What POV should be used?

Dark huntress said:

I am writing in first person, however there are several places in my story where I need to describe an outside scene that none of the characters can see since they are all indoors. When doing this, what POV should be used?

Click to expand...

If none of the characters can see it, it would have to be omniscient. But I'd advise strongly against mixing in this way. There's always a way to get the information in using first person, or third person limited.

I agree with Jamesaritchie. Without knowing the details of your story, I have to ask, how necessary is it for your reader to know about these events before your main characters? Sometimes it's more enjoyable to discover things along with them. Alternatively, could you assume the POV of someone who happens to be present for the events?

Well, that is part of using the first person pov. The person can't know what he/she doesn't witness, experience - or is told.

Telling is not always bad. It can be downright fascinating, when done correctly, and when done in the voice of a person (character) who is interesting in and of themselves. Someone stumbles in from a storm, sort of collapses in front of the fire. People (incl. your MC) rush around to get him a drink, a blanket, a cup of grog (whatever) and he manages to tell a story of monsters and mayhem just outside the castle walls before his coat opens and everyone sees the gaping wound in his chest, from which he expires...

Anyhow, don't be afraid of a little 'tell,' when done right and in this case, it can be done right.

Can you work in something like a news report or a radio bulletin about the outside scene that would convey the information without your MC being there?

You can always give another character a voice in that scene and let them narrate what's going on, but it's going to read strangely if that character only gets one POV chapter.

It depends, IMO: Are you saying the first-person narrator never finds out what's happening outside? If the POV character will get the information one way or the other, then I would probably opt to stay in the first person POV and let the reader learn along with the POV character.

If, on the other hand, you want the reader to know something that the POV character cannot ever know (and you are 100% sure of this decision), then you probably want to go to omniscient for those scenes.

If the book is written in first person past tense, then it's unusual for the narrator to not have access to all the information that is crucial to the story. I'm not into hard and fast rules, so I won't say not to do it. However, I think that sort of unconventional approach requires extra finesse to pull it off without irritating the reader.

Dark huntress said:

I am writing in first person, however there are several places in my story where I need to describe an outside scene that none of the characters can see since they are all indoors. When doing this, what POV should be used?

Click to expand...

Find another way to reveal that information, or else you'd have to write the whole thing in omniscient.

Ask yourself: is it really important to describe the scene(s) that none of your characters could witness?

A storyteller isn't a record-keeper. You don't need to tell everything. You need to find a way to reveal information outside of the POV.

Sarah Madara said:

If, on the other hand, you want the reader to know something that the POV character cannot ever know (and you are 100% sure of this decision), then you probably want to go to omniscient for those scenes.

Click to expand...

It's usually a bad idea to mix POVs like that, especially just for plot convenience. Who is telling the story? The first person narrator? Or an omniscient narrator? When a writer does that, I'd say he or she lacks the discipline and a change like that would also jar me out of the story.

maestrowork said:

It's usually a bad idea to mix POVs like that, especially just for plot convenience. Who is telling the story? The first person narrator? Or an omniscient narrator? When a writer does that, I'd say he or she lacks the discipline and a change like that would also jar me out of the story.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Any and all combinations of POVs can and have been used with great success by talented writers making artistic choices that worked.

When I've seen this done, often the third-person descriptive passages (either omniscient or limited) are in italics to distinguish them from the main narrative.

Sarah Madara said:

I disagree. Any and all combinations of POVs can and have been used with great success by talented writers making artistic choices that worked.

Click to expand...

Can you give me a few examples where a mix of first person and omniscient works well in a single work? I'm curious.

maestrowork said:

Can you give me a few examples where a mix of first person and omniscient works well in a single work? I'm curious.

Click to expand...

I'll admit that one's hard without some research, as it isn't done much. I believe Bleak House mixes first and omniscient. I think House of Leaves used both forms of narration, and while it's not everyone's cup of tea, I certainly liked it.

I've mentioned Freedom a number of times in POV threads. It does not use 1st person, but rather switches between omniscient, sections of an autobiography written in 3rd person, and regular old close third. While the autobiographical sections are in third person, you never lose awareness of the first person narrator who is telling the story in third, and therefore I'm going to count it

I thought you were arguing equally against all shifts in POV. Did I read that wrong? Do you think a shift to close third or a different first person POV is less jarring? It doesn't seem that way to me, but different readers have different preferences.

The other combinations are much more common. I assumed it was because omniscient simply isn't used much anymore, but maybe there's more to it than that. Anyway, a couple of examples just to cover my bases:
- Mixed 1st person was enormously popular in The Help. I personally find that the most jarring of all POV shifts, but I'm just one reader.
- Mixed 1st and third close is done all the time. I recently finished reading Sarah's Key, which was a phenomenal book and the POV shifts worked beautifully.

As I said, including an omniscient POV (or even a close third if it isn't a major character) would be unconventional, and therefore require more finesse.

ETA: How could I forget Faulkner? I'm going to go ahead and guess that the OP isn't shooting for a Faulkneresque (Faulknerian? Fucked up?) novel, but if she is, she can check out The Sound and the Fury.

Very last edit, really: Won't be online for a while, so Maestro, I can't rebut if when you shoot me down... Sorry to abandon the thread mid-argument

I have no problem with mixing POVs when it make sense, and 1st/3rd mix (in this case, the 1st person narrative reads like diary and personal, but the 3rd limited creates a distance), or 3rd limited multiple is rather common. However, I'm having trouble recalling any books that is a mix of 1st/omniscient. That's why I asked. To me, switching from 1st to omniscient and then back requires a huge shift -- from a very limited form of storytelling (1st person) to an "all-knowing" narrative. It's jarring for that reason: one minute we're in the skin of a character and can only know what he or she knows and thinks and feels, and the next we're told by an all-knowing narrator what else is going on.

To me, it's even more jarring if omniscient is mixed with limited. Now you have TWO 3rd-person narrators: one is all-knowing, and another limited. So which is which? More often than not, what people think is a mix of 3rd limited and omniscient is simply omniscient with a tight focus: e.g. Harry Potter. Many people mistake it as 3rd limited with the occasional omniscient observations, but in fact the whole thing was written in omniscient with tight focus on Harry Potter.

Dark huntress said:

What if I dropped first and did third limited or third omnipresent ?

Click to expand...

Personally I think it's more natural to have 3rd limited (multiple view points if you have multiple main characters) or simply 3rd omniscient through and through, maybe with a tight focus (e.g. Harry Potter).

Dark huntress said:

I am writing in first person, however there are several places in my story where I need to describe an outside scene that none of the characters can see since they are all indoors.

Click to expand...

The very first question you should be asking yourself, and demanding a serious answer for, is: WHY?

For starters, if you're writing in first-person, why are you even concerned that any character outside your POVnarrator (none of the characters can see since they are all indoors) be able to see what's going on?

Can you tell it from the POV of MC's mother or father or whoever witnessed the birth? You said no one witnessed it. But obviously at least one person would be present: the mother.

It also sounds like backstory here. Is it absolutely necessary?

If so, then you either will have to write it omniscient, or if you prefer 3rd limited, you'd have to somehow tell it from a POV that is present during the birth. Or, if you're doing this as a prologue, then you can use omniscient... but that would further sets the prologue apart from the rest of your story.

It's your choice.

Dark huntress said:

Others that are present are inside as well and they are not part of the story.

Click to expand...

If "they are not part of the story", why do you even mention them here? They are not part of the story.

Dark huntress said:

No one is outside to describe the scene and the important even that takes place during the birthing.

Click to expand...

So how does anyone ever know what has happened?

Dark huntress said:

The reader needs to see this, it is am emotional description of the entire scene both inside and outside.

Click to expand...

The bolded phrase is the first thing you need to seriously address. Again, the operative question is: WHY?

Dark huntress said:

The reader will see the event but it is only later in the story that they will understand it's meaning.

Click to expand...

Honestly, this sounds horribly confusing and clumsy to me, reacting as a reader. If any event takes place that is important to the story, SOMEBODY has to witness it, unless you choose to retreat into a very distancing omniscient narrative viewpoint. Which sounds to me inappropriate. Why not have some character having actually witnessed whatever event it is, and relate it at some appropriate time later to your heroine, and thereby to the reader?

Don't make the mistake of assuming your reader needs to know everything you, the writer, knows, at every moment. Reading is not writing.

Since it's at the very beginning, you really may have more options. But I hesitate to say that, because agents and publishers appear to be less interested in artsy stuff that I like from a new writer. From an artistic standpoint, you could pull it off, theoretically (imho).


Ray, John Connolly's The Unquiet did some unusual things with POV. I liked it. Omni came out of the woodwork, along with paranormal stuff, in a book that had been straight Limited 3rd and 1st (different characters). The Limited 3rd went omni, so it could have been that it was really 1st + omni all along. I thought it worked really well, but tastes differ on that, for sure. And clearly, he is allowed to play around a bit. I have no idea if an agent would have seen what I saw had it been his first work.

blacbird said:

Honestly, this sounds horribly confusing and clumsy to me, reacting as a reader. If any event takes place that is important to the story, SOMEBODY has to witness it, unless you choose to retreat into a very distancing omniscient narrative viewpoint. Which sounds to me inappropriate. Why not have some character having actually witnessed whatever event it is, and relate it at some appropriate time later to your heroine, and thereby to the reader?

Click to expand...

I do agree with this. If it's important and emotional (to who?), then somebody must have witnessed or experienced it. Then why not tell it from that perspective, so we get to experience the emotions and importance? Why use a distant, omniscient narrator for it, simply because all the other "main characters" are not in this scene?

POV has less to do with event reporting and more to do with emotions: whose POV it is, and how close you want the readers to be? Fiction is about emotions, or else we'd be reporting news (even news reporting has a lot to do with emotions). So if you choose an omniscient view point, which is by nature distant, to reveal information that is supposed to be emotional, then it seems counter-intuitive. Why not choose a POV that is close to the event? If not the MC (since she was being born), then how about the mother?

The way you describe the scene, it sounds like pure backstory. In that case, I would suggest writing it as a 3rd person prologue. Then write the rest of the story. Most likely, you'll find when you're finished, that you can cut that prologue all together.

Either that, or you can have someone have told the MC about her birth. If there was something remarkable about it, someone would have mentioned it at some point in her life. Even if she wasn't aware as she was being born; she'd still know what happened.

maestrowork said:

Can you give me a few examples where a mix of first person and omniscient works well in a single work? I'm curious.

Click to expand...

Read a mystery like that. Can't think of the author offhand, but I ran into one that mixed THREE different viewpoints. It was about a forensics anthropogist who was suffering from a medical problem. The story opened in omni, went to first and switched between that and third. The omni wasn't a good use -- it showed the body being found by an unknown person, then told us the same thing in the next twenty pages in first person.

I agree with everything that Ray said, more or less. I don't see switching between first and omniscient working, although this is just my opinion.

Alternatively, I too thought of Cyia's suggestion:

Cyia said:

(...)you can have someone have told the MC about her birth. If there was something remarkable about it, someone would have mentioned it at some point in her life. Even if she wasn't aware as she was being born; she'd still know what happened.

Click to expand...

Many a time we see characters reporting events as narrated by others. Think of "Wuthering Heights" for instance (not my favourite, but the easiest example that comes to mind). That way you also enhance characterisation for the person that narrated the story to your protagonist.