Jaan's. Poul Anderson rarely, if ever, loves control of pov.

Narrative Points Of View

Writers of prose fiction learned how to control points of view. Povs nearly always flow smoothly in Poul Anderson's works. CS Lewis fine tunes them elaborately in That Hideous Strength. See here.

The opening sentence of Chapter Twelve of SM Stirling's On The Oceans Of Eternity informs us that Tarmendtal enjoys trading, taking tribute and showing the flag. Thus, this is his pov. The second sentence continues that it was a relief to be in open prairie. This is still Tarmendtal's pov.  However, an aside informs us that the prairie is:

"... - what another history would have come to call the Sacramento Valley -..." (p. 250)

This is background information provided by the omniscient narrator from outside Tarmendtal's pov. An exercise for a writer would be to find a way to convey this information without stepping outside the viewpoint character's pov. In Doctor Mirabilis, James Blish resorted to an afterword to inform us that, in one scene, Roger Bacon had had an experience with what we call "ether."

On The Oceans Of Eternity keeps us in suspense by frequently changing its pov.

Points Of View

Poul Anderson, "Outpost of Empire" IN Anderson, Captain Flandry: Defender Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 1-72 AT pp. 50-52.

Near the bottom of p. 50, a space between paragraphs indicates a change of scene. Before the space, there is a dialogue between Ridenour and Evagail (see here) recounted from Ridenour's point of view (pov). After the space, there is a dialogue between Ridenour and Karlsarm. It was only near the top of p. 52 that I realized that this second dialogue is recounted from Karlsarm's pov. When, on p. 51, the two men watch outbackers swimming in Moon Garnet Lake:

"Those boisterous shouts and lithe brown bodies did not seem out of place..."

- this seems like a reflection that would be made by the Terran visitor, Ridenour, rather than by the native, Karlsarm.

This is an observation rather than a complaint. The pov in Anderson's narratives is nearly always carefully controlled but the reader must also remain alert. It was a surprise suddenly to be in Karlsarm's pov. However, on rereading pp. 50-51, I realized that I had made an unwarranted assumption when I thought that we were still in Ridenour's pov.