tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post6578044426723918174..comments2023-08-16T02:59:07.053-07:00Comments on Writer's Daily Grind: Points of viewAnne Gilberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-75011962806326069982007-09-01T21:09:00.000-07:002007-09-01T21:09:00.000-07:00Don:Well, one of my novels that is waiting until I...Don:<BR/><BR/>Well, one of my novels that is waiting until I finish the "medieval" stuff, is written entirely in the first person. This is because it's from the POV of a fifteen year old girl. And yeah, she's a fifteen year old <B><I>Neandertal</I></B> girl. It felt more like the way a teenager would experience their life, to write in the first person. But it's a hard POV, because writers often want to switch to other POV's. I deliberately veered away from this, because I don't think it fits the story. <BR/><BR/>You claim that Neandertal children were "far more precocious" than "modern" ones. I know about the study from which these conclusions have been drawn, and like everything else surrounding Neandertals, it has been challenged. IIRC, it concerned growth rings in teeth. The assumption was that(and I can't remember all the details), the number of rings, or their spacing, or some such thing, corresponded to yearly growth rates or rates of eruption. The only trouble with that is, other studies have suggested they don't, since some "modern" humans have similar teeth growth patterns. It does suggest a certain amount of "distinctiveness", though, for <B><I>that</I></B> group of people, e.g. Neandertals. But whether this "distinctiveness" amounts to a "species" difference or not, is a question people are still arguing over. And you'll just have to accept that they are.<BR/>Anne GAnne Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-50619966619384010542007-08-27T03:07:00.000-07:002007-08-27T03:07:00.000-07:00Hi again Anne: I am now on my second novel and a...Hi again Anne: <BR/><BR/> I am now on my second novel and am drawn naturally to write in first person. It does have a more immdediate-scene effect. It is not good form to change POV within a scene and I have to say I avoid this, again quite naturally. <BR/> You can get over some of the difficulties of first person by switching to third person POV for all other charachters. Use only the first for a single protagonist character. I use a new chapter to signal the change, same as almost everyone else does.<BR/> Many writers are afraid of switching from first to third (even in fresh chapters) and feal safer with third person all the way. You are on the right track, take a chance, be adventeruos and get it down.<BR/> Hope this is encouraging. Oh, and Neanderthals would not have had much time for the Mummy and Daddy thing, for reasons I pointed out in my previous comment. <BR/> Neanderthal children were far more precocious than us, having massively muscular skeletons at age eight. so I beleive they would also have been sexually precocious as well, they probably bred at about that age. Remember their life spans were about half ours. And this is a species characteristic not through happenstance in their environment. <BR/> Hmm, are they looking a bit different to us now? Odf course you can ignore all this, and I would certainly ingnor some of it (like the hair) for the sake of reader empathy and the good of the story. "Don't let the truth stand in the way of a good story."<BR/><BR/>Cheers, DonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01574469778081840716noreply@blogger.com