On writing: point of view

[EmilyMiller]

To me, a huge part of writing it well is there being a really good reason for doing it. I mean an in-universe reason. A Chekhov's Gun reason. Not an authorial reason like "how else will my narrator MC convey her attributes and assets?"

The only time I wrote a mirror scene was when there was a reason: An in-universe motivation for the person to go take a look, and narrate at least part of what they took note of seeing there. The act of looking in the mirror moved the plot along.

And, yes, I did use the opportunity to additionally spell out a detail of their physical appearance, but that wasn't the out-of-character motivation for including the mirror in the first place.

This is getting waaaay too serious. I’ll leave you to your theories. Off to actually write some smut .

 

[Britva415]

I think we have very different ideas about what leads to a good story. And that’s fine .

Yes

 

[Britva415]

IMHO, it's more useful to understand the distinction between 3P close and 3P omniscient as a spectrum than as a binary

Let's remember and respect that, with a specific technical exception, a close 3p narrator is still omniscient! "Close" vs "omniscient" style is about what they choose to narrate, the way they choose to tell the story, not about what they're capable of knowing.

And with regard to style, of course that's a continuum rather than a binary

The exception is if the limited/close 3p narrator is an in-universe character.

 

[ADirtyPerv]

I don't think it only matters to erotica. I remember reading some spy thriller and the 1p MC commenting on his own muscular physical features for no good reason too, before executing an act of agility befitting a superhero spy. And his own studly, brooding facial features after a foxy bystander was impressed with what she had seen him do, and fell into his arms.

I think that's still erotica, the author just doesn't realize it. That's how manly men write erotica: with muscles and guns in place of whimpers and orgasms.

^This is a joke.

 

[Britva415]

That's how manly men write homoerotica

heh, fixed it for you

And yes, I was thinking this same thing as I wrote that post

 

[ADirtyPerv]

heh, fixed it for you

And yes, I was thinking this same thing as I wrote that post

Is it autohomoerotica if an author is writing about how hot the MC is in first person? Or do you remove the auto- because the author isn't writing about themself?

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

I really enjoy reading and writing in 1st person past because it's like experiencing what someone else's head is like. What do they feel/think/like/dislike? What kind of observations do they make? What is important to them? Are they a liar? Good or bad?

All of this possible to do with 3rd, but sometimes 3rd person in all of its tenses makes the reader a voyeur watching a character's story unfold instead of experiencing it as the other person.

Funny narrators make 3rd person omnipotent a delight. A Series of Unfortunate Events is technically for children. But I think the narrator's humor is what made me enjoy those books so much.

 

[randomletters42]

Wait do dividers not work? Theres a specific markdown for them, I was just reading through the formatting rules.

My preference on perspective, in a real novel, is that pov changes only between chapters and whos perspective is labeled at the start of it.

I've actually almost never seen this done on literotica. But if it happens within a single chapter, would be nice if at least there was a divider and not just a new paragraph.

Im partial to 1p for sex scenes. Reading 3p scene is more like .. watching porn, not participating. Then again, sometimes it could be a hot scene, but not one im interested in trying to identify with a character. There are an awful lot of unpleasant main characters in literotica stories ...

 

[Britva415]

Anyway: Just to sort of tie a bow around my
previous
posts
about 1p in general and multiple 1p in particular:

I just really don't like it when I read a story which pretends like the character is telling the story but it's SUPER OBVIOUS that every single narrative statement is being made by the author. I like it when the voice really seems to be the voice of the character and not the voice of a creative-writing hobbyist, and when the story logic adheres to in-universe constraints, and when I really feel like it's the character telling the story, and when it really feels like there are in-universe motive, opportunity and means for the character to do so.

I don't even have to be told what they are, I just want to feel like they exist. Stories are just way too common which don't feel like there is an in-universe logic to motive, opportunity and means to tell the story, and which don't feel like those exist. Because it's just the author's own voice puppeting a character. The motive, opportunity and means are clearly the author's and not the first-person character's.

You know what I mean? Good puppeteering can make you not think about how it's a puppet so you can effortlessly experience the story, whereas bad puppeteering makes you not be able to tear your attention away from how it's a puppet rather than a lifelike character in a compelling story.

 

[HelenL]

I prefer to read 1st person stories here, because most erotica writers can't keep it in their pants head. Not so much the writers in this thread, but in general I'd say most 3P stories aren't written in close or limited, but bounce all over the place, and not in thoughtful omniscient context. I've had to give up on many stories and series that have too much head hopping for me to dig through.

With apologies to @TheLobster, I especially dislike invoking the other person's experience in a sex scene. It probably depends on what you want to get out of the scene, but the emotional connection is the core for me, and I find that suddenly being in someone else's head distances me from the PoV character who's experience the writer is connecting me with.

I've read some great 3P stories, but 1P tends to limit the writer to finding a single headspace, and so it generally works better for me. With established, experienced writers, I'll generally prefer 3P, and novel-length 1P can have its own annoyances, especially if they're multiple PoV (split by chapters, scenes, whatever.)

For writing, it's mixed, and many times I've changed my mind halfway through and it is a PITA to find and change all of the pronouns and cases. I don't even know why I need to change, but some just don't feel like they're working the way I want. I will say that I usually try to write same-gender romances from first person because pronouns suck. And then when I'm halfway through a story like Wedding Dances or The Player I have to restart in third. All of my stories but Rider are single point of view, whether 1P or 3P.

And I almost never write in present tense, but the narrator of Spa Day forced me to, because her intrusive thoughts wouldn't have made sense if this was a future retelling. (I think that's the only one on Lit.)

My one and only 2P story (ever), Time Out, was that way because of the concept - reimagining the Enigmatic Woman of the lyrics of "The Year of the Cat." 2P in the original story gives a sense both of immediacy and mystery. I needed 2P to preserve the mood and references. I think it's okay, but it's not an experience I'll want to repeat. Probably.

 

[randomletters42]

Yea. Good point Britva. 1p omniscient author perspective lol.

Conversely, 3p expedition dump is my peeve.

 

[Cagivagurl]

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?

I disagree with you on one point.
I do not believe 1st person limits the story you can tell.
1st person is my favourite, because it allows you to display the full range of emotions.
I never feel limited by it's use. It does force the writer into finding ways of expressing other characters emotions.
There are so many ways though, that it may take longer, but it is not limiting by it's use...
You just have to be more creative... Use other characters... Find other clues, and that is where it can really build tension and drama....
I have written in different POV's, but 1st remains my fave...
Just my thoughts.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Man, how much time and space do we have for Anthy's theory of POV?

Aaand most of it was already covered, so we'll get into my current favorite topic: implicitness and subtext!

Each POV has its own purpose. There's a lot of subtext that goes into POV and voice (totally separate thing, almost went off on a whole thing about it ), that will color the story and how the reader interprets it.

Basics:
1P: The story is about this person. The story is VERY MUCH about this person. You're telling the reader to pay attention to the internal landscape of this person and that the external events aren't as important (which isn't the same as the external events aren't important, it's just that the story is prioritizing the internal over the external). It's best used when the focus is less on the events, and more on the character's journey, growth, reactions, etc.
2P: The character is a meat vehicle to be acted upon by external forces.
3P Limited: The story is about this person, but the person is more a vehicle for the wider story than anything. Yes, events are colored by this person's view, but it's more detached and externally focused than 1P. The voice tends to be a mix of narrator and the person whose head we're currently in. Good for when the story is about both the character's growth and the events taking place around them.
3P Omniscient: The characters aren't that important, it's the story that matters most. The most externally focused of all the POVs. You're cueing the reader to pay more attention to events than to what's happening inside the characters. Good when the events are grand and sweeping, where the characters are caught up in the whirlwind of what's happening.

None of that is to say you can't use these POVs in other contexts or that this is the authorial intent or only to use POVs when you want to convey a specific subtext. But it should be noted that when a reader is reading a story in a specific POV, you've implicitly told them what your priorities are for the story and where they should most focus their attention. Is it internal? External and internal? External? Meat vehicle?

The choices in how we tell stories are important, because they show our priorities, direct reader focus to certain aspects, and color the way the reader views the story, often on an unconscious level.

 

[SimonDoom]

For better or for worse.

Labels are a vocabulary we use to discuss that. Because, sometimes it comes off better, sometimes worse, specifically based on the POV/grammatical voice chosen. Sometimes that choice works against the story being told.

Labeling and categorizing things are useful, even necessary, ways to have meaningful conversations about topics like this one. But labels in this context, and in many others, should be seen as describing imperfectly defined, overlapping sets rather than mutually exclusive boxes. It's often more meaningful to look closely at what the author is doing rather than spending time trying to put a label on it. It's better if the labeling comes last.

 

[crookedletter]

From now on I have no characters. Only meat vehicles.

 

[SimonDoom]

Anybody who says the AH doesn't like talking about the craft of writing should read this thread. We're already on the 4th page and we're less than 12 hours into it. Lots of good, perfectly valid, and helpful perspectives being given, and lively, but constructive, differences aired.

 

[AStrangeDesire]

Is it autohomoerotica if an author is writing about how hot the MC is in first person? Or do you remove the auto- because the author isn't writing about themself?

Wait, who said they're not writing about themself? Maybe some idealized version... but still!

(It's possible I'm just writing the above about myself though)

 

[AStrangeDesire]

Anybody who says the AH doesn't like talking about the craft of writing should read this thread. We're already on the 4th page and we're less than 12 hours into it. Lots of good, perfectly valid, and helpful perspectives being given, and lively, but constructive, differences aired.

I have genuinely found this thread insightful and am thinking about what I can improve in my writing based on it.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

I've been thinking about it and I came back to add that I think stories with many POV characters are better served with 3rd person limited.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I've been thinking about it and I came back to add that I think stories with many POV characters are better served with 3rd person limited.

I ascribe to the theory of minimal POV characters, the absolute least to tell the story. Obviously, just my own philosophy, not a hard rule or even advice. Once you get past 3 or 4, I think I'm better off going to omniscient, because that indicates there are so many aspects to the story that need telling that trying to stick to any one view at a time is going to impede the ability of the story to be told.

Plus there's the voice problem, if you want to have narratively distinct voices (i.e. how the story is written), where the narrative voice can become jarring if the POV characters are different enough. It adds an extra level of difficulty when writing to keep the voices from bleeding into each other. Obviously, in third, you don't have to do that (technically, you don't ever have to do it, but it's less expected in third), but I like to have some distinction in narrative voice, even in third limited, to help provide an emotional and psychological context for each character, the "vibe" of them, if you will.

 

[SimonDoom]

I ascribe to the theory of minimal POV characters, the absolute least to tell the story. Obviously, just my own philosophy, not a hard rule or even advice. Once you get past 3 or 4, I think I'm better off going to omniscient, because that indicates there are so many aspects to the story that need telling that trying to stick to any one view at a time is going to impede the ability of the story to be told.

Plus there's the voice problem, if you want to have narratively distinct voices (i.e. how the story is written), where the narrative voice can become jarring if the POV characters are different enough. It adds an extra level of difficulty when writing to keep the voices from bleeding into each other. Obviously, in third, you don't have to do that (technically, you don't ever have to do it, but it's less expected in third), but I like to have some distinction in narrative voice, even in third limited, to help provide an emotional and psychological context for each character, the "vibe" of them, if you will.

I think this generally makes sense, but it depends on the nature of the story. When you have a sprawling epic story where stories are happening at the same time in multiple places, you have no choice but to focus on different characters in different places. A perfect example is the Game of Thrones books, because so many things were happening all over the world. Or the novel Lonesome Dove, which told multiple narratives that at times criss-crossed but often were separated by hundreds of miles. Both stories had many POV characters, and it worked.

LOTR, on the other hand, is mostly Frodo's story in the first book, so it makes sense to focus on him. In Two Towers it splits into Frodo's story and Aragorn's story and Merry/Pippin's story. Then in TROTK each Hobbit gets a story, with a few side stories for Aragorn (told from Gimli's POV) and the Faramir/Eowyn story. So, POV is dictated to a large degree from the nature of the stories and the sub-stories within it.

But I generally agree that within any single story it's usually best just to tell it from one POV. LOTR wouldn't have been as good if we'd constantly been hopping back and forth into the heads of all the members of the company.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I think this generally makes sense, but it depends on the nature of the story. When you have a sprawling epic story where stories are happening at the same time in multiple places, you have no choice but to focus on different characters in different places. A perfect example is the Game of Thrones books, because so many things were happening all over the world. Or the novel Lonesome Dove, which told multiple narratives that at times criss-crossed but often were separated by hundreds of miles. Both stories had many POV characters, and it worked.

LOTR, on the other hand, is mostly Frodo's story in the first book, so it makes sense to focus on him. In Two Towers it splits into Frodo's story and Aragorn's story and Merry/Pippin's story. Then in TROTK each Hobbit gets a story, with a few side stories for Aragorn (told from Gimli's POV) and the Faramir/Eowyn story. So, POV is dictated to a large degree from the nature of the stories and the sub-stories within it.

But I generally agree that within any single story it's usually best just to tell it from one POV. LOTR wouldn't have been as good if we'd constantly been hopping back and forth into the heads of all the members of the company.

I'm not saying stick to a single POV. Far from it, I have plenty of stories with multiple POVs. I think the most I had was... 5? Pretty sprawling Sci-Fi epic, so to get a full picture of events it necessitated a higher number of POVs than I normally would do. I almost never do more than 3.

The thought process is to treat each addition of another POV with a critical lens of "How much do I need this?" If it's crucial for telling the story, go nuts. If it's because you want to give a different perspective on something, but it doesn't add anything to the story, then it's probably more of an indulgence and it should be avoided. That calculus is different for different authors, since what's "needed" to tell the story is really more opinion than hard fact. But it's always good to question what's the motivation for doing so.

 

[MK_Whimsy]

I've used both 1P and 3P. To be honest, I've often used 1P to describe personal fantasies simply because it feels more immersive that way, which is what I personally want. But I also find that 1P makes it easier to infuse more personality into the observations and thoughts of the main character, versus trying to do it from the perspective of an outside narrator.

Example paragraph from one of my stories, Rectification, referring to an anthropomorphic character the MC has a rivalry with: "These creatures certainly looked nice though, I will admit that much. Quite decorative, even. It might have been fun to stick one in a cage, I thought, one of those kinds that dangled from the ceiling, as a sort of centerpiece to amuse visitors. Could have them wear a bunch of little baubles too, for a bit of flair. Maybe if my more speculative investments worked out and I was in a position to retire early into a comfortable, lavish lifestyle, I could find some way to make that happen."

I just don't think it would have been as straightforward to capture the MC's snarkiness and grudging annoyance at the other character in 3P. It was easier (and more fun) to express that in 1P.

On the other hand, I wrote The Plow in 3P. I think one reason is that I wanted the narration to simply be cold, impersonal, and detached, which worked much better in 3P. Plus, I wanted to make sure to describe the scenery and surroundings in sufficient detail, which the MC is likely unable to do himself because of how obsessively preoccupied he is with his task. So 3P seemed to be a better fit here.

In any case, I think the decision is just subjective and based on whatever you think fits the story best.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I've used both 1P and 3P. To be honest, I've often used 1P to describe personal fantasies simply because it feels more immersive that way, which is what I personally want. But I also find that 1P makes it easier to infuse more personality into the observations and thoughts of the main character, versus trying to do it from the perspective of an outside narrator.

Example paragraph from one of my stories, Rectification, referring to an anthropomorphic character the MC has a rivalry with: "These creatures certainly looked nice though, I will admit that much. Quite decorative, even. It might have been fun to stick one in a cage, I thought, one of those kinds that dangled from the ceiling, as a sort of centerpiece to amuse visitors. Could have them wear a bunch of little baubles too, for a bit of flair. Maybe if my more speculative investments worked out and I was in a position to retire early into a comfortable, lavish lifestyle, I could find some way to make that happen."

I just don't think it would have been as straightforward to capture the MC's snarkiness and grudging annoyance at the other character in 3P. It was easier (and more fun) to express that in 1P.

On the other hand, I wrote The Plow in 3P. I think one reason is that I wanted the narration to simply be cold, impersonal, and detached, which worked much better in 3P. Plus, I wanted to make sure to describe the scenery and surroundings in sufficient detail, which the MC is likely unable to do himself because of how obsessively preoccupied he is with his task. So 3P seemed to be a better fit here.

In any case, I think the decision is just subjective and based on whatever you think fits the story best.

A) Rectification was a damn good story.
2) On behalf of the Subtext Committee, we would like to thank you for taking into account implicit considerations when picking your POV.
iii) On behalf of the Stories Are In Charge committee, we would like to thank you for realizing that authors should always respect and do what's best for the story.

 

[XerXesXu]

Both 3P and 1P can be written in Omniscient. In 1P past tense, the 1P character is quasi-omniscient – they will have knowledge of the story that they didn’t at the time the events occurred. It’s unproblematic to introduce that knowledge.

In 1P present tense, the characters have knowledge of the world at large and that quasi-omniscience can be related by the characters.

Squealers

NB: That story is framed in the present tense, but the story within the story is told in the past tense, see above. It gets recursive.

In 3P Omniscient you can do whatever you like. Liberally sprinkle it with free indirect. You can even introduce the ‘vivid’ present in a past tense story to crank up the tension, like a pub raconteur.

A Crush Hour Romance

Anything you can sit down and do, you can do.

Just do it.