First off, 2nd person not 3rd.

2nd person eh? now i can show off to my retarded english teacher

Actually it’s not as simple as that. It’s third person, sort of. Misty talks TO her husband in second but talks ABOUT him in third. But the important thing is she’s really writing about herself in third person. I once had a paragraph where chuck explained it, and I forget what he called it, something like second/third “function.” I don’t know, the point is, it reads like second, but you really have a narrator outside the narrator who is writing about the narrator, so it’s third, sort of. Hell with it, I’m going under; just don’t be too quick to kill your teacher.

it's 4th person!

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde;951131]Actually it’s not as simple as that. [/QUOTE]

I've gotta agree with the doctor on this one. It's strange and perplexing to me that someone would make an argument that Diary is written in first person and use this third person sentence as proof:

"This is the worst part of her day, writing this." [p.39]

A genuine first person variation would be: "This is the worst part of MY day, writing this."

A second person take would read: "This is the worst part of YOUR day, writing this."

And third person variations include: "This is the worst part of HER day, writing this."

Using a name, or using the masculine pronoun HIS in that sentence, you'd still have third person.

The overall feel of the book is second person, very direct, even if it isn't really talking about YOU, the reader--as the threadstarter pointed out. The sentence-by-sentence reality is a modulation between different voices. Chuck knows how to shift gears and blend different registers into a seamless voice.

The confusion comes in because your "retarded" English teachers have all taught you a lie. They taught you that a good piece of writing must adopt one voice, one point of view, one perspective, and stay with it consistently.

They forgot to add: "...if you're a beginner."

And since you took their words as gospel, you feel certain that a really for real professional piece of literature must be written *only* in one person, one voice, one point of view. The reality is, for a really capable author like Chuck, not to modulate between different vocal registers without an audible break, not to shift gears so smoothly that you don't notice he's used the clutch, would be a horrible limitation.

It'd be like driving crosscountry in a car with a five-speed manual transmission, but some of the gears are stripped out. You can't use first, third, fourth, or the overdrive gear, fifth. The car only works in second. So to get started from a dead stop, you rev it and pop the clutch; it lurches and starts out slow. Impossible to get started on a hill without someone pushing. Once you get going in second gear, though, it's great. Traveling is smooth and pleasant between 35 and 45 miles per hour. Faster than that, things get loud and hot and start to melt.

But that lie your English teacher taught you, it keeps you confused, obsessively overworking your own prose into a single gear, and not knowing how to conceptualize and label something written with the racing gloves on. And by YOU, I don't mean anyone in particular.

[QUOTE=vigorous puppy;951194]
It'd be like driving crosscountry in a car with a five-speed manual transmission, but some of the gears are stripped out. You can't use first, third, fourth, or the overdrive gear, fifth. The car only works in second. So to get started from a dead stop, you rev it and pop the clutch; it lurches and starts out slow. Impossible to get started on a hill without someone pushing. Once you get going in second gear, though, it's great. Traveling is smooth and pleasant between 35 and 45 miles per hour. Faster than that, things get loud and hot and start to melt.[/QUOTE]
Dang, that's the best I've ever heard it put.

yeah, if you know things about cars.

Well, if you [U][B][I]don't[/I][/B][/U] know things about cars, then try this:

You're a first semester film student and you've volunteered with your friends in the drama department next door. You've agreed to set up a camera and film the rehersals of a stage play. The director wants the actors to be able to watch themselves and get the audience perspective.

Being new to cinematography and film editing, you're eager to play with every cool toy at your disposal. You especially like the camera's optical and digital zoom features. you're filming a really static dinner party scene where everyone sits around talking.

In order to keep yourself amused, and maybe jazz up your video, you do your level best to zoom for a close up on each and every speaker, as talk moves around the table.

The effect is too rapid and disorienting to watch, the shots you're trying to get, too much for one camera in a static position. The output is unbearable.

What's worse, there's even critical moments in the scene when the reaction shot on a certain listener is far more important than the face of the speaker. By zooming close on the speaker, you're actually missing a more critical element of the scene. Let Ted talk on the audio track while showing Sheila's facial expression, and you'd have something.

But you ain't doing a film production. You're supposed to be helping a troupe of actors get a view of their rehearsal: a stage play that's not designed for film. For present purposes, one medium shot that captures everyone at the table, that would work much better. After wincing and rubbing her eyes at your early footage, the director asks you to please use the zoom less next time. But you... you're so convinced you can do something better, you still overdo it the next time.

The director says:

"Please stick to one shot. A good medium shot is all that we need."

But as a beginner with an expensive toy, it's really hard to discipline yourself to that.

The time after, this director hits a lucky break. One of her cast members has bailed out and there's no understudy. She asks you if you wouldn't mind sitting in. Secretly, you've been dying for a chance to act. So this time, you have no choice but to set the camera running and leave it set for a medium shot that keeps all the cast in the frame.

Results are much better, especially for the given purpose.

Years later, ironically, you get the chance to direct cinematography for a film version of that very play. Using three cameras, set to capture the party from different angles, you select one medium shot to capture the entire dinner scene. And then you cut in two or three really significant close ups from the alternate cameras, including the reaction shot on Shelia's face while Ted is talking, saying that one thing that was just so crass.

Now, your "zooms" are handled in the editing room, by instant cuts to your other cameras. It's used selectively, in a way that makes good dramatic sense. It isn't gratuitous or disorienting for the viewer. So, it's better than a single medium shot capturing everything, especially for film as film, instead of film as rehersal. It's the sophisticaed thing you were trying to do as a beginner, but couldn't quite pull it off.

Writing is the same.

No - Person and Point of View arent quite the same thing.

But when they tell you to stick to only one "person" for the length of an entire novel, or when they suggest that you hold to a single point-of-view for the duration a scene, that's the college stage director saying:

"Please stick to one shot. A good medium shot is all that we need."

. ..
VP

what are films?

J/K

That is a excellent 2nd explanation of that.

I mean i got the first one, and wanted to be a smart ass and make a joke...but damn. Well thought out.

Ubik - 0
Viggy Mark - 2

I give two points for the expanded 2nd explanation. Very detailed.

I mean i was going to give myself 1/2 a point cause i have a big weiner but that wouldn't have been fair to mention.

yet I did.

i remember that convo, ej. err, um, that paragraph. chuck said that he wrote the novel in a very loose second person. i'd love to have a conversation with him about it. but for right now, ive been looking for that golden egg since sunday morning and im not giving up
kabol

. .
/-`

oh, jeezuz, eth

[img]http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r293/DrJekyll8MrHyde/Clip%20Art/squirrel02qf7.gif[/img]

that fucking killed me

kabol

I think 'Diary' is a dramatic book.
Hey Iheannon why do you say that 'Diary' is better than 'F.C.'?...from what point of view?

I'm so glad other people liked this book as much as I did.

Me too. I just thought it was well written. It's gotta be my third favorite (after IM and Survivor, of course).

I can see why a lot of people wouldn’t like it so much, but I really related to the characters. I broke up with my boyfriend because of that book. The only thing I regret is talking to him again.