Weird POV Question: Should you be "inside" a character's head the same amount throughout the story?

That excerpt is not really going deep into your POV character's head.

Initially, it's the narrator (you) telling me what Smith could or couldn't do.

To be in Smith's head you have to fade into the background and show me his actions and reactions as he watches the guys get closer.

Not perfect, but...

The two cops walked closer. Smith slid lower in his seat, the approaching officers just visible through the lower part of the windscreen. Why'd they picked his truck? What the heck did they expect to find? The body was long gone. Nothing in the bed except tools and junk. The officers paid little attention to the misted up windows and headed round the tail. Smith slid even lower.

Click to expand...

Simple answer is that in Third person POV we are always inside the guys head and go as far into the guy's head at any time as far we consider necessary to give the reader the illusion he is experiencing what the POV guy is experiencing. We- the narrator- try and stay out of the picture.

There's a necessary distance in limited that allows for what you're describing. A character's focus will shift, and so will their attention, so there's going to be moments of introspection and moments where they might even be slightly invisible, in the sense of you don't really know what they're thinking.

It's up to you how you handle that, but I tend to think there is rarely such a thing as too much internal world.

Harlequin said:

It's up to you how you handle that, but I tend to think there is rarely such a thing as too much internal world.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I've seen plenty of fiction laden with excessive "internal world" at the expense of narrating external events.

caw

Hrm. Perhaps we use a different definition of internal world, I don't know. Would you class Ulysses/Dalloway or books of that nature as having excessive internal world, for example? (Or failing that, throw examples at me so I can gauge your statement.)

There's something called narrative distance, and it's relevant in every pov. With first, the story is being narrated directly by the character, in their own words, but the "camera" can still be more immediate (as if it's running a couple of seconds after the action) or more retrospective, as if the story is being told years after it happened. It's harder to flit between these distances with first, though it's possible for a retrospective narrative to have segments which feel more immediate. Most of the ones I've read do, in fact.

With limited third, you have even more freedom with narrative depth, imo. There's something called "deep third," which feels a lot like an immediate first person without the "I" and "me" pronouns. The narrative is fed as if it comes directly from the pov character's head. The external narrator is, in essence, completely invisible, and the narrative voice is that of the pov character. It's rare to see a novel-length work that keeps this narrative depth throughout, however. More often the narrative camera moves around a bit, never breaking the limited third (where you can't show anything that the pov character is unaware of or comment on it from without), but the narrative viewpoint will tend to be most deeply rooted in the voice and immediate perceptions of the pov character during scenes when the emotional stakes are high or the action is happening quickly, and a little more detached during "slower" scenes, or when there's a need for narrative summary (aka "telling" instead of "showing.")

With omniscient third person, of course, the narrator is completely external, looking down on the story from without, and they can share anything that is happening, regardless of whether the main character (or any character) is aware of it or not. Omniscient narratives do often do focus on only one character in a scene, and they can share that person's thoughts and feelings at will, but the voice is completely separate from that of the character, and they can offer information or opinions that the character wouldn't be thinking at the time (such as, Jill thought her brother was being petty, because she didn't understand that he...) You can't do the latter in limited third viewpoint of any narrative depth.

There is also a technique (or style of omniscient) where chapters or scenes start in a viewpoint that feels very external, but then it zooms into something that feels more like limited third throughout. But since the external narrator has been established, the narrator can re-assert themselves later if needed. This is very challenging to do well, but it's fairly popular in SF.

The writer creates these effects by their use of language in the narrative.

These articles are useful in explaining techniques related to narrative viewpoint, I think.

http://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/10311

http://talktoyouniverse.blogspot.com/2011/11/checklist-for-deep-pov-in-1st-or-3rd.html

gbhike said:

There's lots of stuff like that later in the book. But in the beginning, when the stakes aren't *quite* as high, it doesn't seem as necessary to be getting inside his head and feeling that same tension at all times, you know? Sure, there are bits and pieces of it. But so long as we're clearly with the same viewpoint character at all times, and we already know that we can see inside his head, is it OK to get inside his head a bit more and more as the story goes on, or should it be a consistent amount throughout?

Click to expand...

If you're writing in third-limited, you are always going to be in his head, giving his perspective on what he experiences. That doesn't mean you'll write every thought or observation that crosses his mind; you'll choose the ones that are relevant and that illuminate him and his situation. There should be introspective moments throughout the novel. If you reserve only moments of high tension to reveal his thoughts (or mostly), you are effectively shutting the reader out of his thoughts at other times. I can't see what the point of that would be.

In the sample you quoted, rather than bringing the reader in close, it's actually holding the reader at arm's length from his thoughts. You might benefit from posting a chapter in Share Your Work once you've attained the required 50 posts here.

Harlequin said:

Hrm. Perhaps we use a different definition of internal world, I don't know. Would you class Ulysses/Dalloway or books of that nature as having excessive internal world, for example? (Or failing that, throw examples at me so I can gauge your statement.)

Click to expand...

I was considering those things I've critiqued in manuscript more than published works. Narratives that bog down in oceans of characters thinking, rather than doing or observing stuff.

caw

Hrm. I would argue that relating thoughts is not necessarily the same as showing internal world; and/or that lack of progression is perhaps also separate. A ms could have lots of action and no reflection, but still fail to progress.

Harlequin said:

A ms could have lots of action and no reflection, but still fail to progress.

Click to expand...

That wasn't exactly what I meant, either. I've seen plenty of those, too. A just think there needs to be a balance, organic the story itself (not a formula). You mentioned Dalloway, which I've read; I've also read, and had to write an undergrad paper on, To the Lighthouse. Enjoyed and admire both. There, the "balance" is still present, though. Those two novels work because Woolf was sensitive to what the stories required.

We get a lot of threads here about "How do I write thoughts?" and the like, and I'm always a little suspicious about the amount of character thinking that is going on in such stories, because I've seen excessive excess in that department.

caw

There are different techniques for showing internal thoughts. Some feel more distant than others, though.

For instance: Sarah forced herself to smile, even though she thought Tom was completely missing the point, the way he usually did.

or: Sarah forced herself to smile even as she thought, Tom is completely missing the point, the way he usually does.

or: Sarah forced herself to smile. Tom just doesn't get it. As always.

or: Sarah forced herself to smile. Tom just didn't get it. As always.

Unless you're shooting for stream of consciousness, you probably don't want to share every single little thought that crosses your character's mind, any more than you would normally write a novel-length work (short stories can be different, of course, as they typically have time frames that run from minutes to a couple of days at most) that shows every moment of a character's time from the story's beginning to end. You get to decide when sharing the character's thoughts will be important to the story in some way, just as you have to decide which scenes move a story forward.

Do the character thoughts you want to show drive the story forward? Does sharing them allow the reader to understand the conflict in the story and to anticipate what might happen later in the story and understand the why and how of things the character does and the choices they make eventually? There are few things more frustrating than a story where the character does things that aren't foreshadowed in any way via their internal conflict or attitudes. It leaves the reader shaking their head because it doesn't make sense that the character would do what they did.

Or are you filling pages with a character contemplating what they had for breakfast thinking about how cute kittens are that they have to cry when they see one (even this could be important if the character's love for kittens affects their later behavior in a story-worthy way--Chekhov's kitten)? This kind of thing will slow a story to a crawl if they are used injudiciously. The pace of a novel shouldn't generally be breakneck the whole way through, but it shouldn't be slow as molasses either.

It's not unlike deciding when to write something as a scene versus relying on narrative summary that lets the reader know where and when the viewpoint character is in the story without showing every little thing that happened since the end of the last scene.

Read some books written in different narrative viewpoints, including omniscient third and first person, to see the ways character thoughts can be handled.

I just rediscovered a link to an article I read a while ago. It discusses narrative depth and different ways a narrator can relate a story and bring a reader inside a character's head. I don't know if it will help the OP answer any of their questions, but I found it useful in my own writing.

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/psychic-distance-what-it-is-and-how-to-use-it.html

Roxxsmom said:

or: Sarah forced herself to smile. Tom just didn't get it. As always.

Click to expand...

The name I learned for this technique (see also Bufty's post) is "free indirect discourse," and I think it's great for situations like this. You're still in third-person past, but you're channeling the voice and mood of the POV character. Most readers understand this intuitively, even though there's no "Sarah thought..." Of course, that depends on your staying firmly in the POV of your focal character. If the narrative ever leaves Sarah's POV in the chapter/section, the reader may think YOU (narrator) are the one saying Tom doesn't get it.

Been thinking a lot about POV this week, because I skimmed a couple books that had serious problems with it. First came a small-press book that was virtually all internal life, no action, and would sometimes veer from third person into internal monologue with no warning. Yes, it was emulating Joyce and Woolf (whom I love), but they set a high bar. They also knew when to move things along.

Next I read a self-pub book that was well-paced and smoothly written on the sentence level, but it would veer from first person to omniscient third within chapters and occasionally within paragraphs. I once wrote a ms. that alternated first- and third-person chapters, so I get why it's tempting to switch (best of both worlds!), but writers need betas who will be tough and say, "Ya know, if you want everybody's POV, you're probably going to have to sacrifice the intimacy of first person, or find ways to recapture that intimacy in third."

Doing something similar here. I’ve noticed that a lot of time an individual item can be stated either way. Written as first person { I looked around and didn’t see her. } or third person { He looked around and didn’t see her. }. My preliminary conclusion is to use 3rd unless it shows what he is specifically thinking and talking with his inner voice.

Now, suppose it seemed odd that there was lots of inner-voice stuff in one chapter and none in earlier chapters. I could hoist up some of the statements to first person. But, rather than just have some random statements that could work either way be in first, I would also add to it and show some thoughts at that point.

Ahh, I'm glad to have a name for the technique. It's my favorite way to show internal dialogue.

I've read a MS that used 1st, 2nd, 3rd distant, 3rd close, and omni. It mostly worked but I'm not sure it was a good choice overall.