Quick POV Question

Diane Amy said:

In a paranormal romance story that I wrote, I have the following:

Debra hardened her green eyes and tightened her lips.

The story is written from Debra's POV. It was pointed out to me in a crit group that because of this, I can't mention the color of her eyes in this sentence. Is this correct?

Click to expand...

I see two POV problems in the sentence. One is the eye color. The second is telling us that Debra hardened her eyes. Both are details that someone else might notice about Debra, but not something she would notice about herself.

(I'd also quibble that it's her gaze that hardens, not her eyes, unless she has marbles for eyeballs.)

If you are writing your 3rd in a way that shows what Debra thinks all of the time, you have to ask yourself if Debra would think about her own eye color.

OTOH, if you are writing it in a way that describes her a lot -- a more distant way -- IMHO, it's fine.

Doesn't Debra know the color of her own eyes? If she does, you can mention it. If she doesn't, she really needs to look into a mirror more often. Though I'm not sure how you go about hardening your eyes, or why you would want to do so.

Jamesaritchie said:

Doesn't Debra know the color of her own eyes? If she does, you can mention it.

Click to expand...

While it's true that Debra should know her own eye color, most people don't go around thinking about their eye color. The detail therefore sounds like a POV bobble, or something completely unnatural to the situation, imo.

I can think of cases where the POV character might be dwelling on their eye color, but mostly where the eye color itself is important, and not just a detail in passing.

how do you 'harden' your own eyes, i think that is a view best seen from another.

the colour of her eyes, i agree with Eqb, its not something you use to describe them, others do, so maybe have the other notice that she hardened her green eyes, tightened her lips

interesting question though

It depends on how close your POV is. I would say here it sounds more like a third person omniscient POV since you're mentioning her eye color, and not Debra's POV. So, if you want to keep it as Debra's POV, you should probably lose the eye color, unless she really thinks to herself "I'm going to harden my green eyes now."

Also, I don't think harden is the word you want here, as it literally sounds like she is making her eyeballs' consistency harder.

eqb said:

While it's true that Debra should know her own eye color, most people don't go around thinking about their eye color. The detail therefore sounds like a POV bobble, or something completely unnatural to the situation, imo.

I can think of cases where the POV character might be dwelling on their eye color, but mostly where the eye color itself is important, and not just a detail in passing.

Click to expand...

While hardening of the eyes sounds funny, I don't see what the problem is. This is third person, and it's perfectly acceptable for a writer to reveal character description mixed with thoughts and actions. My silly example: The barbarian took a step back and raised his blade, his eyes showing their whites as the superstitious fears churned within him.

I can list a thousand examples along those lines, by respected and famous writers. It doesn't matter if the character is thinking it, as long as the character is aware of it.

Robert E. Keller said:

While hardening of the eyes sounds funny, I don't see what the problem is.

Click to expand...

If you are writing ominiscient POV, you have option of describing any and all characters from the outside, inside, whatever. If you are writing third person limited, you don't. You write from inside the POV character--not only what they know, but what they would normally observe in any given situation.

Think about it. In your own example, how could your barbarian know the whites of his eyes showed? Does he have a mirror? Can he see himself from outside? No. Therefore, your example is indulging in head-hopping.

eqb said:

If you are writing ominiscient POV, you have option of describing any and all characters from the outside, inside, whatever. If you are writing third person limited, you don't. You write from inside the POV character--not only what they know, but what they would normally observe in any given situation.

Think about it. In your own example, how could your barbarian know the whites of his eyes showed? Does he have a mirror? Can he see himself from outside? No. Therefore, your example is indulging in head-hopping.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. So a main character can't have a shocked look on his face, or have his face turn pale, without it being an omniscient POV or broken third person limited? His crimson beard cannot be revealed unless he's thinking of it? You're saying, then, that in third person a main character cannot be described except through his own eyes. So forget about Bilbo's furry feet in the Hobbit (after all, I don't recall him thinking about his feet!). The writer can do whatever the writer wants--including Third Person Subjective confined (mostly) to one character's thoughts (but not necessarily entirely). What you see as head-hopping I see as a method used by countless writers, some very famous.

Robert E. Keller said:

I don't agree. So a main character can't have a shocked look on his face, or have his face turn pale, without it being an omniscient POV or broken third person limited? His crimson beard cannot be revealed unless he's thinking of it? You're saying, then, that in third person a main character cannot be described except through his own eyes. So forget about Bilbo's furry feet in the Hobbit (after all, I don't recall him thinking about his feet!). The writer can do whatever the writer wants--including Third Person Subjective confined (mostly) to one character's thoughts (but not necessarily entirely). What you see as head-hopping I see as a method used by countless writers, some very famous.

Click to expand...

Third person is where a character can be described like that, but it gets tricky depending on who the POV character is. When you start head-hopping (or whatever it is that's being called head-hopping in this thread), you're breaking the POV. It's not wrong, but it isn't the same POV as sticking to one character's perspective. Now the camera has moved out, we're not as close to the character anymore, the reader is farther away. The writing just has to change for the detail, or the detail needs to change to preserve the POV/person.

And I thought The Hobbit was narrated, so it would make sense to see Bilbo's feet, because the POV is actually the narrator's and not Bilbo's, but it's been forever since I've read it.

Robert E. Keller said:

So a main character can't have a shocked look on his face, or have his face turn pale, without it being an omniscient POV or broken third person limited?...What you see as head-hopping I see as a method used by countless writers, some very famous.

Click to expand...

What you describe is omniscient POV, used by Tolkien, Austen, Dickens, etc. Those observations about characters are delivered by the narrator character, an observer who stands outside the plot itself, but who knows everything the characters know and more.

eqb said:

What you describe is omniscient POV, used by Tolkien, Austen, Dickens, etc. Those observations about characters are delivered by the narrator character, an observer who stands outside the plot itself, but who knows everything the characters know and more.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was used by Tolkien. However, he mixes it up--jumping from limited third person to omniscient. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Tolkien is a great example of how you don't, in fact, have to rigidly adhere to a POV style to write a great novel. Unless, of course, you believe that evey time he jumped back and forth he was head-hopping and or committing a POV bobble. If that's the case, you're entitled to your opinion. In my case, I certainly don't believe Tolkien was screwing up but was instead employing a deliberate method that worked brilliantly.

eqb said:

While it's true that Debra should know her own eye color, most people don't go around thinking about their eye color. The detail therefore sounds like a POV bobble, or something completely unnatural to the situation, imo.

I can think of cases where the POV character might be dwelling on their eye color, but mostly where the eye color itself is important, and not just a detail in passing.

Click to expand...

Well, I see your point, and I've read where many feel the same way, and then go on to violate this rule in twenty other ways. If you limit her eye color, you need to think about all the other things she isn't going to be dwelling on that you can't use.

Third person limited is not the same thing as first person, and the narrator is not the character. The narrator is standing right behind the character, looking over her shoulder, and the narrator can tell us not only what Debra is thinking, but anything she knows.

People don't go around thinking about how tall they are, what they're wearing, or any number of other things that description is full of, but writers describe characters attire all the time. But if you say the narrator can't tell the reader what color debra's eyes are, then the narrator shouldn't be allowed to describe anything else the character wouldn't be thinking, either.

First person is a different matter because in first person the character can only tells us what she's thinking because she is the narrator.

eqb said:

What you describe is omniscient POV, used by Tolkien, Austen, Dickens, etc. Those observations about characters are delivered by the narrator character, an observer who stands outside the plot itself, but who knows everything the characters know and more.

Click to expand...

It's also third person limited, not just omniscient. The character is not the narrtor in either one. The differnce between the two is that in third person limited the narrator has access to only one character, but in omniscient the narrator has access to all the characters.

The POV character in third person limited not telling us the story. The narrator standing over his shoulder is telling us the story through the POV character.

The character is only the narrator in first person fiction.

I'm not familiar with Romance, Diane, but genre can matter a lot with these questions, imho.

I think the discussion of 3rd limited vs. omni is important. But there is more than one way to do 3rd. I agree that 3rd limited can be very different than, basically, 1st person changed to 'he.' OTOH, I think that what is often called 'close' 3rd person can be very very much like 1st person.

It's going to boil down to what the particular editor/s does or doesn't like. If said editor is a stickler for the "can't see your own facial expressions" line of thought, then you'll hit a bump. If said editor doesn't care and is happy to know what color the character's eyes are, no bump. Like JAR said, there are plenty of examples out there where characters essentially describe themselves and no one cares in a negative way.

BTW, suggestion for the "hardened" issue -- what about, "Debra narrowed her eyes"? (Or similar.) I know when I narrow mine, but I don't know that I could tell that I hardened them, unless I was making a conscious effort to look badass.

Diane Amy said:

Wow, great discussion from my little question. I'm enjoying reading the various POVs. (joke intended)

Click to expand...

That's the great thing about POV. You can choose the angle and initimacy that you need.

My mistake, for which I apologize, was assuming you intended to write third person close. As James pointed out, third person limited, often called camera POV, does allow you to observe externals. I would add, however, that third person limited then *disallows* internal observations.

So it's your choice. Are you writing third person limited (camera) or are you writing a much more intimate third person?

1) If I hadn't called out this particular sentence to stand out on its own, do you think you would have noticed "eyes" instead of "gaze" as I put it? Would an editor?

Click to expand...

Speaking only for myself, I would have noticed. (With the exception noted, that if you were writing a consistent third person limited, I would not have.)

I can't answer your other question, because I don't write or read romance.

Well, I have my doubts about third person "close", as well. I haven't yet been convinced there is such a thing. There sure wasn't back when I first started writing, nor when I went through the university. Or if there was, I never found it in a book, and it never came up in any writing class. I've tried tracing in back, and it seems to be an internet phenomenon, and most of the examples I've found come from writers who don't know the difference between thrid person limited and third person omniscient. And from some who simply get a blank look when they hear "Third person limited."

Third person limited just means you're limited to a single POV character at a time, not that you're closer or farther away than you want to be.

In fact, third person "close" should mean you're closer, and can write more things about the POV character, not fewer. I also can't find a single published novel written in third person that doesn't follow the classic definition of third person limited, which is that you can reveal anything the POV character tastes, sees, hears, smells, touches, feels, thinks, or knows. First person aside, it's impossible to get any closer than third person limited. (Unless you fall on the odd side of the argument with second person.)

I have found recent how-to books that list third person "close", but once again, the novels these writers write violate the rule of "can't write what she isn't thinking" about every other page.

Most of these writers also fail to even mention third person limited, even though about 90% of all published novels use third person limited. One selling writer even had an article in Writer's Digest listing the top five POVs, and third person limited wasn't even on her list, even though no other POV comes close.

There are many lousy definitions on the internet, and, actually, "camera POV" isn't third person limited, it's "dramatic POV", if you come from the stage, and "Objective POV" if you come from fiction. To me, it's "dramatic."

Camera POV, really another made-up term to help explain "Objective" or "dramatic," is just like watching a stage play, or a movie that doesn't use voice over to get around the POV when needed.

It means you can only write what the camera can see, which means no writing at all about what the POV character is thinking, feeling emotionally, etc. You aren't allowed to get inside any character's head in any way, not even that of the POV character. Even if the character is thinking "I'm hungry." she has to say so, or you can't mention it. No getting inside a head at all, in any way.

The most famous example of this POV is Hemingway's short story Hills Like White Elephants. http://www.gummyprint.com/blog/archives/hills-like-white-elephants-complete-story/

Having said all this, I very seldom describe a POV character in any way, not because it violates POV, but because readers like to identify with the main character, and the moment you give the character green eyes, or curly black hair, I think it's tougher for the reader to become that character.

Terminology is a funny thing. I can only tell you what I've learned (from pro, from editors, make of that what you will).

What those pros and editors told me was:

Omni allows the writer to dip into all POVs, including the narrator, who sits outside the plot. Examples of this are Austen, Dickens, (insert lots of nineteenth century writers), Steven Brust, Ellen Kushner, Sherwood Smith, among others.

Third person camera limits the writer to what the camera might see. No interior thoughts, it's all what the camera would see in every scene.

Third person limited/intimate limits the writer to the POV's thoughts, sensations, etc. You limit your scene to what the POV knows, sees, smells, tastes, thinks, etc. There's nothing arcane about this.

Frankly, the terminology means squat. What the writer need to decide is "who is my POV character" and "what limitations do I set on that?" And one of the major factors for that decision is "how will the particular POV make this story stronger"?

Anything else is b&llsh#t.

I don't care much for terminology in cases like this, either, because there is so much termiology out there. But you have to explain what you mean somehow

I agree that what I call 3rd person limited 'close' can tell some things the character would not necessarily be thinking. But most often, those descriptions need to be thought about to see if they stick out. The green eyes in that example stuck out.

I agree that 3rd person limited can tell lots of those things. And it feels more distant -- not in a bad way. I do think it can include internalizations, but they may be in italics or otherwise feel a bit like an exception or 'dipping into' in the flow of things.

I agree that Objective 3rd Person, or the Camera one, or whatever name you use for that, doesn't show internal thoughts at all, and is very uncommon.

I remember trying to straighten out what things are called that I have read. It's rough. I'm using examples I know I've seen from tons of reading (except for the fully objective one; I've only read about that). The important part is that it works, whatever you choose or call it

eqb said:

Terminology is a funny thing. I can only tell you what I've learned (from pro, from editors, make of that what you will).

What those pros and editors told me was:

Omni allows the writer to dip into all POVs, including the narrator, who sits outside the plot. Examples of this are Austen, Dickens, (insert lots of nineteenth century writers), Steven Brust, Ellen Kushner, Sherwood Smith, among others.

Third person camera limits the writer to what the camera might see. No interior thoughts, it's all what the camera would see in every scene.

Third person limited/intimate limits the writer to the POV's thoughts, sensations, etc. You limit your scene to what the POV knows, sees, smells, tastes, thinks, etc. There's nothing arcane about this.

Frankly, the terminology means squat. What the writer need to decide is "who is my POV character" and "what limitations do I set on that?" And one of the major factors for that decision is "how will the particular POV make this story stronger"?

Anything else is b&llsh#t.

Click to expand...

Your idea (and/or the idea of those pros, editors, and the lot) is interesting. I don't employ their system. I decide who my POV character is, but I don't set firm limits. For example, I may switch to another character later in the book and make him or her my POV character for a chapter or two (though I don't do that very often). My main character is still my main character, but he or she is abandoned for a while. Examples of writers who do this are Terry Brooks and Stephen King. I may keep the POV very tight to the main character, and then loosen it just a bit for some description of said character and so forth. Thus, if I tried to set any firm limits I would probably end up violating them for the sake of greater flexibility.

I do keep to one rule, however: I don't reveal other characters' thoughts directly when they are in the presence of my POV character. Only my POV character (whoever he or she may be at the time) can have their thoughts directly revealed. The other characters' thoughts are displayed through expressions, words, or actions.