In books they are found where the narration is conducted on behalf of the all-seeing author, and not on a specific character.
Somehow they cited Tolstoy or Senkevich as an example, from modern authors - Oldie. Like, they also have synonyms, for example, in the “Camo Gryadyoshi” of the protagonist, the author constantly calls it either a patrician or a youth. But there is an all-seeing author who looks at the same time from the side, and sits in the heads of all the heroes.
And if the narration is conducted only on behalf of one hero, and the author shows us the world through his eyes, those very synonyms look far-fetched.
However, this does not mean that the word “Slytherin” cannot be used at all, for example, in relation to the same Malfoy. Can. Even if the narration is from a "third party limited".
Let's say this description is quite acceptable:
"Malfoy was standing by the window - an arrogant, pompous Slytherin, looking down on everyone with contempt and a little down."
But like this, for example, you do not need to:
"Harry kissed the Slytherin, and Draco tossed and turned in his sleep." What stranger is the Slytherin in their bed?
The story of the creation of the novel Crime and Punishment: from design to publication
The novel Crime and Punishment is an outstanding work of the great Russian writer F. M. Dostoevsky.
The history of the creation of this work is interesting and not simple. Dostoevsky put in his great romance not only his soul, but also tremendous efforts.
This article presents the story of the creation of the novel "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoevsky: from concept to publication of the work.
See:All materials on "Crime and Punishment"
The all-seeing all-knowing author
The distributed third party is a very convenient, seemingly universal position. But on the example of the same “Da Vinci Code,” its flaws are also visible. When the narrative positions are evenly alternated, the reader becomes like a spectator of a tennis match, turning his head to and fro, and the “pass” to change the position after a while is perceived as a flaw. This is good for an action-packed thriller, but far from always such a mechanistic and predictable approach is appropriate. In addition, the reader’s attention is so defocused. It is more difficult for him to understand who is the protagonist and who is just a character. To avoid this, the author accepts one of two impersonal positions.
The first of them is the position of the all-seeing and all-knowing author - the demiurge, who knows everything about the characters. The most striking example of this kind is, of course, Leo Tolstoy. To him this position is organic like no one else. When he needs to, he literally “gets into the head” of the characters and speaks on their behalf - for example, in a scene when the inexperienced Natasha Rostova gets on the ballet and sees only how “a man with bare legs began to jump very high and mince his feet”. And when it’s necessary, he doesn’t shy away from the periods beginning with the words “Prince Andrey didn’t even know what. "Or" Napoleon could not have foreseen that. "Or just looks at his characters as puppets with" open heads ":
Davout raised his eyes and looked intently at Pierre. For a few seconds they looked at each other, and this look saved Pierre. In this view, in addition to all conditions of war and court, human relations were established between the two people. Both of them at that moment vaguely felt countless things and realized that they were both children of humanity, that they were brothers.
Not to mention the famous and scandalous beginning of "Anna Karenina" - "All happy families are alike, each unhappy is unhappy in its own way." Scandalous - because Tolstoy does not bother to justify or motivate his non-obvious (and easily turned inside out) statement. He just speaks the immutable truth, and that’s it!
Jorge Luis Borges gave us no less outstanding example of narrative on behalf of the all-seeing author than in the Tolstoyan epics in the short story “Secret Miracle”. It refers to the Czech Jew Jaromir Hladik, who is led to be shot by the Gestapo. Standing in front of the ranks, he regrets only one thing - that he did not have time to write the drama he had conceived in verse. And God (or the author?) Performs a secret miracle: the bullets flying out of their guns freeze in the air: the time for Hladik has stopped until he mentally completes his drama. He slowly and carefully hones every scene, cuts, swaps replicas. Finally, he realizes that he has only one epithet left to find. He finds him - and at the same moment the bullets come to life and dig into his body. For outsiders, everything that happened did not take a second. But almost a year passed for Hladik - and who, except for the author-demiurge, can confirm this?
But, of course, not all writers consider themselves entitled to broadcast like the Lord God. More often than not, they do not stick out their omniscience and mask the demiurgical beginning, preferring the role of a tactful interlocutor, sharing with the reader an interesting story known to him. And sometimes even entering into a half-joking dialogue with him, with the reader, on this subject, like Prosper Merime in The Chronicles of the Reign of Charles IX.
- Mr. author! Now is the time for you to start writing portraits! And what portraits! Now you will lead us to the Castle of Madrid, in the thick of the royal court. And what a court! Now you will show us this French-Italian courtyard. Introduce us to several vivid characters. Something we just won’t know! How interesting should be the day spent among so many great people!
“Have mercy, mister reader, what are you asking me to do?” I would be very happy to have such a kind of talent that would allow me to write the history of France, then I would not compose. Tell me, however, why do you want me to introduce you to persons who should not play any role in my novel?