Third person limited? [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

Thomma Lyn

08-13-2006, 06:05 PM

My just-completed and polished novel is in 3rd-person limited, and I think it works well. I'm getting ready to pitch the novel to agents. A novella I recently wrote - which will soon be coming out with an e-publisher - is also in 3rd-person limited. IMO, that POV is great as long as you keep it tight and be careful to avoid slips into the omniscient.

Here's something that helped me with my latest novel: after I wrote the first draft, as part of my editing process I rewrote the whole thing in first person (hey, I'm lucky - I'm a fast typist! ;) ). Then later on in my editing process, I switched it back to 3rd-limited. This technique worked great to eliminate POV oddities.

IThinkICan29

08-13-2006, 07:39 PM

Sesselja

08-13-2006, 08:01 PM

I have just been reading Sherri Szeman's article "Who's Afraid of Point of View" in The Complete Handbook of Novel Writing, and it's very enlightning on POV versus perspective and focus. If I understand her (and you!) correctly, you are writing in a 3rd person limited point of view, but from different perspectives.

To quote her:
"POV is how the book is written, not who or what it is about. When then author describes different characters or settings but does not change how he is writing about them, then he is changing focus but maintaining the same point of view. (...) When the author gives us different versions of the same events, perhaps all written in first-person POV, for example, then he is giving us different perspectives, but he is not changing point of view."

maestrowork

08-13-2006, 08:07 PM

Ok, I hate to ask this....but I just have to...because I may be switching between limited and omniscent....which MAY be my problem.

Is it possible to tell a story in third-person limited while character switching? Or is third-person limited, limited to just ONE character (which isn't what I've been doing)? I actually have two characters. Maybe it's NOT so limited...then huh...grrrr!

If you are switching between two POV characters, but within each scene/chapter/etc. you are staying with only one character, that's 3rd limited (rotating). Nothing wrong with that. But if you're going in and out of characters' minds at random, that's head-hopping.

Omniscient is different. There is a God-like narrator outside of your characters. The narrator knows everything, but has its own distinct voice.

IThinkICan29

08-13-2006, 08:13 PM

If you are switching between two POV characters, but within each scene/chapter/etc. you are staying with only one character, that's 3rd limited (rotating). Nothing wrong with that. But if you're going in and out of characters' minds at random, that's head-hopping.

Oh my gravy, I think I may be on the right track after all. Thank you maestro.

Jamesaritchie

08-13-2006, 08:24 PM

Does anyone know of any books written in this POV? I tried it, failed at it (because, well, it just seemed like first-person flipped inside out), and now I'm opting for omniscent, yet again. So much for trying something new. Have any of you tried it and found it to be a comfortable way of writing? If so, please toss in some pointers for a strugglin' not-so-young-not-so-old-lady...pweeeeze? Thanks :)

Wow, just about 91% of all novels out there are written in third person limited. If you pick up a published novel that isn't first person, odds are about twenty to one that it's written in third person limited.

In a real sense, third person limited is first person flipped inside out. This is why it's considered the best form for a new writer. Third person limited is the easiest form for a new writer to do well, and by a wide margin. If you think third person limited is tough to write well, omniscient makes it look like child's play. Even many experienced writers have trouble with omniscient.

Omniscient does not mean you can head hop, it merely means the narrator is standing at a greater distance from the characters and the story, and so can see more. But head-hopping is head-hopping, no matter what POV you use.

Omniscient is extremely tough to write well, and very tough for a new writer to sell.

JanDarby

08-13-2006, 09:55 PM

Another way of looking at it is that the "limited" in "third person limited" refers to the POV in a single scene, not to the number of POVS in the entire book.

JD

blacbird

08-13-2006, 11:27 PM

Tony Hillerman uses 3rd-limited most if not all the time, often with two or three alternating character viewpoints, but focused only on what his narrative character can experience and think about, confined to a chapter or scene at a time. He does not usually head-hop.

As James has implied, 3rd omniscient appears deceptively easy, and to do it well is anything but. The traps it offers to the unwary new writer are many and subtle and deep. Probably the worst one I've seen in manuscripts (and some published work as well) is spending inordinate amounts of prose inside numerous characters' minds rather than recording narrative action.

Ick.

caw.

zornhau

08-14-2006, 02:34 PM

IMHO, 3rd person limited is dead easy, easier even than 1st person. http://zornhau.livejournal.com/66346.html

Bayou Bill

08-15-2006, 07:55 AM

Oh my gravy, I think I may be on the right track after all. Thank you maestro.Just another example of why he's the Maestro.

I've finished two novels (one agented) and most of my short stories in third person limited.

There is at least one exception about "head-hopping." In most genre's it's a no-no since most "experts" feel it can easily confuse readers. However, in Romance, head-hopping is relatively common, especially during hot steamy love scenes when the writer will hop back and forth between the two lovers, describing their thoughts/emotions.

Bayou Bill :cool:

JanDarby

08-15-2006, 07:23 PM

in Romance, head-hopping is relatively common, especially during hot steamy love scenes when the writer will hop back and forth between the two lovers, describing their thoughts/emotions.

Writing is writing. Headhopping happens in all genres, and, yes, some romance authors do it too. Still not a good technique, and one that a lot of outstanding romance authors refrain from.

And, as an aside, I frequently see the justification that love/sex scenes require headhopping, but I really, really, REALLY don't get why anyone thinks it's particularly useful for a love/sex scene, when headhopping distances a reader, muting the emotion, and one would think that a love/sex scene would be a situation where you really don't want the emotions to be muted.

JD

Patricia

08-15-2006, 07:47 PM

Jamesaritchie

08-15-2006, 09:58 PM

A little head hopping here and there in a well-written novel doesn't distract me at all. What will confuse me are run-on sentences, lack of proper dialogue tags, and over-show. Some writers think that the reader has no brain and will show to death a perfectly lovely scene.

Some major best sellers take liberty with all the rule breakers for newbies. Some do them well; others ruin their work, but sell anyway because of their name. This is confusing for new authors who are being rejected or harshly critiqued for the very things the big names get away with.

I saw no immediate solution to this little annoyance for me, because I love to read. So I adapted an attitude to absorb what I could then use my own "gut feeling" about head hopping and other rules, without going overboard. And I have to say, that I like my re-write much, much better because of the change.

When pro writers break rules, it's usually for the better, and they have solid reasons for doing so. It's fine to break a rule, if you know the rule inside out, and if you break it for a good reason. But breaking it because you don't know how not to break it usually ends with rejection, and rightfully so.

Head-hopping may not bother you, but it bothers most agent and editors, and as a first time noevlist, it pays to avoid head-hopping. Head-hopping is always lazy writing because there's always a better way to write any scene.

Pro writers do not sell because of their names, they sell because teh write things millions of reader want to read.

I don't think writers show because they think readers have no brain, they show because it's generally better writing, and pleases more reader. Shw simply works better than tell in most situations, and too much tell can kill any novel.

There's a place for tell in any novel, but it's pretty darned difficult to use show too much.

Rob Gregory Browne

08-15-2006, 10:05 PM

Ok, I hate to ask this....but I just have to...because I may be switching between limited and omniscent....which MAY be my problem.

Is it possible to tell a story in third-person limited while character switching? Or is third-person limited, limited to just ONE character (which isn't what I've been doing)? I actually have two characters. Maybe it's NOT so limited...then huh...grrrr!I believe the "limited" means you're limited to that particular point of view in that particular scene or chapter. You don't switch to any other characters -- for that scene. The reader only sees and hears and feels what the POV character does.

It's perfectly fine to jump into another character's head in the next scene (or sequence or chapter).

A wonderful example of very DEEP POV third person limited is William Goldman's MARATHON MAN or MAGIC. In fact, MAGIC uses the limited POV very effectively to create one whopper of a twist.

UrsusMinor

08-15-2006, 10:35 PM

I agree that 3rd limited (also called '3rd subjective') is the most common novelistic technique, and this generally means that one must stay in tight POV of a single character for each scene.

HOWEVER, I should note that there are certain ways that convention allows writers to bend the rules of 3rd limited into what is a kind of temporary omniscience. One is in openings (either of chapters, or of the book as a whole), where the scene is set. This is the equivalent of a wide-view shot in film. "For millions of years, the elephant seals had returned to Afton Island to battle and breed, and..." In this kind of scene set-up, the focus moves from an objective narrator and then zooms in, either slowly or rapidly, into the POV of the character--and the POV character may know nothing whasoever of the history of Afton Island or of elephant seals.

The other time one sees 3rd limited violated without any complaints is when there is a brief passage that can't be from any characters point of view. "High on the slopes of K-2, an outcropping had gathered its annual burden of snow, but a freakish warm wind from the valley below had..." or "Deep on the seabed below, the rusted pressure vessel had already begun to leak spewing out a stream of..." A purist may not like such things, but they are widely accepted, especially in thrillers and techno-suspense, that are otherwise strictly 3rd limited.

================
"The third-person-subjective point of view has its uses, but it also has severe limits, so that something is wrong when it becomes the dominant point of view in fiction, as it has been for years in the United States."

John Gardner, "The Art of Fiction," 1983

maestrowork

08-15-2006, 10:43 PM

POV can be tricky; even seasoned writers can slip and editors can miss. I was reading a John Grisham book written entirely in 3rd limited, and was astounded by two POV violations (he head-hopped into another character, mid-paragraph, for no reason at all). They were minor but I was still surprised neither he nor his editor caught them. So be careful out there.

UrsusMinor

08-15-2006, 11:08 PM

Maestro is right about that--you have to pay attention, and plenty of bestselling authors can't be bothered. (And what editor is going to tell Grisham that his writing sux?)

My own model for 3rd limited is the Roach Motel Rule: you can start wide, from an objective viewpoint, but once you zoom in to the character, You Check In, But You Don't Check Out.

One of the things I see all the time in newbie writers, even very talented ones, is the breaking of POV because they realize that something important can't be perceived by the POV character, or because they have thought of something so clever in another POV that they can't resist it. I find these sorts of brief POV "wobbles" very distracting.

merper

08-16-2006, 12:07 AM

I'm still not sure what the difference between third person limited and 1st person is. I mean, you don't have to have a 1st person POV that delves into the nooks and crannies of what the MC is thinking about at each point - in fact, if I'm not mistaken, this is the mark of bad 1st person POV.

Patricia

08-16-2006, 12:21 AM

I'm not condoning breaking the rules just to break them. I read the rules broken all the time by pros and new authors--as a rule they are done well. But I've also seen some real boners by the pros that in my way of thinking, was sending mixed signals. I'm reading one now, (out of respect, I won't name), that head hops in mid paragraph, and has done so several times during same scenes--which, of course, was glaring to me only because we have these discussions. With all due respect, to other opinions, her show is overdone.

I may be a new author but I've been an avid reader since age 9 and that's many years of reading. As a reader, I can say that some pros turn out some bad reads.

It (head hopping) may bother some but apparently, some don't mind as much because many books get through with the rules bent.

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 12:36 AM

3rd limited is very close to 1st. Even with 1st, you can rotate the POV characters if you want. So it comes down to narrative distance. With 1st person, you're going for a ride WITH the narrator sitting next to you telling you everything. With 3rd limited, there's a bit more distance and you don't feel like you're tied to the hip with the narrator. Still, you're seeing things and knowing things through one character at a time. Also, in 1st person, the narrative voice is the character's voice, so you get to know about the character through that voice as well, and this narrator can be semi-reliable or unreliable. Some people may argue that you can change narrative voice with 3rd limited, too, depending on the current POV character. I am not sure about that. I belong to the camp of having a separate, impartial, consistent narrator. To me, a 3rd limited narrator must be reliable, while the POV character might not.

nevada

08-16-2006, 01:30 AM

Bill, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on the headhopping in Romance. THere should be no head hopping in romance and there isnt in good romance. What romance writers do do, however, is write half a scene from one character's POV and then switch at a break in the action to the other character. Each part is really a mini-scene. THe break doesnt come arbitrarily but at a convenient spot where there might be a natural break in the action, for example. And not just Romance writers do this. I've seen it done in lots of so-called "mainstream" novels. If you are reading romance where there is headhopping, then you are reading badly written romance.

UrsusMinor

08-16-2006, 01:53 AM

As Maestro says, the main difference between 1st person and 3rd limited is that in 1st the narrator is the character. The first-person narrative voice in many ways tells you as much or more about the character than do the story events. It is almost impossible to imagine some stories (Catcher in the Rye, for example) written in anything but first person.

The first person CAN be very intimate, but it need not be--for example, the voice in Camus' The Stranger is distant alienated, and a little confused. But whatever the psychic distance, the first-person voice is immediate, as if the narrator is talking directly to you.

3rd limited CAN approach first-person voice in the passages where we have dipped so deeply into the POV character's head that thinker attributions have disappeared (ie where we are no longer encountering 'he thought'). But we seldom stay that deep in the character's head for long.

When writing 3rd-person limited POVs, the voice must change for each character-to-character when we get deep inside their heads. Doing this and yet maintaining the voice of the novel when we back out of their heads can be tricky. it's one of those things no one notices unless it's done badly.

merper

08-16-2006, 02:09 AM

When writing 3rd-person limited POVs, the voice must change for each character-to-character when we get deep inside their heads. Doing this and yet maintaining the voice of the novel when we back out of their heads can be tricky. it's one of those things no one notices unless it's done badly.

If this is the case, then why are 91%(or at least an overwhelming majority) of novels written in 3rd person limited as opposed to 1st person? Is it simply because there's more than 1 character POV involved?

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 02:27 AM

If this is the case, then why are 91%(or at least an overwhelming majority) of novels written in 3rd person limited as opposed to 1st person? Is it simply because there's more than 1 character POV involved?

First person is harder to write well -- you're extremely limited to the narrator's point of view and observation. You're not allowed to describe things your narrator doesn't know about. With 3rd, you can switch between characters to give a "fuller" perspective -- to tell the other side's story, if you will.

Granted, you can still do that by switching 1st person narrators but it's very difficult to do well because the 1st person voices change. It can also be disorienting to the readers because it's like they're listening to two (or three...) people telling them different things with their own biases. With 3rd limited, the narrator is impartial.

Also, like I mentioned before, with 3rd you also create a little distance between the readers and your story. This would help if your protagonist is not very likable. It's hard to get into a book written in 1st person if the narrator is a jerk, for example, but it's easier if it's written in 3rd person -- it allows the readers to step back and realize they're just reading a story.

Bufty

08-16-2006, 02:44 AM

Are you in fact always 'inside' the character's head in 3rd person POV? Aren't you, as the narrator, outside most of the time - be you on their shoulder or at varying distances from them, as you choose?

I'm not stating this, I'm begging the question.

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 03:28 AM

I am not sure if "inside the character's head" is the right term. I think of the narrator as outside of the character, but very CLOSE to the POV character at any given point, kind of like the character's PDA -- recording everything the character sees, feels, etc. and occasionally goes inside his head to record what he knows, thinks and feels as well.

There are subtle things about 3rd person POVs that are hard to tell. For example:

"Mabel ran her fingers through her blond hair."

At first glance it looks perfectly fine for a 3rd limited POV, but then you wonder, why was she aware of her "blond" hair. I mean, if you change that to first person:

"I ran my fingers through my blond hair."

It would sound odd, since normally, I wouldn't say "my blond hair" unless I'm trying to describe my hair to someone.

So, back to the point, even though the narrator is supposed to be outside of the POV character, his job is to consider everything from the character's POV. This is significantly different than an omniscient narrator, who is all knowing and always look at the characters from a distance.

Bufty

08-16-2006, 02:49 PM

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 05:28 PM

Thanks, Maestro. I am slowly getting a tighter grip on this perspective thing. Obviously I might be on the character's shoulder if he's chatting in a cafe or something, but when he dashes out and makes his getaway in a car, I feel like drawing back say to the top of a nearby telegraph pole so I can see the broader picture - the bystander reactions, rubber tyremarks from the skidding start? Then perhaps back into the passenger seat of the car as it careers through the alleyways, and so on. I'm not saying I can do that as smoothly as it should be, but the approach is not off-track, is it?

It sounds like omniscient. If you're doing 3rd limited, the narrator would be sitting on the character's shoulder at all times (while following this POV character).

The 3rd limited POV would not be able to see rubber tire marks, and would only see what he could see from the driver's seat. He might be able to bystander reactions from his vantage point or in the rearview mirror. But he can't know what's going on around him using a telephone pole view.

The narrator is "outside" the character because he's NOT the character, but it doesn't mean he can zoom in and zoom out and watch from a distance, and it doesn't mean he can turn the camera back on the character and see the back of his head. 3rd limited is very similar to 1st person. Imagine a camera sitting on the character's shoulder. The difference is, in 3rd limited, the camera may know the character's feelings and emotions and thoughts.

When you're writing 3rd limited, think of it this way: Can the character see the bystanders? Can the character actually see the skid marks? Can the character see the back of his head from the back seat? If the answer is no, then you can't write it. Now, if the character can see the bystander and the skid marks in the rearview mirror, then it's okay to write about them, but do tell us about the rearview mirror.

Bufty

08-16-2006, 06:32 PM

JanDarby

08-16-2006, 07:07 PM

[In third limited] The narrator is "outside" the character because he's NOT the character

FWIW, I do consider the character in third limited to be the narrator, or at least that there's no narrator besides the character. The only time there's a separate narrator is when it's omniscient.

The effect on the written words is the same, though, either way. I'm just offering this as a different way of thinking about it, a way that works better for me and might work better for other people too.

JD

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 07:09 PM

Thanks, Maestro. That was helpful.

My 3rd Limited illustration was hypothetical, but I can't see why I as narrator need to be restricted to actually sitting on the POV character's shoulder all the time, provided the Point-of-View isn't violated.

The "shoulder" thing is just to illustrate my point. No, it doesn't have to be that way. The idea, though, is that you can't report on things the character can't observe or know. If you say "Jeb drove away. Around a corner, Mary took out a twenty-dollar bill from her purse," you will have to clarify how Jeb knew what Mary was doing and what she was holding. Otherwise, it's a POV violation.

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 07:11 PM

FWIW, I do consider the character in third limited to be the narrator, or at least that there's no narrator besides the character. The only time there's a separate narrator is when it's omniscient.

The effect on the written words is the same, though, either way. I'm just offering this as a different way of thinking about it, a way that works better for me and might work better for other people too.

JD

I know some people think that, and that's fine. To me though, there's always a narrator, even if it's invisible. Someone's telling the story. In first person, it's the character itself -- the "I." In 3rd person, who is really telling the story?

Bufty

08-16-2006, 07:15 PM

That obviously works for you and others, but I must confess I find it a tricky approach to grasp.

If say, a character is thoroughly depressed and walking along totally absorbed in his thoughts, where does the setting description come from?

FWIW, I do consider the character in third limited to be the narrator, or at least that there's no narrator besides the character. The only time there's a separate narrator is when it's omniscient.

The effect on the written words is the same, though, either way. I'm just offering this as a different way of thinking about it, a way that works better for me and might work better for other people too.

JD

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 07:25 PM

Good point, Bufty. In 3rd limited, you wouldn't do:

(By the way, this is not good writing.. just examples)

"The bird chirped happily. The fish swam leisurely. And the flowers looked beautiful. Meanwhile, Dave held his head, with his eyes closed, thought about his horrible life, and cried."

That would be rather ridiculous. Like I said, I see that there's an invisible narrator telling us what's going on from the character's perspective. It's not really Dave, but it's also not an all-knowing narrator. It's very CLOSE to the character. In this case, you would need to go through Dave's senses.

"The birds around Dave kept chirping. Nearby, the sound of the river and smell of the flowers overwhelmed him. He held his head, with his eyes closed, and thought of his horrible life. He cried."

You're never out of his POV, but if you really think about it, the person writing this and telling this story is really not Dave. To me, it's an invisible narrator.

p.s. I am not saying I'm absolutely-write (haha). Just what I've learned and understand about POVs.

Laurie

08-16-2006, 07:44 PM

p.s. I am not saying I'm absolutely-write (haha). Just what I've learned and understand about POVs.

Good keep going. :) It's kinda like Physics, the more times I read it the closer I come to completely grasping it.

Bufty

08-16-2006, 07:54 PM

That's my take on it, too.

But to revert to my 'pulling back' point in 3rd Limited, let's assume the POV character runs out of the hotel. Is it wrong for me to pull back as he blends into the pedestrians, and briefly cover, let's say, the porter who raced out the revolving doors in pursuit, glanced right and left and then booted the nearest trash can or whatever?

Okay, technically it may be a POV violation, but......

...You're never out of his POV, but if you really think about it, the person writing this and telling this story is really not Dave. To me, it's an invisible narrator....

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 09:02 PM

But to revert to my 'pulling back' point in 3rd Limited, let's assume the POV character runs out of the hotel. Is it wrong for me to pull back as he blends into the pedestrians, and briefly cover, let's say, the porter who raced out the revolving doors in pursuit, glanced right and left and then booted the nearest trash can or whatever?

Only if it's observable by the POV character...

If the character is already down the street, and the porter is chasing after him, then yes, it's a POV violation. The POV character would not be able to tell what the porter is doing behind him. If you do that, you're writing omniscient -- you have a "camera" that is at a distance, recording things that the POV character would not know about (what's behind him, for example).

Now, if you say "Dave blended into the crowd and looked back at the hotel. The porter came out through the revolving door, looked left and right, and went the other way. Dave let out a breath and continued down the street..." then it's fine. The key is "he looked back" -- then you're still in his POV... he's observing what's going on with the porter.

But not this: "Dave blended into the crowd and looked back. The porter came out through the revolving door, looked left and right, and went around the corner and searched the dumpster..." This would be POV violation since Dave can't possibly see "around the corner."

Also, in 3rd limited, you can stay with the character running out and blending into the crowd. THEN, in the next scene, you can make the porter the POV character and tell us how he's pursuing the other character (but he will not know what is going on with the other character). That would work as long as you're clear that you've just switched POV.

Bufty

08-16-2006, 09:10 PM

Thanks, Maestro. I take what you are saying on board, but I'm not sure I as a reader would notice a minor 'slip' if it kept the scene running, or was a logical and effective finishing touch.

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 09:15 PM

Readers might not notice the slip, especially if you don't "head-hop." Readers might overlook descriptions/narrative that doesn't stick to the character's POV. For example, if you write about Dave disappearing in the crowd and then the porter is looking through the dumpster, your readers might not think much of it.

However, I do encourage writers to try to keep it together, because you never know how sophisticated your readers might be. And one of these readers might be an agent!

If you find yourself doing a lot of that "pulling out" and "describing the surroundings" instead of sticking to a POV, you might think if you're really more comfortable with an omniscient narrator.

Bufty

08-16-2006, 10:49 PM

I prefer 3rd Limited, and the hypothetical situation I quoted would work in my view, and as you say, because the POV character has 'gone', and for the reader to briefly glimpse what the character has left behind seems perfectly logical to me.

I only use the 'pulling back' when I deliberately wish to take a more 'distant' perspective on a scene, but still in the same POV. It's not used in mid-scene to say, become airborne and introduce scenic info beyond X's awareness.

Readers might not notice the slip, especially if you don't "head-hop." Readers might overlook descriptions/narrative that doesn't stick to the character's POV. For example, if you write about Dave disappearing in the crowd and then the porter is looking through the dumpster, your readers might not think much of it.

However, I do encourage writers to try to keep it together, because you never know how sophisticated your readers might be. And one of these readers might be an agent!

If you find yourself doing a lot of that "pulling out" and "describing the surroundings" instead of sticking to a POV, you might think if you're really more comfortable with an omniscient narrator.

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 10:57 PM

I prefer 3rd Limited, and the hypothetical situation I quoted would work in my view, and as you say, because the POV character has 'gone', and for the reader to briefly glimpse what the character has left behind seems perfectly logical to me.

Again, if the POV character knows about what he's left behind, that's fine:

"Dave panicked and ran out of the hotel. The baby was still crying in the lobby."

Strictly speaking, the second sentence is a wrong POV, but it's so subtle and minor that most readers would probably not notice. They would assume that Dave knew about the baby, even though he's already outside the hotel. However, consider the following:

"Dave ran out of the hotel. The porter picked up the phone and called the police."

That's omniscient! Dave could not possibly know what the porter was doing back in the hotel. There is a CLEAR POV shift -- the second sentence is the porter's POV.

So, the bottom line is, when you construct a 3rd limited narrative, you must think from your character's POV and see what exactly he does and doesn't know.

Bufty

08-16-2006, 11:08 PM

The examples you are quoting are not exactly the same as the one I showed, Maestro. It's the narrator's perspective I'm on, even though it's Dave's POV.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

My hypothetical example had me as the narrator witnessing - from my chosen position in front of and above the hotel entrance - Dave's exit from the hotel. He disappears into the crowd. I as narrator stay exactly where I am, and out pops the porter. I see him glance left, glance right, then boot the trash can. End. (Porter is obviously frustrated. Assumption - Dave's up to no good. And who knows, we may be back to that hotel again later. Totally hypothetical of course.)

maestrowork

08-16-2006, 11:40 PM

That's not 3rd limited; that's my understanding. That would be either omniscient or 3rd objective/camera. You see, your narrator maintains a distance, and he observes everything at that vantage point, and it's not limited to the character Dave.

Actually, why don't you post a real passage from your WIP and I can see if I can explain myself better using a real example. :)

Bufty

08-16-2006, 11:46 PM

Maestro - you're explaining yourself perfectly and I understand what you're saying.

I don't have a sample to show you, but 3rd objective/camera for that little snippet? Okay, I'll settle for that, and stick with 3rd limited elsewhere. :) :flag:

That's not 3rd limited; that's my understanding. That would be either omniscient or 3rd objective/camera.

Actually, why don't you post a real passage from your WIP and I can see if I can explain myself better using a real example. :)

maestrowork

08-17-2006, 12:01 AM

You could always insert a line break and switch to the porter's POV briefly, then insert another line break and follow Dave again. Although a sophisticated reader might still ask, "Why did we switch to the porter for a sec? I thought we were following Dave..." But as far as POVs are concerned, that's fine, and most readers will allow that kind of POV switching. Then in rewrites, you may decide that the porter bit is totally unnecessary and cut that out, leaving you with:

Dave ran out of the hotel and disappeared into the crowd. Then blocks later, he slowed down and looked back. Nobody was following him. He must have lost the porter already.

OK, so you didn't get to show the porter's side of the story, but in this case, it's not really important since Dave is the important POV character -- who really cares if the porter is frustrated? The important thing is that your POV character gets away! You see what I mean?

Bufty

08-17-2006, 12:18 AM

Thanks, Maestro. Yes, I do see what you mean, and if that's what I want to convey, it's fine.

NeuroFizz

08-17-2006, 12:21 AM

when he dashes out and makes his getaway in a car, I feel like drawing back say to the top of a nearby telegraph pole so I can see the broader picture - the bystander reactions, rubber tyremarks from the skidding start? Then perhaps back into the passenger seat of the car as it careers through the alleyways, and so on. I'm not saying I can do that as smoothly as it should be, but the approach is not off-track, is it?

In 3rd limited, is it everything viewed from either inside the POV character's head or from any given distance away from that character, but related through my narrator perception of what's happening? I'm sure JAR will say this far clearer than I.
Sorry to jump in so late on this, but there are tricks to keep this up close to the POV character and still get that "far-away" feel of what's happening. The character can hear the screech of the tires, smell the burnt rubber, and feel and vibration (involving several senses). He/she could notice a hitch in his/her foot on the gas pedal as a quick memory flashes on how he/she got in trouble for laying down thirty feet of solid black stripes like this during his/her teen years. And he/she can see the startle of a bystander in the rearview mirror as the acrid smoke from the spinning tires surround the individual on the sidewalk. This can give a picture of what is happening outside the car, but with the viewpoint still up close, on the POV character's shoulder.

blacbird

08-17-2006, 12:49 AM

You don't need to be constantly saying "He saw xxxxx" or "She heard yyyy". If your POV is clearly established as the eyes and ears and senses of a certain character, you can simply relate things the character would naturally have noticed. Instead of "He heard the dog bark next door," you can simplify "The dog barked next door." The reader will accept this as within the POV sphere of your character. This principle works equally well with first-person narration, and helps reduce the overuse of "I--" in every sentence.

What you can't do, of course, is say something like "At the moment the dog barked next door, three gunmen broke in to rob the bank across town."

caw.

JanDarby

08-17-2006, 01:45 AM

If say, a character is thoroughly depressed and walking along totally absorbed in his thoughts, where does the setting description come from?

It still has to come from the depressed character if you're in third person limited. The setting description would be limited to what he notices, or else you're breaking third-limited POV. If the character doesn't notice it, then it can't be reported.

So, it'd be fine for him to be walking along, and he semi-trips on the sidewalk, so he's going to notice the chips and unneveness in the sidewalk, and he's going to think, "it figures. His life is so bad he can't even live where there's nice sidewalks." He might notice that the day was foggy, which matches his mood. Or he might even notice that the day was bright and sunny, but in the context of how everyone else is happy on a day like this but his own life is horrible.

Or whatever. But if he doesn't notice the setting, then it shouldn't be in the narrative. Description should always (or at least, as was suggested, always after an early wide-camera angle the leads into the narrower focus at the very beginning of the story) be limited to what the character would notice and comment on, or else it's authorial intrusion or a lapse into omniscient.

If the character is depressed (a hard POV to write from, generally, but just to continue with that example), he's not going to notice the bright, happy colors around him, even if they're there. He's going to notice things that reinforce or deepen his depression. Like the broken handle on the door and the cobwebs in the corner. Or whatever. But it's going to be filtered through his depression. It's not objective. That would be a version of third omniscient.

My hypothetical example had me as the narrator witnessing - from my chosen position in front of and above the hotel entrance - Dave's exit from the hotel. He disappears into the crowd.

As Maestro said, that's omniscient, not third limited.

Also consider this: where's the conflict/tension in reporting it from some random person's POV of an objective camera? How does that affect the story? What matters isn't so much what is done, physically, but the impact it has on the protagonist, antagonist and any important secondary character in the scene.

With someone running off-scene, what's important isn't that he is unseen by some camera, but that he's pursuing his goal, merging with the crowd in the hopes of becoming invisible, or simply pursuing his goal to catch the train or the bad guy or whatever, not even caring that he's becoming invisible.

It's all about the effect of an action on the characters, not the objective, quantifiable facts.

JD

maestrowork

08-17-2006, 02:42 AM

Also consider this: where's the conflict/tension in reporting it from some random person's POV of an objective camera? How does that affect the story? What matters isn't so much what is done, physically, but the impact it has on the protagonist, antagonist and any important secondary character in the scene.

Right. Good point. In essence, why do we care? If we're following the protagonist and see how he escapes, etc., why should we care if the minor/extra character, the porter, is frustrated or not? In movies, sometimes we see that but it's because movie is told with an omniscient camera. In 3rd limited, you will have to figure out whose conflict it is, and what is the impact on this POV character. So in this case, the porter is not important -- I don't even care if he gets hit by a bus or falls off a cliff; I want to see what is happening to the protagonist and if he could get away.

It brings us to another point: suspense. If we show that the protagonist escapes from the hotel, and then the porter loses him, there's no suspense. We lose the tension. The scene suddenly falls flat. We know what's going on -- oh, the protagonist gets away. However, if we stay with the protagonist's POV, then the protagonist doesn't know if he can escape, and we (the readers) don't know either. That creates suspense, thus conflict or tension! That's why 3rd limited can be so powerful: the suspense is killing me!

Bufty

08-17-2006, 02:49 AM

Helpful replies, folks, for which I thank you. Imaginary Dave and the porter have served their purpose.

Patricia

08-17-2006, 08:46 PM

Thanks for all the Q&A's everyone. I've learned a lot. :) I better understand my own style now.

If it's vital to advance the plot, I do use line breaks for POV switch to important and strong secondary characters.

UrsusMinor

08-17-2006, 09:41 PM

There are two different things being slightly mixed here. There is POV and there is psychic distance.

Third-person is a POV. There is a continuum of psychic distances between a totally subjective 3rd-person POV (called 3rd limited here) and a totally objective 3rd-person POV, and most good writers ease in closer and then move farther away, and do this smoothly enough that no one notices the transitions.

Gardner gives the following examples of psychic distance in third-person, traveling from objective to subjective. Try each as a first line of a story or chapter:

1. It was the winter of the year 1853. A large man stepped out of a doorway.
2. Henry J. Warburton had never much cared for snowstorms.
3. Henry hated snowstorms.
4. God how he hated these damn snowstorms.
5. Snow. Under your collar, down inside your shoes, freezing and plugging up your miserable soul...

Gardner goes on to say:

"In good fiction, shifts in psychic distance are carefully controlled. At the beginning of the story, in the usual case, we find the writer using either long or medium shots. He moves in for scenes of high intensity, draws back for transitions, moves in still closer for the story's climax...Variations of all kinds are possible, and the subtle writer is likely to use psychic distance, like any other fictional device, to get odd new effects."

If you have never thought hard about this topic before, it is useful to read a good third-person novel and watch the shifts in psychic distance. Very seldom will you find one where the whole book is presented from "in close" (though you will find short stories like this); it tends to get quite claustrophobic.

UrsusMinor

08-17-2006, 09:46 PM

Maestro mentions that this is difficult, as it requires very different voices for each POV. True, but it can be quite effective.

One of the tour-de-force classics is Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying," which uses 15 different first-person POV characters. Worth a look.

There are also mixed first and third, such as Joan Didion's "Play it As it Lays," and Diana Wagman's "Bump (the latter has one first-person POV narrator and four third-person POVs). Both books work just fine, but took careful thought and a lot of craft.