POV

[lissapup]

What point of view do you like to write in the most?

[Writing Again]

I predominantly use third omniscient although I don't rattle trap around a lot: It often looks closer to third person limited.

My second choice is first person.

I have not used anything except those two in years.

[kevacho]

I enjoy reading and writing in 3rd person omniscient. However, strangely enough, I have a "knack" for first person. The same thing happens to me when I'm drumming. I prefer rock, or progressive rock... "four on the floor", but I have a unique, flair for swing.

Go figure... ;)

Kevin
www.kevacho.com

"Mmmmm... coffee..."

[Jyndral]

I like to have some kind of mystery, so I use 3rd limited. I have a work in progress using that and two viewpoints. I think it works. (So far.)

I've also used first person. I kinda like it. So far, the only thing I've written (and finished) with it is a short story.

[Jamesaritchie]

It depends on the story type and genre, but either first person, or third person limited. I rarely see the others done well, and can't see any reason at all to use them.

[Stephenie Hovland]

I'm doing a writing a assignment this week that has to be in 1st person. Almost every sentence starts with "I." Yuck. I'll have to work on that.

[STORMTURNER]

I'm glad this question was posed because I was curious about this but wanted to avoid the time it takes for the moderator to approve the thread.

The novel I'm working on (my first) is in the main character's point of view and voice.

This leads into various questions.

1) Is backstory considered bad novel writing?
2) Much of my story happened in the past, which leads up to present day. How do I bring it current without going into the past?
3) Should my main character tell what happened in the pass to another character or the reader?
4) Grisham is good at recreating past events without rambling on about it, but I can't figure out how he does it. Anyone familiar with his method of writing?

Thanks in advance.

[Lori Basiewicz]

... but wanted to avoid the time it takes for the moderator to approve the thread.

I apologize for the off-topic, but wanted to let StormTurner know that mods don't have to approve the threads here before they appear. We just step in if things get out of hand, which is very rare on this board.

Okay, back to the POV discussion. It's interesting.

[STORMTURNER]

Thanks. I started a thread re Contests and was told the thread had to be approved before it could appear on the site.

***Please delete this posting once you're read. And thanks for the notice.

[katdad]

Currently I'm writing a series of modern hardboiled private detective novels, which traditionally are first person narrative.

I have another novel in 3rd person that's about 1/4 done, but it's not in the sequence of these mysteries and therefore I'm focusing on the current project.

[STORMTURNER]

I just got an email from a member of a writing group of which I'm a member. He told me that he's working on a 3-book spy thriller series and the "voice" of the first is not a character. The voice is watching/spying on his main character. My next question was emailed to him, but I'm too impatient to wait for his response.

Which "person" is it if it's not a character? Is this first-person because the character will eventually be written in? Please advise.

P.S. I hope the question isn't confusing

[Thekherham]

I've used all four POV's.

Yes, I've even written a short story in second person... not that it's going to be published or anything.

[STORMTURNER]

He finally responded and told me that "The Royal Tenenbaums" was written in 3rd Omniscient.

[mr mistook]

I know that JDM and JAR cringe every time I say this, but my theory is that the 3rd Limited and Objective POV's are both derivatives of 3rd Omnicient, and therefore, an omnicient narrator has every right to limit the POV to a single character, shift the POV to a different character, draw back and look at all events objectively, or provide truly omnicient info not available to any characters.

JAR warns strongly against going omnicient, saying time and again that he's rarely if ever seen it done well. I'm pretty sure he doesn't even like the idea of shifting POV's from one character to another.

Everybody warns of the dangers of "head-hopping" - jumping into several character's thoughts in a single scene. Only the highest masters of literature seem to be able to pull this off without confusing the reader.

JDM holds back any detailed advice about the use or abuse of 3rd person and only asks, cryptically, "Does it work?"

I'm in no position to claim expertise of the 3rd person in practice, but still, in *theory* limited, shifting, objective, and omnicient POV's are all open to a 3rd person narrator to use as he will. This is why I consider 3rd person the most powerful point of view.

[maestrowork]

I wouldn't say it's the most "powerful." Useful, probably. If done well, IMHO, 1st person is the most powerful.

3rd limited is actually very closely related to 1st person, if you consider only one POV character.

[pianoman5]

I write mainly in 3rd limited or rotating, partly because it feels right but also, I fear, because it’s the ‘respectable’ choice among writers and teachers of writing in this postmodern era.

But the book I’m currently reading has given me pause for thought. It’s ‘The Sound of Trumpets’ by John Mortimer, a well-loved English writer and good bloke, who is perhaps best known for his ‘Rumpole of the Bailey’ legal drama series, which translated very successfully to TV.

I’m trying to avoid this, but at the moment it seems that I can’t just read as a reader; I’m reading with my writer/self-editor’s hat on and half-consciously analysing everything as I go. Ignoring the (not insignificant) number of other glaring ‘technical’ errors Mortimer makes in this book (and in others of his that I’ve since checked, which his editors at least should have fixed), one issue in particular is pulling me up regularly – that of POV. He uses a mixture of 3rd limited and omniscient, and even in the limited sections there are many instances of head-hopping in adjacent sentences.

Nevertheless, while the editor in me shrieks his disapproval, on the whole my reader persona doesn’t give a rat’s - “because it works”.

I’ve tried to figure out why it works for me, and can only conclude that it’s because Mortimer’s narrative style is so intelligent, witty, and engaging. While intellectually I appreciate the subtler elegance of third person limited POV in letting a story unfold through its main character(s), Mortimer demonstrates the power of omniscience in the hands of a capable storyteller, by painting rich tableaux of situations and characters whose inner lives, histories and motivations we get to know well. Perhaps it doesn’t engage us so much with the main character, but it works very nicely in an ensemble piece.

[anatole ghio]

It is a cliche that anything goes, as long as it adds to what you are trying to communicate.

Personally, I have used every type of viewpoint (including a story that switches from first person to second person and then back again), and I find that first person to be the most challenging.

I have had this drilled into my head by a number of writing teachers and my experience with first time writers shows it to be more or less true. First person has the natural flaw of encouraging an emphasis on voice over action (which a beginning writer may not recognize and end up with a passive character) and puts an overemphasis on detailing the feelings of the character's reaction to an event, rather than on how they demonstrate those feelings (the old saw, show and don't tell).

There are natural strengths to first person, some of which correspond to its inherent flaws, such as withholding information from the reader is easier and less contrived, it encourages a distinct voice and it can be more emotionally resonant with the reader.

As far as third person omniscient being a weak POV, again, it all depends on how it is used. Like first person, it has natural flaws that a beginning writer might fall into... but if you are looking for an example of how it is used properly, I would point you to Philip K. Dick, who used it almost exclusively throughout his career. He published only one novel (his last) in first person, and otherwise stuck to third omniscient. Not only did it help him to move the plot forward by switching viewpoint, it also naturally meshed with the philosophical underpinning in his work.

If you are looking for the place to begin in his oeuvre, I would suggest The Man in the High Castle. He uses the structural device of separating each POV jump into different chapters. He also used the I Ching to determine the direction of the plot, so each POV switch also brought about a switch in the plot, as the new character would consult the I Ching for advice (he consulted the I Ching himself as he was writing the novel, so as the characters turned to the I Ching for guidance, he was doing the same and had no real idea how the novel would go until he got to the end).

Another example but from a different art form, would be the graphic novel The Watchmen, by Alan Moore and David Gibbons. It is written in the equivalent of 3rd omniscient, and uses the conflicting viewpoints of the different characters to rewrite the readers understanding of the plot, a la Rashomon.

Interesting thread.

- Anatole

[DarkHaven80]

1) Is backstory considered bad novel writing?

I've heard that it's frowned upon but sometimes it can be necessary for the plot, if done right. For instance, if you overdo it, the action isn't 'here and now' anymore - and the readers sitting there getting impatient for things to keep happening with the story itself, not the backstory. However, sometimes backstory is needed, or else the reader will sit there and wonder what the hecks going on. Or if they find out through dialogue something horribles happened that's relevant to the plot, backstory can be a better technique simply because, as readers, we like to experience the horrible misfortune rather than simply learn about it afterwards.

In short, I'd stick to what works best per book. If you choose backstory, break it up. Make it short and sweet and relevant when needed. Don't rely on it as a crutch to fill 'dead air', when your plot has stalled - this may be obvious to some.

If I were you, I'd inject the back story at the best moment to do so, when it would have the greatest emotional impact. And maybe if being hit with, say, a memory, use it when it would have the WORST impact on the characters life at the time. As an example, the lead is getting down and dirty with someone, and its important for them to do so, when they're slammed with a backstory that ruins it all, making the plot have more obstacles to overcome than before.



2) Much of my story happened in the past, which leads up to present day. How do I bring it current without going into the past?

I don't know the details of your story so I can't give straight out concrete advice here. It may require restructing all your scenes, or else just messing around with some, backstory, prologues, etc, etc.


3) Should my main character tell what happened in the pass to another character or the reader?

This can be a very helpful tool. If it fits, use it.

[DarkHaven80]

I write in 3rd person. I also love first person, but avoid it. When I use it I tend to start being dramatic *grins* Also, many editors don't like it and supposably sells less. Why have that mark against you right off the bat? Say only three of the publishers (from 10) you submit to like it, but the others don't, you're striking out right there over something that could have been easily avoided.

I love third person limited because it's almost like first person, yet not, and it develops a strong bond with the character. I enjoy all the forms of it, though, and I'm not really sure which I'll be using yet for the next novel project.

[maestrowork]

There are many ways to bring back stories to the main story, if it's important:

- using dialogue
- using quick flashbacks that integrate seamlessly in the plot
- devoting a whole chapter, mid-book (usually as the main plot takes a breather)...

That being said, if the back story is SO important, why not start there?

If you must use back stories, do it well. When you do everything well, nothing is "bad writing."

[STORMTURNER]

Grisham's "The Testament" had 2 POVs. The first chapter was in one POV, then the character died. Then, it was taken over by another character. Which POV would this fall under?

3rd Limited?

[maestrowork]

3rd rotating/switching limited.