Ownership issues in relation to POV

[mukoan]

Hi,

I'm having issues with ensuring the ownership of something is clear to the reader. I was wondering if anybody had some tips that could help.

For example, take the following:

"Bill was not the brightest of men, and in late night drunken monologues he would often relate bitterly to his son how in hindsight he could have perhaps chosen a better target."

The above was a bit taken out of a scene I'm writing (nouns and Pro-nouns changed to protect the innocent). In the scene, the POV is the "son". The part I'm confused about is "he would often relate bitterly to his son how in hindsight he could have perhaps chosen a better target." When I wrote that, I wanted to convey that the father, "Bill", could have chosen HIMSELF a better target. But when I re-read it, I can see that one could take it to mean the "son" could have chosen a better target.

Who indeed owns the wish to choose a better target?

I've got bits like that peppered throughout my writing and I'm wondering if I'm over-analysing it, or it's indeed an issue I need to nip in the bud.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Mk.

[ASparrow]

Originally Posted by mukoan

Hi,

I'm having issues with ensuring the ownership of something is clear to the reader. I was wondering if anybody had some tips that could help.

For example, take the following:

"Bill was not the brightest of men, and in late night drunken monologues he would often relate bitterly to his son how in hindsight he could have perhaps chosen a better target."

The above was a bit taken out of a scene I'm writing (nouns and Pro-nouns changed to protect the innocent). In the scene, the POV is the "son". The part I'm confused about is "he would often relate bitterly to his son how in hindsight he could have perhaps chosen a better target." When I wrote that, I wanted to convey that the father, "Bill", could have chosen HIMSELF a better target. But when I re-read it, I can see that one could take it to mean the "son" could have chosen a better target.

Who indeed owns the wish to choose a better target?

I've got bits like that peppered throughout my writing and I'm wondering if I'm over-analysing it, or it's indeed an issue I need to nip in the bud.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Mk.

Why not let the reader hear one of these "late night drunken monologues" and let your character tell the reader exactly how he feels. This way you don't need to worry about trying to interpret for the reader what may be a complex emotion. The nuances will come out in your character's own words.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by ASparrow

Why not let the reader hear one of these "late night drunken monologues" and let your character tell the reader exactly how he feels. This way you don't need to worry about trying to interpret for the reader what may be a complex emotion. The nuances will come out in your character's own words.

What Asparrow said.

The problem here is that you're trying to convey something important through telling and by doing so you've backed out far enough that the detail has been lost. If you move closer in and still stick to telling it's going to read like an info-dump.

Take us into the scene and show it to us.

That should clear everything up.

[Steven Lake]

I further support the suggestions of the previous two posters.

[mukoan]

Thankyou all kindly for your advice. That would definitely clear up the issue in the above example, and will help me greatly with many of the other problems I've brought upon myself.

However I guess where I'm coming from is more from a syntax angle. The ownership issue I was referring to happens quite a lot through my writing, and although the above example can indeed be rectified by moving more directly into the scene, I'm not sure if that solution could be used every single time, (I think I would lose the story's sense of pacing by heading off on tangents every second paragraph).

I suppose what I'm trying to ask is if there is a general rule about dealing with such situations, rather than a solution to the specific example above. Or is that what you've already given me?

I'm pretty thick when it comes to this stuff...

Sincerely,
MK.

[Lemurion]

One thing I'd try to avoid is going off on too many tangents, especially in a short story. Remember, a short story only has room for a single idea.

Otherwise, if you're worried about confusion, try recasting it as two sentences rather than one. That should let you keep ownership clear. (BTW I didn't find your example confusing, but that doesn't mean anything.)

[mukoan]

Thanks again Lemurion.

[bthrowsnaill]

I also agree with the prior posts. But, if forced to modify (minimally invasive) the current sentence, I might change it to:
"Bill was not the brightest of men, and in late night drunken monologues delivered to his son, he would often relate bitterly how in hindsight he could have perhaps chosen a better target."
I think that resolves the ownership problem, but I'll defer to the more experienced on the board to correct me, if I'm wrong.

[Luke King]

The problem is one that crops up in writing fiction all the time. The difficultly lies in the fact that the pronoun "he" or "she" always has to refer back to the last person named.

In your quote:

"Bill was not the brightest of men, and in late night drunken monologues he would often relate bitterly to his son how in hindsight he could have perhaps chosen a better target."

Here, it is his son who could perhaps have chosen a better target, and that is the problem, because that isn't what you mean.

What you mean to say is:

"Bill was not the brightest of men, and in late night drunken monologues he would often relate bitterly to his son how in hindsight Bill could have perhaps chosen a better target."

Though this sounds awkward. A better option might be:

"Bill was not the brightest of men, and in late night drunken monologues he would often relate bitterly to his son how in hindsight a father could have perhaps chosen a better target."

I often find problems with pronouns and their referents when I read back through things I've written. Sometimes it doesn't matter too much -- if there is one clear point of view and you keep referring to that "he" or "she", then the reader will probably get you. But, generally speaking, a pronoun refers back to the last person of that gender named.

[mukoan]

Thankyou once again to all. And especially Luke, I was wondering what the "general rule" actually was. Like you said, I think most times someone reading statements such as those will get what I meant, (Lemurian even testified to this with my example). But in the hopes of improving as a writer, I'd like to know the better path to follow.

Cheers.

[sportourer1]

Lets not get too POV obsessed, its more addictive than crack