POV samples/recommendations please

If you're talking about the character telling the reader things through internal thoughts, things which the character knows, that's not omniscient POV. That's telling (often a problem) through your character.

Telling is often bad because it lumps information together in indigestible, uninteresting chunks. More often you should show--put out the evidence for something, and let the reader evaluate.

Omniscient POV is a unique entity telling the story. This entity has access to the inner world of every character, however significant or not.

My first person MC is mute, but her inner world is rich and her thoughts color the story. Note: she's the narrator because of the interesting perspective she offers. She's the main character because the story revolves around her choices. Your narrator need not be the MC--just the most interesting filter for your story.

When you use multiple POVs in third limited (I'm assuming you're working in third limited) the key is simply to shift POVs well, whether you do that by starting a new scene or segwaying within a scene. Make sure your readers can follow. And don't just use another POV character because you need to get information across. Use another POV because it deepens and enhances the story.

To the Lighthouse, Mrs Dalloway, and The Waves by Virginia Woolf all shift POVs very elegantly and effectively.

justagrrl64 said:

I have a WIP (barely in progress!) and the main character is the point of view.

Click to expand...

First-person or third-person-limited narrative POV? This is an important consideration. Without knowing your choice here, it's pretty much impossible to answer your question intelligently.

caw

I don't think I've read anything quite what you're describing, but the closest I can think of is probably the last novel I've read. Haruki Murakami's latest book, After Dark is narrated more or less by some disembodied voice witnessing the inter-twilight hours of a Japanese city. The exact POV is beyond exact categorization, but I suppose I would call it an objective third person with a magical realist twist, in that the narrator sometimes embodies itself as a kind of "camera." The POV, in fact, extends to the reader in that the "narrator" invites the reader to become a camera, and witness the events of the novel. Essentially, the novel functions as a kind of "found" movie, with the narrator as the cameraman/cinematographer, and the reader is the camera lens.

Another one I can think of something similar, as far as the POV as a character, would be Tim O'Brien's In the Lake of the Woods. In this one, the narrator actually is a narrator--some kind of researcher/reporter/biographer--but we only know this through the footnotes. The narrator is, again, a kind of objective/omniscient third person. The narrator tells the story (which is centered on the disappearance) of the two main characters, as far as what is known, but then expands on this by "imagining" what isn't known. Several possible explanations for their disappearance and how it happened, what might have been going through the MC's minds are explored. But it is speculation by the narrator, who reveals himself only in the footnotes. There are also "Evidence" chapters in which there is no narrator, only first-hand quotes/accounts/lists of things that relate to the story (like Chuck Palauniuk's Rant, which is told entirely in this manner).

I may be in the minority, but I hate the occasional POV shift.
Make a scene instead so we can get info, with a character who knows sing language.

Systematic POV shifted are ok and require a structure and careful planning while writing or revriting.

If I'm reading the O.P.'s question correctly ... she seems to be asking if it's ok to have more than one POV in a book.

Yes. You can have one, two, three, four, or many POVs in a book. You can have more than one POV in a chapter. You can have more than one POV in a scene.

You can use both Third Person and First Person.
You can use both Third Person and Omniscient Narrator.
You can use ...
but you get the idea.

You have lots of choices.

Like anything else, it has to be done well. That goes without saying. But there's no 'rule' that commits you to doing the whole story in the POV of the main character.

A second question in the O.P. would seem to be ... can a mute character have a POV?
Yes.
A mute character, a blind character, an animal, a retarded person, somebody who thinks in Greek .... they can all have a POV.


Maybe not a piece of furniture.
But then again, maybe so. I read a lovely short S.F. story from the POV of a tree.

Check out Characters & Viewpoint. It'll help immensely.

I have mixed feelings about mute characters-- even characters who never talk. The most important thing a character can do on page is talk. To have a mute character, the only real options are first person, or third person Limited POV, but then that means the mute character needs to be the main character, or one of a group of main characters. Then you say that the character is not physically active. So really, you have a "floating head" sort of character who does little for the action. The definition of main character includes that he/she/it needs to be the main actor, and make the main decisions that drive the plot-- so your mute character is not the main character. I personally would get rid of this character. I don't see why you are keeping him or her, but then I might be biased because the way I write is that each focus character needs to have a major part in the actual story line. No focus character is "useless." I have bit-part secondary characters, but they too need to do a job. The thing is that bit players are not entitled to have their "thoughts seen" by the reader. So what you are proposing is showing the thoughts of a peripheral non-useful character. It doesn't make sense to me.

THis can still be third person POV. As long as you put a break between the MC and the mute character. I think that is a really great idea, especially if the mute character plays a major roll in the story. Even if that major roll is small..if his or her presence makes a difference in the story. Does that make sense? I really think that would add a lot to the story.

Use Her Name said:

I have mixed feelings about mute characters-- even characters who never talk. The most important thing a character can do on page is talk.

Click to expand...

I believe the first sentence of The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, by Carson McCullers, goes:

In the town there were two deaf-mutes.

and goes from there. I might not have the exact quote, not having the novel available to me at the moment. But it is simply one of the dozen or so finest American novels of the 20th Century.

caw

Use Her Name said:

I have mixed feelings about mute characters-- even characters who never talk. The most important thing a character can do on page is talk. To have a mute character, the only real options are first person, or third person Limited POV, but then that means the mute character needs to be the main character, or one of a group of main characters. Then you say that the character is not physically active. So really, you have a "floating head" sort of character who does little for the action. The definition of main character includes that he/she/it needs to be the main actor, and make the main decisions that drive the plot-- so your mute character is not the main character. I personally would get rid of this character. I don't see why you are keeping him or her, but then I might be biased because the way I write is that each focus character needs to have a major part in the actual story line. No focus character is "useless." I have bit-part secondary characters, but they too need to do a job. The thing is that bit players are not entitled to have their "thoughts seen" by the reader. So what you are proposing is showing the thoughts of a peripheral non-useful character. It doesn't make sense to me.

Click to expand...

What about the reasons someone might have a secondary character narrate? Obviously this character is important to the plot--important enough to be in more than a handful of scenes in more than a handful of ways. Just because a character doesn't speak--does that mean they should be eliminated? Muteness does not equal uselessness. Ever read The Little Mermaid?

An interesting narrator doesn't need to be able to speak. An interesting narrator has to offer a unique perspective that enhances a story. This character may or may not be able to speak.

A book is not a movie. We, the reader, can sense far beyond the visible or audible. Although a mute character in a movie may bore the viewer (although I thought Dot in The Quiet was pretty intriguing, and I'd call that a B movie), a mute character in a novel can be just what that story needed to set it apart.

You might also want to look into Chuck Palahniuk's "Invisible Monsters", which is told from the first-person POV of a woman with a severe facial disfigurement who basically can make sounds but cannot say anything comprehensible (though I think it also includes flashback scenes to before her injury). It's not entirely like your storyline in that the narrator is also the main character, but you might get some tips on how to work a mute character into the world around her/himself.

justagrrl64 said:

She is a sole caregiver for her elderly father, who has had a stroke and no longer speaks. Which is why he's not "physically active" but everything revolves around him.

Instead of having everything from her viewpoint, I began to think it might be interesting for him to reveal some things to the reader. I have a few good scenes, but it's also starting to seem like she's taking care of a pet... or an item.

Click to expand...

Mmm, seems I had the wrong impression when you said the POV was the main character--I thought you meant it as in, like, "the setting is the main character," etc.

In either case, I still recommend Murakami's After Dark, then. Similar to your character's father, one of the principle characters spends the entire novel asleep.

Hmm.. you could perhaps have the father reveal things through notes, or in flashbacks where the narrator remembers him telling her things, or reflects on something he did in the past (and perhaps interprets it in a new light).

But if you're not committed to the first person narrator, I would suggest you try writing in third person omniscient. That way you can write mainly from the daughter's point of view, but occasionally shift to the father's POV. Or theroetically you could shift to the father's first-person point of view with the right transitions. Some people also shift between first-person narrators, though you would need to indicate this some way, like giving chapter headings to tell the reader who is speaking, and giving them very different voices so that it's clear the POV has shifted. Third person omniscient is a lot easier to work with in the sense that it's less confusing to the reader.

scheherazade said:

Third person omniscient is a lot easier to work with in the sense that it's less confusing to the reader.

Click to expand...

Gag.

caw