Yes, another POV question !

[Denis Castellan]

I'm trying to write a scene in limited 3rd person but I'm having a problem there.

1 - A woman is walking down the street. She's the POV character.
2 - She gets hit by a car that she doesn't see or hear approaching.
3 - She falls on the floor, dead. I made the crowd my POV.

The trouble is that I don't know what POV to use for the second part. I want to show that the car hits the woman on purpose, that the driver has been waiting for the woman to walk by, but I don't want to tell who the driver is.

I can't write something like 'she didn't see the car racing...' since she didn't see the car...

Do you think it would be ok to make the car itself my POV 'character' or would it be better to use a witness of the scene (somebody just walking by looking at the car) ?

I've started writing the scene with 'the car POV' but I remembered the "pathetic fallacy" in UJ's thread. And now I'm lost

[reph]

I don't see a way to show that the driver runs her down intentionally without using the driver's POV. You can suggest it by switching to an objective POV for the second part and describing how the driver pulls out of the alley just as the light changes and Ms. X steps off the curb, blah blah. Or you could use the crowd's POV (not sure just what this is) or, again, go to objective and have witnesses say things like "Did you see that? The car came around the corner like he was gunning for her."

[Denis Castellan]

Thanks for your reply

I've been thinking about 'The crowd's POV'... In fact, it's an objective POV : I just describe the (re)actions of the people who witness the 'accident'.

If I understand the term correctly, it's the POV of the "movie camera". The scene is just described as if you watched it on TV.

If I wanted to avoid objective POV, I'd probably have to make a character tell another character how the accident happened without actually showing it...

I'm still not sure that it won't sound strange if I switch from Limited 3rd to Objective now and then...

[Mistook]

I would stick to the woman's POV and stay true to it down to the moment she get's hit and end the chapter right there.

I would start the next chapter from the POV of a police officer arriving at the accident scene. He's of course going to be very attentive to details, and he's also going to be asking questions of all the witnesses. Through the testimony of two or three witnesses, you can get across to the reader that this was no accident.

When you're shifting POV from scene to scene, you have to make it pretty clear that the shift is taking place, but I wouldn't shift into objective in the middle of a chapter at all, because there's too much potential for confusion.

The only time I'll shift to objective is at the beginning of a new chapter, and i'll stay objective for that whole chapter.

[maestrowork]

There are many different ways. Obviously you need to switch POV (at least when the woman is dead). You can either switch to a secondary character who happens to be there (say, the driver who kills her) or someone in the crowd... but I would caution switching to a POV character who is NOT one of the majors. You'd like to keep your POV characters to your major players. So what you can do, perhaps, is adopt the fly-on-the-wall (or objective/camera) POV -- meaning, you can describe what's happening in the scene, but you can't go inside any character's head. That would allow the narrator to observe the scene as things happen.

[pianoman5]

Bear in mind that if your story is told in past tense and you use the deceased woman's POV, you've introduced a logical flaw that is potentially fatal unless it's deliberate (tales from beyond the grave).

I too would suggest objective POV. You could write a 'show' scene using the techniques suggested, by thinking through how you might portray it clearly on a movie screen so that everyone understands what's going on without being inside any character's head.

[Denis Castellan]

Thanks, I think I get the idea. Keep it 3rd all the way (woman then police/witness) or keep it objective (I like the fly-on-the-wall)

There's just one confusing thing : "Bear in mind that if your story is told in past tense and you use the deceased woman's POV, you've introduced a logical flaw"

Does that mean I should never use a character's POV if she is going to die somewhere in the middle of the story ?

[pianoman5]

Originally Posted by Denis Castellan

Does that mean I should never use a character's POV if she is going to die somewhere in the middle of the story ?

Well, that's how it seems to me. It's certainly the case with first person POV told in past tense, where if the character dies, how could she be telling the story from her point of view retrospectively? Since 3rd limited is related to 1st person, I guess the same rule applies.

I have to admit though, thinking about it now I'm struggling with the logic, because with third person rotating there's usually a narrator present who is slightly outside the characters and who can supply continuity from a detached POV. This is a manifestation of the peculiarity of the fictive illusion, where we pretend that a story can actually be logically told in other than first person.

[zornhau]

Couldn't you have her aware of the car, but not realise it's a threat, e.g:

She's on the sidewalk and it's quiet because it's late at night.
Car rumbles up fast from behind. She thinks "What a jerk driving like that."
There's a bump as it mounts the pavement and-

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by pianoman5

Well, that's how it seems to me. It's certainly the case with first person POV told in past tense, where if the character dies, how could she be telling the story from her point of view retrospectively? Since 3rd limited is related to 1st person, I guess the same rule applies.

I have to admit though, thinking about it now I'm struggling with the logic, because with third person rotating there's usually a narrator present who is slightly outside the characters and who can supply continuity from a detached POV. This is a manifestation of the peculiarity of the fictive illusion, where we pretend that a story can actually be logically told in other than first person.

Actually, if you're writing in 3rd person, past tense, it's fine. Though 3rd person is "similar" to 1st person, it's not the same. The narrator is "supposedly" separate from the POV character. There's that "here's a story I'm telling you, about this woman who later died..." quality to it.

Now, if it's 1st person, then you have a problem, since the woman is DEAD later on. Unless she pulls a Sunset Blvd. and narrate the story from the grave, it won't make sense.

Now if it's in 1st person present tense, then it would be okay, I suppose -- obviously when the POV character dies, she/he can't be the POV character anymore. There are ways to handle it -- use another 1st person POV character, for example. Such is a case in The Time Traveler's Wife. The story is told in sort of a "real time" fashion, in present tense, so it works in that sense. And when one of the POV characters die, the other take over (but there's a twist... and I won't tell you in case you want to read the book yourself).

[Kate Nepveu]

Originally Posted by Denis Castellan

Does that mean I should never use a character's POV if she is going to die somewhere in the middle of the story ?

No, because the answer to any question about writing with "never" in it is "no." More specifically--

In many novels, we-the-readers are never told "this is how these thoughts get down onto paper"--especially in third-person. So there's no problem there with having a POV character die.

A solution to use the woman's POV and at the same convey the idea that the hit was intentional is to make her realize it just before the end. I mean, she sees the car soon enough to realize what's going to happen but too late to do anything about it. You might even include a clue about the who and the why, something that a police officer later in the scene wouldn't be able to do.

And as a bonus you've given your readers a nice reason to go on reading, which is always good. :-)

Andreas

[Sandinista]

My two cents:
Start with a short POV scene from the driver. Some may think it's a cheap trick, but I don't see a problem with not telling us the driver's name, especially if this is a short scene, no more than 3 or 4 graphs. Just call him the driver, or "he," or even "the killer." He's waiting in his car. Let the reader know he's about to try and kill someone. He sees his target, a woman in a red dress(or some clearly identifying description) and he guns the engine.

Switch to the woman walking down the street. She's going about her business and wham!

The benefit of starting this way is that it builds suspense. We know something dangerous is about to happen, so we lean forward anticipating it. I think the only trick to pulling this off, is making it clear that you've switched to the POV of the woman who's about to get hit.

Driver's POV after you've told us he's waiting to kill someone: "...There she was. She carried two large grocery bags and stepped off the curb. He floored the accelerator.

Mary felt one of the grocery bags sliding out of her grip. It slipped free and fell toward the grimy puddle beside the curb. She caught it by the handle just in time. Whew, you gotta be more careful, Girl. Mary let out a sigh of relief as she stepped into the street...

[Denis Castellan]

With all this advice, I think I can handle the scene so as to make it show what I want to be shown. I'll probably stick to the objective POV since I don't want to show the driver. Who knows ? What if that car was empty ?

Originally Posted by Kate Nepveu

No, because the answer to any question about writing with "never" in it is "no."

I understand that quite well, as well as I understand "do what works for you". I asked that question because I couldn't see why it should be avoided. I have seen it done many times and it never bothered me. But Pianoman5's "logical flaw that is potentially fatal" scared me a bit and I wanted to be sure.

Thanks again

[HConn]

First of all, you can kill someone that is a third-person POV character, past tense or not.

Second, is there some reason the woman can't turn around at the last minute and see her death? If not, let her see the car coming. If there is, she can just be walking down the street and feel the impact.

But yeah, you don't want to have the car be the POV character, unless it's KITT or something.

[Writing Again]

"Pathetic Fallacy" is the pejorative term for "Personification" a term poets use with pride. It is one of the few points both scientists and Christians agree upon -- That somehow humans are the highest form of creature upon the Earth and that inanimate objects have neither sentience nor spiritual natures.

Those of us raised in less egotisitcal beliefs find ourselves wondering what the fallacy is and why it is doomed to be "pathetic."

Fear of being pathetic does strange things to people: It does not allow them to look at possiblities that exist, only the fear of doing that which is scorned. Is it so impossible to write from the car's pov in third person without attributing anything supernatural to it?

Lets see:

The car stopped, its bumper over her lifeless body, the hot engine pouring heat down toward her soon to be cold body. People stared at her and the car as it backed up a few feet and then sped away.

Yeah, I think it could be done.

[maestrowork]

The Love Bug! And Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!

[HConn]

"Pathetic Fallacy" means a writer assigns emotions to inanimate objects.

[maestrowork]

The sky wept bitter tears.

The car shone its angry headlights at her.

The flowers were happy to see him.

[Denis Castellan]

Originally Posted by HConn

"Pathetic Fallacy" means a writer assigns emotions to inanimate objects.

Yes, I understand that.

I wanted to show the 'accident' as something really violent and mean, something like a 'sadistic punishment' (hard to describe my real intentions in English.)
But I didn't want to put these feelings/emotions in the driver's POV. And I could need to show the same car further in the story, just to add a potential threat, or to give a clue to the reader.

I understand the difference between showing "angry headlights" for no other reason than adding "cheap emotions" in a scene and describing a S.King's-Christine-like car that really has its own feelings and life.

On the other hand, if I wrote poetry I don't think I would mind having "flowers smiling at somebody" to show that it's somebody pure (yeah, cheap one...)

Still, a witness can watch the accident and say what he feels about it (thoughts and/or dialogue.) And I'm trying to find a way to change the story so the 'witness' will be a known character, not just a somebody in the crowd.

Thanks for being interested

[Writing Again]

Most "pathetic fallacies" are reflections of the POV character's moods -- Just as when you sit by a small brook and you are happy it giggles at you and when you are unhappy it nags at you. When you are happy in NYC the buildings stand proudly above you and when you are depressed they loom above you oppressively.

To use an old cliche, "Nothing is more obstinate than an inanimate object."

We do feel that boxes beyond our reach mock us; cars that won't start are stubborn; printers that only print half pictures are contrary: It is the natural human tendency to project one's own feelings upon the world.

In fact this is done with people as well as animals, minerals, and vegetables. A man seeing a woman dressed in a way that attracts him believes the woman dressed to evoke that reaction in him whereas she may have chosen her clothes for an entirely different reason: Because it had a pretty print, reminded her of her aunt Matilda, because it was comfortable. Thus the argument often heard in court, "She must have wanted to be raped, yer Honor, she was showing her belly button to the whole wide world."

Two things humans do: Project and extend: People project their thoughts, feelings, attitudes onto everything around them and they extend their boundaries to include everything around them that they have come to take for granted: "My house, my wife, my town, my hood, my tree, my planet, my stars, my god."

These are not logical, they are innately human: Logic disdains everything innately human in favor of a robot like form of reason, the use of which is only fit for the inside of a computer, yet whose adherents worship it with a tenacity that often surpasses religious fervor. Other forms of reasoning exist and some of them are superior.

Most pathetic fallacies are neither fallacies nor pathetic, they are simply humans doing what humans do.

Seen as stories are about how one or more characters see their world these stories should be human, not logical; the stories should reflect how humans behave: act, react, feel, and think, not how an idealized form of reasoning would have them behave.

[Denis Castellan]

Writing Again, I agree with everything you said.

In French, for a car that won't start, we often say "it doesn't want to start" and we know that the car doesn't want anything at all, anyway.

But I'd like to try telling my story without my "pathetic fallacies" (or whatever) getting in the way. I'll let a character tell or think things the way we do in real life, but with an objective POV, I don't think I should do it.

That would be me stepping in the story to tell things I feel, not things my characters feel.

[maestrowork]

To me, pathetic fallacy is not "wrong." It's just lazy -- telling instead of showing. I think they work in poems because poetry is figurative to begin with and we're also working with a finite number of words to convey certain emotions -- not a lot of room for "showing."

But in fiction, methinks it's simply lazy to say "the flowers smile at me." It's a quick fix, telling the readers that the character is happy. But why not show us, get us involved with the scene and let us feel the happiness through dialogue, action, and the word choices you make? A whistle, a bounce, a dance... "The daisies look like bursting stars in her hair."

Now back to the original questions... I think there's a way to show that violent scene using the car in an omniscient/fly-on-the-wall fashion without tapping into any character's emotions. You can use metaphors:

The car ripped through the crowd like a hungry shark... in various states of horror and confusion, the spectators swam away to find safety. The shark thrashed the woman around, tossing her in the air, dropping her back into the asphalt waves. Then the shark backed up, eyeing its victim as she grasped for breaths. It attacked again....

Something like that may work. I don't know.

[katdad]

Here's an excerpt from my screenplay that contains an intentional hit and run. Maybe it will help (the principal character is an Arizona state senator named Blackhorse -- he's just spoken at a rally in Phoenix) ----

Blackhorse smiles to the cameras again, waves to the departing citizens, reporters, and camera crews, then strides briskly across the street to his car in an adjacent lot.
EXT. STREET NEAR RALLY

Sitting in an unlit area is the big black pickup.

As Blackhorse crosses the street, the truck's powerful engine revs up. The truck begins to rumble towards him, gathering speed. Its headlights are off and it is unnoticed at first.

Blackhorse sees the truck headed his way, and casually steps to the side. Then, when the truck veers his direction, he realizes it's trying to run him down. He barely escapes being hit, and dives to the side.

The truck comes back for another try. Blackhorse is in the open, and sprints for the safety of a concrete barrier and several nearby parked cars. He dodges as best he can and almost makes it, but is struck a glancing blow and thrown to the ground.

With a crowd of people gathering and police approaching, the truck zooms away. Its license plate is covered with a rag.

Many people have witnessed the event. They hurry to aid Blackhorse, who is writhing on the ground in great pain and shock, clutching his leg.

[Mistook]

Originally Posted by maestrowork

...Then the shark backed up, eyeing its victim as she grasped for breaths. It attacked again....

Something like that may work. I don't know.

Sharks don't swim backward. The way their gills are designed, if they swim backward, they drown.