Trouble with penetration

[Rushie]

Gothicangel's thread got me thinking about a problem I'm having with my novel in working out POV. First, I want to be sure I understand the concepts correctly, I am thinking in terms of Orson Scott Card's descriptions in "Characters & Viewpoint".

Third person has the following subcategories:

Omniscient - the "narrator" can see everything AND see inside everyone's head, but since he sees everything we stay at a certain distance

Limited, light penetration - we see into one character's mind, but we don't really experience the scene from his point of view. We still have a narrator telling us stuff from a neutral point of view, it's just that we can dip into the viewpoint character's mind

Limited, deep penetration - we experience everything through the character, we don't need to use "he thought" because everything is presented ONLY as seen from his point of view

Limited, cinematic - we see everything externally from one character's viewpoint, but we do not see inside his head or anyone's head, just like a movie camera only sees the outside.

Orson Scott Card says we can vary from light to deep to cinematic limited third in our story as needed and the dividing lines are not firm. When you write in limited third, no one level is right for the whole story. At times you need "hot" intense deep penetration and at other times the cool distance of cinematic view.

I have been confused in the past between omniscient and limited cinematic, and now I see the difference. Omniscient is being able to dip into everyone's mind even in one scene or chapter. Limited light or deep, you dip only into one character's mind, at least for that scene or chapter, then you may go to another one for another chapter. Limited cinematic, you keep your "camera's eye" with one character, but you do not dip into his or anyone else's head.

So my problem and question is this. I want to write this story mostly from my MC's limited third. But I want to have some separate scenes of my bad guy doing his thing, from I guess you'd call it "cinematic". I do NOT want to be inside his head, but just showing him externally. I have read novels that had the protagonist and the opposition character both deep limited in alternating chapters, which I love, seeing the inner thoughts and motivations of each. And I have read novels that were entirely from the protagonist's viewpoint, the opposition being shown only from the MC's viewpoint. But I can't think of an example offhand where the MC was in deep penetration limited third, and the opposition was shown only as a cool distant "cinematic" (in different scenes or chapters). Part of me thinks this is cheating and will annoy the reader, because I am using it as a mechanism to hide what the bad guy is planning in his head. OR, is it fair to do that, so that the reader can gain some information about what he is doing, that the MC does not yet have, so the reader can worry about him?

[IdiotsRUs]

I don't see why it should annoy the reader so much ( if it's done well obviously). I'm sure I've read thrillers that do just that, show what the Bad Dude is doing, but not inside his head. Can't think of the names off the top of my head....But it's definitely been done, and was fine. In fact I quite liked the effect.

Heck I read a book where the three different POVs were done in first, second and third, so this should be a doddle!

PS I only clicked on this thread cos I have dirty mind.

[quickWit]

At first I thought "This thread certainly doesn't belong in Novels!"

Now I realize it's me that doesn't belong in this thread.


Carry on.

:)

[Cyia]

The title made we wonder as well.

This is going to turn into a smut thread so fast...

[Slushie]

I associate the word 'penetration' with one subject and one subject only; writing POV is NOT that subject. :D

Anyways, I have never heard of all these different types of 3rdPerson POV. To me, there's omniscient, and there's limited. 3rd Person Limited has varying degrees of how..erm...penetrated the reader is inside the POV character.

If you think your story can't survive without showing what VillianX is doing, then I'd say keep those scenes in. Just be wary of telleverythingitis. Is there a way to build the same tension while staying inside you mc's head? That might work better.

[Maxinquaye]

I have a dirty mind, that's all.

Carry on.

[katiemac]

So my problem and question is this. I want to write this story mostly from my MC's limited third. But I want to have some separate scenes of my bad guy doing his thing, from I guess you'd call it "cinematic". I do NOT want to be inside his head, but just showing him externally. I have read novels that had the protagonist and the opposition character both deep limited in alternating chapters, which I love, seeing the inner thoughts and motivations of each. And I have read novels that were entirely from the protagonist's viewpoint, the opposition being shown only from the MC's viewpoint. But I can't think of an example offhand where the MC was in deep penetration limited third, and the opposition was shown only as a cool distant "cinematic" (in different scenes or chapters). Part of me thinks this is cheating and will annoy the reader, because I am using it as a mechanism to hide what the bad guy is planning in his head. OR, is it fair to do that, so that the reader can gain some information about what he is doing, that the MC does not yet have, so the reader can worry about him?

I think you should ask yourself WHY you want to show the villain's actions and just how far into these actions you'll go. Yes, it could certainly push the momentum forward. On the other hand, it could easily frustrate your readers. Personally, I dislike knowing more information than the MC because then it makes the MC look like an idiot. I'm just waiting around impatiently for the MC to catch on what I already know, instead of trying to figure it out along with the character.

Sometimes it might work if the MC suspects the villain is up to something--say, building a time machine. Then we get a glimpse of the villain working on a project. It seems to confirm what the MC suspects, while moving tension forward. But then we get to the climax and, nope, the villain wasn't building a time machine. He was building a bomb. It's a twist for both the MC and the reader, but it wasn't manipulated.

[Anahid21]

You might want to take a look at this thread too: Omniscient Third Person? (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163970) There is a lot of interesting discussion towards the end that, although not going as "deep" as you do into the subject, pretty much focuses on a similar issue (ie. omni vs. 3rd person vs. head hopping.)

[Toothpaste]

As long as you aren't doing something because it's the easy way out, you can go for it. If showing what your villain is up to is truly the best way to get across that part of the story, go for it. If it's because you just think he's neat, or because you can't think of another way to get the information across . . . then you might want to step back and try a little harder to problem solve.

[Anahid21]

Sometimes it might work if the MC suspects the villain is up to something--say, building a time machine. Then we get a glimpse of the villain working on a project. It seems to confirm what the MC suspects, while moving tension forward. But then we get to the climax and, nope, the villain wasn't building a time machine. He was building a bomb. It's a twist for both the MC and the reader, but it wasn't manipulated.

In a story I read, the villain was shown talking to one of MC's teammates in private, getting him to go along with his plans. That created tension in all the scenes that followed with that character and the MC, since we now considered him a potential traitor. It worked very well.

[Chasing the Horizon]

Just another pervert who clicked this thread thinking it had to do with something, uh, else. I will now leave as quietly as possible. :gone:

[ChristineR]

I would consider going deep into the mind of another person, say the villain's mother. Obviously I don't know if she makes sense in your story, but it would be a way to show the villain's actions without actually giving us clear insight into the villain's head. It's also a way to add tension, because the villain's mother would have an incomplete view of what was going on and would get her information parceled out at interesting moments. For example, you might have your readers wondering when she was finally going to open his closet and find that damned skeleton. And finally, you can build sympathy for the hapless mother struggling with the villainous son, and even add a bit of pathos or heroism when the son finally turns on her.

These are just examples--they probably won't work for your specific story, but it's the kind of thing you might consider.

[katiemac]

In a story I read, the villain was shown talking to one of MC's teammates in private, getting him to go along with his plans. That created tension in all the scenes that followed with that character and the MC, since we now considered him a potential traitor. It worked very well.

Yep, that would be a good reason, IMO.

[Libbie]

Cue ScarletPeaches and TheThinker42 in 3...2...1....

Anyway, to answer your question, I think you'll be okay as long as you have a good reason, as others have said, and as long as you're consistent with how and when you switch between the types of POV.

[HelloKiddo]

I officially declare Rushie the winner of 2009's Most Misleading Title award. Congratulations. Is there anybody you'd like to thank?

(I kid. I like the topic ;))

[Wayne K]

http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/files/2009/05/ky.jpg

[Slushie]

http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/files/2009/05/ky.jpg

Sometimes, Wayne, it's a harder problem.
http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk243/supro66/VIAGRA.jpg
I'm immature. There. I said it so you don't have to.

[Maxinquaye]

I don't know if it's so hard all the time...

http://slosydney.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hugh_jackman_98.jpg

No, I feel terrible. This is a serious thread. Apologies for thinking with other things than my brain...

[Anahid21]

No, I feel terrible. This is a serious thread. Apologies for thinking with other things than my brain...

That picture just 'penetrated' my female mind and won't get out. Damn you for ruining my life. :e2hammer:

[Rushie]

Good answers, this is helpful. Anahid21, I almost asked my question in the other thread but didn't want to hijack it so decided to create this one.

As for all the "off" topic comments, ROFLMAO! Maxinquaye, that picture, yummie! But I swear I did not purposely intend the title to mislead that bad. Blame OSC, he's the one that came up with the terms "light penetration" and "deep penetration" in his book. He's even got pictures of it. Good ones. :)

[Albannach]

I thought that OSC's discussion of the subject was particularly useful for someone struggling with PoV issues. His point that there isn't just one flavor of 3rd limited is a very good one.

I see no reason why you can't use one degree of penetration (yes, I'm ignoring the *ahem* implications) in one chapter and another in different chapters although it might be easier, as someone suggested, to use another character close to the antagonist.

[Cliff Face]

Penetration? What, like a tetanus shot?

Umm, on topic, I had a similar situation to this. The first book I wrote, while not being the best in the world, had something that you might find useful in a way.

I had my heroes doing their thing, then at the end of some of the chapters I'd switch to this guy Brian. The rest of the story was omni, but with Brian I didn't dip into his head, I just showed what he was doing and, being a comedy, made jokes like, "Fortunately Brian had been walking all his life, so the treadmill didn't pose much threat."

Anyway, I put him in to make readers think he was the bad guy. There was chaos in the city, and someone had to be to blame, and so it seemed like a natural assumption that this comic relief character was the bad guy.

But because I didn't go into his head, and because he wasn't doing anything bad, it left me free for him to just be in possession of a crucial item. A little DEM, sure, but it blew away people's conceptions of him. Not sure how well it worked, it was the first book after all, but I think it's a similar thing with your book. You could lead the reader on to believe anything about your bad guy by not going into his head, then wham, crucial moment comes and he finally makes himself clear. So you could, if you wanted to and if you thought it would work, make people think this was just another character who the heroes would meet with and do great things with, and then he turns out to be a psycho with a friendly smile.

Just a thought. :)

[Serious Desi]

My Boyfriend has the same problem...

I'm not sure what you're asking ( and sure that I can't answer it well) but I don't see why you can't just try it out. You can always start over if you don't like it.

As a reader I don't like the switching between characters.

[Rushie]

but I think it's a similar thing with your book. You could lead the reader on to believe anything about your bad guy by not going into his head, then wham, crucial moment comes and he finally makes himself clear. So you could, if you wanted to and if you thought it would work, make people think this was just another character who the heroes would meet with and do great things with, and then he turns out to be a psycho with a friendly smile.

Just a thought. :)

Yup, that is exactly what I was thinking. He is someone in the MC's life who is supposedly just another person, but is actually the one who caused the disaster that killed someone else in the MC's life, but that fact needs to be hidden until the end; it is a big surprise to be revealed at the climax. (tee hee I said "climax") So you see I can't really be in his head. So if I use "cinematic" limited third to show him doing stuff in some scenes, I can like you say "lead the reader to believe" certain things about him, however, at the same time I will need to also develop him so that when the big revelation comes it will fall exactly in line with the reader's view of the character. That is going to be tricky, to pull that off without the reader suspecting he did it, but that is the case no matter which POV I use.

[Matera the Mad]

All I know is that it doesn't bother me, and my betas let me get away with pretty much the same thing. I'm very careful about my transitions.

And I think the thread title is a hoot.

[Albannach]

First someone says penetration and THEN someone says climax. Time for an X-rating for this thread. ;)

[Maxinquaye]

This thread is really going places.

[Cliff Face]

Another thing with regards to leading the reader to conclusions by selective exclusion of one character's thoughts is that probably most readers won't pick up that you're not going into his head. They might not suspect a thing. What I would do, and I'm not saying this would work, but if that character is involved in MC's life, then perhaps having the bad guy not do much towards the plot could make some people think, "Well, what's his deal then?"

I know whenever there's allusions to a bad guy in a book, I read the rest of it interrogating every character - did you do it? No, you're just a bit part. What about you? Oh, you wind up hooking up with someone and making their life complete... aha! It's colonel mustard in the library with the wet fish!

Last book I read had a guy with a crippling illness, and he was orchestrating the attacks. Never suspected him for a minute, which is what you should be going for I guess.

ETA: But the guy definitely had something about him... I just didn't place it before I read the last couple of chapters.

[thethinker42]

Cue ScarletPeaches and TheThinker42 in 3...2...1....

Man, I'm getting predictable.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think you'll be okay as long as you have a good reason, as others have said, and as long as you're consistent with how and when you switch between the types of POV.

Agreed.