Narrative Mood

Narrative Mood deals with a fundamental question many writers and readers never ask: who is the narrator, and how do they feel about the story?

In some cases, the narrator's identity is so obvious you don't have to ask.  If the story is written in first person, the narrator is the main character, who is usually, but not always the story's protagonist (more on that in a moment).  And if the story is in present tense, then the narrator perceives the story as it happens, and their emotions are affected by the plot.  For example, if a protagonist suffers a setback, their narrative voice should carry notes of frustration.  I call this mood Straight First Person Narrative. In straight first person narrative, the character's emotions color the descriptions, and the emotions follow the events of the story.

Beyond this, things get a little more nuanced.

If the narrator is not the protagonist, then you can still write in first person, and relate the story of the protagonist from a supporting character's point of view.  I call this narrative mood First Person Acolyte Fiction.  This mood can occur in present and past tense.  Moby Dick is the classic example of past tense first person acolyte fiction.

In my opinion, first person past should not be used unless you are intentionally telling the story from the POV of a character who has already lived through the story.  The story should be written as if the character were writing their memoir.  I call this mood Memoir Narrative.

One crucial issue in this mood is how much time has passed since the character completed the events of the story.  Are they telling us this immediately after finishing it?  Or are they older, and had time to reflect on how the events really affected them?

In either case, you also have to ask how the character feels about the story in the moment they are telling it.  Are they happy it happened, or are they bitter?  Their emotions regarding the events will color how they describe those events.  And their opinions of the settings and other characters will color how those places and characters are described.

For example, if a story is written in first person past tense, narrated by an eleven year old boy who lived the story when he was ten, his emotions will still be fresh.  If he describes a parent who frequently punished him, he might describe them as ugly, and describe their actions as cruel.  But if the story is narrated by the same boy when he is in his late forties, he is likely to have a different perspective.  Perhaps he now realizes that the parent was only trying to provide tough love and strict guidance, and he will have a more evenhanded appraisal of their actions.  So when I approach memoir narrative, I make note of the temporal distance and overriding emotion.

These issues carry into third person as well.  Is your third person narrator a character in the story, like the Kid in Blood Meridian?  Or is the narrator just a nameless outside observer?

Third person narrative from the POV of a supporting character can be a tricky business, but Blood Meridian is ample evidence that it's worthwhile.  I call this mood Third Person Acolyte Fiction.  It is possible to write third person acolyte fiction in present tense, but I find it awkward, and I don't recommend it.  It feels like you're sitting on the couch next to the writer and he's narrating the movie you're watching.  Everybody hates that, right?

In past tense, third person acolyte fiction has the same issues as first person past tense.  The amount of time between the narrator and the story is important, as is their feelings on the story.

If the narrator is a nameless observer not involved in the story, I refer to this mood as Straight Third Person Narrative.  This means that the narrator simply exists to communicate the story.  They have no personality traits of any kind, no opinions, and no thoughts.  However, when the narrative distance is small, the character's voice, opinions, thoughts, and emotions can be woven directly into the narrative voice.  But make sure that the emotions remain anchored to the character.

If I'm writing a scene with two characters, and I'm writing it from character A's point of view, the narrator is like a ghost watching the scene from inside character A's head.  The narrator can supply descriptions of character B, but can only describe character A in very specific circumstances (like looking in a mirror, which is a hack move).  The narrator can supply character A's thoughts, but character B's thoughts are a mystery.  The narrator can feel any physical sensations that character A experiences, but can only describe the expressions and actions of character B.

The difference between straight narrative and first person present (beyond the use of pronouns), is that in straight narrative, the narrator is mobile.  The narrator can appear in any character's head--but only one character at a time.  The narrator can also pull back into the environment, and describe things from a broader point of view, with more narrative distance.

This probably sounds like omniscient to some of you, but I think there's a difference.  Omniscient POV, by its very definition, knows everything.  That means that an omniscient narrator can report the thoughts of any character in any scene, as well as things invisible to all characters.

Where a lot of authors get confused, I think, is that they fail to use thinker attributions, and they head-hop too much.  Hearing the thoughts of two or more characters over the course of a scene can be confusing, and frankly it's just unnecessary most of the time.  In omniscient, you should only report internal monologue when it really counts.  You're better off trying to find subtler ways of conveying your character's emotions.

In omniscient, internal monologue can be woven into the narrative voice, but it should be phrased with thinker attributions like "he thought" or "Jane wondered".  Otherwise, it should be cast in italics and paragraphed like dialogue, but NOT enclosed in quotes (for more on this issue, check out my article on Paragraphing).  I realize that sounds complicated, but writing in omniscient is complicated, and you should only attempt it if you're certain it's the best way to put your story across.

One final issue about omniscient is whether your omniscient narrator has a personality.  

If the omniscient narrator has no personality of any kind, and offers no opinions or tangential thoughts, I call that Straight Omniscient Narrative.  The Dune books are written in straight omniscient narrative.

But of all the POVs and moods, omniscient is the one that lends itself best to a non-character narrator who has a personality.  In fact, I think that's the way omniscient is best written.  I refer to this as Storyteller Narrative.  It pairs well with frame stories, like the one in The Princess Bride.  In the Hitchiker series, Douglas Adams used an all-perceiving, irreverent, opinionated omniscient voice that was constantly taking hilarious detours into the wacky setting.  It makes those books.

But Frank Herbert's wordy, academic omniscient narrator in the Dune books makes those stories a tall order for most readers.  Now, of course, Dune is among the most treasured books of all time, but Herbert succeeded on the strength of his ideas, not his writing style.  Even I, a dedicated fan, had to drag myself through his byzantine prose.  It was worth it, but as I've said before, the majority of readers won't read something that's hard to read, no matter how good or "worth it" it is.  Herbert got away with it, but make no mistake, he was getting away with it.  And we don't want to get away with our writing, do we?

Narrative mood is a subtle and complex business, but it's worth your consideration.  Making definite decisions in this area will make a whole class of smaller decisions much easier.  And it will imbue your writing with an authority that most writers lack.