"Personal" question(s) to John Jarrold

[Sylvetra_Snake]

Just wondering if yopu could give me an idea of how tax is worked out and paid for when you earn money from sales or advances from publishers. It is always something I have wondered. I suspect that it automatically comes out of the funds before it goes to the author.

[SJAB]

There is a whole section covering income tax in the Writers' and Artists' year book. It is quite complex, but I think the bottom line is that you are classed as self-employed, so you have to do your own books, tax and pension and national insurance, bit like running a small business in your spare time, while working at the day job.

I would suggest if you get to that point is to get some professional advice. Your bank usually has financial advisors on staff.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Sylvetra_Snake

Just wondering if yopu could give me an idea of how tax is worked out and paid for when you earn money from sales or advances from publishers. It is always something I have wondered. I suspect that it automatically comes out of the funds before it goes to the author.

So far as I understand it, writers are effectively self-employed, and therefore will pay income tax at normal rates on all income minus allowable tax relief, plus voluntary National Insurance contributions on top.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by John Jarrold

If you speak to the Head Buyer at W H Smiths, they will tell you that Terry Pratchett is not a fantasy writer, or a humorous writer - he's simply a bestseller.

That quote needs framing.

[Barney]

I have a question on a topic familiar to these forums, the does and don'ts of limted/omniscient 3rd person POV...
can you write most scenes in 3rd person limited and yet write some scenes in 3rd person omniscient?

If so you could let the reader know important details that otherwise would be a nightmare to present piecemeal through one's various POV characters. Or would the occasional 3rd person omniscient scene be regarded as just another form of clumsy info-dumping, and taken by an agent/publisher as a sign that a writer couldn't achieve consistency in their approach?

I know there are no hard and fast rules on this but I would like to know if there are any curent trends prevailing, thanks.

[ctg]

It's perfectly acceptable, but do not put your omniscient narrative at the beginning.

[Hilarious Joke]

Is that because it's overdone, ctg?

[SJAB]

Originally Posted by ctg

It's perfectly acceptable, but do not put your omniscient narrative at the beginning.

Sorry, I have to ask this, why do you say not at the beginning? I can not see why this would make or break your story.

I have just flicked through a half dozen of "new" writers and I have found them split roughly fifty-fifty.

Brian Ruckley's "Winterbirth" has quite an indepth omnisicient narrative at the beginning.

"The Reef" by Mark Charan Newton has a wonderful first couple of paragraphs of what I would call omniscient narrative which hooked me right away.

"The Blade Itself" by Joe Abercrombie, has a short omisicient paragraph teling you that Logen is plunging through the trees etc... before slipping into a tighter 3rd person limited

Then you have writers like Scott Lynch who begins with dialogue in "The Lies of Locke Lamora", but who soon plunges into a lot of omniscient narrative.

Then writers like John Courtenay Grimwood who begins with dialogue, in "9tail Fox" (3rd person limited) and with an narrative scene discription can tell you so much.(Jon, is not a new writer, but is a current best seller in his field)

I personally feel it is the strength of the writing and the story is what will hook the agent/publisher/reader, not whether it begins with dialogue, as in close 3rd person limited POV, or in 3rd person omniscient, or in complete narrator voice.

[ctg]

I say that it is so easy to tell too much from the omniscient point of view. Hence the reason for not putting at the beginning. Who would like to read rest of your story if you show them too much of what's coming?

[SJAB]

Originally Posted by ctg

I say that it is so easy to tell too much from the omniscient point of view. Hence the reason for not putting at the beginning. Who would like to read rest of your story if you show them too much of what's coming?

Yes, you can, but that is why you edit your work carefully, drip feeding the information into the story line, when and if it is needed. Good omniscient point of view colours the world for the reader.

Beginning with it is the same as saying "Once upon a time in a country far, far, away"

You set the scene for the reader with what you feel they need to be drawn into the story, whether that is a page of just dialogue, a discription of a battle, or hints to the past, present, or future of the characters, using what ever type of POV you feel is needed. It is the writers' choice as to how they start their story, personally, I am a bit loath to say you must do this or that, as there is always the exception to the rule.

The important thing to me is that you try and create a strong story, well written, which hopefully has that extra something that will make an agent/publisher sit up and think, yes, this might just be the ticket.

[Teresa Edgerton]

If you begin with omniscent POV at the beginning of a story or a scene it's like the wide establishing shot in a movie, placing the character in the landscape (in this case the "landscape" may be political, cultural, etc.) before zooming in for a closer look (which would be the 3rd person limited POV you would then continue throughout the scene). Once you've entered the mind of your POV character, though, you shouldn't zoom out and take another look at the wider landscape (again, not limited to physical features), until you come to a new section.

[Barney]

I recently finished a wonderfully written novel that was told mostly through 3rd person limited. In the first 100 pages there were maybe 2 omniscient 3rd person scenes.
On the second of those scenes the "omnscient narrator" revealed himself to be one of the POV characters we had met earlier. His seemingly omniscient viewpoint was explained by;

a. he was involved in some of the events and was giving an eyewitness account
b. in scenes he wasn't personally present at he reconstructed it from the eyewitnesses accounts and diary entries of other people who were there
c. he was relating the story after the fact, and freely admitted that despite the pretence of omnisciece, he made details up where necessary to fill in the blanks.

So a complex, chaotic story was not told truthfully, but by producing a version of events that served a purpose.

I made awfully heavy weather of describing that, I can only assure you it worked very well in the telling (the novelist was Peter Straub). And after reading that novel it made me think I ought to have a very good reason for shifting from limited to omniscient.

[anthorn]

What makes you pick which new author to represent?

[Grymalkyn]

Originally Posted by John Jarrold

Have a look at the 'How authors/books are chosen' thread and you'll get more idea of this.

I'd like to look at this thread but can't seem to find it ... any clues?

[Dozmonic]

I'm new here and it has taken a while to read all 79 pages of this thread, but I'm glad I did. There's so much useful information in here, somebody should publish it ;-)

Hats off to you John.