First person narration or third person omniscient?

Have you considered limited 3rd, with alternating POV characters (only one per chapter)?

It would be easier to send you a Viewpoint chart (with descriptions), if you're willing to send me your e-mail address (by Private Message). It's on a Word file, or a jpg file, so I can't just post it here.

As for the setting thing, (I don't necessarily see why one viewpoint inhibits or adds to descriptions...in my mind it's a matter of how the narrator narrates), the best way to do it is in pieces scattered throughout.

Essentially, you give a basic description to establish some image in the reader's mind, then as you're going through the scene, you incorporate other little bits here and there. Also, readers tend to not need as much description as we think. It's a mistake of new writers to want to describe every detail, but after awhile it just gets tedious and messes with the pacing.

Third omniscient or third limited work better than first with a large cast. It helps you keep track of events and allows you to push the story forward more. The danger of using first person in a big cast is that you either dwell too much on their experience or you prematurely cut it off.

I'm not sure I'm understanding why third is better for a large cast (mostly the cut off prematurely part). I'm actually writing something with the biggest cast I've written so far right now, and it's in first. Not every character is going to be completely developed a hundred percent, but so far it hasn't even occurred to me that this might be a problem because there are so many characters. There's one scene that I'm planning to tell in third, though even that's my narrator basically telling events as they were told to him, if that makes sense.

I think if you plan to have multiple POV characters, third or omniscient works better because a) first gets kinda confusing that way, and b) because changing voices with each character shift is really difficult to do convincingly and keep each narrator equally interesting. So in those cases I can see it being helpful, but I don't see where having a large cast in and of itself means it's better to go with third. In my case, the one thing that ties everything together is my narrator, so it seems weird to me to think of doing it differently.

Wow, is it just me or am I sounding really contrary today? Not meaning to, I swear.

With a large cast (and by that I mean multiple main characters plus many secondary ones), third allows you to give a good impression of each character without having to dwell on them, plus it gives you a better idea of the situation at large.

If you choose multiple first, their opinions have to be varied, otherwise it may become tedious. And the danger with a first-person narrator but a large cast is that first person has a limited view and you may end up ignoring potentially interesting characters because your narrator can't logically give us the information. Of course, if it's all about that particular character's experience than first-person narrative won't be a problem.

Having a large cast is not a good reason to use omniscient. You have to understand whose story this is, and who are your POV characters. If you have fewer than three, then 3rd limited (shifting) POV would be fine. You can describe things (through your character's perception) and go inside the particular character's head as well.

1st person is all about the individual voices of the character. If you have distinctive characters, it may be a good way to go. But, if you have more than three 1st person characters, it can be a difficult thing to pull off, since you'll be splitting your readers' attachment with multiple narrators.

Lady Ice said:

With a large cast (and by that I mean multiple main characters plus many secondary ones), third allows you to give a good impression of each character without having to dwell on them, plus it gives you a better idea of the situation at large.

If you choose multiple first, their opinions have to be varied, otherwise it may become tedious. And the danger with a first-person narrator but a large cast is that first person has a limited view and you may end up ignoring potentially interesting characters because your narrator can't logically give us the information. Of course, if it's all about that particular character's experience than first-person narrative won't be a problem.

Click to expand...

See, I disagree because I don't think it's necessary to fully develop each character. Was that a totally taboo thing to say? I've got this big cast for my current story. Of the main characters, about four are probably going to be very well developed (the narrator obviously most of all). I've got a few others that are semi-developed, and others who aren't much at all. I think if you try to fully develop each one it actually can detract from the story and take the focus off of where it needs to be. For my story, it isn't horribly necessary to get into the heads of each of my superheroes--just a couple. The villain will be developed, but what's important about him is actually the misunderstanding. My good guys think they know what he's up to but they're completely wrong. I'd hope that he gets more developed by the big climax when they start realizing what he's really up to, but if I got into his head or followed him around, it would also lose that aspect of it.

I think even with a large cast, unless you're writing a 300k epic, it's probably a better idea not to spend a lot of time on each, and better to just focus on the important ones. I also know that for my current work, having the single narrator there and constantly being in his head gives the rest of the work an anchor. Well, I think it does haha. Not sure if I succeed or not.

kaitie said:

See, I disagree because I don't think it's necessary to fully develop each character. Was that a totally taboo thing to say? I've got this big cast for my current story. Of the main characters, about four are probably going to be very well developed (the narrator obviously most of all). I've got a few others that are semi-developed, and others who aren't much at all.

Click to expand...

All characters should be fully developed, whether they are central or if you go inside their heads or not.

Every character thinks they're the protagonist.


==

Just because you have one or two (or even three) POV characters or narrators doesn't mean the other characters can't be fully developed. Agatha Christie had multi-cast novels with memorable and fully developed characters, even though she usually only had one narrator. The Great Gatsby is narrated by Nick Carraway but the protagonists are Jay and Daisy. I think the word you want is "focus." POV is all about focus -- whose "perspective" is the story told from? Nick Carraway's? Then it's all filtered through his perceptions and values and belief system, but the story is still ABOUT Jay and Daisy.

The problem with multiple 1st person narrators is that the readers start to lose focus: whose story is this? It works well if there are clearly different stories under the umbrella of the entire novel (for example, the Time Traveler's Wife is told by two first-person narrators because there really are two stories: Henry's and Claire's).

Same with omniscient -- it's the omniscient narrator's story about these characters.

You don't have to develop every single character (I agree, it would detract from the main ones and skews the point of the whole book). Ones that serve plot functions don't need to be developed but...take Dickens for example. Lots of the characters aren't developed enough to have ambiguities, but we sense the sort of person they are. We recognise the type and the story is a lot richer for it. People don't exist in vaccuums.

Half-developing characters is sometimes problematic, because they may have the potential to be very interesting- even more so than the mains. That's what annoys a lot of people about Twilight.

They're all fully developed in my head. But the character who shows up for one scene and doesn't really do a whole lot? I don't see why he should have the same level of insight as the ones who the story focuses around. In fact, I don't really see how it's feasible. I can't think of a single book I've read that "fully" develops every character we meet. Actually, I can think of quite a few where the bad guys in particular are all one dimensional "just because I'm evil characters" (not that I'd recommend that). Am I just missing something here?

Lady Ice said:

You don't have to develop every single character (I agree, it would detract from the main ones and skews the point of the whole book). Ones that serve plot functions don't need to be developed but...take Dickens for example. Lots of the characters aren't developed enough to have ambiguities, but we sense the sort of person they are. We recognise the type and the story is a lot richer for it. People don't exist in vaccuums.

Click to expand...

Now that makes more sense. I do agree that we should have a sense of who every character is. Every character should feel like a real person and be able to stand on his own two feet. I'm just thinking that for me, fully developing someone basically means giving a lot of insight and various levels into them, their backgrounds, their personalities. You can obviously give a good sense of a character in how they talk and what they say, but still not know much about them. I think anyway.

My jackass that shows up for one scene, for instance, that I mentioned earlier. There are certain things that you can tell about him. He likes a challenge, he tends to be more focused on what he thinks will get him the most publicity, and he actually takes obvious pleasure in things that might screw over someone else. We may not know that he he cries at Sandra Bullock movies, or that his mother was an alcoholic, or that he's really lonely but doesn't even get that himself, but we still have an idea of who he is.

Maybe...what I really want to say is that there should be an illusion of depth. There should be an understanding that the character is not just some one dimensional surface, but I don't think we have to actually show all of that depth if it's irrelevant to the story.

I'd certainly say that developing a character means giving them different sides, a deeper insight into their past, plus giving the possibility to the reader that the character can change.

Again, your characters should all be three-dimensional and fully developed. The question is, which side(s) do we (readers) get to see, and how much. It's all about "perspectives" -- what the camera sees. Just because we don't see the other sides doesn't mean they don't exist. The dark side of the moon is still there, even though we don't get to see it from Earth -- it makes the moon whole whether the viewers explicitly realize it or not. That's why we have this discussion: what is the best "perspective" for your story?

Fitzgerald decided that the best way to tell the story of Jay Gatsby is through Nick Carraway's eyes, and not from Jay's perspective, or some arbitrary omniscient perspective. He wanted a specific voice, specific filters.

maestrowork said:

Again, your characters should all be three-dimensional and fully developed. The question is, which side(s) do we (readers) get to see, and how much. It's all about "perspectives" -- what the camera sees. That's why we have this discussion: what is the best "perspective" for your story?

Fitzgerald decided that the best way to tell the story of Jay Gatsby is through Nick Carraway's eyes, and not from Jay's perspective, or some arbitrary omniscient perspective. He wanted a specific voice, specific filters.

Click to expand...

I think what's confusing me is that I feel like we're saying the same things from different directions. Maybe not, though. See, you're talking about what side we see, and so am I. What I'm saying is that the reader isn't going to see every side of the character or maybe even many. Maybe all they see is one single first impression in passing that's over in five minutes. Yes, I understand my characters and feel like they're three-dimensional, but not all of that is going to show. I definitely get the filter comparison as well because I did that in my last story. The MC was not the POV character because I showed him through the filter of her perception. Granted, he was insanely developed because he was the MC and you spent so much time with him, but I guess I just feel like in the end I get what you're saying and I'm saying sorta the same thing in a different way. It's far too late to be trying to make sense, I think.

Heck, they may not see all sides of the PROTAGONIST.

The trick is to make the readers understand that there are sides of the character that we don't get to see!



If your readers can't feel or sense the characters beyond what you present to them, then you've failed to give us 3-dimensional characters. Just because they're 3-dimensional doesn't mean we get to see all sides of them at all times. But your readers should feel/know/sense that dark side of the moon, whether they see it or not.

I'm the kind of writers who despise having to explain or show everything. And as a reader, I also dislike being shown or explained everything. I think that's the problem with many writers when they decide on a POV. Instead of focusing on the "perspective" of the story, as they should, they're trying to figure out how much info they can show/tell/give -- that they want to the readers to read every thought of every character. They want to reveal everything to us. Or else they think their characters can't be "fully developed" without us knowing what exact thoughts they're having. The result is this:

- the story is too internalized
- the story suffers from explaineverythingitis
- the story has too many POV characters, head-hopping, internal monologues, etc.

Personally, I think it's a great exercise for writers to develop and show/describe characters without exposing every one of their thoughts -- focus on the external, the subtexts, the body languages, etc. That's how it works in the real world! We never get to go inside another person's head, and somehow the people around us are real and 3-dimensional even though we only see certain sides of them.

If Fitzgerald could make Jay Gatsby a central character without ever going inside his head, so can we. I think it's something that we writers should strive to do, because honestly I think many writers suffer from explaineverythingitis.

maestrowork said:

But your readers should feel/know/sense that dark side of the moon, whether they see it or not.

Click to expand...

I see.

That's what I meant by giving the illusion of depth. What annoys me, for instance in those villains I mentioned earlier (the "I'm just bad because I'm bad" type) is that there is none of that. They're just little stick figures acting as an antagonist for no conceivable reason. It's not even that they're stereotypes because they aren't developed enough to be. There should be that feeling that there is more to the character that we aren't seeing and not that they're little stick figures.

Right.

My point is that a lot of writers, when considering POVs, seem to focus on the wrong things: "I want to be able to tell what character X and Y and Z and A and B and C think!" Why must we dip into their thoughts? We don't get to do that in real life, and yet we have no trouble identifying with or getting to know other people and knowing they're 3-dimensional beings. We don't get to love our children or spouses less because we can't know what exactly is in their minds.

That's not what perspective is about. When I hear things like that -- when a writer is confused about perspectives because they want to tell us "everything" -- I try to tell them to step back and think, instead, WHOSE story it is and what filters they want to use, instead of how many heads they can hop into.

With first person, you ARE limited to that character's POV, but what you achieve is something more realistic, as in real life: all the characters are perceived and known through the character's prism. We not only know the other characters through their action and dialogue, but we also know the narrator through his/her reaction and thoughts about these characters. That's why the perspective can be so powerful, even though we're only limited to one POV. To me, having more than three or four 1st person narrators defeats that purpose -- it is now achieving explaineverythingitis. So instead of thinking "how many thoughts I can present" -- think about what kind of filtering you want to do, and what kind of attachments you want for your readers.

kaitie said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding why third is better for a large cast (mostly the cut off prematurely part). I'm actually writing something with the biggest cast I've written so far right now, and it's in first. Not every character is going to be completely developed a hundred percent, but so far it hasn't even occurred to me that this might be a problem because there are so many characters. There's one scene that I'm planning to tell in third, though even that's my narrator basically telling events as they were told to him, if that makes sense.

I think if you plan to have multiple POV characters, third or omniscient works better because a) first gets kinda confusing that way, and b) because changing voices with each character shift is really difficult to do convincingly and keep each narrator equally interesting. So in those cases I can see it being helpful, but I don't see where having a large cast in and of itself means it's better to go with third. In my case, the one thing that ties everything together is my narrator, so it seems weird to me to think of doing it differently.

Wow, is it just me or am I sounding really contrary today? Not meaning to, I swear.

Click to expand...

It isn't the size of the cast that matters, it's how many POV characters you want to use. A large cast works as well as a small one with first person, but having a bunch of POV characters all in first person gets confusing as hell, unless handled perfectly. You need a individual, and recognizable, voice for each, and doing this is not easy.

There's a reason you see very few novels with multiple first person narrators.

I don't want to reveal through her inner monologue.
I think I /could/ keep it unrevealed, but it would be difficult.

Click to expand...

Whether it's first person, 3rd limited or omniscient, you can conceal information as much as you want. First person can be unreliable. 3rd limited = filtered. You get to pick what to reveal and what not. Just because it's first person doesn't mean the narrator is now going to blab out anything that pops into her mind.

In fact, I would caution about using omniscient to "conceal" information, because that kind of goes against the whole concept of omniscient, which is "all knowing." That would only come across as coy.

orangejuice said:

Wow this discussion is pretty lengthy. Surprising what happens when you go off somewhere for a while. XD

To clarify, I'm not using the viewpoints of ALL the characters, just the main ones. My problem is that part of the plot centres around a particular character who is meant to die at the end. I was thinking of using omniscient because she has several secrets to hide which I don't want to reveal through her inner monologue.
I think I /could/ keep it unrevealed, but it would be difficult.

Also, there's lots of other characters going and doing stuff in different parts of the world, and because she's so isolated, if it was ONLY in her POV, the reader would have no idea what was going on!

*headdesk*

Link: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171948

Click to expand...

I'm thinking omniscient might work best. Think about the scope of the book. Does it explore many parts of the same world, or only the MC's view?