On writing: point of view

[StillStunned]

How about we pool our thoughts on POV? I suppose tense tied up in this as well, so feel free to talk about present v past, simple v continuous etc.

Quick description of the types of POV used in fiction writing:
1P: I/me/mine
3P: he, she, broken down roughly into:
close (or limited) 3P: the reader only gets one narrator's thoughts, experiences and knowledge at a time, unless there's a clear break in the narrative
omniscient 3P: the reader gets the thoughts, experiences and knowledge of multiple characters without a clear break in the narrative
2P: don't worry, I won't go here for now

I don't think any is inherently better than the others. I've used all of these, except 3P omniscient. That said, there are probably stories where one POV works better than another.

3P has the advantage of letting you tell scenes involving different characters. I've used this in sci-fi and fantasy, which for me at least generally involve more expansive tales than most of my other stories. Not only can you cover a much wider world - with characters hundreds of miles apart, if necessary, with storylines of their own - but you can also use it to build tension. Two characters meet, and they each have their own perspective on what happens. One character's narration doesn't necessarily match the other's, so you can hold back information from the reader.

1P might be (but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) the go-to POV for erotica, particularly shorter stories. The reader isn't burdened with unnecessary set-up, no long backstory. There's just the "I" in the here and now, with the immediate background to the story. No need to give them a name, an age, other physical characteristics, and in some cases not even a gender.

So, disadvantages and pitfalls? An obvious one for 1P is that it limits what story you can tell. Unless you go with the current trend of switching 1P characters between chapters - or even switching to 3P - you're only telling what happens to one person and their immediate surroundings. You also have to take care with showing and telling. It can be tiresome to have to say "I was scared", but if you want to show that fear instead of telling it there's the trap of describing something your character can't know: "A look of fear crossed my face," or "The mean person could see the fear in my eyes."

That's also an issue with close 3P, with the added danger of being tempted to hop into another character's head for two lines to describe that expression before hopping back. Another risk is keeping the characters' knowledge apart - for example, you might be six chapters along in your epic before two of them meet, and forget that they have no reason to know anything about each other.

The major POV that I haven't used is omniscient 3P. You don't see it often nowadays, but if you read older books - even from the 1980s and 1990s, I think - you'll come across it quite often. Maybe because writers didn't have such easy access to fiction-writing guides, or maybe because there wasn't such an emphasis on the characters' internal lives. I think it can be used quite effectively for large scenes, where the events are more important than the characters themselves. Joe Abercrombie uses it to great effect in "The Heroes" to describe a battle, generally flitting from character to character as they die. (Although I still might describe this as close 3P, because each moment is described from inside the character's head.)

So, does anyone have any thoughts? What have I missed, and what have I got wrong? (Don't hesitate to call me out - my knowledge is based on listening to a few writing guides but mostly my own experiences as a reader and writer.) What works for you and what doesn't? Do you have different preferences as a reader and a writer? Have you seen any excellent successes, and some awful failures?

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’ve written 1P both with a consistent narrator and shifting between them (which I normally do after a section break - remember when those worked? And I try to immediately do something to also indicate the shift in perspective).

When I write 3P it’s normally some variant of omniscient, or relying upon: ‘A look which might have suggested consternation flitted across Emma’s face and Lily appeared to pick up on her emotion, saying […]’

I’ve written 2P, but let’s not go there .

 

[crookedletter]

I will add that you can play around with degrees of omniscience in third person. It's not just a matter of jumping into other characters' heads. Even if you generally stick to one character's interiority, zooming out into some omniscience allows you to drop information in that the character wouldn't know about: She didn't know it, but at that same moment, down the road, something was happening which would change everything...

Or you can add little narrator commentary that isn't exactly coming from the character: He thought he was really pulling it off. He wasn't.

In that way third person -- even if you're focusing on just one character -- is a little more flexible than first. You can play a little more with what your narrator knows that your character doesn't.

First is good for relatively simple stories, where all you need to know is what's going on with your perspective character. It's also useful when some of the tension in the story is a degree of uncertainty -- the character, and thus the reader, doesn't know what's going on outside of the character's direct experience, which can set up some increased tension. It puts blinders on the story, in a way.

 

[Demiurging]

Typically I go for third limited in the over-the-shoulder format, and transition into omniscient for what's needed. I wouldn't say I actively hate first person, my favorite book series is all in first person, but it just feels so constrictive.

My first ever erotic story was in second person, and I would recommend trying it, if only to see why you shouldn't try to do anything other than choose your own adventures with it.

 

[SimonDoom]

To expand on it, there are different kinds of third-person limited.

Limited and "close" aren't the same thing. "Close" is a particular way of doing limited third person.

Limited 3d person simply means that the story reveals one character's point of view in a scene. It doesn't switch from one character to another.

Some third person limited stories keep the perspective to one person throughout the entire novel or story. Many detective novels are like this; they're in third person but the investigation reveals itself through the POV of the detective.

Some third person limited stories switch POV at chapter or scene breaks, but within each unit the POV is strictly limited to one POV.

There's a particular style of third person limited that some people refer to as "close" and which I refer to as the "free indirect style." This is a style where the POV is not just limited to one person but where the style of writing is to narrate events as though from the perspective of that person. Some people (like me) find it a good substitute for first person POV, while it has some of the advantages and flexibility of third person.

Third-person objective POV reveals the actions of characters from a third person narrator's perspective, but the narrator does not reveal what the characters are thinking. The narrator is like a reporter on the scene. It's uncommon. Hemingway's Hills Like White Elephants is a rare example.

 

[EmilyMiller]

First is good for relatively simple stories, where all you need to know is what's going on with your perspective character. It's also useful when some of the tension in the story is a degree of uncertainty -- the character, and thus the reader, doesn't know what's going on outside of the character's direct experience, which can set up some increased tension. It puts blinders on the story, in a way.

I shift 1P narrators for a number of reasons:

1. The initial narrator is not present in the given scene
2. It’s a story that has two people at its heart and I want to show each of their perspectives viscerally (else I’d move to 3P)
3. It’s important to have the events seen from a different POV
4. I want to conceal something about the initial narrator from the reader (e.g. not to reveal some plan she has until it comes to fruition)

 

[Kelliezgirl]

1st person is the most limiting, and is generally only effective if you are writing memoir type stories. Memoirs of a Geisha, Huck Finn, or the Great Gatsby for example.
I'd disagree with the assessment that you don't need to provide any background on who the narrator is.
1st person isn't meant to make the reader insert themselves into the character. It's the person telling you a story. If we were sitting at a bar and I was telling you what happened on the way there, I would tell you the story in first person.
"I pulled out of the parking lot onto third street, and there was an elephant blocking traffic!"

With regards to 3rd person omniscient, I don't think it was more popular in the past because writers didn't have access to writing guides. Quite the contrary, authors like Tolkien wrote in 3rd person omniscient. It wasn't because the events were more important than the people experiencing them. It's because he was telling a grander tale, so we needed to see more.
Writing 1st Person or 3rd Close is much easier than writing 3p omniscient. You're just writing one person's story. When you are trying to interweave multiple stories, and have a genuine internal voice for a dozen characters the complexity skyrockets.
I suspect it's also a function of reader expectations. Modern writing has been dumbed down, even going back to the 80s and 90s. In addition to being easier for a writer to create 1p or 3p close, it's easier for a reader to follow.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Most of what I've written, both erotic and non-erotic, has been in 1P for one major reason: custom. See, one of the earliest criticisms that I've had when writing in 3P is that I have a huge tendency on repeating the subject, but back then I didn't know how to use pronouns or adjectives as replacements. I believe I was in my early-to-mid teens when I got told about this. I did get better, but writing in 1P stuck to me because it feels more natural to my voice. I wrote my whole autobiography from birth up to the point of writing back on '23, and when I read it out loud to my therapist he noticed that my voice sounded comfortable, like I'm just telling him an anecdote, so I checked the rest of my work, and it does have that conversational vibe. I don't think I've found that in 3P, it feels a bit clinical, and maybe it's just years of writing for academia that stunted me.

I don't really like to use the omniscient 3P. I don't. That's because my style is way off, I actually feel like I'm writing a report or a scientific article with stuff added to it. It also feels way too unnatural because there's no mystery on the process. A lot of the fun I have during the process comes from discovery. I like to be surprised, and the omniscience kills that.

I also don't like narrators making comments, or making the comments way too obvious, unless there's a reason for it, like making I joke when Sabrina reiterated that one moment when Taylor got so excited she forgot to pronounce the spaces. Maybe it's because I'm used to write thrillers? It kills my momentum, that's what I'm saying, and it's something my mentor taught me. It turned my work more pulpy when he told me to drop the narrator commentary.

But coming back to 3P's omniscience making my process not fun, I guess this was one of the minor pitfalls I fell into that lead me to not finishing The Woman at the Speakeasy. The rewriting rehearsals that I made by turning the narrator into a Lemony narrator, but not by making it a ghost, but someone in universe, say a friend of Red's, telling her story to someone else, adding their own nuances to it, destroyed my own weakness in itself. It's a metastory of sorts, and I'm using a character to tell another story. I already am in love with unreliable narrators, and this technique cubed my love for them because now what's real and what's not? After all one beauty of 1P is that you only get one side of the story.

In 1P I get to be inside one head most of the time too, and I like it better than switching POVs or trying to see things from other person's eyes. If I'm telling one side of the story, it is the protagonist's side or the witness's side of the story. The moment I change POV is the moment the story changes. I'll use again No Heroes in Love. For Sabrina this was her entire world crumbling. For Taylor, it was routine. Had I written this from Taylor's point of view, it would've been a more action-packed crime tale rather than a magical surrealist experience of the destruction of a life.

 

[sijopunk]

I'm a hard-core disciple of first person present tense.

This stems from my influences, with Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club) being the absolutely most dominating influence on my writing (and the only significant influence until I came to Lit and met Chloe Tzang). I enjoy reading 3rd person, but I haven't figured out how to write it.

In my opinion, this requires a narrator that won't annoy the reader. When I'm designing a narrator, I'm designing a lens that everything gets filtered through. Where is she reliable, what little brain ticks does she have, how can I create her so that her perspective stays interesting and meaningful.

I like two things about this POV.

The first is authenticity. A story that opens up with "Bob's mom walked in on him jerking off to Lit stories" is good and sets a lot of things up, but "My mom walked in on me jerking off to Lit stories" feels authentic because why would someone say that unless they were really opening up to you? Playing with that, and with the narrator's particular authoritative skills, is what's fun for me about writing.

The second is the ability to use the narrator to control the story. I like to launch into some flowery description and then cut it short with elipses or an em dash and snap into something physical of visceral. It lets me slip the description in there without getting swept away by it.

The downside is very real, and it's that people don't want to read it. Most of Chuck Palahniuk's essays and lectures are basically "how to seduce the reader into getting hooked on your story before they realize it's a first person present tense narrator." I've had readers explicitly say in comments that they didn't want to read the story because of the tense, so this type of writing comes with a cost the way handling dynamite comes with a cost.

I'm a little envious of how so many authors default to 3rd person past tense. I think if I could write that tense well, I'd have a lot more opportunities. I spent the last 4 months throwing out drafts of my Jasmine Tea story, and they didn't start to work until I accepted that I don't write that POV well and decided to go with a "gonzo journalism" style narration.

(to be clear, I'm not saying that I think first person present is the best POV, it's just the one that comes most naturally to me and I've spent years honing how I write it)

 

[sijopunk]

I also don't like narrators making comments, or making the comments way too obvious, unless there's a reason for it, like making I joke when Sabrina reiterated that one moment when Taylor got so excited she forgot to pronounce the spaces. Maybe it's because I'm used to write thrillers? It kills my momentum, that's what I'm saying, and it's something my mentor taught me. It turned my work more pulpy when he told me to drop the narrator commentary.

I find it super interesting that we both connect with the 1st person POV, but the aspect that you dislike is the aspect I consider to be the core strength of the perspective. The narrator's ability to inject commentary, frame the situation, and selectively focus is the whole thing I'm going for. I feel like it's the lubricant that makes the story flow.

I need to check out some of your stories and see how you're using this POV, I feel like I can pick up some ideas from you.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I wrote my entire novel in first person past (except one section where the narrator was reflecting on something that they had done earlier the same day, I which I religiously used: ‘I had opened the door’ as opposed to ‘I opened the door’ to stress time).

Given that it’s central purpose was to explore the evolution of a synthetic being’s conciousness, I felt I really needed to focus on how she saw the world and how her thoughts and emotions - she experiences emotions more and more over time - change based on events and interactions with other people.

I also allowed me to create a claustrophobic and slightly off vibe more easily. I felt it was easier to capture her wonder (and horror) at all she saw by narrating from inside her [electronic] head. Based on feedback, I guess it worked .

 

[SimonDoom]

Quite the contrary, authors like Tolkien wrote in 3rd person omniscient. It wasn't because the events were more important than the people experiencing them. It's because he was telling a grander tale, so we needed to see more.

Tolkien is a good example of a blended style of 3d person omniscient and 3d person limited. He has a way of often drawing back from the characters and narrating events or describing things in a way that's characteristic of omniscient. But, generally speaking, from one chapter to another he concentrates on one character's POV. For example, in the entire Council of Elrond chapter, where numerous characters participate and speak, the only individual character whose thoughts are revealed is Frodo. There are a few cases where Tolkien says something to the effect that everybody was surprised to hear what somebody had to say, so that's characteristic of omniscient.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

1P might be (but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) the go-to POV for erotica, particularly shorter stories. The reader isn't burdened with unnecessary set-up, no long backstory. There's just the "I" in the here and now, with the immediate background to the story. No need to give them a name, an age, other physical characteristics, and in some cases not even a gender.

I find this to be the predominant case with me when I intend to write a story focused more heavily on the erotica.

The story will typically have many fewer characters than one of my longer novel-length stories, which also is a factor in which POV best suits the storytelling.

There are no absolutes, but there are tendencies and preferences.

 

[mrs_mackenzie]

I've tended to find that if the story is really about one character, then first person is the easiest way to go and gives me the most consistent results. This is at least 90% of what I write for Lit as it lends itself well to erotica.

But if the story is about more than one character, rather than switching perspectives which is difficult to do well, I use third person. My one and only attempt and multiple point-of-view was so awful that it'll be a long time before I try again.

 

[TheLobster]

I agree with what someone said upthread, that 3P is not a clean division between limited and omniscient. It's a spectrum, not a binary, as kids these days say, and there is a vast space in the middle which can be utilized productively.

As an example, I jokingly say sometimes that I write my sex scenes in third-person fornicative: the PoV travels along the character's, ahem, movements (and bodies), dipping into their minds as the feelings and sensations require. I see no reason not to do this, considering sex isn't a one-sided activity, so limiting yourself to just one side of the mating equation leaves the whole other partner and their feelings on the table.

And more broadly, I'm only about 20% joking when I say that 'headhopping' is a term invented by Big Editor to sell you more editing. The reader's only going to get confused by it if you write it confusingly; simply avoid unadorned character thoughts (the so-called 3P close) if it becomes a problem.

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

I want to make the case for Second Person POV. I have two stories that utilize it (Rating 2.3) It has its uses. In the first story the husband describes his observations as his wife goes into a bar to get picked up. The 2ndPPov makes it more intimate and immediate than 3 Person. In the other story she has sex with with another man, but her mind is with her husband. Her stream of consciousness is addressing him, explaining the why, her feelings, her shame, her arousal etc.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

I find it super interesting that we both connect with the 1st person POV, but the aspect that you dislike is the aspect I consider to be the core strength of the perspective. The narrator's ability to inject commentary, frame the situation, and selectively focus is the whole thing I'm going for. I feel like it's the lubricant that makes the story flow.

I need to check out some of your stories and see how you're using this POV, I feel like I can pick up some ideas from you.

It's more of a stylistic choice. I love Chuck too, I read his Substack whenever I can. The thing is that I come from pulp literature, and there's no time for anything in it. Besides, I'm more in the hide, don't show camp, especially in erotica.

It's just a me thing of my process, not something that I have against everybody else's process or stories. Your writing is valid, write whatever you want.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Tolkien is a good example of a blended style of 3d person omniscient and 3d person limited. He has a way of often drawing back from the characters and narrating events or describing things in a way that's characteristic of omniscient. But, generally speaking, from one chapter to another he concentrates on one character's POV. For example, in the entire Council of Elrond chapter, where numerous characters participate and speak, the only individual character whose thoughts are revealed is Frodo. There are a few cases where Tolkien says something to the effect that everybody was surprised to hear what somebody had to say, so that's characteristic of omniscient.

It's a bit of a semantic argument, but just because you "go in close" doesn't mean the story isn't 3p omniscient. The narrator is omniscient, they simply choose to tell the story from differing perspectives at different times, as well as knowing things none of the characters know.

 

[AStrangeDesire]

As a reader, I don't care as long as it's well done. Having said that, I find reading 2P challenging at times.

As a writer, I used to be firmly in the 3P camp both limited and omniscient, but the last story I finished is 1P and switches between the MC's (it's T/I and there's only 2 MC). It's more of an experiment really, something to challenge myself with to see if I could maintain the flow and if it was enjoyable, both writing and for readers.

Edit: I have seen 1P and 3P mixed and have it work. One of the Charles Stross' "The Laundry Files" novels was written from the perspective of the MC, and in the first chapter the MC stated that the parts he wasn't present for, he's telling in the 3P. And that those were events told to him, which he's relaying, but didn't observe. I thought that was interesting, and worked for that particular book.

But then, he's sort of an accomplished writer

Though I'm trying that in a series, where the first book is told in the 1P, the 2nd in the 3P and the third both MC's interact, and I pivot between them. I have no idea if that will work, but it's fun to try.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's a bit of a semantic argument, but just because you "go in close" doesn't mean the story isn't 3p omniscient. The narrator is omniscient, they simply choose to tell the story from differing perspectives at different times, as well as knowing things none of the characters know.

I agree. I think sometimes these discussions get too hung up on the labels we put on things rather than concentrate on what the author is doing. Many stories blend different types of perspective.

 

[ADirtyPerv]

I'll add a minor thing that only really matters for erotica. With 3rd-person, it's easier to slip in descriptors of the MC without it feeling forced. "He ran a hand through his curly hair" feels different than "I ran my hand through my curly hair." The second feels clunky. I try to remind readers of what a character looks like so they can continue to be horny for that character.

1P narrators can be anything, so you either end up with a mirror scene or you have to get really clever, if you want a solid feel for their appearance.

 

[CalBishForNow]

Based on this thread, I just changed my current WIP from my usual point of view, close third person, to first person. Thanks for the inspiration.

I've never done 1P or 2P before because I feel like having some distance from the character is safer. (This WIP very well suited to it; no one could accuse me of seeing myself in this guy's shoes!) This is, after all, erotica. The racier it gets, the riskier it gets to be mentally/emotionally close to it, particularly if there's anything taboo about it. Maybe I'm only worried about that because I'm still relatively new to this or for no good reason at all, but I've got one T/I story in my catalog, a whole lot of nonmonogamy, a R/NC WIP... writing those in close 3P seemed transgressive enough, thanks.

 

[AStrangeDesire]

I'll add a minor thing that only really matters for erotica. With 3rd-person, it's easier to slip in descriptors of the MC without it feeling forced. "He ran a hand through his curly hair" feels different than "I ran my hand through my curly hair." The second feels clunky. I try to remind readers of what a character looks like so they can continue to be horny for that character.

1P narrators can be anything, so you either end up with a mirror scene or you have to get really clever, if you want a solid feel for their appearance.

So far my 1P narrators are male, and readers don't care that much beyond the 'thick massive cock' anyway, right?

 

[AStrangeDesire]

Based on this thread, I just changed my current WIP from my usual point of view, close third person, to first person. Thanks for the inspiration.

I've never done 1P or 2P before because I feel like having some distance from the character is safer. (This WIP very well suited to it; no one could accuse me of seeing myself in this guy's shoes!) This is, after all, erotica. The racier it gets, the riskier it gets to be mentally/emotionally close to it, particularly if there's anything taboo about it. Maybe I'm only worried about that because I'm still relatively new to this or for no good reason at all, but I've got one T/I story in my catalog, a whole lot of nonmonogamy, a R/NC WIP... writing those in close 3P seemed transgressive enough, thanks.

That's an interesting perspective. For me, it was opposite. My MC is in a field that I'm in and know well, so I felt comfortable talking about it in the first person.

 

[crookedletter]

mirror scene

An argument against first person if ever there was one.

First person has its uses, as I -- and others -- have said. But if you find yourself doing these sort of contortions to get some third person perspective on your first person narrator, it might be time to consider a different point of view.