On writing: point of view

[SimonDoom]

Seems like in his I'm a Big Deal Now and Don't Need Editors Anymore edition of The Stand he just shoved all his zombie darlings right back in there.

I thought both 11/22/63 and The Dome could have been 200 pages shorter each and not missed a thing.

 

[StillStunned]

I've seen it done well. More than the others, though, it's likely to start you off wrong-footed with some readers. Some will immediately start asking "why," looking for some clear justification, some reason any of the more "standard" POVs wouldn't do. And some will just drop their one bomb and be on their way.

That's not to say it shouldn't be tried. I think there are uses.

Curiously (as noted in another thread) quite a few songs are written in 2P and nobody complains. Maybe because they're short? Because the music adds an appeal that makes it easier to identify with the lyrics.

 

[SimonDoom]

Curiously (as noted in another thread) quite a few songs are written in 2P and nobody complains. Maybe because they're short? Because the music adds an appeal that makes it easier to identify with the lyrics.

Are there? I'm trying to think of examples. Most songs that incorporate the pronoun "you" are in first person where the narrator addresses a "you." That's not second person POV, because the POV is from I.

I can think of a very few examples. The Beatles' song For No One, which begins "The day breaks. Your mind aches."

 

[SimonDoom]

One of the things that gets 2P discussions off the rails right away is people don't understand what it is. People think this is 2P:

I'm sitting on the bed, watching you sway in your chemise, and I can't wait to see you take it off. I smile, hungrily. You smile back at me and pull the strips off your shoulders.

This is not 2P. It's 1P. The POV is from the "I" character, watching and observing the "you" character.

This is 2P:

You sway in your chemise in the small room. He's sitting on the bed, watching you, and you know he wants you to take it off. You slip the straps off your shoulders. He smiles, with hunger in his eyes, and you smile back, wanting to strip for him as much as he wants you to strip.

 

[StillStunned]

Are there? I'm trying to think of examples.

The ones that came up in the other thread were "Fight For Your Right" by the Beastie Boys, and Springsteen's "Night" (because one of my own 2P stories was inspired by it). I'm sure there are others. "It Wasn't Me" by Shaggy might even qualify, even with the 1P interjections.

There's also "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" by Brandon Flowers, and "Only the Young" despite some inconsistencies.

 

[SimonDoom]

The ones that came up in the other thread were "Fight For Your Right" by the Beastie Boys, and Springsteen's "Night" (because one of my own 2P stories was inspired by it). I'm sure there are others. "It Wasn't Me" by Shaggy might even qualify, even with the 1P interjections.

There's also "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" by Brandon Flowers, and "Only the Young" despite some inconsistencies.

I've been doing some digging, and there are more than I thought. Dylan's Like A Rolling Stone is a great example, especially because it digs into "you's" thoughts so much.

 

[Cagivagurl]

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

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.

Yes, you can use many different options for POV... Absolutely agree.
The bit I felt wrong is that using 1st person limits the story you can tell...
I feel POV is a personal choice, and that you can use any of them, and still tell the same story...
1st person in no way restricts or limits your options...
They are all relevant, and each has it's own quirks...
I argue for 1st person because it is my personal favourite. Both for reading and writing.

 

[MK_Whimsy]

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.

Aw, thanks! I try.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Maybe because they're short?

I think 2P lends itself to < 2,000 words. Short and intense. A shot, not a glass of wine, let alone a beer.

 

[EmilyMiller]

The bit I felt wrong is that using 1st person limits the story you can tell...

I agree - there are ways to tell whatever story you want with whatever narration style you like, if you have enough skill.

 

[XerXesXu]

One nit: I think for free indirect you would write: He walked into the cold-store. Christ it was cold.

Because the narrative is in past tense, and interior thoughts like this should be consistent with narrative rather than read like an interior quotation.

'vivid' present ... remember.

 

[Cagivagurl]

I agree - there are ways to tell whatever story you want with whatever narration style you like, if you have enough skill.

Absolutely....
You have a story in your head and need to write it...
The choice for me comes down to complexity V time... If it is a multi character story, with lots of the characters having their moment... You can tell it in any POV, the time element enters the conversation because it takes a great deal of skill to write that successfully in 1st person. It means the story grows from perhaps 30,000 words to around 70,000 So if you love 1st person (Me) LOL... You have to be prepared to put in the effort to bring out the best of the supporting characters...
To give them a distinct voice...
Not that I am saying I have those skills, it's simply my preference...
My belief is to tell complex stories in 1st person is a real skill...

 

[EmilyMiller]

Absolutely....
You have a story in your head and need to write it...
The choice for me comes down to complexity V time... If it is a multi character story, with lots of the characters having their moment... You can tell it in any POV, the time element enters the conversation because it takes a great deal of skill to write that successfully in 1st person. It means the story grows from perhaps 30,000 words to around 70,000 So if you love 1st person (Me) LOL... You have to be prepared to put in the effort to bring out the best of the supporting characters...
To give them a distinct voice...
Not that I am saying I have those skills, it's simply my preference...
My belief is to tell complex stories in 1st person is a real skill...

I think my novel (87k words) would have been easier in 3P. But the nature of the story meant 1P was almost mandatory.

 

[Britva415]

One of the things that gets 2P discussions off the rails right away is people don't understand what it is. People think this is 2P:

I'm sitting on the bed, watching you sway in your chemise, and I can't wait to see you take it off. I smile, hungrily. You smile back at me and pull the strips off your shoulders.

This is not 2P. It's 1P. The POV is from the "I" character, watching and observing the "you" character.

This is 2P:

You sway in your chemise in the small room. He's sitting on the bed, watching you, and you know he wants you to take it off. You slip the straps off your shoulders. He smiles, with hunger in his eyes, and you smile back, wanting to strip for him as much as he wants you to strip.

Both of your examples include second-person grammatical voice addressing (ostensibly) the reader.

So the bit about whether it's a 2p story telling you what you did or a 1p story telling you what you did doesn't really make much difference to readers who don't like being told what they did.

 

[Britva415]

This is 2P:

You sway in your chemise in the small room. He's sitting on the bed, watching you

Also, this is an interesting choice of example for 2p because it raises the question, who's narrating it?

The narrator isn't one of the characters in the scene, which is how most 2p narratives are usually structured. The person addressing "you" is usually someone who is there, but it doesn't seem to be so in this case.

I could argue that this example is of a third person point of view, because they may not even be an in-universe character at all, but, an omniscient non-character narrator.

In other words, an author

I mean, besides being a literal third person. It isn't him, it isn't you (her), it's a third person, whose point of view isn't his or yours (hers).

 

[crookedletter]

Also, this is an interesting choice of example for 2p because it raises the question, who's narrating it?

The narrator isn't one of the characters in the scene, which is how most 2p narratives are usually structured. The person addressing "you" is usually someone who is there, but it doesn't seem to be so in this case.

I could argue that this example is of a third person point of view, because they may not even be an in-universe character at all, but, an omniscient non-character narrator.

In other words, an author

I mean, besides being a literal third person. It isn't him, it isn't you (her), it's a third person, whose point of view isn't his or yours (hers).

If you’re going to get into those weeds, we may as well say everything is in first person, it’s just a question of whether or not the narrator ever refers to themselves.

But then, if you’re going to overthink everything into meaninglessness, why bother with these distinctions in the first place? Why bother with anything? Let’s just skip the writing and the reading and go get drinks.

 

[XerXesXu]

I prefer the term 'free indirect ATTRIBUTION' to describe free indirect.

Avoid 'discourse'. Never invite a French philosopher into a discussion of the craft of writing, indeed, any other discussion.

'Style' is also problematic. The use of non-verbal markings that, literally, punctuate writing, evolve. Every time Austin is republished the sub-editor changes her/her previous publishers' style to conform to their house guide.

'Indirect attribution' conveys the information that the words used are those of the 'author narrator' blatantly attributed to the 'character narrator'. It's done freely as in 'I can do it, so I do, do it and I don't care what you think.'

We've traced un-aliving 'darlings' back to Dr Johnson referring to ancient wisdom, so there must be something in it.
Commonly it refers to 'purple passages' - over-polished, over-elaborated, over-ornate passages that leap out to the reader as purple passages against the background of your habitual prose. Don't make the reader burst into laughter. You don't want to be laughed at, do you?

 

[EmilyMiller]

If you’re going to get into those weeds

Some weed would probably help on this thread, just sayin’

 

[Cagivagurl]

I think my novel (87k words) would have been easier in 3P. But the nature of the story meant 1P was almost mandatory.

Yes, sometimes the heart wants, what the heart wants...
So it takes longer... Takes more effort... if it's how you see the story in your head, then it has to happen...
I do believe that 1st person allows writers to express more emotive feelings.... Not to say it can't be done in close 3rd... But...

 

[EmilyMiller]

Yes, sometimes the heart wants, what the heart wants...
So it takes longer... Takes more effort... if it's how you see the story in your head, then it has to happen...
I do believe that 1st person allows writers to express more emotive feelings.... Not to say it can't be done in close 3rd... But...

Agree 100%

 

[Britva415]

If you’re going to get into those weeds, we may as well say everything is in first person, it’s just a question of whether or not the narrator ever refers to themselves.

But then, if you’re going to overthink everything into meaninglessness, why bother with these distinctions in the first place? Why bother with anything? Let’s just skip the writing and the reading and go get drinks.

You know, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, you don't have to. But you don't have to give somebody shit for doing so.

If you were the OP or the person I was replying to, I might spend a second considering whether you have a leg to stand on, here. But you aren't. And I won't.

 

[crookedletter]

You know, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, you don't have to. But you don't have to give somebody shit for doing so.

I was being facetious; sorry if you took it personally.

I’m only saying there comes a point when you can dig so deep into these things the notions cease being useful. They’re meant to be shorthand for tools on our toolbelts.

The rest was hyperbole. (Another tool.)

Edit: just for the record that little parting shot was not in the quoted post when I went to quote it. Just so it’s said, I would not have bothered trying to clarify my intent if I’d seen that.

 

[anthrodisiac]

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.

It's why I prefaced it by saying minimize the number of POV characters you need, emphasis on need. If you have a sprawling epic with a dozen different storylines going on, you're not gonna be able to stick with 2 dudes in a hut chilling and talking about the price of eggs.

I'm more of the opinion that each additional POV requires increasing levels of justification for its addition before I okay it in any of my own works. Each addition of the POV has the capacity to water down the emotional impact, and in a story where that's not the goal, it's not a problem, because you're talking pretty high level and intimating to the reader not to get too attached to any one person. But if your story is meant to be an emotional rollercoaster, it's better served with fewer POV characters because those are the ones that generally have the most attachment and understanding, because readers know them more thoroughly than non-POV characters.

Obviously, not always the case, we're just talking generalizations. Plenty of cases where this isn't applicable.

 

[TheRedChamber]

One of the things that gets 2P discussions off the rails right away is people don't understand what it is. People think this is 2P:

I'm sitting on the bed, watching you sway in your chemise, and I can't wait to see you take it off. I smile, hungrily. You smile back at me and pull the strips off your shoulders.

This is not 2P. It's 1P. The POV is from the "I" character, watching and observing the "you" character.

This is 2P:

You sway in your chemise in the small room. He's sitting on the bed, watching you, and you know he wants you to take it off. You slip the straps off your shoulders. He smiles, with hunger in his eyes, and you smile back, wanting to strip for him as much as he wants you to strip.

That may well be true according to the definition. On the other hand, I posit, everything people hate about 2P is also present in your first example.

 

[SimonDoom]

Also, this is an interesting choice of example for 2p because it raises the question, who's narrating it?

The narrator isn't one of the characters in the scene, which is how most 2p narratives are usually structured. The person addressing "you" is usually someone who is there, but it doesn't seem to be so in this case.

I could argue that this example is of a third person point of view, because they may not even be an in-universe character at all, but, an omniscient non-character narrator.

In other words, an author

I mean, besides being a literal third person. It isn't him, it isn't you (her), it's a third person, whose point of view isn't his or yours (hers).

When somebody is in the room, and the somebody is communicating the story to you, that's NOT second person. That's the point. It's first person. This is what screws people up.

Second person is disorienting for precisely this reason. There is NO person in the room, although there MAY be a kind of omniscient narrator. That is, it can be second person if the narrator says things about "you" that "you" probably wouldn't say about himself.

Let's go with accepted examples. The best-known published example I know of indisputable second person is Jay McInerny's Bright Lights Big Cities, published in the 1980s. Here's the opening of that novel.

You are not the kind of guy who would be at a place like this at this time of the morning. But here you are, and you cannot say that the terrain is entirely unfamiliar, although the details are fuzzy. You are at a nightclub talking to a girl with a shaved head. The club is either Heartbreak or the Lizard Lounge. All might come clear if you could just slip into the bathroom and do a little more Bolivian Marching Powder. Then again it might not. [...] Somewhere back there you could have cut your losses, but you rode past that moment on a comet trail of white powder and now you are trying to hang on to the rush. Your brain at this moment is composed of brigades of tiny Bolivian soldiers. They are tired and muddy from their long march through the night. There are holes in their boots and they are hungry. They need to be fed. They need the Bolivian Marching Powder.

This is second person. There is no "I" anywhere in the novel. There is no person in the room watching "you." The narrator is more of an omniscient god with a sharp sense of humor telling "you" what "you" is feeling and experiencing in real time.