From what I recall Dahl tends to dot the back-history with the odd clipping of the protagonist's POV, like ... OR AS SUCH AND SUCH WOULD SAY etc ... giving the child's take on it. This would provide a direct link to the child's thought process. Dahl also employs the device of talking to the reader.

View sample of Matilda. You will see from the end of page 13 - not very far in at all, considering the layout, that Matilda's POV is put across in subtle form "two glorious hours" - this being read as her experience without specifically being tagged such; in dialogue and then directly.

Good writing rides out the fads, and it is worthwhile remembering that by all accounts The Philosophers Stone would not have made it to publishing if Rowling hadn't had someone in there who knew her. The reviewing editor had rejected it the first scan and only accepted it because that someone had retrieved it from the ditch-tray.

Point? Subjectivity. As guest editors revealed in a recent course I took, the first read through by reviewing editors is dedicated to finding reasons NOT to publish. Only on passing that hurdle do they adopt a positive approach and look for why the book should be published.

Rowling fell at the first fence - someone came with a forklift and carried her to the second.

As with David Eddings' The Belgariad, there is also the device of providing a prologue which may be skipped by the reader to get right to the child Garion's pov "As long as Garion could remember [...]" (Pawn of Prophesy, Eddings, 1982). By clearly tagging a section as prologue your provide the reader with the choice of dismissal ... until they're hooked and must return.

This book will also be revealing as to what is and what is not original.

I hope this proves helpful.


Good luck ... and that is another hurdle to vault.

Thanks guys!

Perry,

I see what you mean about the 'Matilda' extract. I'm going to go through with a fine tooth comb now and try to find those types of sentences that Dahl uses to let us get inside Matilda's head.

Re: Rowlng – I didn't know that. I knew she's been rejected by some publishers but had no idea she only got off the slush pile because someone knew her. That's a real bummer for me as I know no one!

Re: Eddings. Great example. I can see exactly what you mean about the prologue. An interesting idea. There may be a way to rejig things a bit like this too.

Thanks so much. Really useful advice - and just what I was looking for.


Clairann.

Ah! I see now. I've had a look on google as you suggest and found some more examples of what you're suggesting – rather like what Perry is saying Dahl does, I think. I'm on this now.

Thanks for the clear explanation. I think this is what some of my reviewers have been suggesting but I just couldn't see it until I had a concrete example in front of me. A case of woods and trees, I think.

You don't happen to know what 'Deep Third' is, in terms of narrative voice, do you? Another reviewer has suggested this as a way out of my quandry but I can't find an explanation on google that I understand! I'm beginning to feel a bit like the village idiot.

Seems the manner of her being noticed is entering the realms of publishing myth! Whichever is the case, the issue of the first chapter POV is still interesting.

Do you really think it's 'less than riveting'? For me it was so full of enigmas I just had to read on. The POV was secondary to the plot. But maybe that's because I have the literary tastes of a ten year old!

Oh! Ta very much. Understand now. For some reason I didn't connect the two and thought it must be much more complicated/clever than that. 'Deep Third', as you say, has connotations of spies/cloak and dagger – I thought it must be either something deviously cunning or a bit rude!

Cheers for all the help, Perry.