Learn Writing with Uncle Jim, Volume 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

smsarber

Coming soon to a nightmare near you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
1,549
Age
47
Location
Sleep... Those little slices of Death. How I loath
No. I'm writing third person.
Deep POV in third person uses 'he' or 'she' to build that deep POV.

Sorry to have been so unclear you thought I was writing first person.

JoB

But even in deep POV 3rd person the narrator will still refer to the MC as George I, George II, or George III. You have to ocassionally remind the reader who they are reading about, or you will lose your audience. Or more likely they will lose you.
And all 3rd person uses "he", or "she", or "they".
 

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
653
Website
www.joannabourne.com
But even in deep POV 3rd person the narrator will still refer to the MC as George I, George II, or George III. You have to ocassionally remind the reader who they are reading about, or you will lose your audience. Or more likely they will lose you.
And all 3rd person uses "he", or "she", or "they".



When I speak of being in deep POV, I mean there is not an Omniscient Narrator who speaks about the POV character and is separate from him.

I do not say it is impossible to be deeply immersed in character POV and simultaneously use an Omniscient Narrator, but it is beyond my own technical capabilities.

In deep POV, third person, I use the character name once, to establish for the reader who the POV character -- who the fallback 'he' -- is. After that, the POV character name is used very rarely in the internals or in the accompanying narration. It appears only in dialog.

One can do this without the reader forgetting who the POV character is supposed to be. Indeed, if one cannot do this, one should strive to learn.

I 'name' the POV character whenever the POV changes,
when I begin a chapter,
after a major shift of scene,
or where the use of the simple, deep-POV 'he' would be confusing and the write-around is tedious. This last happens maybe ten or a dozen times in a full ms, generally where there are a couple folks of the same gender on stage at once.

The continual use of character name "John' or 'George Stuart' or "Maybelle' in the narrative is a feature of Omniscient Narrative. In my opinion, Omniscient Narrator impedes the development of a deep character POV.

As to the use of 'they' ...?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
The introduction of 'they' makes me wonder if we are talking about the same things.

Third person POV is going to be a single person. 'They' would be neither self-referent nor used by an Omniscient Narrator to refer to the POV character.

Well ... I suppose there might be a special case for telepathic group entities or schizophrenics.
 

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
As to the use of 'they' ...?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.


Are you referring to this line?

You have to ocassionally remind the reader who they are reading about...

If so, that's the singular 'they,' the word used in English to mean an individual of unknown sex. (This is the correct singular. "He or she" is a barbarism; "he" (or "she") alone is silly.)

See for example:

"Singular they": God said it, I believe it, that settles it

Everybody loves their Jane Austen
 

smsarber

Coming soon to a nightmare near you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
1,549
Age
47
Location
Sleep... Those little slices of Death. How I loath
Acually "they" was a joke. An appreciately bad one, but a joke nonetheless. Sorry, I have never heard of third person without a narrator. I haven't the slightest clue what you mean. Can you show me an example? I was taught that "third person" is a story told by an outsider.
 

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
653
Website
www.joannabourne.com
Well ... I'd say Omniscient Narrator is a story told by an outsider.
'Third person' is the story as seen through the eyes of the character himself.

Kipling's 'The Elephants Child' is an example of Omniscient Narrator. Not once do we get the Elephant's view on what happened to him.
We get the Narrator's view of what happened.

In Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland', OTOH, we are in Third Person. We are 'inside of Alice looking out' as she goes through her adventures.

Steven, it sounds to me like you want more information on 'point of view', which is one of the craft basics.

I know many places on the web that discuss POV, but I don't want to direct you away from the resources here at AW.
Perhaps some folks will come back with directions to discussions of POV at AW.

If nobody pops up with AW refs, I'll come back with some of the ones I know.
 

smsarber

Coming soon to a nightmare near you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
1,549
Age
47
Location
Sleep... Those little slices of Death. How I loath
Steven, it sounds to me like you want more information on 'point of view', which is one of the craft basics.

Ok, a book on writing I read while I was in prison defined 3rd person as "told by an outsider". I wish I could remember the name. Why would I want info on POV? I've been trying to explain it to you.

Main article: Third-person narrative
Third person is the most common narrative perspective used in contemporary literature; it is the classic storytelling mode in which the storyteller is recounting a series of events to an audience. Third person includes a number of more specific techniques which offer different benefits and limitations to the writer.

Third person limited became the most popular narrative perspective during the 20th century. Third person limited is sometimes called the "over the shoulder" perspective; it shows the story as though the narrator could only describe events that could be perceived by a viewpoint character. It can be used very objectively, showing what is actually happening without the filter of the protagonist's personality, which can allow the author to reveal information that the protagonist doesn't know or realize. However, some authors use an even narrower and more subjective perspective, as though the viewpoint character were narrating the story; this is dramatically very similar to the first person, allowing in-depth revelation of the protagonist's personality, but uses third-person grammar. Some writers will shift perspective from one viewpoint character to another.

Historically, the "third person omniscient" perspective was more common. This is the tale told from the point of view of the storyteller who knows all the facts. The primary advantage is that it injected the narrator's own perspective and reputation into the story, creating a greater sense of objectivity for the story. The disadvantage of this mode is that it creates more distance between the reader and the story. A variation is where the narrator is a character in the story; a small amount of the story might be told in first person.

There is also a "Third person objective" perspective which tells a story without detailing any characters' thoughts and instead gives an objective point of view. This point of view can be described as "a fly on the wall" and is often used in newspaper articles. For instance the writer is restricted to not being able to use I, me or my.
A variation is where the narrator is a character in the story; a small amount of the story might be told in first person.
So I guess that is the closest to what you mean? Which would be a variation on 3rd Omni.

source: WIKIPEDIA
[
 
Last edited:

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
However, some authors use an even narrower and more subjective perspective, as though the viewpoint character were narrating the story; this is dramatically very similar to the first person, allowing in-depth revelation of the protagonist's personality, but uses third-person grammar.
I think this is what the previous poster may have meant by using "deep" POV in third person.

This is what I'm going for in my WIP. I have two POV characters alternating. Rather than have two "I" speakers, it is all in deep third. You get what the characters are feeling, and the neat part is, the third person narrator can reveal any emotions or sensations the characters are having. This isn't so with first-person, because with that, all that can be revealed what the character himself would choose to reveal as the narrator.

So in this sense, third POV is actually deeper than first person. Your narrator gets inside the body and reveal whatever he wants, which often more than what the character himself would reveal.
 

smsarber

Coming soon to a nightmare near you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
1,549
Age
47
Location
Sleep... Those little slices of Death. How I loath
Yeah, I figured. When I read back over the wikipedia quote I used it made sense. I may try it at some point. I think I was thrown off by the way it was described. Way to go, job. It's good to make us think, and I don't research enough.
 
Last edited:

JasonChirevas

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
158
Reaction score
17
Location
Bronxville, New York
There is also a "Third person objective" perspective which tells a story without detailing any characters' thoughts and instead gives an objective point of view. This point of view can be described as "a fly on the wall" and is often used in newspaper articles. For instance the writer is restricted to not being able to use I, me or my.

This is what I'm using for my WIP because it's the best, easiest way for me to live by Show, Don't Tell. I let the reader determine the characters' thoughts and emotions by their words, and far more importantly, their actions, rather than telling them A feels this way about what B did, but C thinks it's just peachy.

-Jason
 

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
653
Website
www.joannabourne.com
I think this is what the previous poster may have meant by using "deep" POV in third person.

Deep POV is the immersion of the reader into the sensation, emotion, interior monologue, opinion, feeling, memory. action, intention of a character. The reader 'sees' though the character's eyes.

There are lots of techniques for deepening POV. And, as I said, writing in this 'deep' third person viewpoint, one avoids use of the character name.
 

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
653
Website
www.joannabourne.com
>>>Just a question- is post 6131 rude and ignorant? I didn't mean for it to be. <<<<

Hmmmm ....

When you say --
"Why would I want info on POV? I've been trying to explain it to you." - you imply your knowledge of the usages of POV is deep, subtle and profound,
and that you do not need further information in this area,
but are, in fact, in the enviable position of enlightening me about it.

If this is true, you have not behaved rudely or ignorantly.
 
Last edited:

smsarber

Coming soon to a nightmare near you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
1,549
Age
47
Location
Sleep... Those little slices of Death. How I loath
That was exhasperation, not rudeness.
I've just never heard of "deep" POV, but that is probably close to how I write, and my style is to use the MC's given name at least once every two paragraphs.
Let's acknowledge this: Every writer is different, and all of the so-called rules of writing can be bent or broken. It was wrong for me to question your use of ANY POV. If it works for you, do it.
 

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
It's all looking for clarification. The names for the different POVs are mutable things; use them if they make the concept clearer for you. If not, not.

And the master rule is that if it works, it's right.
 

smsarber

Coming soon to a nightmare near you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
1,549
Age
47
Location
Sleep... Those little slices of Death. How I loath
It's all looking for clarification. The names for the different POVs are mutable things; use them if they make the concept clearer for you. If not, not.

And the master rule is that if it works, it's right.

As usual, Uncle Jim, you are the wise one. Where were you BEFORE I started banging my head into the wall?
 

gp101

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
246
Location
New England
UJ,

I know you preach "if it works, it's right" but I want your opinion on tenses. Though I've seen the movie several times, I just recently started reading "Silence of the Lambs" for the first time. The first couple chaps are excellent. The author writes in past tense, but at times goes into description of people in present tense. It's as if the author is telling me "this story took place in the past, but the characters are still alive today as you read this".

It'll be Hannibal did this and Clarice did that, but Hannibal's hands are, his voice is, and his manners are. It was jarring to me, I suspect, because I (and probably most of us here on AW) read differently since I write stories of my own and I am looking at how something was written. Obviously, this technique "works" since it is a beloved best-seller, and the average reader probably doesn't notice the shift in tense, but is it proper form? Or is he just properly breaking rules?

Have you found this to be fairly common? I can't remember another book that does it. It's kind of cool, but weird to me at the same time.
 

smsarber

Coming soon to a nightmare near you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
1,549
Age
47
Location
Sleep... Those little slices of Death. How I loath
give this a look

“What follows is a list of the most common shoulds, musts, and have-to’s that many of us have been taught about writing. Each of these is either useless, irrelevant, or just plain incorrect:
*You should work on only one piece of writing at a time.
*You must write every day, or for a minimum amount of time every day.
*you must write a certain number of words or pages each day.
*If you’re serious about writing, you must make it your top priority at all times.
*You must write according to a regular schedule.
*You should have a separate room to do your writing in.
*A writer must be unhappy, or lonely, or cynical, or 100% serious, or neurotic, or a little crazy, or downright nuts.
*If you wish to be published, you must do whatever editors ask.
*You must be completely free from all distractions and interruptions in order to write well.
*You should stubbornly resist any editor’s attempts to change your work.
*You must bare your soul in your writing, and/or write about the most personal and intimate things in your life.
*You must dress and act in a certain way, and/or associate with certain people, in order to be a successful writer.
*In order to be published, you have to know (and/or kiss up to the right people).
*You should always write an outline before you begin your first draft.
*You must write your title first.
*You must write the various sections of your piece in the same sequence in which they will be read.
*You must know how your piece will end before you begin writing it.
*You must always write “he or she,” “him or her,” or “his or her” when referring to hypothetical people.
*You should always put the most exciting or important part of your piece at the very beginning, so that it will grab your
reader.
*You must always begin each piece with something shocking or exciting, or else you risk losing your reader.
*You must always write a minimum of two (or three, or four, or five) drafts. First drafts will never be any good.
*You must keep each of your manuscripts circulating among editors until it is accepted for publication.
*If manuscript is rejected, you must get it back out to another editor within 24 hours.
*To protect yourself against literary theft, you must register everything you write with the government copyright office,
and/or you must mail yourself a copy of each piece as soon as it’s completed.
*You must type your social security number, a proper copyright notice (e.g., Copyright 2004 by Scott Edelstein), and the right you wish to sell on the first page of each of your manuscripts.
The only sane response to any of these pronouncements is a loud and emphatic, “NOT SO!” None of them is universally true. Some may be useful or true for some writers, or under certain circumstances. Some may be helpful as generalities, but are not absolutes. Many-the last seven, for example-are pure baloney through an through.
In addition to the shoulds, writers also face a barrage of equally worthless shouldn’ts. Here are the most common examples:
*Never write about yourself.
*Never write in the first person, or use the words “I,” “me,” or ”my.”
*Never use curse words, slang, or colloquialisms.
*Never use italics.
*Never use exclamation points.
*Never use foreign words.
*Never start a sentence with “and,” “but,” “anyway,” “however,” “nevertheless,” “therefore,” or “I.”
*Never use incomplete sentences.
*Never stray from correct grammar and usage for any reason.
*Never write in dialect; always use standard English.
*Never send something you’ve written to more than one editor at once.
*Never submit photocopied manuscripts to editors.
*Never rewrite, except to editorial order.
I repeat: all of these are worthless at best, harmful at worst. Ignore them all.
There is yet another type of nonsense that we writers often face: strange beliefs about what makes a writer. It’s common for people-usually literature professors, editors, or writers with overblown egos-to try to tell us who is a writer and who isn’t. These folks like to proclaim themselves a writer (or at least, a real writer) unless they have done one of the following:
*Written (or published) at least two (or three, or ten, or twenty) books.
*Had at least two (or five, or Fifty) pieces published.
*Been writing for at least two (or five, or fifteen) years.
*Written at least a million words.
*Been writing full-time, or for a certain minimum number of hours per week, for a year (or five, or ten).
*Worked a variety of jobs, or traveled throughout much of the world, or had plenty of experience with the “real world.”
*Read and studied the great works of western (or world) literature.
*Received a Master of Fine Arts (MFA) degree in writing.
*Suffered (or suffered prodigiously).
*Had their work rejected at least 100 (or 500, or 1000) times.
All of these pronouncements are nothing less than absurd.”
Excerpted from “30 Steps to Becoming a Writer” by Scott Edelstein pp. 53-56
 

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
UJ,

I know you preach "if it works, it's right" but I want your opinion on tenses. Though I've seen the movie several times, I just recently started reading "Silence of the Lambs" for the first time. The first couple chaps are excellent. The author writes in past tense, but at times goes into description of people in present tense. It's as if the author is telling me "this story took place in the past, but the characters are still alive today as you read this".


Let's take a look:

"Do you spook easily, Starling?"

"Not yet."

"See, we've tried to interview and examine all thirty-two known serial murderers we have in custody, to build up a database for psychological profiling in unsolved cases. Most of them went along with it--I think they're driven to show off, a lot of them. Twenty-seven were willing to cooperate. Four on death row with appeals pending clammed up, understandably. But the one we want most, we haven't been able to get. I want you to go after him tomorrow in the asylum."

Clarice Starling felt a glad knocking in her chest and some apprehension too.

"Who's the subject?"

"The psychiatrist--Dr. Hannibal Lecter," Crawford said.

A brief silence follows the name, always, in any civilized gathering.

Starling looked at Crawford steadily, but she was too still. "Hannibal the Cannibal," she said.​

That's the narrator, the person who is telling the story, interjecting himself into the narrative. It's a bit of a distancing mechanism. It's "I'm telling a story." And it's the exposition. The narrator is telling us something that the two characters can't mention to each other because they both know it perfectly well.

Other places, the drop into present tense is POV. When seeing the characters' thoughts, they're present tense because the characters aren't thinking about what's going on in front of them in past tense.

Character thoughts aren't always set in italics.
 
Last edited:

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
I'm going to annotate some of these.


“What follows is a list of the most common shoulds, musts, and have-to’s that many of us have been taught about writing. Each of these is either useless, irrelevant, or just plain incorrect:

*A writer must be unhappy, or lonely, or cynical, or 100% serious, or neurotic, or a little crazy, or downright nuts.

You don't have to be crazy, but it helps.

*If you wish to be published, you must do whatever editors ask.

Depends on what degree of granularity you're looking for. At its most basic what the editors ask is "Send us something we can use!" and this is completely correct. If you wish to be published you must send something that suits their current needs.
*You must dress and act in a certain way, and/or associate with certain people, in order to be a successful writer.

The propeller beanie is absolutely necessary. By great good luck I have a number of them here. May I sell you a couple? Oh, yes, and you must associate with me.


*You must keep each of your manuscripts circulating among editors until it is accepted for publication.

Or until you've hit every reasonable market. Then retire it for a year, re-read it, see if any new markets have opened, and consider either rewriting it or permanently retiring it.

*If manuscript is rejected, you must get it back out to another editor within 24 hours.

That's a darned good idea. Six hours is better. Three better still.


The only sane response to any of these pronouncements is a loud and emphatic, “NOT SO!” None of them is universally true. Some may be useful or true for some writers, or under certain circumstances. Some may be helpful as generalities, but are not absolutes. Many-the last seven, for example-are pure baloney through an through.

If it works for you, do it. If it doesn't work, don't.

In addition to the shoulds, writers also face a barrage of equally worthless shouldn’ts. Here are the most common examples:
*Never write about yourself.
*Never write in the first person, or use the words “I,” “me,” or ”my.”
*Never use curse words, slang, or colloquialisms.
*Never use italics.
*Never use exclamation points.
*Never use foreign words.
*Never start a sentence with “and,” “but,” “anyway,” “however,” “nevertheless,” “therefore,” or “I.”
*Never use incomplete sentences.
*Never stray from correct grammar and usage for any reason.
*Never write in dialect; always use standard English.

Has anyone ever actually heard anyone say any of those things?

*Never send something you’ve written to more than one editor at once.

This one is true. Just plain don't do it, unless all of the editors involved clearly state that they take simultaneous submissions.

*Never submit photocopied manuscripts to editors.

This one dates back to the days when photocopies a) came out as negatives (white print on a black background), b) were on an odd slick paper that tended to stick to other sheets of odd slick paper, and c) smelled rather odd. It was true at that time. I don't know if that's been true any time in the last thirty years, though, and I don't recall anyone saying not to send photocopies any time in the last thirty years either.
*Never rewrite, except to editorial order.

Edelstein has completely misunderstood this one, but that's okay: many people misunderstand it. This rule doesn't instruct you to send out only first drafts. Once you've written, rewritten, revised, and made your work the best you can ... send it out. After that it's a trap to rewrite it every time it comes back. A waste of time. You've already made the story the best you could or you wouldn't be sending it out, would you? So send it out, and send it out again, until you've hit every reasonable market. Then retire it, as above. The exceptions are: if someone says "I will buy this if you make the following changes," by all means do so. Or, if the story's sat around in your Retired file for a year and you see a way to make it better, you can rewrite it and send it back on its travels. (Or, suddenly an inspiration strikes and the Muse won't let go of your throat until you rewrite the sucker.)
I repeat: all of these are worthless at best, harmful at worst. Ignore them all.

And ignore that, as well.

There is yet another type of nonsense that we writers often face: strange beliefs about what makes a writer.

What makes a writer is this: the act of writing. If you write, you are a writer. If you dont -- you aren't.

It really is that simple.
 

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
The actual rules:

What works is right.

The reader is king.

A compelling story compellingly told trumps everything.

A story that's submitted may be accepted. A story that's never submitted won't be accepted.
 

smsarber

Coming soon to a nightmare near you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
1,549
Age
47
Location
Sleep... Those little slices of Death. How I loath
That is exactly what the list said, only in a lot more words. I was trying to back you up for some who think you have to follow a set criteria of guidelines. Has anyone read Scott Edelstein's "30 Steps to Becoming a Writer"? I am up to page 58, and so far it is good, easy to read, and informative. But I would like to know other opinions.
 

Writer???

Because EYE said so!
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
416
Location
In my head.
Hello all,

I probably shouldn't chime in here but below are some examples. I would very much appreciate you all labeling them for me. I have included what I believe them to be, please correct me if I am wrong.

"Tom walks out to his car. It's cold and he feels the chill deep in his bones. 'Moring Tom,' the neighbor calls. Tom waves back not really paying attention. He gets in the car and drives to the store; he never comes back. Jane cries for a week."

To me, this is third omnicient. A third person, unknown and unidentified is telling us the story. They have complete knowledge of all surroundings and feelings etc. So this = 3rd-Omni.-Present

"I walked out to the car. It was cold and I felt the chill deep in my bones. 'Moringin Tom,' the neighbor called. I waved back not really paying attention. I got in the car and drove to the store; I never returned. Jane told me she cried for a week."

This is first person. I am telling the story and I include only information I know or am told. So this = 1st-Personal POV-Past

"He walked out to the car, 'Morning Tom,' the neighbor called. He waved back, got in and drove to the store; he never came back."

This is third person observation, "over the shoulder". I observe and report, but can't include any info I'm not privy to. So this = 3rd-Personal POV-Past

"You walk out to the car. It is very cold and you feel the chill deep in your bones. 'Morning Tom,' the neighbor calls. You wave back not really paying attention. You get in and drive to the store; you never return. Jane cries for a week."

This is second person omnicient. "You" are the main character, but obsevations you would have no knowledge of and your thoughts and feelings are relayed as well, i.e. Jane's crying. So this = 2nd-Omni.-present (your actions), and future, (Jane cries for a week.)

As a rebel I must disagree with second person in general. In the first three examples, we are defining "person" by the narrator. I the narrator am telling you Tom did this; I did this; He did this. Someone, a third person or ourselves, is telling us what is going on. But in the last example (second person), nothing really changes as far as the "telling", but we are defining "person" by the character instead. YOU did this; is a description of the character yes, but it is still being told by a third person so why isn't it defined as such? As in this example it would be defined as, "third Person Omnicient Observation?

In other words, I am telling YOU and anyone reading the work, what you did and what else I observed; how you felt, how others felt, what everyone thought, etc.

Technically I don't think there is any such thing as second person in writing and story telling because of the way the definition switches from narrator to character for second person. It is ALWAYS a third person telling the story. And, most of the time it is always as a third omnicient. A narrator that knows your thoughts and feelings and things that others do or think before you are aware of them as the character. Even if I (the narrator), limit it to what "You" THINK others are thinking or feeling, it is still a third person telling you and everyone else the story.

If I am wrong, any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
 
Last edited:

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
I believe that there is a difference between the POV in this:


Never have I felt quite so worldly as I did on my very first real date, when, after considered perusal of the wine list, I masterfully commanded the waiter at the Log Cabin restaurant in Lenox, Massachusetts, to fetch me a bottle of Mateus Rosé. In its distinctive Buddah-shaped bottle, with its slight spritz, it represented a step up from the pink Almaden that my friends and I sucked down in order to get into the proper Dionysian frame of mind for the summer rock concerts at Tanglewood. (And that seemed a classic accompaniment--rather like Chablis and oysters--to the cheap Mexican pot we were smoking at the time.) Later, of course, as I discovered the joys of dry reds and whites, I learned to sneer at pink wine; it seemed--as Winston Churchill once remarked regarding the moniker of an acquaintance named Bossom--that it was neither one thing nor the other. A few summers ago a bottle of Domaines Ott rosé in conjunction with a leg of marinated grilled lamb cured me of this particular prejudice; I thought I'd died and gone to Provence, though in fact I was at my friend Steve's birthday party in the Hamptons.

and this:


You are not the kind of guy who would be at a place like this at this time of the morning. But here you are, and you cannot say that the terrain is entirely unfamiliar, although the details are fuzzy. You are at a nightclub talking to a girl with a shaved head. The club is either Heartbreak or the Lizard Lounge. All might come clear if you could just slip into the bathroom and do a little more Bolivian Marching Powder. Then again, it might not. A small voice inside you insists that this epidemic lack of clarity is a result of too much of that already. The night has already turned on that imperceptible pivot where two A.M. changes to six A.M. You know this moment has come and gone, but you are not yet willing to concede that you have crossed the line beyond which all is gratuitous damage and the palsy of unraveled nerve endings. Somewhere back there you could have cut your losses, but you rode past that moment on a comet trail of white powder and now you are trying to hang on to the rush. Your brain at this moment is composed of brigades of tiny Bolivian soldiers. They are tired and muddy from their long march through the night. There are holes in their boots and they are hungry. They need to be fed. They need Bolivian Marching Powder.

and this:


When Christopher Ransom opened his eyes he was on his back, looking up into a huddle of Japanese faces shimmering in a pool of artificial light. Who were these people? Then he placed them. These were his fellow karate-ka, members of his dojo. And there stood the sensei, broad nose skewed to the left side of his face, broken in the finals at the Junior All-Japan Karate Tournament fifteen years ago. Ransom was pleased that he could recall this detail. Collect enough of the details and the larger picture might take care of itself.

The sensei asked if he was okay. Ransom lifted his head. Turquoise and magenta disks played at the edge of his vision. He was hoisted to his feet; suddenly the landscape looked as if it was flipped on its side, the surface of the parking lot standing vertical like a wall and the façade of the gym lying flat where the ground should be. Then the scene righted itself, as if on hinges.

We might as well call the difference first person, second person, and third person. If the terminology doesn't work for you, try something else that eases composition. They are, essentially, I'm talking about me, I'm talking about you, and I'm talking about that guy over there.

In the end, while you can flip between POVs between scenes, you'll probably want to stick with one or another inside of the individual scenes to avoid confusing your readers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.