The Review Club Forum POV: Wha...?

Hey, gang. It wasn't until I joined this group that I began getting comments on POV in reviews of my work. And, honestly, I'm a bit confuzzled. I understand keeping a character's POV clear. What I don't understand is why all the hubbub about switching POV in a scene. If the switch is clear, the writing not confusing, and the reader's interest still engaged, why is it such a no no?

I'm asking this in all sincerity as I really want to understand. (That way, when I break the rule, I'll know why.) ::tongue::

Also, why is it necessary to understand who the narrator is? Isn't that simply the author? Not a character in the story?

(Okay, I've shown enough of my ignorance for one night.)

Thanks for your input.

Belle:

Here's my thoughts on POV breaks, and you can get a different opinion from any writer. I think it comes down to the format you use being the one you keep. If you are using a limited third, which Lady G is, than sticking to that will keep the style, tone and voice consistent. An omniscient narrator, which is the God-like one popping in and out of everyone's head, is a problem because it harms your ability to limit information.

Now, I don't mean to imply you can't or shouldn't use a switch, or omniscient, but to me, I feel cheated by the switch from Madeleine to Ian to Madeline. But really, if you think the POV is fine, it is. I just have a stricter view on POV changes, probably because I write mainly in first.

The thing about POV is, when you switch in and out of one character in a scene it jars the reader. Sure if it's clear great, but it still takes away from that narrator and into another voice.

Most of what drives my viewpoint is the market and its trend toward non-omniscient POV. Again, I want to say you can do anything in your writing, it's your writing. I mentioned it so you'd be aware of the break (if it was accidental), and that I (one reader noticed it).

And to answer the question of who the narrator is...

Are you as the author present in the story? Did you smell the flowers, and feel the cold? Are you a charcater in the story? If not, than anytime you use the narrator as the author, it's telling rather than showing a story (cliche I know). Sure you can have some independant narrator, be that you the author or another, but at what cost? I as a reader am much more engaged when the narrator is a part of the story, like the limited third you have going on. I get jumpy when the narrator is some unknown with an agenda I am unsure of, and really unaware of. Because most important is that I trust them, unless I'm not supposed to...

k, I hope that answered your question about my interpretation of POV.

Julie

Quote:


Well Julie said just about everything I could. But I still want to put in my two cents. Generally a reader's interest is going to be more engaged the closer they are to a character. That's not to say that you need to have an ultra close third every time you write. But it is something to keep in mind.

Okay is it necessary to know who the narrator of the story is. Well yes and no. Generally it's accepted that the main character is the narrator unless shown otherwise. But generally there is only one POV character per scene/chapter. But I know I struggled with this for a long time until I understood that the narrator could be different from the main character. The think is the narrator lends a certain voice to the story. Further drawing your readers in. Okay that's all I have to add.

The light is slowly dawning over my head. (If you smell hair burning - it's me. ::suprised:: )

So, let me see if I've got this straight.

A novel can be written in first, second or third person.

If it's written in first person, it's all from one POV.

However, if it's written in third (as all of mine are), then it can have several POVs, depending on the scene. Preferably, the POV comes from the person carrying said scene, which, for the most part, would be the main character. However, from time to time, the narrator steps in to complete the picture.

An omniscient POV confuses me. What exactly is that? I've read that's it's limiting, but I don't understand. I thought omniscient simply meant the author could detail everyone's thoughts and attitudes as well as their words and actions, but apparently I'm wrong in that.

Clueless in Texas. ::biggrin::

Quote:


Belle,

Who told you that about omniscient? Because you were right and they were wrong. More than simply having access to all the characters (which you can have in any third novel, even a limited third POV) the omniscient POV has access to all of them at the same time. For the sake of keeping omniscient straight, I imagine that the narrator is LITERALLY God, where the same narrator can read all of the people's minds, see events on both sides of the world at the same time, and comment on anything and everything on a whim. I can also see why the omniscient is WAY out of style. The problem, to me, with omniscient, is that you can't really dig into the character's misperceptions, muddling through, and ah ha moments because the narrator knows everything and wants to tell you. It reminds me of voice overs on movies, which I don't like either. This isn't to say that a good novel can't be written in omniscient, it just isn't my first PERSONAL choice, and it has to be understood to be used right.

The narrator is NOT the main character. The narrator is the narrator. It's the narrative voice that you use to describe things other than dialogue. It's not a person. It's just the narrative, unless you're writing in something other than limited third. If the narrator were the main character, the novel would be in first (because you talk about yourself as "I" right? Unless, I suppose, you're a megalomanic that refers to yourself in third person). In limited third, the narrator associates with a character -- that's the POV character -- and may have voice and tone associated with the character (I think of this sorta like how you pick up the little sayings of your friends, because you like and associate with them, but you aren't them). If you want to get too far into the thoughts and emotions of your characters (i.e. tell sometimes beyond simply showing action and tone), you should probably use third limited so that the reader can follow the narrator down the associative path and the narrative doesn't come across as stark, expositive explaining.

So now you say, well then what's the perspective difference between third and first? If a third person narrator is stuck with one character just like a first person narrator is stuck with him/herself, what distinguishes the two other than pronouns? Two main things. First, a third person narrator will see MORE things. An example: Belle and Julie are talking and Belle has her back to Julie. In first from Belle's perspective, if Julie smiles, Belle doesn't know about it and you can't write about it. In third, even if Belle is the POV character, you could probably put Julie smiling in the narration. The narrator in third can pick out details of setting that the POV character misses (there's a letter half hidden under the couch, but Cameron breezes right past it, but one of the joys of third limited is that you can let details like this slide for the sake of surprise or not, whichever works). The key thing about staying in third limited is the emotional states/opinions/ideas/and thoughts of characters, internal things versus the external things that the narrator can see. Any given third limited narrator can only have one best friend, only one character that the narrator knows well enough to read the internal states of. The other big difference between first and third is the ability to switch narrators by switching POV characters (it sure gets confusing if you switch POV characters with first). I think it's best practice to tell the reader that it's switch time, like with a scene or chapter break, just like in movies they have a hard cut or fade out transition (and feel free to correct these to the proper terms Brent) when switching between characters in different places to tell the reader, hey, we're paying attention to someone else now. That way the reader doesn't get the impression that character A has a telepathic understanding of character B. It's more about logical plausibility than anything. And the coolest thing about using third limited this way is that each POV character "best friend" narrator can have a different tone, different emphasis, some different voice stuff too, so you can manipulate who is showing what to develop varying information levels, perspectives, and emotional worries between characters to the same or similar events and information.

Don't get me wrong. POV breaks happen. ALL THE TIME. In published works (even bestsellers), in drafts, in revisions. Sometimes you HAVE to convey the information and they HAVE to happen. But if you want to get into the tone of characters but still be able to switch, you almost have to use limited third, and whenever HUMANLY POSSIBLE it makes logical and artistic sense to stay attached to one character's internal matters and stay out of the other characters' until you switch scene or chapter. I think about it this way. Third limited is a way for me to manipulate the reader's attachment or sympathy with various characters. By breaking that, I lose that power and weaken the association. If that association is what I want (isn't it what we all want), why would I ruin it with a POV break? Almost everything can be portrayed without breaking POV.

Whew. So that's my whole lecture, everything I think, and why. The "you" here refers to no particular person, just readers (this is a second POV talking to the reader). I've couched this as simply as I can, which, unfortunately, makes it sound like a lecture. This isn't my fiction and I'm not going to revise extensively to try to make the tone just right. I don't mean to condescend to anybody or lecture like I know it all. I just want to make my perspective as clear as humanly possible.

-cc

Wow cc nice.

Belle:

I'm sorry if I lead to your confusion resulting in omicient. I wish i was have as good at explaining as cc.

Julie

CC - WOW is right (Julie). Thank you so much for the time it took to explain omniscient POV.

I've read your post a few times now, and will read it a few times more, just to be sure I haven't missed anything. But, I get the overall gist.

(I can be slow, but I eventually get there.) ::tongue::

It must be my time to tackle this issue of writing, because it's been presenting itself to me over the last several weeks. I just now plucked up enough courage to ask. And, man-oh-man, do I feel some rewrites comin' on.

Again, thank you for the explanation.

Hey Belle,

Alright, obviously we have a bunch of smarty pants here, so I'm not going to be able to shed any light on what POV is from my little dungeon down here. ;-)

I do want to make a point that this really does have a LOT to do with trends and the degree to which you choose to subscribe to these trends is a matter of personal preference and even depends greatly on the genre. Before, you throw the baby out with the bathwater, take note on whether you are getting these POV comments from folks who read primarily historical fiction. After all, that is your audience for Lady Gwendolyn, and you may find that many of them don't notice the shifts the rest of us do. As far as that goes, they may even be thrown for a loop if you change that up too much. Jane Austen, no slouch, basically narrates in third person and slips in and out of peoples heads when she feels like it. Admittedly, she is dead, so how far did that get her? But my father-in-law, who reads almost exclusively contemporary historical fiction and rereads Jane Austen dozens of times, is certainly part of a larger audience out there and I'd gladly accept the royalty checks from him and his contingent of Austen loving baby boomers even if what they read is "out of style."

As a child raised on sitcoms, I understand the current trend toward third person limited and though I occasionally, accidentally break POV, I do best when I write this way. This is despite the fact I write mysteries and series mysteries in particular which trend toward first person.

I guess what I am trying to say in my long-winded way is this: While I totally support writing for market, not all markets are the same. So make certain that you are writing for "your" market and not writing for "the" market.

Brent makes a brilliant point that I was too chicken to make. Certain markets "prefer" certain POVs. I'm not sure if this is imposed really by the audience or by the gatekeepers (editors and agents) but it certainly exists. For example, when I was starting, particularly about 7 years ago in college, first person was the last thing anybody wanted. It was semi-autobiographical, it was projection, it created bathtub books (I'd like to personally point a finger at the BAD books like this in the Oprah book club at this time). Now I can't browse the debuts and new releases withotu finding half of them, across genre, in first. (And thank god, I say, because I really am hooked on writing in first.)

I'm not sure what your goal genre is Belle, but I will say that for "serious" (i.e. literary, resembling 1776 or something like that) historical fiction, a more omniscient, detached narrator does seem to be preferred, like the historical storyteller. On the other hand for more "commercial" (i.e. historical romances, thrillers, mysteries, etc.) fiction, spec fiction, a more limited or even first person narrator is preferred. That's just what the market says though.

I think my MAIN issue with POV isn't whether it's omnscient or limited, whether it sticks to one character, changes character, or breaks midscene. I think, for me, it's consistency and ONE particular POV running as a unifying thread throughout the novel. If the POV wants to be very knowledgeable and associated with a particular character, I want it to stay that way (even if the character switches) because that's the understanding I develop of the narrator. The camera does not have a zoom lens, imho, so you can stand as far or as close as you want, but once you plant yourself, it helps (at least for me) to keep the image in focus if you stay put.

-cc

Excellent point, Brent and cc.

FYI. As a reader of historical, romantic fiction (yes I said it), the major trend in the comericalized stuff is a close third. Of course there are those mistakes, or breaks that happen. I think the only use of omincient in historical comes from the 1800's and early 20th century. Most commerical stuff, as pointed out in prior thread, is a close third or first. Now I'm in no way implying that you couldn't or shouldn't pick something else. Hell, I'd love to see a mystery in 2nd POV.

Well there's my last word.

Julie

As a general rule all the above advice is bang on and I have no quibbles with it. Lately, I've been reading a lot of Cormac McCarthy and he breaks so many rules it drove me mad! For example, run on sentences without proper punctuation, no quotation marks and a lack of apostrophes, POV shifts, "telling", and introducing facts from discussions/dialogue, when the facts weren't revealed in the discussions/dialogue.

I'm at peace with it now.

I think it boils down to style and whether it works. I hate to say that as it's a bit of a cop-out, I know, but it seems the trick is all these devices are in "service" of the story, but ultimately it's the story that counts.

My two cents.