Point Of View

[twyrch]

For those of you who don't know, I'm writing a novel and have a hard time keeping my POV straight. I'm using Thrid Person Limited Rotating. Here is a brief list of common POVs. The next posts will go into greater detail.

1. Omniscient. With the third person omniscient point of view, the narrator knows everything, allowing the writer to mention the thoughts and feelings of any character, and to insert editorial comments. The narrative can also skip around to different places and times, and fill in backstory at any point. The disadvantages of this point of view are that it is difficult to maintain a consistent voice, it can feel impersonal to the reader, and it is less believable than the other options.

2. Objective. With the third person objective point of view, the narrator knows only what can be heard and seen from outside the characters (think of the narrator as recording events like a movie camera). The thoughts and emotions of the characters are unavailable, so the story must speak for itself. The main disadvantage of this point of view is that the lack of emotion can make it feel very cold and uninvolved. A good writer can make use of small details to compensate, however.

3. Limited. With a third person limited (or limited omniscient) point of view, the narrator knows everything about one character, including thoughts and feelings, but knows the other characters only through that one person. This kind of viewpoint can be so close to the character that it is nearly a first person p.o.v., or it can pull back for a broader view. Because of its advantages, this point of view is often thought of as the default--to be used unless there is good reason not to.

4. Rotating Limited. One way to avoid the limitations of a limited point of view (that only one character is known from the inside) without the disadvantages of an omniscient point of view (impersonality and implausibility) is to use a limited viewpoint that switches between several characters. This allows the reader to get inside more than one character's head, but maintains a consistent narrative voice. Crawford Kilian calls this "episodically limited" third person omniscient.

The key is the keep your POV consistant throughout the entire book. Inconsistancies can kill a story. Here are a few thoughts from a few published authors.

[twyrch]

I thought I would throw this out there for people having trouble understanding Point of View or simply don't know the different types.

Common viewpoints:
*First person: I walked down the street...
*Third person sigma: Joe watched the door and wondered how long it would be before Jennie came out.
*Third person omniscient: Jeff watched Ann and Ann watched Jeff. Both wondered if the other would make the first move.

All writing is done from someone's viewpoint. This is most obvious in stories that are told in the first person: "It was cold the day I shot my best friend..."

Other stories are told in third person, but are obviously being seen from a particular character's perspective: "Jane couldn't remember the last time she'd kissed a man." Obviously, that sentence shows we're sitting inside Jane's head, even if the words are written in the third person. I once heard this approach called "using a sigma character" and that phrase has stuck with me (even though I've never heard the expression since).

Some pieces (especially long stories and novels) may be told through multiple sigma characters. For example, The Lord of the Rings is told through the viewpoints of the various hobbits in the story, switching back and forth between hobbits to cover all the action. A single sigma character is used throughout a unified block of text (i.e. throughout a chapter or a distinct section within a chapter). When you reach a new chapter or section, you can change to a new sigma character...but it's almost always a mistake to change sigma characters when you aren't at an obvious break in the text. If, for example, you switch viewpoint characters in the middle of a paragraph, the effect is typically clumsy and confusing.

A few stories are not told from the viewpoint of any character in the story. For example, the famous "third person omniscient" type of story is told by a godlike being who can see into everyone's mind as well as seeing into the past and the future. This doesn't mean there's no viewpoint character—the persona telling the story is as much a character as anyone who's actually in the story. As an example, consider anything by Terry Pratchett: the viewpoint character is Pratchett himself, tossing off jokes, footnotes, and side remarks as he tells the story. In other words, Pratchett creates a persona for himself and narrates the story from that persona's viewpoint.

You may have learned all this viewpoint stuff in Grade 10 English. If so, you probably said, "So what? Why does viewpoint matter? Why can't I just write however I want and forget about artsy-fartsy literary terminology?"

The answer is that viewpoint is essential in winning the reader's confidence and sympathy. Readers experience everything in the story through the perceptions of the viewpoint character(s). A reader's relationship to the viewpoint character(s) is the primary factor determining the reader's relationship to the story as a whole.

If, for example, the readers are bored by a viewpoint character (VPC), they'll find the whole story boring. They won't want to "hang out" with the character; they don't care what the character experiences. On the other hand, if the readers are sympathetic toward a VPC (or, in the case of villains like Darth Vader or Hannibal Lector, if the readers get a kick out of the character, even if the character isn't conventionally likable), the readers will be favorably disposed to the story as a whole.

The #1 most common mistake of beginning writers is screwing up the viewpoint. Here's an example:

*

Beth watched the second-hand on the office clock work its way up to the 12. That made it a full hour now; she'd give Jeff another five minutes, then she'd call him herself. Yes. Definitely. In five minutes she'd call. She brushed a strand of her fiery red hair away from her piercing green eyes and tried not to look at the clock again.

*

What part of this is wrong? To me, the phrases "fiery red hair" and "piercing green eyes" are glaring authorial intrusions. The first few sentences give us Beth's point of view; in fact, we're inside her head. Beth's attention is focused on the clock and the call she's waiting for. She's definitely not thinking about the color of her hair or her eyes. (When I brush my hair from my eyes, I don't suddenly think, "Oh hey, my hair and my eyes are brown."

Therefore, the sample paragraph starts off in Beth's viewpoint—in fact, it's trying to make the reader feel the same emotions Beth is feeling—but suddenly, the author jams in some stuff that takes you right out of Beth's head. The spell is broken. You're jarred out of the mood as you stop identifying with Beth and see her from the outside.

Authors usually make this kind of mistake when they think too much. Instead of just putting themselves in Beth's place and telling what Beth sees, they start worrying that they should do more. "Oooo, I'm talking about this woman but I haven't described her yet. Readers probably want to know what she looks like." So the author decides to "help" the readers by subtly sneaking in some details.

Don't. Just don't.

Whenever you screw up the viewpoint, you jerk the reader out of the story. Some readers will be conscious of this; others will simply lift their eyes from the page, not knowing why they suddenly don't have much urge to read the next sentence.

Here's the bottom line: if you present a consistent viewpoint, the story feels professional; if you mess up the viewpoint, the story feels amateurish. If the viewpoint character is engaging, readers will be engaged by the story; if the viewpoint is tepid, you've got a real uphill climb.

I'm not saying your VPCs must be flamboyant or unusual. Of course, they can be...but they can also be normal joes or janes. The point is that they are a reader's gateway into the story—the eyes through which the reader sees—and you must present characters in such a way that a reader is willing to go along for the ride.

[twyrch]

Should we even get into a discussion of 2nd-Person POV?

1st and 3rd are a handful, but 2nd takes confusion to a whole new level.

OK, quiz time for all you writers out there...

Some POV styles are fairly straight forward and easy to use. We know of them and use them everyday in our creative and personal writings. As you know there are a couple types of 3rd-Person POV.

1. 3rd-POV Limited
2. 3rd-POV Omniscient

What you probably don't know, or at least aren't familiar with on a daily basis, are the two forms of 1st-Person POV. We know of, what is called, 1st-Person Limited, much like it's 3rd-Person counterpart. But, there is also a 1st-Person Omniscient.

"I used my magical telepathy powers and could see that Bob was thinking of killing me."

This is not 1st-Person Omniscient. We are still only seeing what the one person can see, in this case, the narrator. The quiz - can you give me an example of 1st-Person Omniscient? You've probably heard it a million times, but never realized what it was. I couldn't figure it out either when an English teacher taught it to a class I was in.

EDIT: Sorry, just realized I should clarify. 1st-Person Multiple, where you can go "into the head" of many characters, i.e., seeing each person singular POShould we even get into a discussion of 2nd-Person POV?

1st and 3rd are a handful, but 2nd takes confusion to a whole new level.

OK, quiz time for all you writers out there...

Some POV styles are fairly straight forward and easy to use. We know of them and use them everyday in our creative and personal writings. As you know there are a couple types of 3rd-Person POV.

1. 3rd-POV Limited
2. 3rd-POV Omniscient

What you probably don't know, or at least aren't familiar with on a daily basis, are the two forms of 1st-Person POV. We know of, what is called, 1st-Person Limited, much like it's 3rd-Person counterpart. But, there is also a 1st-Person Omniscient.

"I used my magical telepathy powers and could see that Bob was thinking of killing me."

This is not 1st-Person Omniscient. We are still only seeing what the one person can see, in this case, the narrator. The quiz - can you give me an example of 1st-Person Omniscient? You've probably heard it a million times, but never realized what it was. I couldn't figure it out either when an English teacher taught it to a class I was in.

I just want to clarify. 1st-Person Multiple, where you can go "into the head" of many characters, i.e., seeing each person singular POV is not 1st-Person Omniscient. It is still 1st-Person Limited, but with multiple "targets." is not 1st-Person Omniscient. It is still 1st-Person Limited, but with multiple "targets."

[twyrch]

I could have been more in depth but figured I would stick with the more common used Point of Views. If you want to get technical, here are all the point of views I am aware of.

*First Person Subjective
*First Person Objective
*First Person Collective
*Second Person
*Third Person Omniscient
*Third Person Limited Omniscient
*Third Person Limited Subjective
*Third Person Limited Objective
*Third Person Limited Rotated
*Third Person Objective

I won't go into detail on every one of these because it would take me a very long time. Time I would rather put to use on my novel. However, if you would like to know a certain point of view just tell me and I will do my best to explain it.

As per your quiz, First Person Omniscient, as far as I know, is called First Person Collective.

This viewpoint is focused on a set of characters telling their own story.

Describe the thoughts, feelings, and actions of a group of people as though they were all telling a single story. This isn't used very frequently and would probably be difficult to maintain for an entire story, but sometimes it's useful.

*

We watched from behind the bushes as the enemy crept toward the ammo bunker.

*

When to use this point of view:

*To portray a group of characters acting in concert. You'd write novelizations to the Li'l Rascals in this point of view.
*To convey a sense of shared experience.
*To involve a reader by implying that he or she is part of the group of characters.

There are some things to keep in mind while using this point of view:

*You won't be able to portray dissent or invididual opinions or actions very well.
*People hardly ever do anything dramatically interesting in groups. It may be harder for a reader to empathize with a whole group of characters than with a single one.

I will throw out information on Second Person Point of View for those interested.

Second Person Viewpoint is focused on the reader who is addressed as though he or she is the central character.

This isn't used all that frequently, but I find it useful to directly involve readers with a character. On the other hand, I'm an old role-playing game player, so it's a natural form of narrative to me.

*

You never expected it, but suddenly you're the Secretary of Agriculture, forced to make decisions about feed and seed that affect a million farmers and their families. The pressure gets to you, and you pine for the days when you sold sacks of manure back home in Happenstance, Texas.

*

When to use this point of view:

*To draw a reader into close sympathy with a character.
*To write casually, flippantly.

There are some things to keep in mind while using this point of view:

*You can only describe what the one character sees, feels, and thinks. All of the others can only be observed.
*Some readers don't like to be told what they feel.
*Your character should act in a way the reader might plausibly act. Otherwise, your reader will respond to one of your statements by muttering, "No, I wouldn't do that at all." I would not invite Vincent Bugliosi to rewrite Helter Skelter in the second person viewpoint.

*

Third Person Limited Rotating - in that you establish yourself able to go into the mind of any character but don't, usually slipping into the minds of three or four main characters. You have the "power" to go into any character's mind, but don't unless it advances the story to do so.

[Riothamus]

I see no mention of the use of reflectors.... They're neither third-person objective or third person subjective-limited-etc. They're a "lense" through which the action is seen, but generally they are subject to commentary by an omnicient author. It's a bit more complex than the use of sigmas. (I would argue that Tolkien is a bit closer to this style than the sigma-style.)

Fascenating stuff, twyrch. I would imagine the ends of your fingers are quite flattened by now. I still would insist (though less than insistantly,) that the truly "objective" narration is that with has the least amount of authorial commentary and the most amount of subjective thoughts on the part of the character. But I think I'm confusing "objective" with "impersonal," so I'll drop the issue. Perhaps you can comment on the distinction?

[twyrch]

Riothamus said:

Fascenating stuff, twyrch. I would imagine the ends of your fingers are quite flattened by now. I still would insist (though less than insistantly,) that the truly "objective" narration is that with has the least amount of authorial commentary and the most amount of subjective thoughts on the part of the character. But I think I'm confusing "objective" with "impersonal," so I'll drop the issue. Perhaps you can comment on the distinction?

Actually, I did a lot of cut and paste from topics I have saved on the subjects.

I've always thought that Objective was seeing through the eyes of God... Sometimes you could connect with a character based on their personality, but you were still omnicient.

I've always thought that Impersonal was like reading along with a movie script. You don't feel anything from the characters. You just see them doing lots of things and never "feel" what they feel.

There's a fine line, to be sure. But that's my take on it at least.

[Riothamus]

Makes sense. I hereby withdraw my comments re: "objective narration" in the Toolbox thread.