Intermediate tip: point of view
Today, I'm going to look at different points of view used in fiction, and offer some advice on selecting a point of view and how to realize your choice stylistically.
Omniscient
Perhaps the oldest point of view is "third person omniscient." Think of a storyteller and listeners around a campfire. The storyteller knows the story well, and says whatever needs to be said to convey it to the listeners. This can include any or all of the following:
This point of view has fallen out of favor in modern times. With the exception of children's stories, you have to go back 100 years or more to find much of it. Why is this?
In the omniscient point of view, writer and reader stand outside the story, looking at it and talking about it. This works against giving the reader a sense of immersion, and it works against the reader identifying with the characters in the story. Most modern readers want to be drawn into the drama of the story as though it were happening to them, as though they were there in the story world, experiencing it for themselves. Modern readers don't want a nosey writer butting in to tell you how you should feel about something, to pontificate on the story's moral, or draw attention to the fact that the story is not real.
Even if the author is very restrained in making judgments or talking about the story, omniscient point of view can still make the reader feel detached from the story. In omniscient point of view, the writer has access to each character's thoughts and feelings, and shares them with the reader. Here's an example:
First Person
Another extremely venerable point of view is first person. In first person point of view, the author takes on the voice of a character in the story, who speaks of himself or herself as "I"/"me":
There is a danger in this intimacy, too. It can come across as self-indulgent or narcissistic, and if the reader doesn't like the character's "voice", the instant identification can backfire. (It can also, in the hands of a poor writer, become an excuse for bad grammar and word choice—"but that's how my character talks!")
The problem with first person is that you are pretty much stuck in the narrator's experience. You can't describe anything the character is not personally aware of, at least not without great awkwardness. This makes subplots almost impossible. A related problem is that you can't easily describe anything the narrator character takes for granted. The palace she lives in may be a spectacle of magical architecture, but to the princess who lives there, it's familiar and ordinary. Why would she stop in the midst of telling her story to describe it?
First person can also raise some awkward questions. Is the narrator telling the story as it happens, or relating it all after the fact? When people tell stories about themselves in real life, they know the ending. If the story is framed as a memoir, it will have a somewhat distancing effect. We know the protagonist survived to tell the tale, and is comfortably relating it from a sitting room somewhere. You can opt for telling the story as it happens (and readers are accustomed to accepting this without asking the obvious questions that arise from the conceit), but then it's awkward to deliver back story and interpretation that comes more easily in the memoir stance. You have to stick to the action, keep it all now.
The difficulties of first person in dealing with subplots, background information, and description all become compounded as the length of the piece increases. It's easy and fun to do for a 4000-word short story, but excruciatingly difficult for a 400-page novel.
Third Person Limited
In this point of view, the writer selects a single character (typically the protagonist), and presents the story as that character experiences it. It is similar to first person, except that the viewpoint character is referred to as "he" or "she":
Most writers using third person limited vary the sense of distance in subtle, often unconscious ways as the story develops. Distance is a kind of throttle that can be used to elevate emotion and release it. (This can be done in first person, too, but it's a little harder, because it should really be the character deciding when to get personal or when to be cool.)
Third person limited still has some of the drawbacks of first person: you can't easily write about things the viewpoint character doesn't personally experience. The advantage is that you can more naturally back off from the character's intimate thoughts and personality quirks, and give the reader more interpretive space.
Third Person Multiple
The final point of view is the most prevalent one for modern novels. Third person multiple is like third personal limited, but with more than one viewpoint character. This solves the problems of dealing with events outside the principle character's experience. The best way to execute this is to shift point of view sparingly, only when needed, and to do so at natural breaks in the story (a new chapter, or at least a new scene). This is not to say you can't shift point of view within a scene, especially if there is some distance employed. What is disastrous, though, is to shift point of view unconsciously or without reason, creating a muddiness of perspective.
Remember that every time you shift to a new character's point of view, you are sending a message to the reader that this character is a known quantity, that his or her motives and thoughts are an open book. Each such move reduces your capacity to have the character know something the reader doesn't know or do something the reader doesn't expect. Furthermore, it can be difficult later to write a scene where two or more viewpoint characters participate. Too many viewpoint characters pulls you into the omniscient point of view, with all its issues.
I think the best advice regarding point of view shifts is to use them sparingly, and always have a good reason.
How to Choose
I avoid omniscient unless I'm doing something deliberately self-conscious, like writing a fairy tale or taking on the persona of a Victorian novelist.
If one character is in every scene, and always knows just what I want the reader to know, then first person or third person limited are good options. First person is preferred if I want the story to have a decided attitude, if the character is colorful and has an interesting or relevant "voice". Third is better if I want a little more distance, to give a luster of objective narration to the tale.
If there is no character who is in every scene, or if there is important information that needs to be conveyed to the reader outside the main character's experiences, then third person multiple is needed.
Although there are ways to use each point of view in any kind of story, it requires much skill and planning to take a point of view out of its natural domain. That's something to be attempted after mastering the craft.
Omniscient
Perhaps the oldest point of view is "third person omniscient." Think of a storyteller and listeners around a campfire. The storyteller knows the story well, and says whatever needs to be said to convey it to the listeners. This can include any or all of the following:
- describing what any of the characters in the story experience
- describing how any of the characters feel
- telling the audience what the storyteller thinks about the characters
- telling the audience what the storyteller thinks about the story
- addressing the listeners (readers) directly
This point of view has fallen out of favor in modern times. With the exception of children's stories, you have to go back 100 years or more to find much of it. Why is this?
In the omniscient point of view, writer and reader stand outside the story, looking at it and talking about it. This works against giving the reader a sense of immersion, and it works against the reader identifying with the characters in the story. Most modern readers want to be drawn into the drama of the story as though it were happening to them, as though they were there in the story world, experiencing it for themselves. Modern readers don't want a nosey writer butting in to tell you how you should feel about something, to pontificate on the story's moral, or draw attention to the fact that the story is not real.
Even if the author is very restrained in making judgments or talking about the story, omniscient point of view can still make the reader feel detached from the story. In omniscient point of view, the writer has access to each character's thoughts and feelings, and shares them with the reader. Here's an example:
John took a long sip of beer. He really didn't want to have this conversation. Laura's impatience annoyed him.This tells us what each of the three people are feeling. Isn't that good? The problem is that, as a reader, I don't know which of these people to identify with, so I end up not caring very much about any of them. Although beginning writers today rarely lapse into the more paternalistic, moralizing forms of omniscient point of view, some fall into the trap of trying to look at the scene from all characters' viewpoints at the same time. Beside making it difficult for readers to identify with a particular character, this also creates a trap. If the reader is used to being in each character's head and knowing what they think and feel, then you can't honestly have any of the characters do anything surprising or hide any information. Imagine how difficult it would have been to create suspense in the Harry Potter books, for example, if we knew what mysterious characters like Snape and Moody were thinking at every moment.
"Well?" asked Laura. She was waiting to have it out with John, but it was clear she would have to prod him.
Tim stormed out the room. He hated it when his parents argued. They were so selfish.
First Person
Another extremely venerable point of view is first person. In first person point of view, the author takes on the voice of a character in the story, who speaks of himself or herself as "I"/"me":
I watched in fascination as the alien monster crawled from the wreckage. I held perfectly still, fearing for my life.The benefits of first person are obvious: it creates instant identification with the narrator (who is usually the protagonist), and it allows the writer to establish character directly, by speaking to the reader in the character's own voice. You can convey, in the first sentences of the story, whether the character is educated, sarcastic, naive, bitter, thoughtful, etc. It also allows access to all the character's thoughts and feelings—not just the surface ones, but deeper ones as well. It can be as intimate as you want it to be. You can make the narrator self-revealing and emotional, or aloof and business-like, as needed.
There is a danger in this intimacy, too. It can come across as self-indulgent or narcissistic, and if the reader doesn't like the character's "voice", the instant identification can backfire. (It can also, in the hands of a poor writer, become an excuse for bad grammar and word choice—"but that's how my character talks!")
The problem with first person is that you are pretty much stuck in the narrator's experience. You can't describe anything the character is not personally aware of, at least not without great awkwardness. This makes subplots almost impossible. A related problem is that you can't easily describe anything the narrator character takes for granted. The palace she lives in may be a spectacle of magical architecture, but to the princess who lives there, it's familiar and ordinary. Why would she stop in the midst of telling her story to describe it?
First person can also raise some awkward questions. Is the narrator telling the story as it happens, or relating it all after the fact? When people tell stories about themselves in real life, they know the ending. If the story is framed as a memoir, it will have a somewhat distancing effect. We know the protagonist survived to tell the tale, and is comfortably relating it from a sitting room somewhere. You can opt for telling the story as it happens (and readers are accustomed to accepting this without asking the obvious questions that arise from the conceit), but then it's awkward to deliver back story and interpretation that comes more easily in the memoir stance. You have to stick to the action, keep it all now.
The difficulties of first person in dealing with subplots, background information, and description all become compounded as the length of the piece increases. It's easy and fun to do for a 4000-word short story, but excruciatingly difficult for a 400-page novel.
Third Person Limited
In this point of view, the writer selects a single character (typically the protagonist), and presents the story as that character experiences it. It is similar to first person, except that the viewpoint character is referred to as "he" or "she":
Jana watched in fascination as the alien monster crawled from the wreckage. She held perfectly still, fearing for her life.Notice how we still have access to the viewpoint character's experiences and feelings. Unlike first person, however, it is easy to back away a little, make the connection less intimate:
Jana watched as the alien monster crawled from the wreckage. She held perfectly still, fascinated but fearful.With this recasting, we don't feel quite so much "inside her head"—a bystander might be describing this, making inferences about her feelings. Taking a further step back, we have an almost total depersonalization:
Jana watched as the alien monster crawled from the wreckage. She was perfectly still. Her face was pale, her eyes wide.By increasing the distance, we give the reader a more active role in understanding the character. Instead of being told her thoughts and feelings, readers now see her appearance and actions, and form their own conclusions. This can be taken to an extreme: all the characters can be described so dispassionately that it's not clear who to identify with. This creates a journalistic tone, which is suitable for some stories. It does, however, detract from readers' sense of immersion and identification.
Most writers using third person limited vary the sense of distance in subtle, often unconscious ways as the story develops. Distance is a kind of throttle that can be used to elevate emotion and release it. (This can be done in first person, too, but it's a little harder, because it should really be the character deciding when to get personal or when to be cool.)
Third person limited still has some of the drawbacks of first person: you can't easily write about things the viewpoint character doesn't personally experience. The advantage is that you can more naturally back off from the character's intimate thoughts and personality quirks, and give the reader more interpretive space.
Third Person Multiple
The final point of view is the most prevalent one for modern novels. Third person multiple is like third personal limited, but with more than one viewpoint character. This solves the problems of dealing with events outside the principle character's experience. The best way to execute this is to shift point of view sparingly, only when needed, and to do so at natural breaks in the story (a new chapter, or at least a new scene). This is not to say you can't shift point of view within a scene, especially if there is some distance employed. What is disastrous, though, is to shift point of view unconsciously or without reason, creating a muddiness of perspective.
Remember that every time you shift to a new character's point of view, you are sending a message to the reader that this character is a known quantity, that his or her motives and thoughts are an open book. Each such move reduces your capacity to have the character know something the reader doesn't know or do something the reader doesn't expect. Furthermore, it can be difficult later to write a scene where two or more viewpoint characters participate. Too many viewpoint characters pulls you into the omniscient point of view, with all its issues.
I think the best advice regarding point of view shifts is to use them sparingly, and always have a good reason.
How to Choose
I avoid omniscient unless I'm doing something deliberately self-conscious, like writing a fairy tale or taking on the persona of a Victorian novelist.
If one character is in every scene, and always knows just what I want the reader to know, then first person or third person limited are good options. First person is preferred if I want the story to have a decided attitude, if the character is colorful and has an interesting or relevant "voice". Third is better if I want a little more distance, to give a luster of objective narration to the tale.
If there is no character who is in every scene, or if there is important information that needs to be conveyed to the reader outside the main character's experiences, then third person multiple is needed.
Although there are ways to use each point of view in any kind of story, it requires much skill and planning to take a point of view out of its natural domain. That's something to be attempted after mastering the craft.
Comments