Ask a question

Which Is Better To Have A Narrator Express A Characters Thoughts Or The Character Themselves

Who was the narrator of the Iliad??? Please help me?

You should know about Google Scholar if you are interested in source material. Generally, the "narrator" is the voice of the storyteller, which might be a different voice from that of the author him/herself. The narrator of the Iliad is not named. Homer himself is a bit of a historical mystery and there were no fancy modern ideas back then about authors using dishonest or weird or badly mistaken narrators, so one could reasonably say the narrator is either Homer or a guy Homer has no problem with.

Narrators become interesting for themselves, rather than for their stories alone, when they say something that suggests they are not speaking God's own Truth and have opinions or ideas or some take on the story other than just reeling it off. There are a few places in the Iliad when the narrator expresses "personal" views and one can only wonder if those are Homer's own views or if Homer wants to make the narrator an interesting "character" as so many modern writers do.

Finally, notice that there are some places where somebody other than the narrator tells a story and moves the plot along nicely by providing important facts, but that kind of teller is clearly also a character with personal ideas and personal axes to grind and things to do in the world, and not the narrator or the author himself who is standing off in the distance.

Since this sounds like schoolwork, you might be interested in this academic idea about "para-narrators" who are set up by Homer to have a role as characters in the Iliad but also tell part of other characters story with their own spin on it, and are clearly separate from the main "narrator" of it.

What are some techniques that films use to express a character's inner thoughts?

Voice Over - its clichés, therefore it must be used only if only VO can give you the desired effect. Exp. Taxi Driver, Shawshank Redemption, GoodfellasA dream sequence - This is clichés as well.A surreal sequence: like in 8 and half, requiem for a dreamAn expressive prop - like a Yes/No signboard behind a confused De Nero in CasinoA letter or A diaryBreaking the fourth Wall - Like in Woody Allen moviesA musical - like in La La LandA secondary character talking his mind - As Scorsese plays a Passenger behind Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.A visual Montage for thought - Like in Rashomon.There are more and one can always be innovative with props, mis en scene and words.

How would an author's tone reveal character traits in a story?

In this answer I'm assuming that by the author's tone you mean the narrator's tone. I'm also assuming that you are being asked which character traits of the narrator are revealed by his or her tone.So basically you are being asked to use the narrator's speech/thoughts/reactions to infer character traits. This is pretty simple, and people do it in everyday life. For example, if you were reading a narrative of my thoughts, and when I saw a three-legged dog on the sidewalk I reacted by thinking, "Get this damn dog out of my way," then you might infer that I am not a very sympathetic person, or at least that I am in a bad mood. On the contrary, if I saw a homeless person and I stopped to have a conversation with them to express caring, and especially if I gave them some food or clothing, you might infer that I am an especially compassionate person.So if my assumption is right, and you are being asked to look at the narration and infer the character traits of the narrator, then you have everything which the narrator has ever thought or said to use as textual evidence on which to build an inference.

Major/Minor characters (Great Expectations by:charles dickens)?

Can some one provide a brief description with commentary (specific characteristics) for major and minor charaters in the novel "Great Expectations"???
i need help with this question....


What are the stories/movies/TV series with very good narrations? Who is the narrator and why do you think it is the best?

There is a film-school rule that if your film needs a narrator, you haven't used sufficient visual means to tell your story. Rules are made to be broken. I like these two films for the way each employed an omniscient narration in a way that suggested that what was happening internally to the characters was different from what was happening externally. In these cases the narration expresses what dialogue cannot. In both cases, it is an unseen narrator who has a perspective the sometimes deluded and definitely smitten hero lacks. 500 Days of Summer:  NARRATOR For Tom Hansen, this was the night where everything changed. That wall Summer so often hid behind - the wall of distance, of space, of casual - that wall was slowly coming down. For here was Tom, in her world... a place few had been invited to see with their own eyes. And here was Summer, wanting him there. Him, no one else.The Age of InnocenceNARRATORHe guessed himself to have been, for months, the center of countless silently observing eyes and patiently listening ears. He understood that, somehow, the separation between himself and the partner of his guilt had been achieved. And he knew that now the whole tribe had rallied around his wife. He was a prisoner in the center of an armed camp.

What are some tips for using an effective unreliable narrator?

Read two books, Gone Girl and The Girl on the Train, both mindboggling with unreliable narratives. The reader never knows what to believe. There may be a twist ending that challenges the reader's point of view and experience of the story/plot. Or, the unreliable narration may never be fully resolved, challenging the reader to wonder what the real story is and which character(s) have been authentic.Tips? It's kind of like four witnesses to an accident. A car runs the red light and a crash results. The four characters/witnesses tell the police what happened, each from his own pov. BUT, to make the four reports even more unreliable, one of the witnesses knows the driver who ran the red light and that driver owes him a lot of money, so no matter that the driver ran the red light, this witness will do his best to put him in an even worse situation. Another witness is the red-light runner's young wife who wants only the best for that driver and will tell any lie to keep him out of jail. And so on. Does that make sense to you? An unreliable narrator could be a child, a mentally-ill person, a person on drugs or an alcoholic, a person with an ax to grind, a racist. If I were writing such a story, I'd write it "straight" and then start tweaking dialogue and the storyline.

Which point of view focuses on the thoughts and actions of a single character at a time?

Third person limited point of view is a method of storytelling in which the narrator knows only the thoughts and feelings of a single character, while other characters are presented only externally. Third person limited grants a writer more freedom than first person, but less than third person omniscient.

The third-person objective employs a narrator who tells a story without describing any character's thoughts, opinions, or feelings; instead, it gives an objective, unbiased point of view. Often the narrator is self-dehumanized in order to make the narrative more neutral. This type of narrative mode, outside of fiction, is often employed by newspaper articles, biographical documents, and scientific journals.

Third person omniscient is a method of storytelling in which the narrator knows the thoughts and feelings of all of the characters in the story, as opposed to third person limited, which adheres closely to one character's perspective.

According to the above definitions, I'd say that the first option is the correct answer but if the story has a plethora of characters and you need to express a variety of narrations from different characters, then you should choose the third option.


I have to write an essay about the point of view in the short story "The Lesson" by Toni Cade Bambara?

I can't figure out what point of view this is written 1st or 3rd person maybe limited omniscient...please help!!! I need a thesis and proof to back up why it is that point of view. thank u so much 2 anyone who answers.

What is the point of view of the narrator in Sense and Sensibility? How do you know?

It is a third-person point of view because the narrator uses words such as he, she, it and they e.g., "THEY gave themselves up wholly to their sorrow".

First-person is a narrative mode where a story is narrated by one character at a time, speaking for and about themselves.

Second-person is a narrative mode in which the protagonist or another main character is referred to by employment of second-person personal pronouns and other kinds of addressing forms, for example the English second-person pronoun "you".

Third-person is a narrative mode in which each and every character is referred to by the narrator as "he", "she", "it", or "they".