Questions regarding Third Person Limited

Yes, in that case it's third omniscient (or dramatic). Any time you're sharing something that isn't known by you POV character, you're stepping out of limited. Of course, you can use both, but be sure you're doing it intentionally and have reasons for doing so.

Geeks said:

EDIT: And is there a difference between third person limited and third person subjective?

Click to expand...

Your narrative can be both of those, or neither. "Limited" means it sticks with the viewpoint of one person (generally the protagonist). "Subjective" means that the viewpoint includes the characters thoughts, feelings and attitudes.

I always enjoy these discussions; I've learned a lot in them.

Yeah, third person limited sticks to one character. But that doesn't mean you can't have multiple POV characters with third limited Just stick to one per chapter or something and you'll be fine.

It's fine to mix a little, but be consistent and have a purpose. Harry Potter is mostly limited, but she does do scenes without Harry. And, according to my Bedford Glossary of Crit. and Lit. terms, 3rd person POV is either limited or omniscient. Limited doesn't have to stay fixed on one character, it just can't have all thoughts. So, wherever you heard all those other types--they were likely being creative.

Geeks said:

Ok, so third person limited is where the narrator only knows the thoughts and feelings of a single character

Click to expand...

What you are calling 'third person limited' I would call simply 'Third Person POV'. It is one of two Character POVs. The other is 'First Person POV'.

There is no 'narrator' in Character POV.
No narrator voice. No narrator viewpoint. No narrator knowledge.

There is only the POV character and the reader. In Character POV whether it is First person or Third Person, the reader sits inside the character's skull. The reader sees, hears, thinks, knows, what the character sees, hears, thinks etc.

Geeks said:

--does that mean that if the narrator conveys things that the POV character can't see (eg. John walked to the fridge, not noticing the dark figure that hid in the shadow) that it becomes third person omniscient?

Click to expand...

If I saw this, I would say, "You have fallen out of Character POV." That is Omniscient Narrator, of which more below.

Geeks said:

And is there a difference between third person limited and third person subjective? What about third person dramatic and third person objective? Close/far/deep/intimate/distant/etc third person?

Click to expand...

I do not actually read writing books, so somebody else will have to define and discuss.

Character POV, as I said, puts you in the head of the character.

One way to talk about Character POV is to say that you are deep in the Character POV -- in the character's head, or distant from the character. Shallowly in the character, as it were.

Deep POV deals with intimate, close sensations, with smell, touch and taste, with thoughts and Interior Monologue.
Distant POV has less intimacy and immediacy.

Shallow or Distant POV would be:

She jammed on the brakes. The rabbit speeded into the woods, unharmed. But the car didn't stop. It skidded, fast, unstoppable, wheels taking no grip on the pine needles and powdery dried mud. She couldn't hold it straight. Couldn't save herself.


Close or Deep POV would be:

Rabbit!! God!! She tromped on the brakes. The steering wheel jammed her chest. Damn it!! The door slapped her as car spun. Her stomach lurched. The steering wheel tore out of her hands. She lost the brake, was thrown sideways. I'm going to die. And her head hit the dashboard


There's stuff in the text that is not a character thinking things. Where does that come from?

You got yer 'hidden narrator' or 'simple narrative'.

There is the background information. It's not some Narrator popping up to talk. It's not one of the characters thinking this, either.
'Hidden narrator' is information that slips in, lying alongside that Character POV and being unobtrusive. This hidden narrator does not break into the story to make comments. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't 'know' stuff that it wants to tell the reader.

Consider this passage:
Hidden narrator is in blue.

******
The sun shone gently on the waves. The Atlantic Ocean explored its endless territorial accomodation with the Eastern Seaboard. Tennyson knelt half in the sand, half in the foam of sea spray and examined the body.

It was already ten. Temperatures were rising fast. The tide was seeping away, leaving sea wrack and corpses behind. "Two hours. Three hours, probably." He turned the body on its side. "High tide and death." He preferred a fresh corpse, given the choice. But there was something pathetic about the freshly dead that he didn't feel for the more completely decomposed. "Not drowning. We got ligature marks."
*****

That blue is narrative, but there is no voice for the narrator. No sense it is a separate character. No sense it is speaking directly to the reader.
We glide smoothly in and out of hidden narrator. It's invisible. We really only see the Character POV. This transition works especially with Distant Character POV.

Ok.
When we are in Character POV we can move from one character to another. If we do it carefully, we can change POV even inside the same scene. This is multiple Character POVs and it is probably the most common type of modern fiction.


If we are not careful in switching from one Character POV to another, we can headhop. See the POV transition here, in Fuschia

****
Tennyson preferred a fresh corpse, given the choice. But there was something pathetic about the freshly dead that he didn't feel for the more completely decomposed. "Not drowning. Look at the ligature marks."

Mary Anne Resnick watched from a distant. She hated Tennyson's cold blooded attitude. He was good at his job, but she'd swear he didn't give a damn about it.

Tennyson felt the sun beat down on his head. He wanted this one under cover and on the table. He needed a liver temp, first and the crime scene phots snapped. Where the hell were the lab boys?
******


In Character POV, headhopping is generally considered poor craft.

However -- if you are a really good writer you can do anything you want.
The great example of this is Nora Roberts.

Maybe they have a name for it and it's one of the items on your list above.


You can also have an Omniscient Narrator or Intrusive Narrator.
You have somebody in there talking directly to the reader.

The O.N. has a distinct voice. This Narrator knows things the characters do not know and expresses thoughts and opinions that do not belong to any of the characters. In extreme cases, the Omniscient narrator is a distinct personality all on its own. The O.N. jumps from one head to another and shows us what is inside everyone.

Here's O.N.

****
Tennyson was not unusal among Medical Examiners in preferring a fresh corpse. But he was odd in finding something pathetic about the freshly dead. Maybe it was that poetic soul he didn't want to admit to he had.

He turned the body. "Not drowning. Look at the ligature marks."

Mary Anne Resnick watched from behind the yellow tape, both attracted and repelled by the sight of him. She hated Tennyson's cold blooded attitude. He was good at his job, but she'd swear he didn't give a damn about the bodies, or justice or anything else.

Tennyson felt the sun beat down on his head. He wanted this one under cover and on the table. He needed a liver temp, first and the crime scene phots snapped. Where the hell were the lab boys?

He was annoyed now. He didn't know his annoyance was only beginning.
******

I agree - "Limited" means IMO first person told from a 3rd person perspective, if you catch my drift.

For your example, no, the person wouldn't see the figure hiding in the dark, which would make it even more of a suprise when they step from the shadows!

I lurrrrv 3rd person lim!

Regarding head hopping, I read a really cool way of doing it in Thomas Perry's novel STRIP. He starts off in one character's head, has a long stretch of uninterrupted dialogue (about two pages) and when it ends we're in the other character's head. This may fall in the category of don't try this at home, kids.

IDGS said:

I agree - "Limited" means IMO first person told from a 3rd person perspective, if you catch my drift.

For your example, no, the person wouldn't see the figure hiding in the dark, which would make it even more of a suprise when they step from the shadows!

I lurrrrv 3rd person lim!

Click to expand...

Ditto. I don't often enjoy stories where I can feel the narrator.

the easiest way to think about 3rd limited is 1st person with the pronouns changed.

There are ways to think (and write) outside the bounds of the POV definitions. Some authors modulate the distance between their character and narrator in order to do things that aren't possible with just 'limited' or just 'omniscient.' It's tricky and can easily fail if not handled properly, but it's worth considering unconventional approaches sometimes.

For example, I just read 'The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint.' The book is written in first-person, but every so often the author slips into third-omniscient to describe situations and talk about himself.

For example, he'll say something like: "I felt like crap lying there in that bed, trying to heal..." Then, in the next paragraph, he'll say something like. "Poor little Edgar, look at him, all alone and his mother far away with her new friend..."

Those aren't direct quotes, but you get the point. The author used POV in a new and interesting way which made the book exciting to read and allowed him to do things which he couldn't have achieved with just one strictly-defined POV.

Just puttin' it out there.

Geeks said:

Ok, so third person limited is where the narrator only knows the thoughts and feelings of a single character--does that mean that if the narrator conveys things that the POV character can't see (eg. John walked to the fridge, not noticing the dark figure that hid in the shadow) that it becomes third person omniscient?

Click to expand...

Correct.

It's called "LIMITED" for a reason.

Ryan_Sullivan said:

It's fine to mix a little, but be consistent and have a purpose. Harry Potter is mostly limited, but she does do scenes without Harry. And, according to my Bedford Glossary of Crit. and Lit. terms, 3rd person POV is either limited or omniscient. Limited doesn't have to stay fixed on one character, it just can't have all thoughts. So, wherever you heard all those other types--they were likely being creative.

Click to expand...

Doing scenes from another character's POV is still limited. You just switch characters. But if you even dabble in omniscient, then the whole thing is omniscient, even if most of the book focuses on one character.

But when you're doing limited, then anything that is like "little did he know" should not be there.

IDGS said:

I agree - "Limited" means IMO first person told from a 3rd person perspective, if you catch my drift.

Click to expand...

Um, technically no.

Limited only means it's limited to one character's perception -- everything was told from the character's perspective (sensory information, thoughts, observations, etc.) But it may not be the same as first person, since the narrator may not be the same as character. In a 3rd limited POV, you can have a separate narrator whose job is to convey everything this character sees, hears, thinks, etc. The narrator can also describe the settings, etc. but only what the character can observe (say, the narrator couldn't write "little did he know there was a fountain just around the corner").

When 3rd limited is LIKE first person, it's called 3rd limited close. That's when the narrator takes on the voice of the character. So it almost sounds like first person, except it's in 3rd: "Bob Dole liked his ED medicine. Bob Dole did commercials for it."

Really, these are very specific, and not open for vague interpretations.

the easiest way to think about 3rd limited is 1st person with the pronouns changed.

Click to expand...

That's only a subtype of 3rd limited, as described above.

Many people prefer 3rd limited close (but why they don't like first person, I have no idea) and not "feel" the presence of a narrator. But that's only one type of 3rd limited. You can have 3rd limited with a specific, consistent narrator voice (Harry Potter, for the most part) that is NOT the character's.

If you're in third limited, can you describe an expression on the POV character's face which he, obviously can't see (unless he's looking in a mirror)? Is that something you can't do in third close but can do in third far away?

No, in third limited you can not describe an expression on the PoV character's face. I'm not sure what you mean by "third far away". I don't know of any PoV called that. If you mean third omniscient, in that PoV the narrator can describe anything they want to describe.

Mind you the best omniscient generally does not headhop. That it does so is a fallacy and one reason so few people can write good omniscient. It could--but it doesn't.

Edit: My memory of HP is that it is omniscient, but it's been quite a while since I read it so I won't swear to that. Normally if you have a narrator voice in third and it is not the voice of the character, you're looking at omniscient.

Jake Barnes said:

If you're in third limited, can you describe an expression on the POV character's face which he, obviously can't see (unless he's looking in a mirror)? Is that something you can't do in third close but can do in third far away?

Click to expand...

It's easy to get around this without leaving your POV characters head. Just say something like 'Anne realised she was letting her expression mimic her thoughts', or "Damnit Anne, wipe that stupid grin off your face."

Albannach said:

No, in third limited you can not describe an expression on the PoV character's face. I'm not sure what you mean by "third far away". I don't know of any PoV called that. If you mean third omniscient, in that PoV the narrator can describe anything they want to describe.

Mind you the best omniscient generally does not headhop. That it does so is a fallacy and one reason so few people can write good omniscient. It could--but it doesn't.

Edit: My memory of HP is that it is omniscient, but it's been quite a while since I read it so I won't swear to that. Normally if you have a narrator voice in third and it is not the voice of the character, you're looking at omniscient.

Click to expand...

Can't remember about HP that well either, but I don't recall any thoughts that aren't Harry's.



I think overall you should remember: it doesn't matter. Whatever the POV is, it's just a label. It's something for people discussing your book to throw out there. No reader that I know is going to go "oh gee, there's a lapse in the third person limited here" and throw your book down. The most important thing is to make it work. If it makes sense, sounds good and just works, go for it.

Jake Barnes said:

If you're in third limited, can you describe an expression on the POV character's face which he, obviously can't see (unless he's looking in a mirror)? Is that something you can't do in third close but can do in third far away?

Click to expand...

That's what we called a subtle POV violation. Remember, POV is called "POINT OF VIEW" or "perspective." Meaning, you're writing from the PERSPECTIVE of the character, not sitting high in a chair in the clouds describing what happens to him or her.

So, in that case, the character wouldn't have an out of body experience and get to observe his own expression. However, he can certainly convey the emotions (anger, puzzlement, etc.) or note his own actions (raising an eyebrow, biting his lips, smiling, cringing, etc.) However, you can't say "he blushed" since we usually can't see ourselves blushing or even feel it. You can, however, write "his ears turned hot" or even "he felt his face turning pink..." (feeling is okay... some people CAN "feel" it).

If you keep the words "perspective" or "perception" in mind, then you'd understand what is allowed or not in 3rd limited.

Rhys Cordelle said:

It's easy to get around this without leaving your POV characters head. Just say something like 'Anne realised she was letting her expression mimic her thoughts', or "Damnit Anne, wipe that stupid grin off your face."

Click to expand...

There's a problem with that as well, in 3rd limited. Again, 3rd limited is about perspective. In this case, you're trying to fudge it by going "omniscient" for a bit -- the reason? People DO NOT think that way. People do not think "I'm letting my EXPRESSION mimic my thoughts." People generally don't realize their own expressions, or are aware of them.

Similar problem with this subtle POV violation: describing character's attributes. People generally are not aware -- or pay attention -- to their own skin colors, eye colors, etc. unless circumstances dictate that (say, he's a white guy in large group of Asians -- then he may suddenly become self-aware of his race). So, in 3rd limited, it's a bit hokey to write, "she tossed back her blond hair." People simply don't describe their own hair as "blond, black, brown..." etc.

maestrowork said:

People generally don't realize their own expressions, or are aware of them.

Similar problem with this subtle POV violation: describing character's attributes. People generally are not aware -- or pay attention -- to their own skin colors, eye colors, etc. unless circumstances dictate that (say, he's a white guy in large group of Asians -- then he may suddenly become self-aware of his race). So, in 3rd limited, it's a bit hokey to write, "she tossed back her blond hair." People simply don't describe their own hair as "blond, black, brown..." etc.

Click to expand...

Oh, of course people are aware of their own expressions. I grin when someone gets their comeuppance and then wipe the grin off my face since I don't want them to know my feelings. I keep a straight face when someone slips because I don't want to hurt their feelings. I smile at some news to be politic about it even though I'm not happy.

People take their own facial expressions into consideration all the time.

Referring to the colour of someone's hair as in "he tossed his blond hair out of his eyes" is at most such a small PoV that, unless it is frequently repeated, I wouldn't worry about it. One is aware of the colour of one's own hair, after all and can in fact see the colour (unlike the colour of one's own eyes).

Ryan_Sullivan said:

Can't remember about HP that well either, but I don't recall any thoughts that aren't Harry's.

Click to expand...

Read chapter one.

Showing thoughts other than his isn't the point. Omniscient often stays with one character's thoughts. What makes it omniscient is having an omniscient narrator.

People need to understand that omniscient PoV is NOT headhopping.

Albannach said:

Oh, of course people are aware of their own expressions. I grin when someone gets their comeuppance and then wipe the grin off my face since I don't want them to know my feelings. I keep a straight face when someone slips because I don't want to hurt their feelings. I smile at some news to be politic about it even though I'm not happy.

Click to expand...

Grinning is an action. Read my post again -- actions are fine. But if you write, "I have the expression of a horrified zombie squirrel" then it's a violation. You CAN'T see that, unless you're standing right in front of a mirror.

Things like raising an eyebrow, grinning, frowning, etc. are actions, and they're fine to use.

People take their own facial expressions into consideration all the time.

Click to expand...

Again, note the umbrella definition of "expression" vs. "action." Actions can be described. Expressions alone can't -- in first person or 3rd limited.

Referring to the colour of someone's hair as in "he tossed his blond hair out of his eyes" is at most such a small PoV that, unless it is frequently repeated, I wouldn't worry about it. One is aware of the colour of one's own hair, after all and can in fact see the colour (unlike the colour of one's own eyes).

Click to expand...

It's not so much that we don't know our hair color, it's the overt description that breaks perspective. We just don't say "my blond hair" unless there's a point of noting "oh, you know, I have blond hair."

Again, this whole discussion is about "perspective." It's not just what one can observe or hears, etc. but also the "perspective." If the character is not self-aware about his or her hair color or weight, etc. then he or she wouldn't be describing it, unless it has a point:

"He put his fat fingers on the donut. He knew he shouldn't be eating it, but it's calling him." -- here, it's clear that the character is aware of his weight issue and that he's fat. So, it's fine to write "his fat fingers."

"She tossed her blond hair" often sounds wrong (even though technically the character knows she has blond hair) because there's no reason to note the color within context. In that case, the overt self-awareness makes it a subtle POV violation because it breaks the "perspective."

Albannach said:

Read chapter one.

Showing thoughts other than his isn't the point. Omniscient often stays with one character's thoughts. What makes it omniscient is having an omniscient narrator.

People need to understand that omniscient PoV is NOT headhopping.

Click to expand...

Chapter one is omniscient, not 3rd limited, since HP was just a baby: he couldn't have known all that was happening.

That's why I'm inclined to actually say HP was written in omniscient -- only that its focus tend to be on HP (except the first chapter).

This all sounds suddenly like a big batch of 'writer's rules' that don't do a whole lot for me but weigh me down.

Whatever you do, stick to it. If you're adept enough to read your own work and find that 'something just doesn't fit right' with the current narration, fix it.

Seriously, I doubt a reader is going to say, "ZOMG that jerkbox just switched from 3rd Person Omni to 3rd Person Far-Christ Reaching to Clownstep Limited in that paragraphz! Jerkboxxxx!"

I think you all have some really informed opinions on the subject, and while the OP did ask some very specific questions, I'm walking away more confused than enlightened.