Questions regarding Third Person Limited

IDGS, with due respect, writing is a craft. There are things such as "POV" that is not really that difficult to learn -- pick up any books or go online, the terminologies and definitions and guidelines are all there -- but is rather important as part of the craft. I don't think it's really that much to ask a writer to learn them -- to know what the terms mean, what they entail, and the differences among these different view points, and how they are used, etc. These are part of the writer's toolbox. I mean, would you ask a writer to "don't bother learning grammar and correct spelling and plotting, etc...."?

Once you learn these tools, then study published works and see how published authors do them. A reader may not understand these things, but it doesn't mean they don't exist -- just as we may not understand architecture or may not say, "this jerkbox built this skyscraper wrong!" but if something is wrong, we'd feel it. If the floor isn't level, we'll feel it. If the building is crooked, we'd feel it. Same with writing -- if something is wrong, the readers would feel it -- and a well-read AGENT would definitely know it when he/she sees it.

To put everything in the "something feels right or not" column without any true understanding of the craft means you're shooting from the hip. Maybe you're right; maybe you're wrong; but you'd have no way of knowing for sure. Would you put that in front of an agent's trained eyes and hope that he or she feels the same way about your mastery of the craft? Or would you rather learn the craft and know the rules before you break them? So many writers "feel" they did the right thing, and have their manuscripts end up in the slush pile because how they "feel" about it isn't good enough.

Maestro, I do agree with you.

I didn't mean to degrade writing to an assortment of 'maybes' and half-truths, I simply meant to use this thread as a point for my frustration lately with overthinking writing in general.

Writing is indeed a craft, and everything you've said is correct. I don't begin to contend a single point you've made - you've hit everything on the head.

All I'm trying to get across is that sometimes shooting from the hip yields bullseyes, where overthinking the shot too much at an amateur level leads to missing the target entirely, if you catch my drift. I may not have made the statement in the midst of the right topic, but I stand by it nonetheless.

Kudos, Maestro, you're certainly eloquent when you have a point to prove!

Certainly I understand the pitfall of worrying too much about all this "rule" stuff would hinder creativity. I guess my basic point is: "learn your craft." When you've done that, internalized all those tools, then you can break the rules and fly. But a writer can't really run without learning how to walk first. Obviously I've gone through my growing pain as well, and I've learned to walk and fall and walk again. There simply is no short cut -- "just wing it and you'll be a great writer" doesn't really exist: those genius writers weren't really born great writers; they, too, have to learn their craft and pay the dues.

I don't want to bog a new writer down with all these rules that may make their brains explode, but at the same time, I really don't think some of this stuff (POV, etc.) is rocket science either. It's a good idea for a writer to sit down and learn this, internalize this, put that into our toolbox. It really is something beneficial.

Cheers!

maestrowork said:

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).

Click to expand...

I agree. People often think it is 3rd close because its focus is on HP, but that isn't what makes a PoV. I think (but I'd have to find a copy and re-read it) there are times when she includes light omni narrative in other chapters. She rarely if ever focuses on another character though. I find this is common with the writers who do omni best. People often don't even realise they're reading omni (for those of us who pay attention to such things. )

On your other post, I pretty much agree with your points. It is a matter of using these self-descriptions well and appropriately which often takes some thought.

Edit: As far as being taken to task by IDGS for knowing the difference in omni and 3rd close, I refuse to apologise for taking the craft of writing seriously. Would you tell a carpenter: "OMG! How DARE you know the difference in a sledge hammer and a claw hammer"? It has nothing to do with what a reader would say and has a lot to do with being able to discuss our craft intelligently and intelligibly as well as knowing what tools are available to us to use.

A new writer who is serious about writing should do some reading on the craft, in my opinion. I happen to recommend Orson Scott Card's Character & Viewpoint on this topic. It gives a clear and thorough understanding of how this works. Nancy Kress has also written a good book on the same topic. How can someone use PoV to the best advantage to achieve what they want if they don't know what the choices are or the reasons for using (or not using) different ones?

Job wrote:

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."

Click to expand...

If I understand all that's been said above, Job's "Hidden Narrator" would make this Omniscient POV. Am I correct? And is this an example of good use of the Omniscient perspective?

RJK said:

Job wrote:


If I understand all that's been said above, Job's "Hidden Narrator" would make this Omniscient POV. Am I correct? And is this an example of good use of the Omniscient perspective?

Click to expand...

No. You can have 3rd limited with a narrator. Read my discussion above on 3rd limited and 3rd limited close.

In the above example, the POV hasn't been broken even if there is a narrator. Those are things the character can observe and infer.

Omniscient means the narrator can report on anything that the characters don't know, or just anything. 3rd limited simply means it's LIMITED to the view point character's perceptions. It has nothing to do with narrator. In fact, I'd say all 3rd POVs have a narrator. Why else could it be in 3rd person? Someone has to narrate it (he, she, they instead of I....) whether you consciously recognize that or not. The line only becomes blurry when it's 3rd close - when the narrator uses the voice of the character.

RJK said:

If I understand all that's been said above, Job's "Hidden Narrator" would make this Omniscient POV. Am I correct? And is this an example of good use of the Omniscient perspective?

Click to expand...

Even when you are in good solid Third Person POV overall, there are bits and pieces that come directly to the reader without being filtered through the POV Character's perception. Stuff he is not particularly aware of. Little stuff. Intervening stuff.

It's not enough to call the whole treatment Omniscient and it's not a POV lapse by the author. There's a certain amount of wobble at the edges of POV.

job said:

Even when you are in good solid Third Person POV overall, there are bits and pieces that come directly to the reader without being filtered through the POV Character's perception. Stuff he is not particularly aware of. Little stuff. Intervening stuff.

It's not enough to call the whole treatment Omniscient and it's not a POV lapse by the author. There's a certain amount of wobble at the edges of POV.

Click to expand...

Technically speaking if you go out of POV to describe things the character can't know (while still in character's POV), then it's a POV violation unless you're writing in omniscient. But if it's really subtle and not done a lot, many readers won't notice. But a lit professor would definitely give you a spanking...

When I write in 3rd limited (I hardly write omniscient), I pay attention to what I/narrator report. Sometimes I do lapse, but those are very easily fixed in rewrites: "oops, she couldn't possibly know someone was following her...", "oops, he wouldn't know this because he hasn't SEEN it yet." Small things like that can easily be fixed, and it's up to the writer to be meticulous about this. The general readers might not care, but writers like me would call the author "sloppy."

maestrowork said:

Technically speaking if you go out of POV to describe things the character can't know (while still in character's POV), then it's a POV violation unless you're writing in omniscient. But if it's really subtle and not done a lot, many readers won't notice.

Click to expand...

Can't know. Or, more often, just wouldn't notice.

Baby POV breaks.

maestrowork said:

But a lit professor would definitely give you a spanking...

Click to expand...

Promises .... promises ...

"wouldn't notice" is arguable so you can sneak past the readers. But "can't possibly know" would be an out of body experience. Smart readers, especially ones who read a lot of 3rd limited fiction, would definitely notice.

It's all about writer's discipline -- do what is easy, or do what is right. And I'm not talking about spanking here...

But doesn't tense affect POV?

If it's past tense, it has already happened. So by saying:

He had no idea that his friends and family were hidden in his living room, waiting in the dark, for him to open his front door, turn on the light, and be surprised when they screamed HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

Probably not the best example, but you get the picture. The same thing would apply if it was told in first person past tense. They didn't know at the time, but know now when they are telling the story... kind of confusing, because it makes you wonder precisely when any story in past tense is told? Years later? Straight after?

Now I'm concerned. When I write omniscient, it kind of jumps around (paragraph to paragraph sometimes, but usually scene-to-scene) with limited viewpoints. It's usually not jarring, but sometimes I worry about it when one character might not know the other's name yet (but you do) or by a different name than their real one.