On writing: point of view

[Cagivagurl]

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.

Have to say I disagree withy some of this....
1st person in no way limits the story you can tell....
The POV, does tell only how that character sees and feels. It does not limit the story, you simply have to be creative in how you describe other characters actions and possible motives.
Some of the greatest stories ever told have been told in 1st person, and do not feel weak or that you as the reader have missed anything....
Many of those stories are epics involving all types of genres and action sequences...
Choosing a POV merely sets out your mission...
Of course, I am not genius, and that is only my personal view.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Have to say I disagree withy some of this....
1st person in no way limits the story you can tell....
The POV, does tell only how that character sees and feels. It does not limit the story, you simply have to be creative in how you describe other characters actions and possible motives.
Some of the greatest stories ever told have been told in 1st person, and do not feel weak or that you as the reader have missed anything....
Many of those stories are epics involving all types of genres and action sequences...
Choosing a POV merely sets out your mission...
Of course, I am not genius, and that is only my personal view.

Love disagreement, it's what makes writing interesting. It'd be super boring if we all had the same opinions about these things

You can write a POV however you want to handle any perceived "limits," and ultimately any limits you place on yourself are just that: self-imposed, and you can choose to ditch them at any point you want. However, there are pros and cons to every choice, and choosing to break the normal limits of a POV comes with greater freedom, but impacts the leeway some readers will give you and can result in broken immersion for some people. You want to weigh that consequence against having more freedom to convey information outside the normal scope of the POV.

There isn't any inherent "weakness" in telling a story from a particular POV. In my opinion, stories are better told from a particular POV (I'm a proponent of story-led writing, where the writer serves the story, not the other way around, and you respect the choices the story nudges you toward; it's a very pantser philosophy), but that doesn't mean choosing a different POV is going to weaken the story, it simply changes its container, and thus the shape and scope of the story. That changes isn't necessarily better or worse in and of itself, it's simply different.

The point of my post was that when you pick a POV, you're conveying the undertones of the story. What you do atop those undertones is entirely up to you, but the framework that a story sits in has information that readers pick up on, the same way every element of a story has additional implicit information beyond the explicit, the words of the story — the structure, ordering, POV, voice, pacing, all those are implicit cues to the reader. My favorite example is using shorter fragments in high-tension scenes (like horror) instead of longer, complete sentences, because it's jarring, and the short, punchy sentences get read faster and processed differently than a single continuous sentence, which has a calm composition that undermines the sense of tension. The reader often isn't aware of it, because the words themselves could be the same, but the way they're structured can trigger subconscious reactions in the reader.

POV isn't any different. Like I outlined, different POVs point the reader to what the most important elements of the story are without ever having to state it. I deeply enjoy subtext and picking apart the different cues a scene can send to the reader's subconscious. Reader psychology is a trip, and I possibly over-prioritize it, but I think it's an incredibly powerful tool to be able to subtly influence how someone is feeling not just with your words, but the construction.

And also just really freaking nifty!

Implicitness and subtext are my writing nerd-dom, in case anyone hadn't picked up on that

 

[XerXesXu]

Reader psychology is a trip, and I possibly over-prioritize it, but I think it's an incredibly powerful tool to be able to subtly influence how someone is feeling not just with your words, but the construction.

That's probably true. Many writers say they choose this or that POV because it's 'immersive'. To me, that's meaningless; I never feel immersed, I'm very self-aware, I know I'm just reading. Fiction is no different to me than reading a newspaper or textbook. I can be engaged, but never 'immersed' in the way many writers appear to be describing. I'd guess that 'immersion' is an epiphenomenon like visual imagery and internal monologue, spectra along which they're positioned to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe writers can also be divided into those who write to 'engage' and those who write to 'immerse', and that preference may be determined by their own reading experience.

 

[anthrodisiac]

That's probably true. Many writers say they choose this or that POV because it's 'immersive'. To me, that's meaningless; I never feel immersed, I'm very self-aware, I know I'm just reading. Fiction is no different to me than reading a newspaper or textbook. I can be engaged, but never 'immersed' in the way many writers appear to be describing. I'd guess that 'immersion' is an epiphenomenon like visual imagery and internal monologue, spectra along which they're positioned to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe writers can also be divided into those who write to 'engage' and those who write to 'immerse', and that preference may be determined by their own reading experience.

What a nice reminder that readers aren't a monolith. It does make using reader psychology and these tools a bit harder to use, because how someone readers isn't uniform, so the subtext tools by no means are a one-size-fits-all technique. It's the same way some authors and poets prioritize the sounds of words, but for someone like me who reads in an incredibly monotone mental voice, the impact isn't nearly as pronounced. It's probably why I never took to poetry, I read too mentally "boringly" to get the ebb and flow of the verse (which is very much a "me" problem, I'd like to clarify, not an issue with using sound or poetry writ large).

Immersion I get, I was very much that quiet kid who sat in a corner reading a book. But I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you meant when you talk about "engagement" — I'd consider all writing a form of engaging with readers. I'm curious what you mean, if you don't mind clarifying

 

[KittyOfSteele]

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.

This thread cemented on me the fact that there's no right or wrong POV. What are seen as disadvantages are actually pitfalls, and pitfalls can be avoided. At the end of the day each POV is a tool, and it's up to the writer's skill in question the handling of that tool.

 

[Britva415]

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)

Absolutely. I think most first-person narrators are marysue characters.

 

[ADirtyPerv]

That's probably true. Many writers say they choose this or that POV because it's 'immersive'. To me, that's meaningless; I never feel immersed, I'm very self-aware, I know I'm just reading. Fiction is no different to me than reading a newspaper or textbook. I can be engaged, but never 'immersed' in the way many writers appear to be describing. I'd guess that 'immersion' is an epiphenomenon like visual imagery and internal monologue, spectra along which they're positioned to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe writers can also be divided into those who write to 'engage' and those who write to 'immerse', and that preference may be determined by their own reading experience.

As I read your comment, I was able to immerse myself in the perspective of a person who couldn't immerse themselves in a comment, and I got severe whiplash.

Joking aside, I appreciate your perspective for sure. I have that "aphantasia" thing, so I can't just conjure mental images... Unless I read a passage about a thing. Then I can picture it. We don't all function in the same way, and your brain is no less valid than mine. It's really cool that you still feel motivated to write, even though you don't feel immersed in a piece of writing.

 

[Britva415]

Since "immersion" keeps coming up:

1p stories on Lit break my immersion far more frequently than 3p stories on Lit. In professional (commercial) fiction it's a little more 50/50, but it still happens a lot, and in the same way and for the same reasons.

Both types of stories are perfectly well able to create immersion. One isn't "better" at that than the other. Same with close vs. omniscient style.

I think the issue is that authors seem to have a harder time really creating an in-universe voice and persona which is believable. That's harder to write than just narrating from the out-of-universe 3p perspective. (Remember, even a very close 3p narrator is still omniscient - unless they're literally written as an in-universe character.)

When a 1p narrator uses a voice which doesn't sound like the character they're supposed to be, in the situation they're supposed to be in, and the voice sounds like "an author," that distances me from the character who's supposed to be telling the story. Because I stop believing that they are.

That is not an inherent problem with 1p narration, it's just something some people don't succeed at easily enough. It's a problem which is totally absent from any version of 3p narration, and it's one to which a lot of 1p authors seem to just have a total blind-spot.

As far as being a reader goes, to me "immersion" is largely the opposite of "suspending disbelief." Suspending disbelief is what I'm doing when I'm not immersed and I have some disbelief to suspend. Immersion is when it's effortless because cognitive dissonance is just absent.

 

[ADirtyPerv]

As far as being a reader goes, to me "immersion" is largely the opposite of "suspending disbelief." Suspending disbelief is what I'm doing when I'm not immersed and I have some disbelief to suspend

Huh. I've never heard that phrase used that way. Suspension of disbelief, the way I use it, is more about accepting a central premise that is beyond the normal experience. In my works, that can be a girl with a self-lubricating asshole and a useless vagina, or an eldritch god taking up residence inside a goth girl. If you can accept the premise and suspend that disbelief, then the rest of the story not only works, but flows.

The way you're using it is more like you're swallowing the pill of mediocre writing that only grabs you just enough that you don't hate every minute.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Since "immersion" keeps coming up:

1p stories on Lit break my immersion far more frequently than 3p stories on Lit. In professional (commercial) fiction it's a little more 50/50, but it still happens a lot, and in the same way and for the same reasons.

Both types of stories are perfectly well able to create immersion. One isn't "better" at that than the other. Same with close vs. omniscient style.

I think the issue is that authors seem to have a harder time really creating an in-universe voice and persona which is believable. That's harder to write than just narrating from the out-of-universe 3p perspective. (Remember, even a very close 3p narrator is still omniscient - unless they're literally written as an in-universe character.)

When a 1p narrator uses a voice which doesn't sound like the character they're supposed to be, in the situation they're supposed to be in, and the voice sounds like "an author," that distances me from the character who's supposed to be telling the story. Because I stop believing that they are.

That is not an inherent problem with 1p narration, it's just something some people don't succeed at easily enough. It's a problem which is totally absent from any version of 3p narration, and it's one to which a lot of 1p authors seem to just have a total blind-spot.

As far as being a reader goes, to me "immersion" is largely the opposite of "suspending disbelief." Suspending disbelief is what I'm doing when I'm not immersed and I have some disbelief to suspend. Immersion is when it's effortless because cognitive dissonance is just absent.

I'd love to have a discussion on voice, I think it's such a critical tool, even outside first person (omniscient narrators have voices, too). It's one of the things I try to pay a lot of attention to. I'd be happy to start that one if @StillStunned doesn't mind someone cutting in on his On writing threads.

 

[XerXesXu]

As far as being a reader goes, to me "immersion" is largely the opposite of "suspending disbelief." Suspending disbelief is what I'm doing when I'm not immersed and I have some disbelief to suspend. Immersion is when it's effortless because cognitive dissonance is just absent.

Yes, the gift to enable your reader to 'suspend disbelief' is important. I frequently find myself unable to suspend disbelief when I read the news, or many of those pre-peer-review publications passing as science.

 

[TheLobster]

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.

I’d say that the prioritization of external vs. internal, and whether or not it actually happens in a 1P narrative, very much depends on who is the main character and what their storytelling voice is like.

You can very well write a 1P story that spends little time in MC’s head, and instead simply relates the events he or she is part of. I did this, I did that, he did something else, the chandelier fell from the ceiling and she screamed, etc. Just like in other types of PoV, you can mix in as much or as little of the PoV character’s internality as you want.

On the other hand, in case of emotionally stunted characters with little introspection, I think it is often better to actually shy away from 1P and tell the story from 3P. Believable emotional analysis in 1P requires believable awareness of MC’s own mental and emotional states, as well as the capability to analyze them and put them into words. That’s asking a lot, especially if the character is young and relatively immature; and if you make them come off as precociously aware of their own emotions and reactions, you risk drawing the reader’s attention to the out-of-universe question of “Wait, when exactly is this story told, and to whom?”

Also, on one final note, 1P doesn’t necessarily mean the story is about the MC. Peripheral narrators are a thing, and although nowadays they’re pretty rare, on Lit there’s larger place for them than elsewhere because some categories lend themselves to this type of narration (E/V obviously, but also e.g. LW).

 

[OralAllOver]

PTP

It's possible that the more fundamental decision is where you point the penis

 

[StillStunned]

I'd love to have a discussion on voice, I think it's such a critical tool, even outside first person (omniscient narrators have voices, too). It's one of the things I try to pay a lot of attention to. I'd be happy to start that one if @StillStunned doesn't mind someone cutting in on his On writing threads.

From the first On Writing thread:

I'm hoping that this will be the first in series of threads dealing with aspects of writing. There are so many tricks and techniques to writing, and it's easy to overlook them, or not even be aware of them. So maybe we can have a few positive discussions, with opinions and examples. Where they work, how they work best, and where they diminish the reader's experience.

(Also, please feel free to start your own threads if there's a writing topic you'd like to discuss.)

 

[StillStunned]

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'm pleasantly surprised. I wasn't sure anyone would want to chime in - the previous "On Writing" thread I started, about sounds and sentences, got a lot of responses along the lines of "I'm just an amateur, I don't know about any of this." Even so, that thread also got nearly 100 posts.

 

[BeechLeaf]

My BeechLeaf stories are all third person, because they form a series with different people as the main characters of each, and of course now I think: why does that stop me using first person for some of them? I looked back at stories from years back and found about half of them were first person. I can't recall ever having a reason for the preference. (One that got published for actual money mixed first, second, and third, another surprising thing about it.)

I don't think I'd ever thought about varieties of third person. I tell what I want to tell, which is sometimes people's thoughts or feelings. However, in my perpetually stalled WIPs here I've been adjuring myself to stick to one person's POV, which has involved a bit of changing the visibility or description of other people's feelings. At some point recently I must have observed that this is how better writers here do it, so I should make a note of that.

 

[XerXesXu]

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.

This was the last time we did it in depth:

Deep POV

Deep POV and Cinematic POV (see also #34 infra) are terms which haven't yet appeared in this thread, which has thrown up some more profound considerations when choosing YOUR POV hence YOUR readership.

 

[SimonDoom]

This was the last time we did it in depth:

Deep POV

Deep POV and Cinematic POV (see also #34 infra) are terms which haven't yet appeared in this thread, which has thrown up some more profound considerations when choosing YOUR POV hence YOUR readership.

That conversation gets confusing because so many different terms are used for this style. I use "free indirect style" because that's what other writers have used to call it. Others call it "close" style. With all the labels there's a risk of people talking past each other. But that was a good thread, too.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

This thread cemented on me the fact that there's no right or wrong POV. What are seen as disadvantages are actually pitfalls, and pitfalls can be avoided. At the end of the day each POV is a tool, and it's up to the writer's skill in question the handling of that tool.

I think it really depends on the story an author is trying to tell. Are lots of characters participating in an event, epic adventure, bank heist, etc.? Maybe 3rd POV is the way to go. Is a character telling the reader a story about themself? 1st POV is probably the best avenue to communicate that... but even then, it's up to the author.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

That conversation gets confusing because so many different terms are used for this style. I use "free indirect style" because that's what other writers have used to call it. Others call it "close" style. With all the labels there's a risk of people talking past each other. But that was a good thread, too.

I've heard it referred to as "free indirect discourse"

 

[StillStunned]

3rd person omnipotent

The Bible, as told by God. "And I told them, I said, "Listen, you fuckers, repent!" But did they? Fuckers went on unrepentant. And then the bitching when I visited my wrath upon them!"

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.

Or perhaps: the more POV characters you have, the more stories you're telling. Which I suppose is nitpicking, and you should make sure that you're only telling stories worth telling. Don't give a character a POV unless you're willing to commit to telling their entire story.

Then again... it can be a very effective technique to describe a scene set-up from a throw-away character's POV, or by an omniscient narrator. The Rivals Ch. 04: The Black Tomb opens from the perspective of an officer on guard duty by a tomb that the protagonists are going to rob. The Oath and the Fear begins with an impersonal narration of the scene before jumping into close 3P. I did this deliberately even though the protagonists are well established. I think it makes it easier for new readers to come in and not feel like they're playing catch-up.

George MacDonald Fraser's non-humorous novel "Mr American" opens from the POV of a police officer watching passengers disembark from an ocean liner that's just docked before switching to the close POV of one of those passengers, Mr Franklin. The story strays into omniscient 3P once or twice, but overall it stays with Mr Franklin. Even so, even with close 3P, the set-up and the consistent use of "Mr Franklin" instead of "Mark" create a distance between the main character and the narrator/reader, which very subtly reinforces the distance that Mr Franklin himself feels to the world around him. It's a masterpiece of technique to serve storytelling.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I've heard it referred to as "free indirect discourse"

I've always known it as "close" or "limited" third.

 

[StillStunned]

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.

The limitation I was referring to was about the scope of the story:

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 can "use other characters", as you mention, and as per my quote above there is that trend nowadays in fiction. But there will always be something of a question mark about why not use close 3P in the first place. You can delve just as deep as with 1P, and it doesn't disorient (or annoy) your readers when you switch scenes - or worse, switch POV within the same scene.

 

[crookedletter]

The Bible, as told by God. "And I told them, I said, "Listen, you fuckers, repent!" But did they? Fuckers went on unrepentant. And then the bitching when I visited my wrath upon them!"

It's been a while since I cracked open a Bible. But I'm thinking we might have different editions.

 

[TheLobster]

It's been a while since I cracked open a Bible. But I'm thinking we might have different editions.

It's the Book of Rut, chapter 69.