Multiple POV's

[Enna]

Hi everyone!

I'm working on the second draft of my YA sci-fi novel, and the story is told from seven POV's, all in 3rd person. When I first started out, I really only intended to speak through the protagonist, but I realized I wasn't tied down to that and thought it might be fun to let some of the other characters have a turn.

The protagonist definitely has the most scenes. The antagonist has three short scenes. The two next most important characters have about four each, and the last three characters, two or three scenes each. I don't think it's hurting the length, either- I'm between 75k and 80k.

When I read it I don't find it uncomfortable or jarring, but...it's my book! I've read some books that use five or six POV's and it never bothered me. But for some reason when I realized I was using seven...I don't know, will agents and editors find that off-putting? Or is it more common than I think?

Or is this a case of "use 100 POV's as long as it's well-written!" :)

Thanks!

[StoryG27]

Has anyone else read your WIP yet? Has it confused them? Seven POVs can sometimes be overwhelming to the reader, especially if the reader doesn't have a clear understanding of who is who. It can also make it a little harder for the reader to really bond with just a few MC's.

Having said all that, it can be done brilliantly and add rather than detract from the story. If you think it works and makes a stronger story, then before you do any drastic changes, I would wait until you get opinions from beta readers and see if they feel the same.

[Andrew Jameson]

Or is this a case of "use 100 POV's as long as it's well-written!" :)That.

As a reader, having completely throw-away POV characters bugs me a little, but that's a personal preference. As a writer, I'd caution you to make sure your minor POV characters are necessary and distinguishable. But seven is not really excessive, IMO.

[Bufty]

Is that the only reason you have seven POV's?

I have several but they're used because at any given point that particular POV is felt to be the best to use to keep the story moving.

They're not used because I thought using them would be fun or different.

... thought it might be fun to let some of the other characters have a turn.

[James81]

I would think that as long as you have something binding them together, it could work.

Best example I can think of right now is like a car crash. A major accident happens somewhere in the city and there are 7 key players involved. A story that tells about the crash from each of the 7 players point of view could be interesting and could work.

I think the most important thing is to have a strong central theme like that that binds all the POVs together.

[Enna]

Well, I don't want to say it's "necessary" to have seven POV's, because I could edit it down to 3 or 4 if asked. But it wasn't just for fun, either.

Six of the seven (minus the antagonist) are traveling together most of the story, so the other characters (or at least some of them) are present in each scene. So hopefully that lessens the potential confusion. I suppose I just really like these characters, and certain scenes come across (IMO) better from a specific POV.

I haven't had anyone read yet- waiting to complete the 2nd draft first- but this is definitely a question high on my list when the time comes!

Thanks for the help, everyone!

[James81]

because I could edit it down to 3 or 4 if asked.

There you go.

If you COULD edit it down to 3 or 4, then you PROBABLY (key word) should edit it down to 3 or 4.

To me, it seems like multiple points of view are to be used only if absolutely necessary.

But there are exceptions to everything. Probably the best advice is to have someone beta read your story for you and tell you what they think.

[tehuti88]

I'm with Andrew Jameson on trying to avoid "throwaway" POV characters, but aside from that, I haven't a problem at all with a zillion POV characters as long as 1. there's a reason for the scene to be told from that particular POV (as was already mentioned) and 2. it's done right (no headhopping).

I prefer multiple third-person POV myself. Only seven? Pshaw! I can't even count how many my stories must have...

[Bufty]

If POV 1 is still present when POV 2 is used, and then POV3 is used while POV characters 1 and 2 are still present, that could become confusing insofar as the reader is being switched from character to character and there is a potential risk of weakening the reader's attachment to all the POV's.

The story may be the stronger by using less POV's

Only you can answer, and the question is intended as rhetorical, but are you sure it's not just a gimmick?

Good luck.


Well, I don't want to say it's "necessary" to have seven POV's, because I could edit it down to 3 or 4 if asked. But it wasn't just for fun, either.

Six of the seven (minus the antagonist) are traveling together most of the story, so the other characters (or at least some of them) are present in each scene. So hopefully that lessens the potential confusion. I suppose I just really like these characters, and certain scenes come across (IMO) better from a specific POV.

I haven't had anyone read yet- waiting to complete the 2nd draft first- but this is definitely a question high on my list when the time comes!

Thanks for the help, everyone!

[ideagirl]

Hi everyone!

I'm working on the second draft of my YA sci-fi novel, and the story is told from seven POV's, all in 3rd person. When I first started out, I really only intended to speak through the protagonist, but I realized I wasn't tied down to that and thought it might be fun to let some of the other characters have a turn....When I read it I don't find it uncomfortable or jarring, but...it's my book! I've read some books that use five or six POV's and it never bothered me. But for some reason when I realized I was using seven...I don't know, will agents and editors find that off-putting? Or is it more common than I think?

Or is this a case of "use 100 POV's as long as it's well-written!" :)

Thanks!

to me, "seven different third-person POV's" sounds more like an omniscient narrator than like seven actual different POV's. An omniscient narrator can get into any character's mind, say how any character is feeling, even notice things that no actual character notices (e.g. an omniscient narrator could describe a group of characters having a huge violent fight, and then cut to the police car that's approaching them but is still two blocks away...). If that's what's going on in your book, I don't think it should be confusing, because third-person omniscient is an ancient and classic way of telling a story. All you have to do to keep the reader oriented is make sure that, as each new chapter opens, the reader knows who the "focus character" (for lack of a better term) is.

Try googling these two phrases: "third person omniscient" and "third person limited." Which one applies best to your book?

[nevada]

Actually, ideagirl, 7 POV's does not make omniscient. Omniscient is very distant and not as tight into a person's head as a third person limited. It doesn't sound like that's what's going on, to me.

Enna, I'm with James on this one. If you have these POV's simply because you like the characters and you wanted them to have a say and you can edit them out, you probably should. Two or three scenes in one book of a person's POV can be very jarring to a reader, especially if the scenes arent the most dire thing ever and it could have been told from someone's POV whom they are familiar with. Do these switches happen at the end? Or randomly throughout the book. You can have as many POV's as you can make work, but if a POV is given just because and is not needed to move the plot along when the same can be done from the MC POV then you need to think about the need for that switch. Because you like the character is not a need. :) Good luck and welcome to AW. THere's tons of stuff here, all of it useful, a lot of it fun.

[FennelGiraffe]

Well, I don't want to say it's "necessary" to have seven POV's, because I could edit it down to 3 or 4 if asked. But it wasn't just for fun, either.

Six of the seven (minus the antagonist) are traveling together most of the story, so the other characters (or at least some of them) are present in each scene.

...

and certain scenes come across (IMO) better from a specific POV.

You could be right.

"Necessary" goes beyond just who's present in a scene. A very general rule of thumb--with numerous exceptions--is that the best POV is the character who has most at stake in the outcome of that scene.

thought it might be fun to let some of the other characters have a turnI suppose I just really like these characters


Still, these two comments ring a warning bell for me.

[Juliette Wade]

As you've probably guessed, there are multiple ways to approach the POV issue. My sense from your comments about liking the characters and letting them have a turn make me think perhaps you should pare down the numbers, but it's hard to know without looking at the text. So I thought I'd mention a couple of examples.

C.S. Friedman has a book called In Conquest Born that uses multiple POVs, some of whom are people you never see again. It's a great book, though. The important thing for me in that book was that the thrust of the story was clear, as was the identity of the main protagonists. The additional POV's added to that because they provided insight into how people who weren't insiders viewed the protagonists - and that was very helpful to what she was trying to achieve.

Kij Johnson's book The Fox Woman has three distinct points of view, all of whom are protagonists and many of whom appear in the same scenes with one another multiple times. In this case the issue is less of "who is present to see these events" but "how each viewpoint understands what's going on." In this book they are all treated (somewhat abstractly) as diary entries.

I have a book, as yet unpublished, in which I use three points of view for very particular reasons. These reasons are essentially the cultural differences between the characters and their differing moral drives, because each character has a tendency to pull the main thrust of the story in a different direction, often in opposition to the others while the others are present and watching. Often I create suspense by switching POV's in the midst of an interaction between two people, showing first what one person understands about the interaction and then with the switch showing that the other is understanding something totally different - a misunderstanding which then propels the plot.

So as you go about deciding which points of view to use and which not to use, I'd encourage you to ask yourself not whether the character is cool and whether you like them or they need a turn, but what exactly that character's viewpoint is doing for the story, and doing for the reader's understanding or suspense, etc. These are the considerations which should be primary, because in the end the reader is reading to follow the story (main conflict) first, and the characters themselves afterward.

I hope this helps.

[lvcabbie]

Setting up your POVs is one of the most difficult things I've encountered in writing my novels.
I've Googled POV and there are literally hundreds of responses.
Some people say omniscent third if not acceptable to publishers while others say it's the only way to go.
My current story deals primarily two MCs and I frequently present their point of view by their comments or thoughts.
That, to me, works and those who've beta read my stuff also feel it makes the stories interesting.

(Now, if I could only get an agent interested in them - 3 complete, 1 being written and another needing major revision.)

[ideagirl]

Ok, before getting into a technical discussion of POV, I think the main issue here is actually not POV. The main issue is, how many major characters can you have without confusing the reader or dissipating the story's momentum? Regardless of point of view, the only way it could work to draw so much of the reader's attention to seven different characters is:

(1) if there are seven different, closely connected storylines. There need to be seven; if you've only got six storylines, you simply don't need that seventh major character. He can either disappear or be relegated to a bit part or supporting role in one of the six storylines. Or...

(2) if there's one storyline in which all characters are involved and some of those seven characters are antagonists, so your main characters can be grouped into protagonists and antagonists, and it makes sense in the story that there would be teams of protagonists and antagonists... The Da Vinci Code is a good example of this. (Not saying it's a great book, but it is a good example of "teams" of protagonists and antagonists. Ditto Lord of the Rings, about which more below.)

(3) if you're trying to write something like The Seven Samurai in which the issue of point of view IS a big theme in your book. If your point is "different people can experience and remember the same events in completely different and contradictory ways," then sure, illustrate that by having a bunch of characters go through the same experience and remember it differently.

But basically... even The Lord of the Rings doesn't have seven main characters who each get chapters where they're the main focus. Even the Lord of the Rings, which is a three-volume epic! If you count each of the three main hobbits as a major character you could hit seven, but really, Samwise and Merry have no stories of their own; they're just there as Frodo's friends, participating in his journey--i.e. in his story. They're not main characters. The MC's are Frodo, Gollum, Gandalf, Lord Sauron, maybe Aragorn, maybe Legolas (but that's a stretch). You have to throw in the dwarf Gimli to hit seven, and I can't see any rationale for calling Gimli a major or main character. And even counting this way, you still won't find one chapter per each of those characters; it would be confusing to go off into Gimli-land for a chapter, then off into Aragorn-land, etc.

So if even a sprawling three-volume fantasy epic with easily a hundred characters in it (if you count each elf, hobbit etc. that's mentioned by name), if even that kind of book sticks to a handful of main characters and would likely be confusing or unfocused if it didn't, then you have to wonder, how on earth can the OP's book work with seven main characters?

Actually, ideagirl, 7 POV's does not make omniscient. Omniscient is very distant and not as tight into a person's head as a third person limited.

Omniscient (a.k.a. "third person omniscient") CAN be distant and not in a person's head--and it's the only POV that can do that--but it's not necessarily distant. By definition, an omniscient narrator can "get into" any character's head, whereas a third-person limited narrator can only get into the head of one character. So what's going on here is either seven different third-person limited POV's, or one third-person omniscient POV that shifts its focus between seven different characters.

Basically, "omniscient," "first person," or "third-person limited" tells you the POSSIBLE scope of the narration; it tells you where the limits are, but it doesn't tell you exactly what the narrator does within those limits. An omniscient narrator can discuss absolutely anything, from the innermost feelings of a character to the formation of galaxies 10 billion years before the character's birth... anything. But just as you don't use all the words in the English language every time you write a book, an omniscient narrator doesn't do in one single book EVERYTHING that an omniscient character COULD do. An omniscient narrator is free to focus on just one character, and limit itself so much that you could almost call it third-person limited--but if that narrator, even just once, talks about something that is not or could not be in the consciousness of that character, then it's an omniscient narrator.

Third-person limited is limited to the awareness of the focus character; it's like the narrator is sitting on that character's shoulder or in their head--they CAN'T pull back to some other character's consciousness or to things outside the knowledge of the focus character. Third-person omniscient can be distant, sure, but it can also feel to the reader almost the same as third-person limited, with this difference: it CAN move around if it wants to, and it can talk about things outside the focus character's knowledge.

Here's an example--the Golden Compass trilogy, by Philip Pullman. The first book focuses on Lyra, while the second focuses on the boy who will eventually become her friend/comrade/etc., and as I recall in the second book there are also some chapters that switch back to focusing on Lyra. Both books are VERY focused on their main characters (Lyra, and then the boy and Lyra) in almost every scene... but not quite every scene. There are scenes in each book where the focus character does not appear. The narrator describes a few things that the focus character is not aware of. The books are therefore third-person omniscient, but with a very strong focus on those two characters.

If we want to get technical, here's the clincher: the OP said the narrator spends each chapter focused on one of the seven characters. Given that premise, if at any point in the book the narrator mentions ANYTHING that the chapter's "focus character" doesn't know and is never going to know, then what you have is an omniscient narrator. (When I say "is never going to know," I mean that, for example, if the MC is in the hospital, a 3d person limited narrator could write, "It was months before he discovered that while he was in the hospital, his best friend was emptying his bank account and going on a shopping spree in Rio." But a 3d-person limited narrator could not write about something that the MC never finds out about.)

[FennelGiraffe]

the OP said the narrator spends each chapter focused on one of the seven characters.

:Huh: :Huh: :Huh:

Color me confused. I can't find where the OP said that.

[nevada]

no actually the OP said that several characters got a couple of scenes each.

The antagonist has three short scenes. The two next most important characters have about four each, and the last three characters, two or three scenes each. I

Also Lord Of The Rings is omniscient POV so technically it has a POV cast of thousands. There are scenes written from Merry's POV and Pip's POV and Gimly and the guy on the road and the innkeeper has his say and the guy at the gate, etc. Just because they don't have their own scene doesn't mean they don't have POV. The reason why 3rd person omniscient is distant is that even though you can be in the head of a character, it is filtered through the narrator, who is not the character. i hate 3rd person omniscient. and of course, omniscient done badly is headhopping because there is no unseen narrator binding it all together.

Third-person limited is limited to the awareness of the focus character; it's like the narrator is sitting on that character's shoulder or in their head-- There is no secondary narrator in third person limited. the narrator is the character. even though it is not first-person it is basically the same. the narration comes from within the character. there is not another unseen narrator. if there is, you are writing omniscient even if you only limit yourself to one character.

if the writer is writing 3rd limited and not using only the language the character would use he/she is breaking POV and author intrusion occurs. if the writer feels the need to do that, then it should be omniscient.

lol before it gets totally derailed, i think we all agree, if the scenes are only a few, and they don't forward the plot and you can edit them out, then you probably should. I question the need to give the antagonist only three scenes. either give him an equal say, or don't give him any at all. but that's just my opinion.

[maestrowork]

If you do it well, anything is possible.

That said, you have to ask yourself why you're using these POV characters -- from the readers' perspective, not yours. POVs automatically draw the readers closer to those characters because you're allowing them to see/experience/know things through these characters. So by creating that bond, you give your readers better experience and hopefully they'll root for those characters better.

But if you're only using those POVs to reveal information that the other characters can't know otherwise, then I think you're misusing POVs. It doesn't mean you can't do it, but you really have to ask yourself: what does it matter to the readers?

To me, it seems like you have four or five true POV characters: the protagonist, the antagonist, and a couple of major characters. It seems to me that your last three characters are throwaway POVs, especially since you said you could pare the whole thing down to four POVs. In that case, I would suggest you do just that -- rewrite the story so you're down to only four POV characters. Because, otherwise, it would feel gratuitous to have seven, instead of four.

[Cyia]

FWIW, the MS I have out now started off with a rotating 1st person POV among about 5 characters. It worked Okay, but also drove me batty keeping in voice on different characters. 3rd person fixed the problem - and kept me from wanting to kill my more annoying charrie.

[ideagirl]

:Huh: :Huh: :Huh:

Color me confused. I can't find where the OP said that.

Replace "chapter" with "scene." Sorry, I just mentally glided from "scene" to "chapter" somehow. The basic concept of going from one passage focusing on one character's POV to another passage focusing on another character's POV was what I absorbed.

If this really is just a matter of the occasional scene--i.e. most of the book is centered on one or two characters' POV's, but occasionally it dips into another character--then it might not be a problem, as long as the first shift happens early in the book, so that the reader knows "Oh, this book shifts from character to character." What's jarring is where a book seems to be operating under one rule for 150 pages and then suddenly it turns out it's operating under a different rule. (I'm speaking generally because that is true of many things other than POV shifts; for example, if you start out writing what seems like a totally normal, realistic novel and then on page 100 spiritual entities show up and take the MC to another universe, um, that's a little jarring. Some genius somewhere can probably make it work, but generally it's not going to work.)

[Swordswoman]

A very general rule of thumb--with numerous exceptions--is that the best POV is the character who has most at stake in the outcome of that scene.

Thank you so much for this, FennelGiraffe. I was just struggling with a scene that won't work in my own multiple POV WIP, logged onto the forum to rest my brain - and found this. It totally solves my problem. A brilliant rule, and one I won't forget.

Sorry for the digression, everyone. As you were...

Incidentally, I have ten POVs in mine, but they're multiple first, not third, and the book is 200,000 words long which I hope is enough to engage them all properly. And in answer to the OP, the same was true of my last book and no agent or editor were in the least deterred by it. It seems it's getting more common all the time.

[Libbie]

In my experience, multiple third-person POVs are pretty common, but I think it's rare for the number to go as high as seven. The most I've ever read in a single book was, I believe five--and each character had quite a long chapter devoted to his or her POV, and in most cases was in a different part of the world from the other characters. He or she was the main character in the region in which he or she was hanging out.

In my opinion, it doesn't work well to use a minor character as a POV. If the story doesn't involve them in some significant way, it feels pretty pointless to have their input.

[ideagirl]

The reason why 3rd person omniscient is distant is that even though you can be in the head of a character, it is filtered through the narrator, who is not the character.

That's true of 3rd person limited, too. "Third person" means "the narrator is not a character." As opposed to first person, where the narrator is a character (often, but not always, the main character). A first-person story is not necessarily ABOUT the narrator (think of The Great Gatsby, for example--mainly about Gatsby), but the narrator is actually there in the story. In a third-person narration, the narrator could be very close or very distant, but either way the narrator is not there in the story, not a character. Third-person limited can be written in the voice of the focus character, or it can be written in a more distant style. Merely choosing a distant style isn't what turns third-person limited into third-person omniscient. What makes that switch is writing something the focus character doesn't know and either cannot possibly know or will never find out. Once you do that, you're beyond the bounds of one character's knowledge and experience, and off into the land of third-person omniscient.

Like you said, a third-person narrator can be so close to one character that the writing is basically in the voice of that character--it can be very intimate in that respect. The narration can come from within the character. But it can also be quite distant; Google "third-person objective" to see what I mean--there are some books, especially French ones written in about the 1960s (also google "nouveau roman"), in which the narrator just watches the character or characters and has no access to their thoughts and feelings at all. Personally I pretty much hate the nouveau roman/third-person objective style, for about the same reasons you say you hate third-person omniscient: it's too distant to capture my interest.

For an example of third-person omniscient that's very close to each character it focuses on, check out Ann Patchett's Bel Canto. It's an amazing novel that switches between--well hey! probably at least seven characters, now that I think about it. It works because all the characters are tightly connected: they're all either being held hostage, or holding the other characters hostage, in a single hostage-taking event that lasts a couple of weeks. It's truly a fabulous book, and each time the narrator floats over to a different person, you really feel and see that person. It's not distant at all.

I do seem to recall one weird novel by Tom Robbins, whose novels are all weird but I love them, in which the narrator was a character but if I'm remembering correctly it was written mostly in the 3rd person. It was Another Roadside Attraction, in which the narrator was like a reporter chronicling the events of the story, and he often referred to himself in the third person: "Your humble chronicler then said to her... and then he yada yada..." etc. But that was arguably just a first-person novel in which the narrator had the slightly annoying verbal tic of sometimes referring to himself in the third person. Tom Robbins has also published a novel written in the second person... now that one, I gotta say, is hard to read. It'll say on the page, "you were doing XYZ," and I think, "No I wasn't, dude!"--it's very hard to get absorbed in a story that's written in the second person.

I question the need to give the antagonist only three scenes. either give him an equal say, or don't give him any at all. but that's just my opinion.

I agree--three scenes doesn't make for much of an antagonist.

[nevada]

okay what you're talking about are very different things. 3rd objective is a totally different POV than 3rd limited which is what you said first. and in the case of Tom Robbins book, you're discussing meta fiction which is something different all together. Those are 3 very distinct types of POV and can't be lumped together. 3rd Limited is just that. Limited to only the thoughts, feelings, observations of one or more characters. It is from their head, not from a narrator. third person does not mean the narrator is not a character, depending on what 3rd person you're talking about. 3rd person limited the narrator is the character.

As an aside, I've done stuff in 2nd person and it's kinda cool to write. really difficult but really kind of cool. :D

[ideagirl]

you have to ask yourself why you're using these POV characters -- from the readers' perspective, not yours. POVs automatically draw the readers closer to those characters because you're allowing them to see/experience/know things through these characters. So by creating that bond, you give your readers better experience and hopefully they'll root for those characters better.

But if you're only using those POVs to reveal information that the other characters can't know otherwise, then I think you're misusing POVs. It doesn't mean you can't do it, but you really have to ask yourself: what does it matter to the readers?

I totally agree. Bel Canto (just mentioned above) is the best example I can think of where what the OP is describing actually works, and the reason it works is because--well, two reasons, but the second one is most relevant to your point:

(1) Because all the characters are very closely tied to each other, being involved in the same event at the same place at the same time, and by floating from character to character the reader understands this event in a way you couldn't possibly understand if the narrator stuck to just one or two characters; and

(2) Because the narrator keeps coming back to the same characters--there are a lot of them, but they each have their own story that develops over the course of the book. They're not just there to provide information that wouldn't be available from the main POV. They're there because they have their own stories.

[Enna]

Wow, first of all can I just say how glad I am to have found this forum! I can't believe how many helpful replies I've received, thank you guys so much!

Okay, I've read everything here and revisited my book. Here's what I can tell you:

1. Each scene, with its own conflict, has one POV. There's no POV change mid-scene, that would be jarring to me.

2. Each chapter has 2-3 scenes, so 2-3 POV's. I didn't wait until chapter 6 to spring a POV change on the reader.

3. The POV is 3rd person limited...I think. I mean, if the POV characterX turns his back on characterY and characterY flips him off, characterX, and therefore the reader, don't know it. Do I have this right?

4. Maestrowork, you were right: three of the seven are 'supporting' characters, and the three POV's I could cut if needed. When I started outlining, I split the scenes up between the seven characters for two reasons: to get to know the characters, and to see my story from different POV's. I knew I could cut down on POV's later. But what happened (and what made writing this so fun!) was that the supporting characters, when placed in a scene, acted in ways that gave me a couple of great subplots!

So I would say that the POV in each scene is the character who has the most at stake (GREAT rule by the way) OR...how can I put this...he shows just as much as the POV of the character who does have the most at stake in that scene would have, plus adds some of the subplot that would be lost otherwise.

Argh, did that make sense? I love reading all of your advice and it's really made me think. Thanks again!

[CrownedSun]

I know I've wanted to up my POV characters a bit. It's been tempted, a few times, to try to show the reader something directly rather than implying it (because it happened off screen) or leading them to infer it (because it's something inside a non-POV character's head). But, in the end, I think it makes for a better novel.

You're the only one that can really decide rather or not something works for you, though, but if you're worried that it might confuse reads you should consider that. Or, well, let some people you trust read it for you and let you know! The editors/publishers bit is a bit less straightforward, but ultimately, they want good stories. So if what you have works and isn't immediately jarring, you should be safe.

[Enna]

I guess I'm not so much worried about the readers being confused as I am worried about agents and editors being turned off by the idea of it. But I guess if it's clear they won't care, and if they care then it's not clear!

I think I will get some beta readers once the 2nd draft is finished, and go from there.

[Bufty]

I'm curious.

Sorry, but I'm also a tad lost here. If the narrator 'is' the character, isn't that First person POV by definition?

By 'the narrator is the character' do you mean it is the character talking about himself, but because he can't use 'I' or 'me' it appears as if there is a narrator - but there really isn't?

I thought there was a narrator -he's unavoidable - who remained close to the character and as invisible as possible.

I'm not putting forward a suggested re-phrasing here - I am trying to grasp what the quoted phrase means.

ETA: -Just realised - maybe I am taking too literal a meaning from the italicising of 'is'.

... 3rd Limited is just that. Limited to only the thoughts, feelings, observations of one or more characters. It is from their head, not from a narrator. third person does not mean the narrator is not a character, depending on what 3rd person you're talking about. 3rd person limited the narrator is the character.

... :D

[GirlWithPoisonPen]

I guess I'm not so much worried about the readers being confused as I am worried about agents and editors being turned off by the idea of it. But I guess if it's clear they won't care, and if they care then it's not clear!

I think I will get some beta readers once the 2nd draft is finished, and go from there.

Agents and editors are readers too. Don't think of them as separate from the book buying public.

[gothicangel]

Thank you so much for this, FennelGiraffe. I was just struggling with a scene that won't work in my own multiple POV WIP, logged onto the forum to rest my brain - and found this. It totally solves my problem. A brilliant rule, and one I won't forget.

Sorry for the digression, everyone. As you were...

Incidentally, I have ten POVs in mine, but they're multiple first, not third, and the book is 200,000 words long which I hope is enough to engage them all properly. And in answer to the OP, the same was true of my last book and no agent or editor were in the least deterred by it. It seems it's getting more common all the time.

Wow, you're braver than me! My novel is first multiple; but I have three POV's.

The reason I chose to do this was to show a crime (kidnapping) from three different perspective: the perpetrator; the victim; victim's father.

[Swordswoman]

Wow, you're braver than me! My novel is first multiple; but I have three POV's.

The reason I chose to do this was to show a crime (kidnapping) from three different perspective: the perpetrator; the victim; victim's father.

That sounds great, gothicangel - please let me know when this comes out, it sounds the kind of thing I love (and am eating myself up wth envy for not having thought of...)

Mine isn't as brave as it sounds. I've 'sourced' my POVs, which seems to make it acceptable to a wide audience. The whole thing's a historical, and the idea is that it's a collection of actual documents - diaries, memoirs, letters, and transcriptions of interviews conducted by an Abbe a few years after the event. Through the eyes of these different individuals (a priest, two soldiers, a tanner, a blacksmith, an adolescent daughter of a baron, a merchant's son etc) the reader has to work out for himself what really happened. Not one of those narrators are telling the truth. Some are deluded, some are mistaken, some are being tactful, and two are out and out lying. It's been a nightmare keeping on top of all the different voices (eg who says 'to be honest', who says 'honestly', who says 'if I'm honest', who says 'I confess', who says 'as a matter of fact', who says 'truly'...) but I've just loved writing it, and if even one person gets that pleasure out of reading it I'll be a happy woman.

Mind you, the publishers' advance helps :D! Which is why I don't think 'split narratives' are necessarily a turn-off in the professional book world. Yes, to some extent GirlwithPoisonPen is right here, in that agents and editors are the same as anyone else, but it's also their job to put aside their own personal preferences in deciding what's popular and will make money for their company. My publisher has obviously decided this will sell, and I hope, I hope, I hope, he's right...

[nevada]

I'm curious.

Sorry, but I'm also a tad lost here. If the narrator 'is' the character, isn't that First person POV by definition?

By 'the narrator is the character' do you mean it is the character talking about himself, but because he can't use 'I' or 'me' it appears as if there is a narrator - but there really isn't?

I thought there was a narrator -he's unavoidable - who remained close to the character and as invisible as possible.

I'm not putting forward a suggested re-phrasing here - I am trying to grasp what the quoted phrase means.

ETA: -Just realised - maybe I am taking too literal a meaning from the italicising of 'is'.

It depends, like I said, If the POV is 3rd person objective then you are outside of the character so yes there is a narrator, because you never get into the character's head, no internal thoughts, so there's a floating unseen narrator who describes what everyone is doing. It is, as ideagirl said, distant and sometimes maddening, which, personally, I think the convention was going for. Here is a character, it said, whom you will never understand because you will never be privy to his private thougths and therefore you must interpret everything he does by what he does. Just like in real life.

But if you're limited 3rd person, you're inside the character's head. There are internal thoughts, the character talks to himself and we hear it cause we're inside his head. The narration is done in the voice, style, and vocabulary of the character. if the character is a PhD then the voice and style should be different than if the character is a migrant worker. That's why sometimes we get a crit that the writing seems so distant. To me that means that we're not writing in the character's voice and we've fallen into the narrator trap.

Yes, it is as close to first person as you can get, and technically if you write 3rd limited you should be able to transcribe it into first without much effort. In that case, 3rd person is a choice the author makes for convention, ease, and POV choice. For example he's going to have several POV's in the book and switching POV's between 3rd person is easier than between 1st person.

And really? It's done for reader convenience. We can sit here and debate 1st vs 3rd all we want, but the majority of books are written in 3rd person past tense for a reason. And not because it's easier than anything else, but because it's preferred by the reader. So that's what we write. And the fortunate few writers who are so brilliant and who come up with stuff that is so great, can defy convention and write a novel in 2nd person, present tense and have a best seller. He will also have people who despise his book and are extremely vocal about it. I don't think we shoudl write for the market, but we need to keep the market in mind when we write. Unless we are over-the-top brilliant, which of course we all are, so I think we should all write a 2nd person POV book. Or at least a story. lol Come on, it'll be fun.

Or that's how I look at POV anyway. I like to get right inside the character's head. I like to think that when i switch POV the voice is so distinctive that the reader knows immediately he's in someone else's head. I'll let you know how that's working for me. ;)

[gothicangel]

I love the sound of that. I do like the idea of writing from different perspectives to reveal subjectivity, lies etc.

Thanks for the advice. Some days I get nervous thinking will any agent/editor accept this. Obviously some do - and all it takes is one!

The day I get accepted, the whole darn world is going to know!!!

[ideagirl]

But if you're limited 3rd person, you're inside the character's head. There are internal thoughts, the character talks to himself and we hear it cause we're inside his head. The narration is done in the voice, style, and vocabulary of the character. if the character is a PhD then the voice and style should be different than if the character is a migrant worker. That's why sometimes we get a crit that the writing seems so distant. To me that means that we're not writing in the character's voice and we've fallen into the narrator trap.

That boldfaced statement is frequently true, but not always. Particularly when the character is not good with words--it could be, like you said, a migrant worker, or a child, or what have you; there are any number of ways that a character might not actually HAVE the voice needed to tell a good story. That doesn't mean you have to use third-person omniscient, thought. You can still use third-person limited. You just do third-person limited in a voice that is not the character's voice.

Read the first 2-3 pages of the first Harry Potter book (you can look at them for free on Amazon). Is that Harry Potter's voice? No. That's a third-person limited narrator describing Harry Potter's life. Or Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea," abut an elderly Cuban fisherman: "Then he looked behind him and saw that no land was visible. That makes no difference, he thought. I can always come in on the glow from Havana." Do elderly fisherman express themselves in phrases like "I see that no land is visible"?! People don't generally think or talk like that, particularly relatively uneducated people like elderly Cuban fishermen. So that's not the fisherman's voice, but the story is in third-person limited.

In other words, third-person limited does not require the narrator to "speak" in the focus character's voice. Often third-person limited narrators do use the focus character's voice, but not always. The decision about what voice to write in is separate from the decision on which third-person POV to use. (Obviously if you write in the first person, you have to use the focus character's voice--but with third-person narration, you have other options.) I'm not saying the options are limitless; readers would probably be confused, to say the least, if you wrote a third-person limited book about a PhD physicist in the voice of a migrant worker. That would make no sense, because where did that voice come from and how would it be capable of telling a story about a physicist? But writing in the other direction works: using a more literary and educated tone than your focus character is capable of works just fine. Case in point: "The Old Man and the Sea."

[nevada]

I just got the old man and the sea from the library, and i have read the end of of it and it read omniscient to me. And yes, I would absolutely expect an old man who has been fishing his whole life to think that land was not visible. i have only read the beginning of harry potter and that most definitely was omniscient. So im sorry, ideagirl, but it seems to me that what you are talking about is omniscient pov and not third limited. Maybe harry potter develops later into 3rd limited but those first few pages which is only ever as far as I got are absolutely 3rd omniscient.

You can still use third-person limited. You just do third-person limited in a voice that is not the character's voice. Maybe this works for you, but i refuse to write that way, and it's most definitely not what i was taught in university. (eta, didnt add this to be snooty or anything, just saying when i got my degree in lit there were many different versions of 3rd person and 3rd limited is definitely narrated in the character's voice.) And i dare say, that if you grabbed a dozen books off the shelf by good authors who write 3rd person limited you will see that they are narrated in the voice of the character, whether a child or migrant worker of what have you. Maybe the child or what have you cannot carry the book by herself and so the author chooses to add another POV, but if the character cannot carry the narration in 3rd limited then the character needs to be developed better. if the author chooses to narrate in a voice that is not consistent with the character, then either the author is intruding or the author is writing omniscient.

I do think this is a case of you and I never agreeing though. :)

[Swordswoman]

I found nevada's post insightful and helpful, and am not quite sure why it should be considered 'bold-faced'. :Shrug:

'The Old Man And The Sea' actually seems to me a good example of third limited echoing the character's voice - the simplicity of the sentence structure reflects it right away. And no-one would expect the opening pages of Harry Potter to be Harry's POV since he's a baby at the time, and the narrative is third omniscient. It does sometimes go into third limited, but when it does, it observes the convention of echoing the characters' voices. Here for instance is the opening paragraph, and the voice is clearly echoing the Dursleys: 'Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense'.

Third limited can echo voices even with largely inarticulate characters, as in Golding's 'The Inheritors', which is about a group of Neanderthals (literally!) Here are the first sentences:
'Lok's feet were clever. They saw'.

I would agree with ideagirl that the voice echo does not need to be as absolute as it must be with first. Sometimes it's just possible to use vocabulary which isn't necessarily the character's own (as Golding has to at times) but what matters is that what is said does not reflect a more complex thought process than the character can muster - because the moment the narrator knows more than the character, then it's 'omniscient' and not limited at all.

Nevada put it much better than I did:

if the author chooses to narrate in a voice that is not consistent with the character, then either the author is intruding or the author is writing omniscient. :)

I'd agree with that 100%.

[nevada]

nd am not quite sure why it should be considered 'bold-faced'. hahaha language barrier. ideagirl had bolded a part of my post and referred to it as bold-faced. she didn't mean that what i said was bold-faced. lol just that the type was.

I would say that the example from harry potter is very clearly told by a separate narrator because of this phrase. "they were the last people you'd expect" so the narrator echoes how the dursleys might talk, "thank you very much" but it, to me, is clearly a separate narrator from the dursleys and therefor it's omniscient.

Old man and the Sea, i can't comment on, only the first few pages and the last few which read somewhat omniscient. i've read bits here and there in the middle and i think it's 3rd limited partially because of locale, it's not like the fish are going to have a POV, but it does seem to morph in and out. But then it's Hemingway and he can do whatever he wants, really. :)

[Swordswoman]

hahaha language barrier. ideagirl had bolded a part of my post and referred to it as bold-faced. she didn't mean that what i said was bold-faced. lol just that the type was.. :)

Oops! :o

I'm very sorry, ideagirl! My mistake!

[ideagirl]

hahaha language barrier. ideagirl had bolded a part of my post and referred to it as bold-faced. she didn't mean that what i said was bold-faced. lol just that the type was.

:D
Hey look, I'm about to write a boldfaced lie: Lie

I would say that the example from harry potter is very clearly told by a separate narrator because of this phrase. "they were the last people you'd expect" so the narrator echoes how the dursleys might talk

"They were the last people you'd expect" is something anybody could say. It's not specifically a Dursley-like voice (and in any case the Dursleys are two separate people, or more than two if you count the whole Dursley family, so it's a bit of a misnomer to describe anything as being "how the Dursleys might talk").

Here's a link on the third-person limited Harry Potter narrator:
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/point-of-view-following-the-rules/ (that link uses the term "close third person," which is a synonym for 3rd-person limited)

[maestrowork]

I must say Rowling uses mostly an omniscient POV but focuses mostly on Harry Potter, the protagonist. That said, as much as I like her writing as popular as the series is, I don't think hers is the greatest example of handling POVs. I think she slipped on multiple occasions, although not too jarringly.

[nevada]

Ideagirl, this has been a really interesting discussion but we're going in circles. you have your definition of 3rd limited, even though the examples you quoted were not strictly 3rd limited, as i pointed out, and I have mine. I think at this point we just need to agree to disagree. I am certainly not going to debate the POV of the potter books since i've read none and will not ever read them. The example as quoted is 3rd omniscient. and i don't understand your argument about it as what you say only proves unequivocally that it is 3rd omniscient.

If there's something i've noticed, a lot, is that there are a lot of opinions on the web by people proclaiming definitions of POV which are simply wrong. People who come up with their own definition of 3rd limited to try and explain how they write. And because they have a book in print or, barring that, have some writing blog, other people will accept their definitions and it gets repeated until people are quoting it as fact. One page i distinctly remember, which was held up as "the definitive page on POVs" completely butchered 2nd person and the example they gave to illustrate 2nd person was in fact first person. And yet many people will quote that website and will take it as fact. ETA (this does not apply to you, it's just an observation on my part about how POV definitions get butchered on the web and why so many people are confused about it. again not you specifically. just me rambling)

So I would say, that in the spirit of not boring people and making them dizzy, that we should agree to disagree. lol I see no other way around it. We agree about the broad application of 3rd person POV but will disagree about it's minute application. ( i feel very UN-like right now. :D ) We do, i think it's safe to say, agree that 3rd objective sucks and shouldn't be used to write a book. ;)

[maestrowork]

3rd objective present tense is good for screenwriting.

[nevada]

about the only thing it's good for. ;)

[dpaterso]

Multiple POVs, indeed.

-Derek

[girlyswot]

We do, i think it's safe to say, agree that 3rd objective sucks and shouldn't be used to write a book. ;)

I have never heard the term '3rd objective' used before but you seem to be using it interchangeably with '3rd omniscient'? If that's the case, I couldn't disagree more. Many of my favourite books are written in 3rd omniscient and I, personally, think that it is a terrific way to tell a story.

[maestrowork]

3rd objective is not the same as 3rd omniscient.

[nevada]

girlyswot, no we're not.

But it can also be quite distant; Google "third-person objective" to see what I mean--there are some books, especially French ones written in about the 1960s (also google "nouveau roman"), in which the narrator just watches the character or characters and has no access to their thoughts and feelings at all. (ideagirl's post #23)

as opposed to 3rd person omniscient where the narrator can enter anyone's head at will.

By definition, an omniscient narrator can "get into" any character's head, (ideagirl #15)

Also Lord Of The Rings is omniscient POV so technically it has a POV cast of thousands. There are scenes written from Merry's POV and Pip's POV and Gimly and the guy on the road and the innkeeper has his say and the guy at the gate, etc. Just because they don't have their own scene doesn't mean they don't have POV. The reason why 3rd person omniscient is distant is that even though you can be in the head of a character, it is filtered through the narrator, who is not the character. MY post #17)

[maestrowork]

The reason why 3rd person omniscient is distant is that even though you can be in the head of a character, it is filtered through the narrator, who is not the character.

I think that's one thing a lot of people get confused with 3rd limited with head-hopping.

3rd limited -- filtered through the characters. Narrative voice may assume that of the POV character.

3rd omniscient -- filtered through the omniscient narrator, who knows everything and decides who and what to focus on. The narrator has its own distinct voice and may intrude.

3rd objective -- is similar to omniscient except it doesn't go inside any character's mind or filter anything through their perspectives. It's also called the "camera" point of view; like in movies, there is no point of view and you don't get to read the characters' minds. This is the most distant of all points of view.