Kdtyjb

I've noticed a quirk with the narrator voice of one of the two novels I'm working on. This narrator only describes the beautiful aspects of every character's features. You might think the women are all beautiful, the men are all handsome - this one has beautiful eyes, that one moves like a swan - a world of Hollinwood actors.

Only, it isn't. I have a character - the narrator mentions repeatedly his keen gaze and proud step, and once, when the character is first introduced - that he survived smallpox as a child, which thankfully spared his eyes. Other characters mention how this character appears to have two noses, and how enemies flee from the horror of his face. But the narrator - nope. Keen gaze, proud step.

The novel is narrated in 3rd person, omniscient narrator. I mostly follow four or five characters, all well-educated high nobles. They would consider it beneath them to think of a person as "ugly". If they look down on someone, it's in the "oh, they're less fortunate, I should help" way, which can sometimes be misplaced. Commenting on the shortcomings of another's natural appearance would be considered by them crass, a mark of bad manners, something fit for a commoner - not for them. So the narrator voice is in tune with the world-view of the main characters. (With how they believe they should act, not necessarily with how everybody always does act.)

Without sacrificing the narrator's voice, how can I make it clear that my characters do not live in a Hollywood film, that the people are regular people, who, it being ~5t century, do not have access to decent medicine or good dentistry, and it is a conscious choice to only speak of beauty?

Some people see beauty in the world outside of the perfection of conventional beauty standards that Hollywood portrays. Have your narrator fall into this category. (Okay you already decided that, so how do you do that?) Simple, describe something typically seen as a flaw or an imperfection and describe it in a loving way.

Don't ignore the imperfections. That doesn't imply that the narrator sees beauty in everything. It implies that the narrator is making a conscious decision not to talk about the elephant in the room. Describe a broken nose as a badge of honor that the character wears with pride for the time they stood up for what they believed in. Describe the acne that a character is ashamed of in shades of rose red and crimson sunrises. Describe the stretch marks on the womans abdomen as symbols of the nurturing that goes into their every action.

Its okay to recognize a flaw or imperfection and think it is beautiful. Sometimes it won't be easy, but beauty often isn't.

The narrator can describe only beauty, but that doesn't mean you can't have a mean and petty character that (in dialogue or perhaps thought) describes people in ugly terms.

This doesn't have to be a main character, it could be a servant of an MC, that the MC overhears talking about such things, and then decides to reprimand the insulting character, or perhaps does not and just thinks that is the crass way that servants behave, and reprimands do nothing but cause resentment among them, so she lets it go. Her conscious thought can be just what you said, that it is incredibly rude to mention such unfortunate disability or scarring, and she doesn't understand how the commoners live beside each other, or can (gasp) laugh at such misfortune.

But the fact that the crass characters express disgust with the pockmarked face, or the drooping face of a stroke victim, etc, or the blinded eye and scars of a war hero, is enough to tell the reader the narrator is, like the royals, presenting a one-sided view of people.

I think it's ok to have a biased narrator.

But, it reminds me of Mary Shelley's novel The Last Man that used characters transparently based on real people she knew and admired (Lord Byron, her late husband, her sister). The novel is difficult to get through because for the first half the characters are smothered under purple praise. Similar to your descriptions everyone has a noble brow and an excellent continence and handsome features.

In Shelley's book, the first half involves transformative political debates (forward-thinking for the time) but there are no fangs and it feels like a non-conflict, like the story lacks structure. Her prose is beautiful, but it becomes Victorian wallpaper, featureless and repatitive. Eventually a plot kicks in, but it has to work harder to get around the eulogy.

I'll cautiously suggest the problem (if it's really a problem) may be too much of the same, as opposed to descriptions being biased to beauty. I suggest signaling your villains clearly as villains, and consider if too subtle antagonists are being obscured with a mixed message.