Am I writing Limited 3rd correctly? May I post a sample?

Methinks it would be best to get your fifty in first; I suspect this would be considered asking for critique -- even though what you're asking is limited and specific. You'll have those racked up in no time if you keep participating. You'll find a smoother road with it if you go ahead and crit some other writers in your genre first, too.

Good luck!

You should post in SYW once you hit 50.

Phrenic said:

Thanks. Once I reach 50, is this the correct forum to address my issue?

Click to expand...

No, the correct forum is here. If I remember correctly the password is vista.

Lillith1991 said:

No, the correct forum is here. If I remember correctly the password is vista.

Click to expand...

Also, spending some time critiquing others' work and reading through lots of the threads on there may help you answer your own question.

Limited third is actually quite simple. The narrator can only report those things that the POV character senses, thinks, and feels (emotionally). There are more nuances to it that you'll learn as you gain experience, but on the surface, that's all there really is to it.

If you want to switch to a different POV character, you can do it at the end of a chapter or with a scene break (usually denoted with a single centered # in a manuscript).

Don't switch characters without warning. That's head-hopping, and it is frowned upon by publishers in today's market.

rwm4768 said:

Don't switch characters without warning. That's head-hopping, and it is frowned upon by publishers in today's market.

Click to expand...

This, reiterated. And it isn't just because it is "frowned upon by publishers in today's market." It's because it tends to confuse and irritate readers, which is why publishers (and editors) frown upon it.

In addition, do not succumb to the temptation to switch narrative POV because it's "convenient." Do the hard work of learning how to construct effective narrative. A big part of that is reading a lot of good writers, while paying attention to how they do things.

caw

blacbird said:

This, reiterated. And it isn't just because it is "frowned upon by publishers in today's market." It's because it tends to confuse and irritate readers, which is why publishers (and editors) frown upon it.

Click to expand...

Yes, it really does confuse readers. I've read otherwise good books that frustrate me because the author employed head-hopping. I made the statement about today's market because you see a lot more of it in older books.

Here's how you'd write that section in third-limited.

Seated at his desk, Barry picked up a Benoit pen. The cool, cross-plated cylinder sent shivers up his fingers, and he dropped it on the floor.


If you're writing in third person, you'll have to find some other way to state that he's a politician. Chances are it will become apparent through context anyway.

I don't have a problem with the politician reference. Limited doesn't mean no narrator. I do realize this is a bit of a break, so it's important it be a.) worth it and, b.) earned relative to the rest of the writing around it.

Limited third is actually quite simple. The narrator can only report those things that the POV character senses, thinks, and feels (emotionally). There are more nuances to it that you'll learn as you gain experience, but on the surface, that's all there really is to it.

Click to expand...

One of those nuances is that sensing, thinking, and (to an extent) feeling are all really weak verbs, a problem limited 3rd can exacerbate. (Apologies to rwen4768 as I realize those were just provided as general guides--I'm just trying to add depth.) Verb choice is essential in limited 3rd so that it doesn't seem like we're constantly limited by the POV character. The writer has to convey the totality of the world around him or her. Filtering too often can indicate overly superficial narration, which is why it's good (as you have done, Phrenic) to use character voice to assess the world, rather than just experiencing it.

I also find POV tricky, but it's important to remember that any POV can be badly written and, well-written, almost any POV can work, including moving between them fairly frequently, although as rwm notes doing so is very jarring for readers so it has to be executed with a lot of care.

I shall now return to my grey area happily undecided about everything.

Best of luck!

As a reader, "The politician sat" hits me as omni. If you use his name, you identify him, and what he does thereafter carries the 3rd-limited POV, as long as you don't drift out of it to describe things he can't know.

You can't tell us he's a politician without it being omniscient knowledge, seems to me. In 3rd limited you can reveal what he does by . . . well, what he does. In other words, your problem may lie in what your are telling the reader, instead of revealing via narrative events. This example is a pretty good one about the "show, don't tell" mantra. In this case, that tired old shibboleth might be good advice. If that's the kind of thing you're doing in your narrative, it might explain reader reactions.

caw

POV is, among other technicalities, a matter of focus. As I said, the phrase "The politician sat . . . " is very distancing, reads to me like somebody observing from outside, not like having the camera on the shoulder of the character supposed to be the focus of 3rd limited narrative.

There's nothing inherently wrong with omniscient POV, and it still is done by many good writers (Jane Smiley, Terry Pratchett, to name a couple). But drifting in and out of it is simply a form of head-hopping, in my reader view. You need to make a choice of narrative POV discipline, understand what that entails, and stick to it.

caw

Piece of junkyard crap works for me as is.

Phrenic said:

2) So In my response to RWM, a 3rd limited could add the qualifying phrase- 'Piece of junkyard crap' - period.
Or, I could write the last part in italics - 'Damn lobbyists always buy me junkyard crap, he thought.'
Both these ways keep me in 3rd limited?

Click to expand...

3rd limited:

Piece of junkyard crap.
OR
Damn lobbyists always buy me junkyard crap.

WriteMinded said:

3rd limited:

Piece of junkyard crap.
OR
Damn lobbyists always buy me junkyard crap.

Click to expand...

This.

One of the advantages of third limited is how close you can get to the character. Once you've established that you're in Barry's POV, you don't need the thought tag. In omniscient, you do.

Phrenic said:

Two points:
1) I'm 43, grew up on Tolkien, CS Lewis, then 80's and 90's, Jordan, Goodkind, Brooks, Feist, which might explain my tendency to write omni, 90's on saw more 3rd limited. Might be generalizing, not sure.

2) So In my response to RWM, a 3rd limited could add the qualifying phrase- 'Piece of junkyard crap' - period.
Or, I could write the last part in italics - 'Damn lobbyists always buy me junkyard crap, he thought.'
Both these ways keep me in 3rd limited?

Click to expand...

The first one is more POV-immersive. The "he thought" actually feels like a step outside his thoughts. I'd steer clear of it, unless you have some situation where it's needed for clarity.

I wonder if reading some good examples of limited third would help counter-balance your earlier experiences?

Lois McMaster Bujold is very good at it. Susan Cooper, too.

Hmm...I also thought Blood Song was third limited, but those examples do seem a little omniscient.

Of course, you can write omniscient that looks like third limited. There's no rule stating that you can't focus on just one character's thoughts in omniscient.

Phrenic said:

In Anthony Ryan's Blood Song. He writes from 10 year old 3rd limited point of view

Click to expand...

Based on this, I think the overall POV is omniscient. An omniscient narrator can go deep into a character's head, but also steps outside to comment on things from time to time.