The Review Club Forum POV DISCUSSION

I see POV is perhaps the most worthwhile discussion topic for budding writers. There is so much confusion about Point of View, about whom the Narrator is in any given piece of writing. I share this confusion and need answers. I also see confusion in others, and would do my part to illuminate this problem, expecially through example.

Right off, I will tell you I am not interested in first person, and so I will focus on third person.

My first example is from Absolute Power (p81) by David Baldacci, a big novel writer and perennial on the NY Times best seller list. There are no breaks in this scene. The chapter opens with 3 full pages in close third person, from Kate's POV. She runs into Jack in the park. She decides to let him give her a ride:

Quote:


Some writers tell me that the NARRATOR of the story and the 3rd person POV character must be one and the same. I REFER THEM TO THE ABOVE PASSAGE. For who can mistake that the narrator is the storyteller, and that he/she/it is neither Jack nor Kate.

PLEASE DISCUSS

I'm of the thinking if you are talking about a couple or a tight group of people you can jump back and forth. I think the problem comes in when people are following so close in one of their characters footsteps and then they just jump to another character it can loose the reader. It all comes down to how clear it is in my book.

Ok... so this is a tough one. Yes you are right, in the above passage the narrator and the POV character seem to be different, or at the very least we jump POV character. Now that said, the narrator in the above piece has a distinct voice of it's own (see previous comments I've made about this).

I also think Anthony is right, it's a question of clarity. There is a pretty clear transition in the above paragraphs from one POV character to another.

Again all of that said, Yes the narrator can have a different voice from the characters. Yes, the POV can switch from one character to another. But the question I think any writer needs to ask themselves is why they want to do that? I mean I don't have any problems with the general comment, but in the end the strength of third is the ability to shift characters.

I mean I don't understand entirely where your confusion lies Bill. Sometimes it's simply best to be like water and follow the easiest path.

I agree with both A.C. and Cameron.

I think the main considerations should be presenting the story and entertaining the reader with clarity. But POV purists seem to put certain rules they've read about or heard in a lecture class at college above story and entertainment value.

Cameron is right that we should consider whether the reasons for pulling back from or entering into close POV must be considered carefully. I think presenting story in the best way possible at any given time is job one.

Thanks for your input.

You all have excellent points, and Bill, you're right, there are several successful authors that switch POVs without breaks, or that have a more general narrator. There's something important that's been forgotten here though.

WE AREN'T NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLING AUTHORS.

We do not get to compare ourselves to them.

We have not sold books and we are nobody.

Thus we have to be BETTER than the NYT bestsellers. We have to prove that we are consumate professionals and have the talent to play ball with established names with established market power. People are going to buy the books of established names regardless of what they write or how they write it. People are NOT going to buy our work unless it is flawless in terms of the classic standards for clean, professional writing. POV breaks DO NOT MEET THAT STANDARD unless you are writing a clearly omniscient POV, which means no association with any character. As a new writer you have to prove that you can follow the rules - which means picking a POV and following its rules.

Simple.

-cc

CC,

In STRUCTURING YOUR NOVEL, by Robert C. Meredith and John D. Fitzgerald (1993):

Two principles for the use of shifting narrators that must be considered:

1. The introduction of a new viewpoint narrator should mark the beginning of a chapter when possible.

Now there are exceptions to this principle--the novelist sometimes shifts the viewpoint by entering into the thoughts and feelings of characters as they are introduced to the reader. Flaubert does this with minor characters in MADAME BOVARY, using unrestricted omniscient powers.

2. Once the reader has become acquainted with the different narrators and can interpret their point of view correctly, the viewpoint can be shifted back and forth between narrators even in the middle of the scene.


I won't type the example, as it is much like the quote in my original post.

I will mention that in this same book, it is mentioned of third person that the author can "describe the protagonist and indicate things to the reader that the protagonist doesn't know." Also: "This viewpoint gives the author a choice between restricted and unrestricted omniscient powers." Omniscient Powers is defined here as powers "used by the author to convey information to the reader about character, environment, and events so that the reader may understand and better appreciate the story."

My point in an earlier post was that much of what we know has to do with the sources from which we've learned. A single book or professor can tell us too much or too little, but seldom do we find one that is just right.

And, CC, I think we sell ourselves short whenever we don't compare ourselves with the best, or restrict our tools because we don't think we're up to them.

Bill, neither you nor I nor probably any of us is Flaubert - one of the greatest French writers in history. What he does successfully is hardly the place to begin a first novel. You cannot start to fly before you've proven that you can walk. First, Flaubert wrote for a vastly different market - one without television and internet and film as competition. What would keep the attention of readers in the mid 1800s is hardly the same as will keep them reading today. Secondly, if you're planning to write to the kind of sophisticated audience that appreciates Madame Bovary, you will have to be even more clean and controlled in your writing, not less. And contrary to your writing book's assertion, Flaubert VERY RARELY breaks POV. While he may switch from scene to scene, within each he is a master at balancing the information he needs to convey with the perspective of his POV character. Can you say the same for yourself?

Additionally, your writing book is irresponsible. I have leant mine out, so I can't quote like you do, but you MUST PROVE THAT YOU CAN FOLLOW THE RULES BEFORE YOU CAN START BREAKING THEM. And you have not proven that you can follow the rules.

The truth is that any of us can do whatever we want with our stories. They are our stories. The other truth is that doing whatever we want is hardly the route to publication success. C.J. Hribal once told me that most of us have a hard enough time nailing the basics to even think about chasing fancy technique. Richard Russo told our class that he had to practice and use the basics before he could branch out. Larry Watson, when describing his child narrator's POV in his novel Montana 1948 said that if he couldn't control one POV, what would make him think he could control more than one at the same time.

So, the question is: can you control your writing enough to frame it in one POV per scene? Or do you have to step out of the POV to make your narrative make sense? Your narrator is the voice of your novel. If that voice is inconsistent or flits around too much, how can your novel be a focused, integrated whole?

-cc

Dear CC,

I hope you will point out all the POV problems you see in your reading of my scenes 6 & 7 this week.

Thanks,

ww

I've come to a decision in my writing recently. I know the rules of fiction reasonably well, however, I believe you can depart from them where it serves the story, plot or character. The triad is the most important factor. The problem with POV shifts is that the reader wants to attach to a particular character and see the world from their view point, so when you shift you move the camera out and to another person or out of the story all together. It can be used to effect, at the risk of jarring your reader. The decision is whether it serves any purpose at that particular moment to do so. It's a decision that only the writer can decide, after reflecting on what the potential reader might think of it.

Dear CC,

Again from STRUCTURING YOUR NOVEL:

It would appear that one way for a would-be novelist to avoid faulty exposition is to write a novel using unrestricted omniscient powers. Such an assumption would be false for the following reason:

The type of novel an author wishes to write and the material he is going to use must determine whether restricted or unrestricted omniscient powers are to be employed.

A first-person narrator demands restricted omniscient powers, as for example, in To Kill a Mockingbird. Many types of third-person novels with protagonist narrator, supporting character narrator, or minor character narrator are best told using restricted omniscient powers, for example, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. Novels with shifting viewpoint narrators demand that unrestricted omniscient powers be used, for example, Madame Bovary. [my bold typeface]

We will conclude this chapter by reminding the reader that one of the greatest weaknesses found in the prose composition of first novels is faulty exposition. [this in agreement with everything you and Julie espouse, and rightly so]

THUS--and I hope anyone can see this is discussion seeking understanding, not argumentation seeking combat--it is spelled out here that a first person narrator as in Julie's DOPE. SICK. LOVE., and a third-person protagonist narrator, as in CC's MONSTERS, both rightly demand restricted omniscient powers. Whereas, a work with shifting narrators such as my War on Error, demands "unrestricted omnisicent powers."

From this analysis, it seems to me we talk past each other because we are each using the standards necessary to our chosen form of storytelling, while not understanding that the standards we use in our own works are not necessarily transferable to all other forms. You two are doing one thing, I am doing another.

Madame Bovary is not my example. I gave Baldacci, Vance, and O'Brian. Most books I've ever read have used shifting viewpoint narrators, and it therefore is no wonder that I've learned from my reading how a narrator sounds. My reading experience is also why I do not write first person, and why I see a third-person protagonist only narrative as so restrictive (all these things have come up in past conversations).

I would mention that one author of STRUCTURING YOUR NOVEL has published two novels and several hundred short stories and the other was for many years chairman of the English Department at Chicago State University.

If anyone can add useful facts to the above explanation of correct POV use, I would surely be interested. I only created this thread because POV is such a complex, vexing problem, and one that comes up as frequently as most any other problem discussed in reviews.

Sincerely,

www

From Wikipedia (Point of View, Literature):

The third person limited point of view picks one character and follows him or her around for the duration of the book. The narrator may be more observant than the character, but is limited to what that one character could theoretically observe. (this is in direct line with what Leah's understanding)

In a minor variant on third person limited, narrator may "travel" with a single character, but the point-of-view conventions may be extended to allow the narrator access to other characters' thoughts and motivations. Another common variant is for a novel to have different third person limited point of views in different sections.

The bold type above seems the best explanation of what I think I'm doing; my narrator is traveling with a single character.

Third person limited is sometimes called the "over the shoulder" perspective; it shows the story as though the narrator could only describe events that could be perceived by a viewpoint character. It can be used very objectively, showing what is actually happening without the filter of the protagonist's personality, which can allow the author to reveal information that the protagonist doesn't know or realize. However, some authors use an even narrower and more subjective perspective, as though the viewpoint character were narrating the story.

My first bold type above demonstrates that in light, or cool penetration, without "the filter of the protagonist's personality," author is allowed to reveal info outside the ken of the protagonist. Of course, at any time author can move to a closer, hotter third, and then narrator would be restricted by the attitudes and thoughts of the protagonist.

My second bold type demonstrates that the viewpoint character IS NOT always identical with the narrator, even in limited third person.

www

You know what Bill, you win. I take back everything I said about your POV. Since you obviously did all this research on POV, why don't you tell me what the switch in War from Gust to John adds?

See all the research you put up there does not speak to the one issue and point I was trying to impart, and that is, if you don't have control of your POV then you don't have control over your story.

To me the switch was jarring, which makes it seem like it was also in error. Like I said to your response to my review. It is your story and your choice. If you want to argue POV, fine go ahead, beat me over the head with it. But it won't change the fact that when you reader hits that switch they will feel cheated by it. Now if I wanted to waste my time and energy, I could find numerous articles and text to support the POV standard of today's marketplace. But I'd rather write...

Good luck with you POV quest.

Julie

Can I say one lovely thing? F**k POV, I'm excited about the passion getting aroused! Yea, baby! Doesn't this mean the group is working? People are getting pissed and they should. We are attacking each other's art - each other's most precious babies - and it doesn't matter how polite we try to be, it's gonna sting occasionally. Shouldn't we be allowed to vent? I say this is a grand example of the group stirring up the appropriate anger needed to get that sediment that often falls to the bottom of this awful stew-writing analogy I'm sticking with. My point: should we really be afraid of getting a little angry and expressing it? My point: should Jeffrey be allowed to post after a few too many long-day-at-work beers?

Yes, Jeffrey, post it, please.

When the juices stir and imagination dawns, telling us "there is more here than I'm seeing," then is the opportunity to rise above what we have been, to grow another inch.

I feel the need to stretch that extra bit, to understand a term, vexing because it is so packed with implications for my work. I'm here to learn. I love discussion that might awaken understanding. With the help of the group, I would broaden my understanding of an aspect of fiction writing that I know is necessary to attract readers.

Thought I'd share my findings, hoping to cast a broad light on the subject of POV that might make our pathways a little smoother. Hoping that others will add their input, their sources, so that we might all grow in our craft.

I want to find out what about POV is set in stone, as well as what flexibilities are inherent in the process of storytelling.

What in the world is more flexible and dynamic than language? Where better to explore the aspects of language use than here in The Review Club?

The most illuminating passages I've uncovered thusfar I've posted above (post numbers 7432 and 7433). INPUT IS WELCOME.

Rather than depend on instructors who may not themselves be proficient writers, we should pay close attention to those we are confident can write. The following is from page 7 of FOUNDATION, by Isaac Asimov, who wrote several hundred books. In this passage Gaal is the third person POV character in an epic book utilizing rotating POV. He is in an airport:

Gaal looked up and began walking. There were hundreds creeping across the vast floor, following their individual trails, sifting and straining themselves through intersection points to arrive at their respective destinations.

His own trail ended. A man in glaring blue and yellow uniform, shining and new in unstainable plasto-textile, reached for his two bags.

"Direct line to the Luxor," he said.

The man who followed Gaal heard that. He also heard Gaal say, "Fine," and watched him enter the blunt-nosed vehicle.

THE LAST LINE (which also is the last line of the scene) shows a man Gaal is not aware is following him, thus creating much story tension. This is clearly outside Gaal's knowledge and sense perceptions, and yet it serves an important function. Asimov does this, as do virtually all authors of rotating third person novels.

I WOULD ASK ANY WHO SAY Asimov is wrong here, to PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE way we might show the reader that our POV character is being followed but is unaware of the fact.

Dear Loekie, CC, and friends:

So as not to rely on mere style books written by non-authors, I quote here Orson Scott Card, an author of dozens of novels, from his book CHARACTERS AND VIEWPOINT:

The narrative voice has to sound like the first-person narrator; if it doesn't, it's a flaw in the author's technique.

But I find myself writing "in character" even when I'm using third person, even when the narrator isn't a specific person at all. I usually write in a voice similar to the voice of the viewpoint character, even though that character is not the narrator. In reading other writer's work, I find that, as often as not, they do the same thing.

THUS WE CAN SEE that in third person the narrator is not the same as the viewpoint character, except when the author chooses to go in close and hot on the viewpoint character.

I'm jumping in without having read every word of every post, and I'm making assumptions, but I think they're safe ones.

First, I wouldn't want to model anything about my writing on the work of any other writer -- classic war-horse or contemporary best-seller. What works for Flaubert or Dickens or Baldacci or whomever won't necessarily work for me or anyone else. Whatever we write has to be true to our own vision. Most of all it has to be true to the characters and their story.

Bill mentions O'Brian -- whom I also admire. One of the things I admire about him is his subtlety in characterization, which largely operates through his use of point of view. I find that he maintains PoV with either one of his main protagonists pretty consistently, shifting through a continuum from immediate identification with the thoughts of one or the other to a point just outside the character's head, to one a few paces behind or a few yards above. Readers get drawn back in to a specific point of view through dialogue, usually, where the voices are very distinct, and sometimes through thoughts. which maintain the distinct voices. The movement is smooth, and stays quite intimate, so that you never quite get into Omniscience. Scene setting is the one place where there's borderline Omniscience, but there's always a point of view provided pretty quicklly to get our feet on the ground (or on deck, more than likely.) When characterization is going on, dialogue does it, most of the time, and PoV shifts happen in conjunction with dialogue.

There's another outside PoV that isn't Omniscient, which O'Brian uses a lot. It's pure observation. The reader knows what the meaning of the scene is, because of previous familiarity with the characters, or wonders significantly about the meaning, because of lack of familiarity. There isn't any outside knowledge being plugged in, just a descripton of what's going on. Then it's up to the reader to either understand or wonder. I appreciate the intelligence of this approach, and it's appeal to the reader's own intelligence.

There, I've read some more of the posts in this thread, and I have a better idea of what's going on here.

I don't think Bill is unwilling to improve his command of writer's tools and tricks -- but he's entirely justified in not wanting to be told he CAN'T do something, or attempt it, because its 1. old fashioned, 2. too difficult for him to master, 3. too sophisticated for a beginning novelist.

PoV is an absolute bugger. It makes all the difference in whether a story is engaging, clear, has depth. Sticking with a single point of view can be incredibly boring. 1st person without irony is just laziness. Third person without focus is madness, but you can't keep the same focus at all times, without sacrificing depth of field and clarity.

Those are just pronouncements. But mine own.

I don't think any of us can tell any other of us that we can't do something. Maybe that we should do something, x,y,or z. If you're going to say "don't" say why, and provide a solid alternative. In every review.

Shalom

People buy books because they're sold to them -- through reviews, Oprah Winfrey, publishers' marketing campaigns, word of mouth, etc.

If you write a good book and send it 'round to agents, eventually it'll find someone who thinks well enough of it to flog it to publishers. Ditto, eventually a publisher will make an offer. If a book is a piece of crap, but has popular selling points, it might make you some money. If it's good, it'll find it's audience, and maybe spread it's influence farther than you can imagine.

Getting to know people in the business it the best way to sell your book. But first you have to write it. And if you don't write with integrity, what's the point? Any book written well, with integrity, has a chance, if you take the trouble to network a little, in the right places. Write the good book first, worry about the market later.

Will readers accept an ominiscient narrator?

I think this concept is out of date, and may never have been really effective. The closest we should come is an Observer who exposes events without comment. Engagement with characters comes from entering into their PoVs, and there is much opportunity for plot twists, thematic exposition, and, above all, irony, in manipulation of PoV.

I've found switching PoV to be a great device for changing pace -- one character may have a brisker approach to observation and decision-making than another, and can be resorted to to move things along. I've used a switch in PoV character to make necessary backstory easier to convey, for example. Of course changing PoV can develop interrelationships of characters too, create misunderstandings between them, and resolve them.

The real difficulty is mostly mechanical -- at what point and how do we switch point of view? The easiest is to devote chapters or scenes to one point of view or another. But switches between two or even three PoV characters can be done within scene -- through dialogue most easily, I think. PoV and voice have to be established first, though, with at least a scene devoted to the carrying character before the fancy switching takes place. The thought/speaking voice of the character has to be distinct and established. If you're really in touch with your characters as people this shouldn't be a huge problem.