Perspective

What perspective do you generally write from? I don't know what all the possible perspectives are. The two I remember from a writing class I took were first person and omniscient. But I know there's at least one other, but don't know what to call it. It would be the perspective like in Harry Potter where there it follows one character around, but isn't written in a first person perspective. Harry isn't telling the story in other words.

I tend to favor the omniscient perspective because all others seem too limiting. But maybe the others make a story more personal.

I do most of my writing from third person omniscient, but the bulk of any novel, or even chapter, is third person limited.

Third person limited and first person are often interchangeable: just change "I" to "He" or vice versa.

Even third person objective tends to follow one character and only one character around. I've never written a story in objective: My reason is that it is too "movie like"; if I'm going to write a screenplay then I'll write a screenplay, other wise I want to write a story and take advantage of all the great things a novel has to offer. (Third person objective does not show any character's thoughts: just their words and actions.)

Third person limited is more limited than omniscient, but does not have as many pitfalls.

Third person omniscient is more flexible, but has a lot more traps for the unwary writer to fall into.

Also not every story benefits from the omniscient point of view. Some stories are best told in first person or third limited -- A good writer chooses carefully and fits it to the story.

Second person can be extremely effective but it's really hard to pull off.

third person omniscient most of the time, merely because that's what i prefer. i find that when i do a short story, which is very rare nowadaze, i tend to use first person. there are times when i'd like to slip into 3p limited just for a scene or two, but i've found it hard to concentrate on the story as opposed to how it's being told for me to do an entire novel like that.

There is a long thread, only a few weeks old on the question of "Point of View". You really should take a look at that to get your bearings.


In a nutshell:

1st Person: "Me, Myself, & I."
Whole novel is presented from one character's point of view. This character cannot barge into the inner thoughts of other characters, or see more of the "big picture" than her/his five senses can possibly report. Good POV for telling a personal story. More difficult POV for an epic drama.

2nd Person: "You, yourself, and you?"
nearly impossible to pull of with a novel. Anybody who tries is reaching for seriously avant-garde creds. POV makes the reader a front-line character, directly involved with the story. Nice idea, but ridiculously off-putting in practice.

3rd Person Omnicient: Story teller is above and beyond all characters and can see all. Story teller can show the reader the most private thoughts of any character. The only restriction on the narrator is that he/she cannot be a character in the story, nor address the reader - person to person. POV was used widely in the olden days to great effect, but has recently become unfasionable.

3rd Person Limited (shifting): Story teller is omnicient, but focuses on one character at a time. In any given scene, only one character's thoughts can be known, and all other information is filtered through this character's point of view. General statements of universal truth can be ventured, but if such facts are beyond the comprehension of the chosen character, the story teller is in technical violation of the POV.

Objective: No inner thoughts of any character are directly available. Dialogue and action play out as if on a movie. The story teller is limited to a "play by play" account of the scene. Any subtext must be coded into the dialogue and actions of the characters.

That's my assessment... I'm not an expert, so take it all with a grain of salt.

3rd Person Omnicient: Story teller is above and beyond all characters and can see all. Story teller can show the reader the most private thoughts of any character. The only restriction on the narrator is that he/she cannot be a character in the story, nor address the reader - person to person.

Click to expand...

I don't agree that the narrator in this case could not be in the story. For example, take the way they began The Lord of the Rings trilogy using Galadriel as this omniscient narrator and even when the Fellowship met her later, she was able to look into people's minds.

So I think you can create an omniscient character to tell the story. Although that might mean you've created a 1st Person Omnicient story which I didn't see you list.

Mr mistook,

I would have to say you did very well.

Using your criteria I would have to say I do not use pure third person omniscient: I use third person limited (shifting).

Once you get into third person omniscient there is a lot of trivial arguments because so many variations are possible, and because so many call the same things different names and won't recognize someone else's vocabulary as legitimate.

Rather than get uptight about those "shades of meaning,"
I see it as part of the fun.

When I write third person limited, I absolutely do mean for the narrator to be the viewpoint character. It really doesn't matter, however, because if third person limited is done correctly, it's going to be written the same way, whether or not the narrator is or isn't a viewpoint character.

I think third person omniscient is what stops a lot of new writers from becoming published writers. Third person limited is easier to write, is the favored viewpoint, and is still what most publisher and most readers want.

So I think you can create an omniscient character to tell the story. Although that might mean you've created a 1st Person Omniscient story which I didn't see you list.

Click to expand...

You definitely can.

Old old time writers would say, "And so you see, dear reader," which is considered to be terrible writing today.

I've also seen, "He was thinking what an idiot I was. But I didn't know that until Catherine told me several days later."

A psychic who can read thoughts would also fall into this category.

As I said, Mr Mistook did very well, but no list or analysis of POV is going to be exhaustive. If one did then people would disagree over differing terms and which one was most appropriate.

One of the major drawbacks to using first person omniscient would be, "How come this person who knows everything about everyone can't just walk over and solve the problem?"

And if the genre is mystery, readers can ask "How come this person who knows everything doesn't tell me who the killer was?"

As a reader, I found this to be a fault in a first-person mystery when the narrator was the killer.

Is it possible to change perspectives in a story? There are times when I want a character to be telling the story, but there are times I want it to go to an omniscient perpsective and get other characters point of views.

If you ask me, the magic bullet is to quote a character's personal journal.

If the narrator is omnicient, the journaling character can speak in the first person under the auspices of a "quotation" from their personal diary.

If the narrator is first person, he/she might read a lengthy passage from said journal, and again, the journaling charachter gets to speak in the first person.

You could also throw caution to the wind and invent the new literary viewpoint of "Dynamic Person". While you're at it, you might as well write the thing in "Flex Tense." You'll pave the way for the rest of us, who struggle with old modes in an evolving world.

I'm writing my novels from the first person narrative, because they are modern hardboiled private detective and that's how most of these are set.

I've also written from 3rd person omniscient and have a horror novel in semi-progress in that mode.

What's very difficult is to switch back and forth, or to write from several first-person viewpoints.

Incidentally, my narrative isn't a pure "first person" but instead tweaked by the mindset of the character, often without his realizing it. This is uncommon and I wrote a little 4-page essay about character viewpoint and reality, and have posted it on my website in pdf. You're welcome to read it...

Mitch King Mysteries and the Nature of Duality

I wrote my first novel in 1st person. I'm writing my second in 3rd person rotating limited (I have two main viewpoint characters). I never consider writing omniscient. I may attempt, when I'm good enough. 3rd person objective.

My first writings were all short stories, third person, limited to the POV of the lead character.

I'd written maybe a dozen short stories before I tried first person.

All of my first novels were in first or third limited.

Now I have taken the idea that writing should be fun to do. The story should be told that is fun to tell and fun to read.

As I no longer have any dependence on writing for money, or success, or fulfillment of any outward needs, I do that which I find most interesting to do. If I write a best seller, that would be wonderful, but if I never sell another story I will still eat well, have a comfortable home, a loving family, and I'll always be able to do what I enjoy doing: reading, writing, and learning new things.

So I write in the most fun perspective; third person omniscient; I tell any and every enjoyable story there is to tell and read within the story frame whether it is "needed" or not; and I even include short stories that can be chopped out of the novel whole and possibly used elsewhere.

Instead of writing that which is the most literary or the most commercial, I write that which is the most entertaining.

even some modern novels and short stories feature omniscient narrators that speak to the readers. for instance, Lemony Snicket's series of unfortunate events.

as for dynamic person, and flex tense, L.E. Modesitt, Jr's Spellsong Cycle was written in either 1st person or 3rd limited (i forget), the protagonist's viewpoint, in past tense but with parts that featured an objecive (or was it omniscient) narrator describing the acrtions of her enemies in present tense, despite the fact that the present and past tenses were not separated in time.

I'm writing from an omnicient POV that follows one character per scene, but switches characters throughout the story. BUT, there are also scenes written from the objective POV, and some written in purely omnicient.

My theory is that if the narrator is fully omnicient, then he/she can also choose to be 'limited' or 'objective' when it suits the storytelling.

In pracitce it works like this:

I follow character A's POV for a chapter.
I follow B's POV for a chapter.
I follow C's POV for a chapter.

In the next chapter, A,B,&C are all in the same room. This chapter is told objectively.

In the following chapter, they are all in different countries. POV shifts between all three, giving some scenes to A, some to B and some to C.

I also go fully "omnicient" in a few opening scenes of a chapter when I describe the goings on in a town to set the tone for the chapter. I describe things that no character necessarily knows... phase of the moon... train running late... car crash across town... etc.

1) Don't confuse the reader.

2) Does it work?