POV question

I am writing a novel in a limited third person POV, that changes from section to section, so that the reader may experience the internal dialogue of one particular character at a time. When a friend of mine who is a rhetoric professor read it, he had issue with a few word choices, that he felt should not belong to the narrator.

For instance, when one of the lead characters (who is a racist) encounters people of southern European heritage, that section of the narrative refers to them as hunkies, or bohunks. Now should such deragatory terms only be used when the character is clearly thinking about them (seperated from the rest of the text by italics), or is it alright to use the term throughout that section?

I hope this question makes sense.

In general (of course, rules can be bent) your narrator stays constant throughout the section. 3rd limited only means the narrator can go into the mind of one person at a time, but the narrator is separate from the character. If section one is Luke Skywalker's POV and section two is Darth Vader's, the narrator's voice should stay the same.

That means, if the narrator is neutral, he should not use the racist words when he's reporting on events (actions, dialogue, etc.)

Therefore, the racist terms and remarks should be used only when the narrator is reporting on what the character is thinking, or filtering through the character's POV. Thoughts are easily handled and they're clear, but filtering might be a little convoluted if you don't express it clearly -- that is, if the readers don't know if it's the character talking or the narrator describing.

e.g.

What a bohunk, he thought as he greeted Mr. Trovsky. <-- thought/internal monologue

He greeted Mr. Trovsky with a faked smile. To him, Mr. Trovsky was the biggest bohunk this side of the ghetto. <-- filtered

He greeted Mr. Trovsky with a faked smile. Mr. Trovsky was the ugliest guy this side of the ghetto. <-- narrator

In contrast, I prefer to write deep POV - where it might as well be first-person and could be if you simply changed the pronouns. So you'd be likely to find in the section for that character something like:

Damn bohunk. He faked a smile, tried not to breathe. Stinks, too. Like old socks.

When you're doing close 3rd person, the narrator *is* the character's thoughts. There's no reason to say "he thought" or "he mused" or "he contemplated" - the running narration is what the character thinks or sees.

Just an alternate way of dealing with it.

I don't use neutral narrators, and the narration is all from the POV character's point of view, and refelcts the way he or she feels about things.

It all depends on how you write and from which perspective you use POV narration.

It'll work well if you have only one POV character -- it's almost like a 1st person narration. But if you have multiple POV characters throughout the book, it can be disconcerting, as JC's friend indicated.

Side note: I also find multiple 1st person narrators in a single story disconcerting. It's just me.

I agree with KLH. I think it helps you to better get inside the character.

I wouldn't go as far as using the actual vocabulary words of the POV character (such as bohunks), but I do think it's fine to have the Narrator relate the POV Char's impressions with descriptive words.

---------------------:

EX: Luke peeked around the corner to see who was coming. There he was, the dispicable Darth Vader himself. Why did he insist on wearing that ugly mask? So... seventies, like the grill of an Oldsmobile.

But then later on, in another scene or chapter, the POV can switch to Darth...

EX: Darth sat in the privacy of his bedroom, polishing his glorious helmet. He broke out the Tarnex and went to work on the grill with a toothbrush. It wasn't easy getting that handsome mouthpeice to shine, even with the force, but it was worth the effort. Such a stunning helmet deserved careful attention.

---------------------:

At leat that's how I do it. The narrator has his/her own voice, but is always sympathetic to the POV character. This sympathy can be sarcastic or comical, or it can be straightforward, depending on the narrators personal opinion of the character.

To my previous post I'll just add that I use the omnicient-type POV in order to get different perspectives on the story as it goes along. I don't stick to one character's POV for the entire novel.

A question regarding POV came up in another section of this forum. Here's what I posted...

The name for a varying 3rd person POV is the "Uncle Charles Principle" as described by the Joycean scholar Hugh Kenner in his book "Joyce's Voices".

What this means is that the usually reliable omniscient 3rd party narrator is not always reliable or correct. That narrator is in fact written from the POV of the principal subject, as though that person would describe himself and is influencing the narrative.

We see this perfectly in the "Nausicaa" chapter of Ulysses (ch 13), where the narrative is written in schoolgirl prose, mawkish and maudlin, as though the protagonist of the chapter (Gerty MacDowell) had edited and approved it.

Such a varying narrative is extremely difficult to control and takes great skill. Few writers attempt this and fewer succeed: Joyce, Flaubert, etc.

You might check out the first few pages of Nausicaa (chapter 13 in Ulysses) and see how Joyce uses this variable 3rd person narrative. I think it directly applies to this thread.

I don't know about varying POV, but writing the narration directly from the POV is simple to do and works very well. It isn't at all uncommon, and if you can write first person fiction, you can write thrid person limited fiction with the POV character as narrator.

Basically it's 1st person written as 3rd. A test to see if it works is: if you substitute all the third person references (names, pronouns, etc.) of the protagonist/POV character with I's and me's and myself's, does it still work? If it does, then you have succeeded. If it reads weird, like "how does the POV character know someone was hiding in the closet?" then you have a POV problem.

hopping

Two things are important with limited, close third-person POV: one, don't do it between two characters in the same scene. It's possible to do omnscient, but the narrator has to remain outside both characters. (Personally, I find omniscient to be more and more irritating these days; I guess my personal style preferences are changing along with my writing voice.) Second, if you have to put the character's name at the beginning of the scene or chapter, then I don't think it's working.

[I recall reading one book that hopped from character to character - by chapter - and all in first-person. Interesting way of telling the story, but it got annoying at times. It felt awkward. Charles DeLint tried the variable POVs in one of his books - from 1st person to 3rd person, close to deep and back again, and yeah, he put the names at the beginnings of chapters or scenes, as well. It drew too much attention to it, for me; it felt like he was shouting (at times), "look at me! I'm being edgy! I'm experimenting!" But then, I also got the impression he wasn't as comfortable with 1st person. Maybe it's too close for his style?]

Re: hopping

The "close" 3rd person limited works well if you have only one POV character throughout the book. Again, it's basically 1st person but you create a distance between the readers and the character.

But it's very tricky to pull it off if you have multiple POV characters (what we call a 3rd limited rotating or what Katdad meant by "Uncle Charlie"). Because the narrative voice will have to change from character to character and it's "weird" to many readers. Since it's not 1st person, they might not get it why the narrative voice is different from chapter to chapter. Many people expect the narrative voice be consistent throughout the story.

A great author would be able to pull it off, with risk.

If you're writing about multiple POV character, it's easier and better (IMHO) to either A) use a consistent narrative voice (separate narrator) or B) Use omniscient or C) switch 1st persons.

If you're filtering all of the text through the POV character's brain, then that's fine.

(For instance (to use an example from a published novel), if one character sits on spindly chairs, while another character sits on graceful chairs--and they're the same set of chairs.)

Thanks

Thanks for all of the valuable responses. I am going to try and proceed with my current plan of using different word and phrase selections depending upon that sections viewpoint character. It just seems that is an effective tool to create the atmosphere of the novel (1920's midwest).

I'm reading a collection of Elmore Leonard's early western stories (originally from the 1950's), and he was already using the device well at that time. I think he's a master of it today.

Re: hopping

The "close" 3rd person limited works well if you have only one POV character throughout the book. Again, it's basically 1st person but you create a distance between the readers and the character.

Click to expand...

It works even better if you have more than one POV character. It separates them much better than a neutral narrator. As long as the POV characters each have their own scenes or chapters, you can use a POV narrator to draw sharp distinctions between characters. If done correctly, the reader knows who the POV character is just from the wqay the narration is written. Each POV character has his own unique voice, and the narration reflects this voice. It isn't just what's said, but how. The language, the rhythm, the structure, the syntax, will be different with each character, just as if you were writing multiple first person.

I don't use omniscient at all. I really don't like reading it much because it's usually so poorly done, at least in my opinion. When done really well, omniscient can be a joy to read, but I think it's horribly difficult to do well, and it isn't something I'd suggest to new writers. Far too many think omniscient is an excuse to head-hop, or just to tell th ereader anything at any time. It isn't.

Re: hopping

I guess it's just me then. I find shifting narrative voice distracting.

Re: hopping

A lot of good things have been said here. Some of the things that are contradictory to each other are in fact both true. I won't try to sort them all out. What I will do is to take a point I think is important and concentrate on that.

Clarity is of massive importance. It must always be clear whether the narrator is speaking omnisciently, or using third person intimate, etc.

If you use only the intimate third person; you might call it third person written as "I"; it will be easier than if you shift from intimate to omniscient. If you bounce back and forth between omniscient and intimate, i.e. author and character, then you must make it clear which is being ethnically biased, the author or the character.

Which is one of the key problems in writing this type of novel. No matter how clear you write someone will be confused.

My guess is that either you were unclear, which happens to everyone at some time, or your reader was easily confused. Just because your reader was educated does not mean they are not easily confused, especially over emotionally charged issues such as race and gender.

So first strive for clarity, and remember that every voice you use, even every degree of voice you use, makes clarity that much more difficult. Every writer has a limit as to how much complexity they can maintain without faltering. As you gain experience you can extend that limit if you wish.

You might also ask yourself if there is any need to push your writing that far. Joyce may be amazing but most people don't know who he is and of those who do most have only read enough cliff notes to pass the course.

Does what you have to say and the story you have to tell require you to push yourself and the reader that far?

Re: hopping

"Clarity is of massive importance. It must always be clear whether the narrator is speaking omnisciently, or using third person intimate, etc."

I have no problem with the idea of the importance of clarity, but why is it so important that the reader understand that an omniscient POV has slipped into the text?

In my WIP, I have a subplot where it is perfectly clear that the MC has no way of knowing the information revealed. (Another character, who is mostly off-stage, is becoming obsessed with her.) Much later in the story this will affect the climax. The reader knows it is not the 3rd ltd POV. Is it too obtrusive that it is suddenly omniscient?

I have used this device in another story where rats in the hold of a ship are steadily devouring and despoiling the supplies of settlers. It is entirely impersonal information that impinges on the plot of the story, but only the reader knows it is happening.

Is mixing in a little bit of omniscience really that confusing?

Re: hopping

I think it's okay to switch POV from scene to scene or from chapter to chapter, just not within the same scene. The omniscient POV within a 3rd limited is like a "fly on the wall" narration. Sometimes it is necessary to write a scene where none of the POV characters are present. Of course you can stay away from that by sticking strictly to 3rd limited (thus, you have to reveal the events through other means, such as dialogue). But sometimes for dramatic value, you can do a temporary "fly on the wall."

Do what works.

Re: hopping

I have no problem with the idea of the importance of clarity, but why is it so important that the reader understand that an omniscient POV has slipped into the text?

Click to expand...

Because you don't want the reader to start thinking that your POV character knows something that they don't. It could be confusing. If it is always clear what viewpoint you are using, you can avoid confusion like this.

Ok, I see

I see the kind of clarity you are talking about. You mean not to confuse the reader about who knows what. That makes perfect sense.

I am still a trifle worried that my small flies on the wall are intrusive. I am putting them in to red flag the reader, raise the tension.

Re: Ok, I see

Flies on the wall are the least intrusive.

One thing is to keep the story flowing.

The most intrusive third person omniscient is the pedantic, moralizing, author. One of the reasons this writing mode became unpopular is that some authors actually stopped to story to lecture the reader directly on such subjects as morals, temptation, the evils of drink, loose women, etc.

The reader knowing something the characters do not can be absolutely essential to building a highly effective sequence. For instance the wife and hubby inside carrying on an extremely boring conversation -- Except for the fact that, unbeknown to them, the killer is outside circling the house.

Re: Ok, I see

Or a huge astroid is hurling toward Earth, and little Jack and Jill are having ice cream at the local mall...

Re: Ok, I see

Or a huge astroid is hurling toward Earth, and little Jack and Jill are having ice cream at the local mall...

Click to expand...

That asteroid is in for a huge suprise! :eek