Question on writing styles

[Shiraz]

First, I can't believe I'm up at 4AM again. Five years ago, this would have never happened.

Okay, down to business:

I'm relatively finished with my ms, done in third person - main character's POV. This is my first novel.

I've always been a little dense, however, about the narrative styles. I'm pretty sure I understand first-person and third-person; but, can someone explain the other options to me? In color crayon? What exactly is omniscient and all the variables? Second person? And, is is possible to mix any of them throughout the story?

I hope this makes sense. Thank you for any insight you can give.

[jules]

Omniscient -- the story narration is written with details that no single character could know. I've also heard it called "god's eye view" which is a little more explicit. Can cause the reader to become detached from the characters if done badly.

3rd Person Limited (also known as Limited Omniscient in some circles) -- the narration is written from the viewpoint of a single character, only showing things that character could know about. Any thoughts or opinions expressed in the narration are those of that character. Variations on this involve decisions about changing the focus character (which is only usually done between scenes, although you can do it anywhere you wish, or stay with the same character for the entire novel), and how deeply you focus on that character.

2nd Person -- the viewpoint character of the story is "you". Second person stories are most often told in present tense. Many people find them distracting and avoid reading them.

[Shiraz]

Thank you. Very clear.

[azbikergirl]

Orson Scott Card's book Characters and Viewpoint has a very good section on omniscient vs. 3rd person limited and lists the pros and cons for each. Which one is best depends on the effect you want and your own particular writing strengths.

[goatpiper]

Ursula Leguin's 'Steering the Craft' also has an excellent section on this topic. Great book on writing, overall, btw.

[Shiraz]

Thank you - I'll check them out. Appreciate you taking the time.

[Sage]

3rd Person Limited (also known as Limited Omniscient in some circles) -- the narration is written from the viewpoint of a single character, only showing things that character could know about. Any thoughts or opinions expressed in the narration are those of that character. Variations on this involve decisions about changing the focus character (which is only usually done between scenes, although you can do it anywhere you wish, or stay with the same character for the entire novel), and how deeply you focus on that character.

Is the deeper focus on the character what is considered "tight" 3rd person Limited? I've seen that phrase around.

[maestrowork]

A "tight" 3rd person limited is almost like a 1st person narrative. You only follow one character and can only report what that character observes and can only go inside this character's head. The narrative voice may also be the same as the character's...

A regular 3rd person is more relaxed and the narrator could following different characters (but one at a time) and the narrative voice might be different from the characters'.

[pianoman5]

Here's a link to an article by Patricia Wrede (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/msg/7313af4c39b03c0b) that discusses most of our POV options. What is especially useful about it is that she uses the same passage to illustrate each of them and then compares their relative merits.

[Jamesaritchie]

A "tight" 3rd person limited is almost like a 1st person narrative. You only follow one character and can only report what that character observes and can only go inside this character's head. The narrative voice may also be the same as the character's...

A regular 3rd person is more relaxed and the narrator could following different characters (but one at a time) and the narrative voice might be different from the characters'.

I don't know who came up with "tight." That's a fairly new term. The "limited" in third person limited means you have to stay inside one person's head per scene and view the world through his senses. You're "limited" to what that one character can see, hear, smell, touch, taste, or know.

If you aren't going to do this, then it isn't third person limited, it's third person, and maybe a form of third person omniscient.

[Mistook]

I run into a problem (?) while writing dialogue in third limited. I like to leave out my POV character's thoughts and try to let the spoken words and gestures speak for themselves. The problem is some of the people who've read those passages get confused, because everything suddenly seems too objective.

I'll mention things that other characters are doing, and in my mind, it doesn't violate POV. For example, I have a non-POV police officer take the MC's wallet and look at the ID.

It says in the narrative, "...He looked at the ID..." And to me that seems like something the POV character can easily see happening, but some readers think I'm drifting into the cops POV if I don't phrase it, "She watched him look at her ID".

Okay, I guess my question is... Does the illusion of third limited fall apart if the writer doesn't constantly remind the reader at every turn whose POV we're in?

[brinkett]

I think your readers are wrong. Just like in 1st person, you want to lose all phrases like, "She saw", "She heard", "She watched", etc. There are always exceptions, but they're rare.

[azbikergirl]

I don't know who came up with "tight."
Orson Scott Card differentiates between "light" and "deep" penetration with third person limited, but I've also seen it referred to as tightly vs. loosely coupled.

With light penetration, he writes, "We can see inside the vp character's head, we observe only scenes where the vp character is present, but we don't actually experience the scenes as if we were seeing them through the vp character's eyes. The narrator tells what happens in the scene in a neutral voice, only giving us the vp character's attitudes when the narrator turns away from the scene and dips into the vp character's mind.

With deep penetration, he claims, "we do experience the scenes as if we were seeing them through the vp character's eyes. We don't see things as they really happen, we see them only as the vp character thinks they happen. We are so closely involved with the vp character's thoughts that we don't have to dip into his mind; we never really leave."

[Sage]

I run into a problem (?) while writing dialogue in third limited. I like to leave out my POV character's thoughts and try to let the spoken words and gestures speak for themselves. The problem is some of the people who've read those passages get confused, because everything suddenly seems too objective.

I'll mention things that other characters are doing, and in my mind, it doesn't violate POV. For example, I have a non-POV police officer take the MC's wallet and look at the ID.

It says in the narrative, "...He looked at the ID..." And to me that seems like something the POV character can easily see happening, but some readers think I'm drifting into the cops POV if I don't phrase it, "She watched him look at her ID".

Okay, I guess my question is... Does the illusion of third limited fall apart if the writer doesn't constantly remind the reader at every turn whose POV we're in?

Independent of POV: "Sue handed the cop her ID. He looked at it as she began rifling through her glove box for her proof of insurance."

The cop's POV: "She handed him her ID, & began to go through her glove box. The cop saw that her name was Sue Smith, and that she was an out-of-state driver from Idaho. "

Sue's POV: "Sue handed the cop her ID. As he looked at it, she wondered if he was going to give her grief for being from out of state. Oh, well. Nothing to do but find her proof of insurance."

I'm not sure w/out seeing a bigger example of your work, but just saying "He looked at the ID" while in a different characters view should not take the reader out of the POV. Now if you described what the cop saw on the ID like in the example above, that would be different.

However, if you never go into someone's thoughts, that might be leading to the confusion because the reader is going to feel more removed from the characters. So if you describe what your MC is doing & saying from a viewpoint that's separate from their mind, I could almost see how someone could jump to the conclusion that when you focus for just a moment on another character's actions that you're about to slip into their POV. It could also be that they're subconsciously reading your novel as omniscient, so their mind is jumping to the next person in anticipation of you being able to do so in that case.

I don't think you have to necessarily "remind" the reader who's POV you're in, but for them to get a better sense of the character, IMHO, I think you have to stick to that character's "voice." By removing thoughts & internalized emotions as much as it sounds like you do, it's harder for a reader to identify with the character. For me, & maybe others will disagree, if I'm not getting any insight into the characters' inner workings beyond their actions & spoken words, I might as well be watching tv or a movie.

But then again, I'm someone who wrote a character whose thoughts & actions have to speak for him because he almost never speaks outloud. And I'm sure someone else can come along & tell me why that doesn't work for them just as easily http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smileyflag.gif

[maestrowork]

It says in the narrative, "...He looked at the ID..." And to me that seems like something the POV character can easily see happening, but some readers think I'm drifting into the cops POV if I don't phrase it, "She watched him look at her ID".

Nothing wrong with "He looked at the ID" as long as it's clear that the POV character saw him doing it. The problem would be if you said "He looked at the ID" but in reality, the POV character is somewhere else or he has no idea what that person did... then you have a POV issue.

[Mistook]

Sorry if I'm temporarily hijacking here, but I wanted to say the answers were all helpful, and pose a second question.

How often do you quote direct thoughts (italicized thoughts) as opposed to directly paraphrasing, or full-on description? That would go for emotions as well. And how do you keep it from getting in the way?

[Sage]

I think my answers going to be a little different from other peoples because a) I have psychics in my stories who occasionally think direct thoughts at others or read direct thoughts, & b) one of my main characters does not think in sentences, but does not speak his mind either.

So sometimes I have direct thoughts to show that one psychic character is getting the information in a situation where another could not speak it aloud. And for my current MC, <rolls eyes> almost anything from him that is not an action is an indirect thought or a feeling. But he assimilates information the same, so he still could see a cop looking at his ID. But if the cop tells him he's too young to be driving, Jian's going to freak out & think about what to do.

I also separate what is psychically thought or "heard" & what is just directly thought. Here's an example that encompasses all three:


*You know, a little warning would be nice before you get all hot and heavy with Tenshi-kun next time* Mi-chan reminded her sister silently so their mom couldn't hear.

Neko blushed. It was times like this that she wished she had a mind shield of some kind. *It's not fair. Mi-chan developed one. Why can't I?*


Beyond psychics, I use a direct thought (which I put in the asterisks, instead of italicizing) when I want the thought to be in that person's voice as if they were speaking it.

*You've got to be kidding me!* she thought, not daring to speak out loud for fear of hurting her sister's feelings *Why the hell did she invite him?!*
To me that sounds better than:
"Mi-chan thought that Neko must be kidding. Why would she invite Mi-chan's least favorite person in the world?! If only it wouldn't hurt Neko's feelings so much to make a fuss about it."

Then there's thoughts, but not directly quoted. So, I'll use Jian 'cuz he's easy to find examples for. Here's one that integrates action, dialogue, & thought. So you can say whether it slows the story down.

It was Michiko! She had come to say goodbye after all!

With a sob, he ran into her outstretched arms, embracing her with all his might. “Baka!” she scolded him. “I wouldn’t just let you go like that.”

Jian was glad she could read his mind so she’d know how much it meant to him that she had come. He had been devastated by the thought of leaving while Michiko was angry at him. But now he could go in peace with Michiko’s support and blessing, even if she couldn’t come herself.

“Don’t be so dense, Jian. I’m not here to say goodbye.”

He let go and took a step back, searching her face for an explanation. What was she talking about?

Michiko grabbed onto his arm and whispered urgently, “Just go along with whatever I say,” just as their family joined them.

So I think for your last question, I'd say just integrate into the story. Because I consider thoughts & emotions to be important to the scene, I never think of it as getting in the way. Jian's a little special, I guess, since his thoughts occasionally serve as dialogue when he's with Michiko, but they also are what he's feeling. Michiko & the others all have those kind of thoughts too, as well as direct thoughts, & I never think about whether it's getting in the way. A lot of times it's a good way to get info out without seeming too info dumpy.

I guess the real difference between direct & indirect is how I imagine the thoughts go through their mind. For Jian, everything is more of a sense of a thought rather than a direct thought. If those questions were being asked in the mind of any other character, they might be direct, but I, the writer, know that they're not direct thoughts, so I don't write them as such.

Yeah, so what it comes down to is whether the character is actually thinking the specific sentence you want to write for them. Sue might think she's in trouble with the cop. Or she might think *Oh, god! Here comes trouble.* (Either way, she probably doesn't want to say it in front of the cop) It's just a matter of how you want the thought to come out. But if she thinks she's in trouble, you probably ought to let your audience know in some way. That's not going to get in the way of your story. And it's much more direct, (whether it's her direct thought or just a sense of what she's thinking) than showing it with her actions & hoping that the audience gets it.

Yeah, so that was a really long version of my answer to your question. No wonder I have trouble w/ my novel being too long

[maestrowork]

Personally, I do not like reading stories with a lot of internal thoughts. I was reading one a little while ago when I felt like the character/narrator was trying to explain every thought or feelings to me -- they took me out of the story. Also, too much of those also means the story is too introspective. I think it's okay if there's something the character is thinking that contradicts with his action... at the same time, don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me every thought and motivation or emotion the character has. Show me instead. Perhaps I'm spoiled by movies, but I just don't like narratives that spell it out for me: "and now, she is sad." Show me through what is going on -- action, reaction.

[jst5150]

In my current project -- which blends 1st and God's Eye -- I use internal thoughts when the moment calls for it. And for me, it's more a feeling of writing in that moment, feeling where my character is going with it and then, as I'm hammering the keys, putting it on the page. Of course, you have to ask, "what value odes this have to the story?" and "why am I revealing this thought vice others?"

Using an internal thought -- or any other syntax device, for that matter -- also goes to pacing and rhythm of your content, too. It can't just pop up out of left field unless its intended to pop up out of left field.

Baseball analogies aside, whatever tool you use to convey the message for that moment of your content, make sure its the right one.

[brinkett]

How often do you quote direct thoughts (italicized thoughts) as opposed to directly paraphrasing, or full-on description?
I rarely use direct thoughts (italicized, written in 1st person). My completed novel (about 100k words) has about twenty instances of this, all short sentences (and never more than a sentence at a time--no lengthy italicized paragraphs!).

[azbikergirl]

Ditto what Brinkett said. I use "tight" or "deep" third person limited, so the narrative contains my vp's attitudes and thoughts. There's no need to italicize, but in some cases it "feels" better to do that than to put the thought in (3p past tense) narrative.

[Jamesaritchie]

Orson Scott Card differentiates between "light" and "deep" penetration with third person limited, but I've also seen it referred to as tightly vs. loosely coupled.

With light penetration, he writes, "We can see inside the vp character's head, we observe only scenes where the vp character is present, but we don't actually experience the scenes as if we were seeing them through the vp character's eyes. The narrator tells what happens in the scene in a neutral voice, only giving us the vp character's attitudes when the narrator turns away from the scene and dips into the vp character's mind.

With deep penetration, he claims, "we do experience the scenes as if we were seeing them through the vp character's eyes. We don't see things as they really happen, we see them only as the vp character thinks they happen. We are so closely involved with the vp character's thoughts that we don't have to dip into his mind; we never really leave."

Yes, and I understand why he does this. It's a matter of style, but the same limitations apply with light and deep as with any third person limited. You're still limited to only writing about what the POV character can see, feel, hear, thnk, etc. It's just a matter of where the focus is.

[Jamesaritchie]

I run into a problem (?) while writing dialogue in third limited. I like to leave out my POV character's thoughts and try to let the spoken words and gestures speak for themselves. The problem is some of the people who've read those passages get confused, because everything suddenly seems too objective.

I'll mention things that other characters are doing, and in my mind, it doesn't violate POV. For example, I have a non-POV police officer take the MC's wallet and look at the ID.

It says in the narrative, "...He looked at the ID..." And to me that seems like something the POV character can easily see happening, but some readers think I'm drifting into the cops POV if I don't phrase it, "She watched him look at her ID".

Okay, I guess my question is... Does the illusion of third limited fall apart if the writer doesn't constantly remind the reader at every turn whose POV we're in?

No, you don't have to constantly remind the reader. There's nothing at all wrong with writing "He looked at the ID" is it's something the POV character could see him doing. "She watched" or "he watched" is just as bad as constantly using "I watched."

Not that there's anything wrong with being objective. "Dramatic" or "Objective" POV can be very useful. They're really the same thing, and mean you never go inside anyone's head. The story is written entirely from the outside. Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants" is written in objective viewpoint. http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~conreys/101files/Otherfolders/Hillslikewhitepg.html

[popmuze]

The problem with my first person narrator is that he's been known to lie, cheat and steal to get what he wants. Therefore, his opinion of what's happening to himself and the others around him is fairly biased and might even be warped.
Since the premise of the novel is that he's telling the story of these two other friends of his, sometimes I have him privvy to conversations he couldn't possibly have known, since he wasn't in the room. However, I do give indications that he probably pieced together this dialogue based on information one of the two people gave him at a later date, when they were spilling their guts to him for one reason or another.

[pianoman5]

The problem with my first person narrator is that he's been known to lie, cheat and steal to get what he wants. Therefore, his opinion of what's happening to himself and the others around him is fairly biased and might even be warped.
There's nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly acceptable technique known as the 'unreliable narrator', and as long as you're consistent with it and the reader understands at some point why your narrator is unreliable, it can be a very effective storytelling mode.

[Mistook]

No, you don't have to constantly remind the reader. There's nothing at all wrong with writing "He looked at the ID" is it's something the POV character could see him doing. "She watched" or "he watched" is just as bad as constantly using "I watched."

Not that there's anything wrong with being objective. "Dramatic" or "Objective" POV can be very useful. They're really the same thing, and mean you never go inside anyone's head. The story is written entirely from the outside. Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants" is written in objective viewpoint. http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~conreys/101files/Otherfolders/Hillslikewhitepg.html



So, is there such a thing as "Objective Limited?"

[maestrowork]

Yes. "Objective" means you don't ever get inside the character's head. Everything is external. It's also called "camera" pov.

[Mistook]

Okay, but what about "Objective Limited?"

[maestrowork]

You still only follow one character at a time (thus "limited") but you just don't go inside the character's head:

Jack left the dining room and touched the china with his hand, then the silk tablecloth. In the next room, people laughed out loud. Jack frowned. He picked up a small knife on the table, ran his forefinger along the sharp blade. He grinned.

Here, we only follow Jack. We don't know who in the next room are laughing. We don't know what Jack is thinking or feeling, but we do see what he is doing.

[Mistook]

Precisely :)

[scarletpeaches]

So third limited is actually pretty close to first?

[Sage]

You still only follow one character at a time (thus "limited") but you just don't go inside the character's head:

Jack left the dining room and touched the china with his hand, then the silk tablecloth. In the next room, people laughed out loud. Jack frowned. He picked up a small knife on the table, ran his forefinger along the sharp blade. He grinned.

Here, we only follow Jack. We don't know who in the next room are laughing. We don't know what Jack is thinking or feeling, but we do see what he is doing.

Although this doesn't sound very much like it's actually Jack's POV. Jack's the one begin followed, but the same description of action can be used for anybody. If Jack was in the same room as Joe, are you saying that describing what they both are doing would no longer make it limited?

[Mistook]

Although this doesn't sound very much like it's actually Jack's POV. Jack's the one begin followed, but the same description of action can be used for anybody. If Jack was in the same room as Joe, are you saying that describing what they both are doing would no longer make it limited?


Many of my first drafts read like this, especially if I'm writing a conversation between three or more people, or if it's an action scene. I always tell myself I'll flesh out the POV later on.

But I find that these drafts have a weird, film noir feel to them.

I think if you used it for the right kind of story, Objective Limited could really work. It seems objective, but as the story goes on you get begin to realize that one character is in every scene. Seems like it would work for a murder mystery.

[Sage]

Many of my first drafts read like this, especially if I'm writing a conversation between three or more people, or if it's an action scene. I always tell myself I'll flesh out the POV later on.

But I find that these drafts have a weird, film noir feel to them.

I think if you used it for the right kind of story, Objective Limited could really work. It seems objective, but as the story goes on you get begin to realize that one character is in every scene. Seems like it would work for a murder mystery.

I guess I'll have to read one.

Oh, darn. <snaps fingers>

[maestrowork]

Although this doesn't sound very much like it's actually Jack's POV. Jack's the one begin followed, but the same description of action can be used for anybody. If Jack was in the same room as Joe, are you saying that describing what they both are doing would no longer make it limited?

You can describe these actions for anybody, but only if it's through Jack's observation. Thus Jack is still the POV character, even though we never go inside his head, per se (meaning, no thoughts or feelings like "Jack felt Jane's soft touch...")

In this short passage it's probably not apparent that Jack is the POV character if there are other characters in the scene and we're describing what they're doing. But in a longer scene, the POV character would be apparent to the readers. It's still "limited" since we're following Jack. If Jack leaves the room, we follow him, and not stay behind.

Otherwise, if we following different characters and describe everything that goes on, it could be taken as omniscient. For example:

Jack touched the table with his hand. Joe stood behind him and made a funny face. Jack picked up a small knife...

Here, since Jack couldn't possibly see Joe, it would be either a POV violation (if we're in 3rd limited, following Jack) or you're essentially using an omniscient, albeit "objective," viewpoint.

Now this:

Jack touched the table with his hand and glanced at Joe. Joe made a funny face. Jack chuckled and picked up a small knife.

In this case, even though you describe both Jack's and Joe's action, there is no POV violation and you're still following Jack...

And now this:

Jack touched the table with his hand and glanced at Joe. Joe made a funny face. Jack chuckled, felt his heart beating fast, and picked up a small knife.

Here, it's still limited, but no longer "objective."

"Objective" basically means no internal thoughts or feelings. We're limited to sight, sound, touch, smell and taste but reported in an "objective" way. The rest still follows the definition of each POV type.