3rd person Deep/Close/Intimate/Tight Point of View? What are your thoughts and tips?

lizmonster said:

It may have an "old-fashioned feel" to you, but I can't remember the last time I read a book that wasn't written that way. This includes a couple of NYT bestsellers (which doesn't make them works of timeless literary brilliance, but still).

Omni feels old-fashioned to me, but close third that includes phrases like "she thought"? Is pretty typical of what's out there right now.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with phrases like "she thought," "he saw," etc., if they're needed for clarity. Most writers use them now and then because sometimes you really do need to direct attention to the viewpoint character in that manner. In the particular example in the OP, though, all of the filter words seemed unnecessary and were therefore intrusive. Not to mentioning putting a layer of unneeded distance between reader and character. Plus, these days, thoughts are pretty much never put in quotes, so that's a lot of what contributed to that old-fashioned feel.

As for what we encounter in modern, published books--all I can say is, if that method of communicating POV is the prevalent style of a novel (meaning, not just used occasionally), then I'm not reading it. So I guess I can safely say that the books I do read aren't written that way.

Roxxsmom said:

Juliette Wade has some excellent resources for writing in a deep first or third viewpoint. When done well, going deep can work very well. Narrative distance exists on a continuum, and it can vary somewhat within a work as well.

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

Click to expand...

That article also contains a really good explanation of the use of pointing words, which harks back to another very recent discussion here on the use of "this" vs "that," "here" vs "there," and so forth.

Patty said:

Some filters are *always* used even when technically speaking they don't need to be. Virtually every book I read that has italicized thought tags with 's/he thought.' It's not needed, but always included.

Click to expand...

Interesting, because it's rare that I see that in a book.

I do agree that occasionally filter words are useful, or at least hard to avoid. But habitual use is a real annoyance to the reader, or to this reader anyway.

Harlequin said:

For me, it is distancing, because I prefer third person where every piece of narrative presented is in the MC's thoughts so in that context, additional italicised thoughts don't make sense (and I find the tense shift jarring.)

But it's very stylistic. My CP uses them.

Nota bene: I am not a jemisin fan

Click to expand...

You're not the only one who isn't. In the one book of hers I tried, I didn't get very far and my thoughts went something like this: "She is an incredible prose stylist. Really superb writing" but then, "wow, this style is becoming deeply annoying. Calling too much attention to itself." So I quit. I might try again another time, maybe a different book. She certainly can write and beautifully, but maybe she writes for readers other than myself.

I've especially looked for italicized thought that is not set off with a tag, because the filter/tag 's/he thought' ('thought' being the filter) is completely unnecessary, and as yet have not found one.

Every italicized thought I have seen in recent books, down to the last one, is tagged with 's/he thought.'

I've wondered if it's a publishing/editorial standard. Could be a sample size issue, but none--none--are untagged so far.

Patty said:

I've especially looked for italicized thought that is not set off with a tag, because the filter/tag 's/he thought' ('thought' being the filter) is completely unnecessary, and as yet have not found one.

Every italicized thought I have seen in recent books, down to the last one, is tagged with 's/he thought.'

I've wondered if it's a publishing/editorial standard. Could be a sample size issue, but none--none--are untagged so far.

Click to expand...

As a writer who often uses both? It’s rhythm. Prose is more about rhythm than rules.

I’ll also cop to adding more italicized thoughts during revisions because my editor liked them.

Nothing against Jemisin personally, I should add. I enjoy what I see of her on social media. Her writing just doesnt click for me.

Liz--I totally agree with your sentiment.

I hate extra words (tho it doesn't show from my posts!) and to my way of thinking those tags are complete waste. But if they added rhythm it would be different, I suppose, and my efforts are admittedly overly-technical probably because of my past.

I used to see italicized thoughts used more often in books than I have in recent years. Generally they were/are without tags. The italics and tense shift make it clear they are internal thoughts, so there's really no point in adding "she thought" or "she wondered."

I prefer to write with as few filters as possible, trying to make it clear that any opinions or observations about the situation and events come straight from the viewpoint character. I only include filters when the wondering, noticing etc. are the point of the sentence (if that makes sense). I was taught that this is good writing, but most published books in third person limited (as in one viewpoint being used per scene etc.) still have tons of filters. I think editors actually tend to prefer filters, because when I had an editor read my opening chapter for comment, they asked me who the source of the opinions and thoughts being expressed were. I thought I was writing in a fairly close limited third, but evidently I'm either not as good at that as I thought, or many readers just don't like or get that approach.

People can get quite adamant in defending filters too. I posted a link to an article I thought was pretty good re filtering in another forum. It had examples of a scene written with and without the filters, illustrating (I thought) how much more intimate and immediate the prose felt without. But one member of that group insisted that the example with the filters felt more intimate and the lack of filters felt cold and distant to them (because they assumed the observations and judgements expressed were those of an external narrator, not he character). They said they assume a writer is incompetent when they neglect to include filters in limited third.

I don't generally like prose that is so stylized that it calls a lot of attention to itself either. There are some very celebrated, award winning SFF writers I haven't really been able to get into as well, because they read almost like literary style fiction--as if it were about the writing itself more than the story. I can enjoy a short story that does this, but I find it wearing in a novel-length work most of the time.

Oh, well, my CP doesn't use s/he thought. Just puts in italicised thoughts.

"s/he thought" is filtering, and doesn't need to be there.

Harlequin said:

"s/he thought" is filtering, and doesn't need to be there.

Click to expand...

Except when it does.

I'm defending my own work when I say this, I know, and that probably loses me credibility. But it's a style choice, and like all style choices the fact that it can be (and often is) overused doesn't make it universally incorrect.