POV change and style change

TSJohnson · Dec 10, 2017

How annoyed are you when style changes with POV? Is it a matter of degree or not?

I'm in the last cycle of my revision before I start putting my MS forward, and this is something I have yet to resolve. I've been writing 3rd person limited POV with varying narrative distance from the characters. One of the characters is very distant, one is quite deep, and the rest in between (but distinct). I have a few beta readers working on this, but I wanted to get some more opinions from this forum. Have you ever read novels where this happens, and if so, do you find it annoying or does it actually help you reorient to the new viewpoint? The second option I have been is to write them all in the same narrative depth. In this case a flexible distance which is based on rhythm/pacing/scene. Well, I actually have the MS mostly ready in this style as well and it seems to work as well, but I am quite fond of having really distinct styles for POVs.

Another thing I do with POV changes is a slight change in the complexity of grammar, word choice and so on. I'm not that worried about these changes, as they are quite common and well accepted (at least in SFF, which I write). Still, if you have a differing opinion (or the same) it would be nice to hear.

indianroads · Dec 10, 2017

When you reach 50 posts (I think that's the number) you can post in the 'show your work' forum, and can get better feedback there.

Without seeing your actual writing I can't really tell much. If the POV changes are clear, it may be fine - and the style change may show a different mental process of the new character, which could be a good thing.

Roxxsmom · Dec 10, 2017

Some writers vary narrative voice with viewpoint more than others. I enjoy it if the style of the narrative is congruent with the character's personality and voice. I think it's more expected in multiple first person than in multiple limited third, but I enjoy it when it's done well in the latter case too. It can be subtle or a bit more blatant. One of the more extreme examples I can think of is in Abercrombie's First Law trilogy where the narrative for each of the six pov characters has a unique voice, style and flow. I liked that about it, though some people I know who read it were puzzled by it. I think a lot of people are used to omniscient or a more distant style of limited third, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to write "deeper."

I don't know about the narrative depth shifting between character povs. Unless there's something about their personalities that drives this (if one character is a lot more formal and aloof, for instance), it might feel a bit odd. But it's hard to say without seeing it in action.

Victor Douglas · Dec 10, 2017

I'm a little confused by the context of your question. Do you currently change the POV character in your work or not? If so, then I'm not sure what you mean by "narrative depth". If you write a scene from a particular character's POV, then how can you vary the "depth"? What is it exactly that you are asking?

I have read works which used different character POV's successfully. There are many works that begin chapter 1 (or perhaps the "Prologue") with one character, then switch to another for the rest of the work (Game of Thrones, for example). Other works switch character POV's throughout the story (I've done that myself). It aligns well with the thriller genre, helping build suspense by allowing the reader to follow the protag and antag along as they converge toward one another in the climax. It can also be a useful tool in terms of character development in character driven stories. But it isn't easy to write--creating an easily identified unique voice for each character is critical.

TSJohnson · Dec 10, 2017

Victor Douglas said:
I'm a little confused by the context of your question. Do you currently change the POV character in your work or not? If so, then I'm not sure what you mean by "narrative depth". If you write a scene from a particular character's POV, then how can you vary the "depth"? What is it exactly that you are asking?

Sorry I was a bit unclear in my original post. It lacked the word "multiple" with regards to the POV characters.

With narrative depth I mean the level which I go into the POV character's thoughts. So I have a character who is very introspective and an introvert. He studies the world at a different depth than another character I have, who doesn't actually think that much about "deep" questions, but mainly reacts to circmstance. He would be an extrovert character and his narration more descriptive. So if we have a situation where these two characters meet, the first one would be narrated like so:
"Pete grabbed the hand and squeezed. Was he doing it too soft? His father had always told that a firm handshake was what made a man, but that it shouldn't be too much either, or they would think you are trying to get on their nerve. This pressure was right."
The second one would be: "John grabbed the hand and gave it a firm shake. He could feel Pete had rough hands."

Right, that's a bit crappy as far as examples go, but I hope you get the point. Some characters are by nature more introspective and I think narrative depth is a good illustrator of that. Introspection is of course possible to describe without changing depth much, as one can put introspection in that is described from a lower depth. As an example, in the first if you replace the "Was it too soft?" with "Pete thought about the strength of his grip." and remove the last sentence, you get the same depth, but more introspection.

By varying the depth inside one character's POV, I use it more like a pacing tool. For example I would detach quite far when there is normal stuff going on.
"Povius Characterinus shook the man's hand and smiled politely. He thought of trying to pronounce his name, but he wasn't sure if he had caught it right. They began to walk around the arena, Povius Characterinus marvelling the deep etching as they talked away."
In a battle scene the narration goes a bit more personal, or deeper. "Povius Characterinus dodged the strike and rolled to the left on the sandy arena. Don't think, move. His hand filled, and next it was empty, Baddius wiping his eyes. Now, strike! One, two. He grabbed the dagger from his belt and sunk it to the stunned man's neck. Warm liquid poured over his hand as he yanked it out. Baddius lay dead on the ground, jerking. He spat on him. That was easy."

Again, apologies for the poor prose and flow, I hope you get the idea.

One of the more extreme examples I can think of is in Abercrombie's First Law trilogy where the narrative for each of the six pov characters has a unique voice, style and flow. I liked that about it, though some people I know who read it were puzzled by it. I think a lot of people are used to omniscient or a more distant style of limited third, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to write "deeper."

I don't know about the narrative depth shifting between character povs. Unless there's something about their personalities that drives this (if one character is a lot more formal and aloof, for instance), it might feel a bit odd. But it's hard to say without seeing it in action.

Looking at your post and trying to read between the lines, a deep 3rd person narrative is likely to throw some readers off - as it is a style not often used. I think I'm mainly concerned that it might come of as gimmicky, which is something I really hate in literature. Even if I find a basis for the narrative depth shift by character, it might become a nuisance that takes away from the story and ends up confusing rather than helping - which was my original goal. And as it is my first novel, I'm a bit cautious to go too far with my style.

Writing these thoughts down and reading your replies have actually been really helpful (even if there might not seem to be a great narrative arc of realization here). I think I'm gonna keep the narrative depth same between the characters povs, but just alter other parts of the style to give, like Victor Douglas so well put it, a unique voice to each character.

mpack · Dec 10, 2017

TSJohnson said:
How annoyed are you when style changes with POV? Is it a matter of degree or not?

It doesn't bother me at all. On the contrary, I'd rather the style match the character. Is there a particular negative reaction you're concerned about? Personally, I hope it's accepted, as it's how I write multi-PoV.

Another thing I do with POV changes is a slight change in the complexity of grammar, word choice and so on. I'm not that worried about these changes, as they are quite common and well accepted (at least in SFF, which I write). Still, if you have a differing opinion (or the same) it would be nice to hear.

This is a common technique, almost to the point of being the norm, at least in some subgenres.

TSJohnson · Dec 12, 2017

mpack said:
It doesn't bother me at all. On the contrary, I'd rather the style match the character. Is there a particular negative reaction you're concerned about? Personally, I hope it's accepted, as it's how I write multi-PoV.

I'm concerned about reader detachment and/or annoyance, and at the same time not being able to have the reader do the necessary "attitude" switch when they start a new chapter on another POV. I think.

Curlz · Dec 12, 2017

TSJohnson said:
Have you ever read novels where this happens, and if so, do you find it annoying or does it actually help you reorient to the new viewpoint? The second option I have been is to write them all in the same narrative depth.

If the new POV is a new character, then of course it's better they differ somehow from the one in the previous chapter. Getting in the habit of "reorienting" comes with reading, I see no ground for complaining here.
Changes in the depth of the POV are a different matter though. POV is a tricky thing to get right. Getting several "depths" of POV together may be even trickier to get right. It may turn out that one voice would sound too personal and the other too distant and so the second character may not appear to be as well fleshed out as the first. If you manage to get it done properly, I don't have any gripes with such an approach. :e2cat:

Roxxsmom · Dec 21, 2017

TSJohnson said:
Sorry I was a bit unclear in my original post. It lacked the word "multiple" with regards to the POV characters.

With narrative depth I mean the level which I go into the POV character's thoughts. So I have a character who is very introspective and an introvert. He studies the world at a different depth than another character I have, who doesn't actually think that much about "deep" questions, but mainly reacts to circmstance. He would be an extrovert character and his narration more descriptive. So if we have a situation where these two characters meet, the first one would be narrated like so:
"Pete grabbed the hand and squeezed. Was he doing it too soft? His father had always told that a firm handshake was what made a man, but that it shouldn't be too much either, or they would think you are trying to get on their nerve. This pressure was right."
The second one would be: "John grabbed the hand and gave it a firm shake. He could feel Pete had rough hands."

I think those kinds of differences are fine, even necessary, if you are writing a story with more than one viewpoint character. Different people notice and think and feel different things in similar situations.

Narrative depth is another concept, though. You can reflect things about a character's internal state and thoughts in any narrative depth with limited third (and even in omniscient third), but the effect will differ.

Using words like "he could feel that Pete had rough hands" is one way of increasing narrative distance within subjective viewpoint. If you wanted to deepen the narrative without changing either character's personalities would be to write something like:

Pete grabbed the hand and squeezed. Was he doing it too soft? Father always said a firm handshake made the man, but it shouldn't be too much either. They'd think you're trying to get on their nerves. This pressure was right.

and for number 2. you could omit the filter word (noticed) and simply write the observation. As long as you've already established that we're in John's viewpoint, the reader should know that this is what he realizes it. The reason the depth is a bit greater this way is it de-emphasizes the so-called middle man and makes the pov character's perceptions more direct.

John grabbed Pete's hand and gave it a firm shake. Man, the dude had rough hands. Like sandpaper.

Eliminating filter words isn't the only way to increase narrative depth (or decrease narrative distance). This is a link to a couple of great blogs or articles by an author who often writes in very deep narrative viewpoints, and she has a number of techniques she discusses.

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

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

Note that writing at a closer distance isn't necessarily "better." It's a matter of knowing the effect you are trying to achieve.

Also note that narrative depth can vary at different points in the same story, even within a given pov. Some writers will start a scene some what shallowly, to establish a context (in terms of time and place and to review anything that has happened since the last scene from this viewpoint), but they will go deeper once the set up is established.

Metruis · Dec 22, 2017

I enjoy this style of limited third very much, as it gives me a greater sense of the picture of who the character is when done well. One of my favorite fantasy series does this to great effect, and I would far rather deeper third perspectives. I tend to write deep first, but I'm absolutely delighted when novels do clever deep third, especially when used for descriptive language skewed from the perspective of the character and their experiences. "Judgemental adjectives", as one of the articles linked above refers to them. The difference this can create between brains/narrative voices is incredibly revealing about a person's experience.

BethS · Dec 22, 2017

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

That's the best practical explanation of how to write in deep POV I've come across.

indianroads · Dec 22, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
[...]

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

[...]

Good article. Bookmarked it now.

MAS · Dec 22, 2017

If I understand your question correctly, then I'm not sure "depth" is what I'd call it. I gather that you are still showing the same depth of thought in all of your characters, but that some characters are deeper than others. If that's correct, then I think what you're doing works, and in fact that's what you have to do. You'll want the close third narrative to reflect the relevant character's outlook. If you are a romance reader, you might be familiar with Loretta Chase's Mr. Impossible which has alternating scenes in close third, mainly between H/h who are very, very different in outlook and personality, but also with some POV from also-very-different minor characters thrown in. All the POV narratives are different in worldview, depth of character, and diction, and it works beautifully.

Harlequin · Dec 22, 2017

The style should match the character.

Would my academic characters use a word like "deleterious"?* Probably, so it's okay in the narrative (if needed). Would the uneducated slave girl? Probably not, so it needs a simpler synonym or phrase.

*Just an example.

Roxxsmom · Dec 22, 2017

Harlequin said:
The style should match the character.

Would my academic characters use a word like "deleterious"?* Probably, so it's okay in the narrative (if needed). Would the uneducated slave girl? Probably not, so it needs a simpler synonym or phrase.

*Just an example.

Another thing that some authors miss in limited third (or even first) is that when a person hears others speaking in an unfamiliar language, or hears a new (and complex) word they don't know, they probably won't hear it accurately inside their own heads.

So if a child (or adult with a less sophisticated vocabulary) hears a word they don't know used by someone else for the first time, their perspective may be something like:

Mommy and Daddy were yelling again. They got louder and louder. Susie ducked down between her bed and the wall and covered her ears, but she could still hear them. Then Mommy screamed something about wanting a "vorce." Daddy got quiet then. So quiet Susie's ears were ringing.

"Fine," he said at last. "But you're not taking Susie away from me." Which made no sense. Why would Mommy take her away?

Of course their personality and situation will influence how they respond to an unfamiliar word as well. Does it annoy them? I've run across people who really do get angry when someone uses a "big" word. Others will make fun of someone for doing so. I knew a gal once who would condescendingly say, "Normal people don't know what that word means," without missing a beat. It takes some chutzpah to pull off condescension when you are the one who doesn't know something.

Do they attempt to understand it via contextualizing, and if so will the interpretation be correct or not? I loved that bit in one of the Ramona books about her interpretation of the "Star Spangled Banner," where she thought they were singing about something called a "dawnzar." Since it gave off "lee light," she assumed it was a song about a lamp. I had a similar experience the first time I heard the pledge of allegiance and assumed we were supposed to be "invisible" under God.

Some people might go straight for a dictionary, if such is available to them (and assuming they are literate, which may not be the case for very young kids or for people in some times and places). Others might ask what the word means right off. Others may mentally gloss it over and forget all about it.

This is the fun part, imo, about characterization. And word understanding and usage is just one aspect of it.

TSJohnson · Dec 22, 2017

MAS said:
If I understand your question correctly, then I'm not sure "depth" is what I'd call it. I gather that you are still showing the same depth of thought in all of your characters, but that some characters are deeper than others.

I wouldn't really say that. Depth is definitely what it is in my case. My examples were quite short, so they might've not been very representative of the difference of style. If you see the link Roxxsmom posted it maybe gives you a better idea of how I was conveying the depth. So one character I had went into direct thought, for example, at almost every scene, where others never did. But I ended up not choosing to do that because it was a bit confusing and made the other characters seem cold and calculating (which was not my intention at all). I ended up using variable depth in POV for each of my characters but giving them personality through lesser style changes (vocabulary, word choice, what they sense, how they express their feelings in their thoughts etc.)

Roxxsmom said:
Another thing that some authors miss in limited third (or even first) is that when a person hears others speaking in an unfamiliar language, or hears a new (and complex) word they don't know, they probably won't hear it accurately inside their own heads.

Ah, this! I fought long and hard over this on my last rewrite. I decided to not go into this too much, because there is a potential crisis in it for my setting - my novel should've had different languages, but I cut corners because it would've made writing the novel too difficult. Or I'd have to include technology mumbo to solve the issue which I didn't want to do. In the same vein they should have at least very very different dialects, but I smoothed the differences out on purpose. I decided to avoid heavy slang, so i wouldn't have to go deeper into word-explaining to break from the general flow of the story (with nothing really added). Mine is a scifi novel so I can do what I want, but in other fiction this kind of corner cutting is a bit harder to pull I suppose.

POV change and style change

TSJohnson

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

Victor Douglas

Things Will Change

TSJohnson

mpack

Swooping is bad.

TSJohnson

Curlz

cutsie-pie

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

Metruis

Not All Those Who Wander Are Lost

BethS

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.

MAS

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

TSJohnson