begin rant

Is POV something that is mandatory for critique? I mean seriously, every time something happens or is said that the character which we decide holds the point of view is jumped on like white on rice. One of the biggest reasons third person POV is so handy is because the narrator has the flexiblity (if so desired) of letting the reader in on something the main character doesn't know/think. Instead of constantly scrounging for POV problems in every single piece, maybe we should be spending our time worrying about imagery that does/doesn't work, narrative structure, the characters themselves. FORM is very important, but when one aspect of it is singled out to the exclusion of others, it seems pointless. As a reader of literature, I do not stop and say: "Hey, the main character doesn't know this, he can't see the penguin behind his back, the little boy doesn't call himself 'and young'n' " We should also be worrying about CONTENT as well.

Mostly, I guess this rant just boils down to this: Critique of little niggling POV concerns reads, to me, like the reviewer doesn't really have anything of substance to say, unless, of course, the POV is really whacked.

But seriously, third person is just that . . . A THIRD PERSON, A STORYTELLER, SOMEONE WHO IS **NOT** THE MAIN CHARACTER.

end rant

quote:

---

As a reader of literature, I do not stop and say: "Hey, the main character doesn't know this, he can't see the penguin behind his back, the little boy doesn't call himself 'and young'n' "

---

You're right. No one says that about POV. But they don't say it about imagery, or form, or style or whatever else you suggested either. Rather, they are simply pulled out of the story. POV is one of those things that can be hard for the author to spot but really causes a reader to say, hey, that's right, this is just a story I'm reading, it isn't real. Pulls them from your created world like a fish hook through the brain. (There's a simile for you to critique!)

An example: Guy de Maupassant, from "Moonlight"
Everything in nature seemed to him created with an absolute and admirable logic. The 'why' and the 'because' always balanced out. [this particular section is from the dour old Abbe Marignan's POV, 3rd Lim] In the next paragraph, we have: . . . and it would never have occurred to the priest to suspect that nature has no intentions at all, and that, on the contrary, every living thing has bowed to the hard necessities of times, climates, and matter itself. [Here, the narrator is making commentary which is outside of Abbe Marignan's POV, but it is essential to the romantic nature of the story (by romantic I mean romanticism vs. realism). The narrator has something to say to the reader, and Abbe doesn't know it.

Omniscient isn't always bad. I didn't complain in The Hobbit when Tolkien told us about the nasty habits of trolls that Bilbo didn't know about; it worked. The Hobbit's narrator was not as invisible as the ones we usually use; he was like grandpa telling a story to the kids.

It wasn't 3rd person so it doesn't strictly apply, but: Earth Made of Glass, John Barnes. The narrator tells us what people around the city are thinking. Since we don't know these people and if characters are invented to think these thoughts, they won't be used again, a sort of summary survey works fine for me.

Even in that, though, it was clear where one set of thoughts ended and another began.

But let me clarify what you are talking about: omniscient viewpoint. Third person comes in two forms: limited and omniscient. Once you establish third person limited, in other words from the POV of just one character (you can switch between chapters or scene breaks) you cannot then tell us what the girl down the street knows about them that they don't know.

Third person limited is very handy. It gives us the connection to a single character that we get from first person without many of the hangups. But there remains the omniscient viewpoint, which is frankly going out of style. This means that you can tell us what any character feels/thinks/knows at any time. The trouble is that good omniscient is hard to establish. Especially in this world with so much third person limited, it is almost more accurate to say that you have to set up omniscient viewpoint than a limited viewpoint.

Here's the thing. If you're in Amy's head and I'm thinking what she's thinking, seeing what she's seeing, knowing what she's know....then all of a sudden I find out Dan thinks she's hot. I kind of do a double take. Oh, I think after a bit, this is actually omniscient viewpoing. And then I go on, but problems occur if its not smooth or if you spend too much time in the mind of any one character. It gets me back in third person limited mode and it is a new jolt when it changes.

Now, there are many important aspects to the telling of a story. Point of view is only one of them, and it is often too heavily weighted on this site (in my humble opinion). Next time I get a chance I'll try to find one of your fragments and see if it is noteworthy in your case.

I don't think you have to get locked into limited viewpoint, even if you use it primarily in a story. A limited narrator can simply be omniscient narrator that hasn't decided to comment on any other characters (haha, that sounds funny to me for some reason). I purposely didn't use the term omnisicent because using that specific terminology brings to mind a narrator that comments on any and everything, rather overtly; often, the term omniscient brings to mind cliches such as "Little did he know that . . . " and so on. Language is such a tricky thing; I guess that's why writing is so much fun I do recognize (and advocate) the use and usefullness of the limited POV, I just wanted to say with this topic that it is not the only option.

When a limited POV is established, and the narrator gets into another persons head, suddenly saying "Jane down the street thinks this," I totally agree that it is jarring. Often though, I see things such as physical actions being critiqued as outside of limited POV, like the narrator revealing something happening outside of a character's physical field of vision (ex. people sniggering behind my back for being such a POV geek). I see writing as like a film, if the filmmaker decides to get inside one character's head, and there are inner thoughts expressed through narration, the narration is limited to that character. But within that limited viewpoint, the camera can be wherever the director wants it to be, revealing things that the main character may not know about. Also, the narrator in the text (out of the movie analogy) can make comments and judgements that are outside of the characters' inner thoughts without being jarring; the only time when POV conflict really jars the reader is when the inner thoughts of a non-main character are written about. Anyway, this extra paragraph added in post-post (I really cannot resist word-play), I hope, clarifies things a bit.

I haven't really researched this, but I imagine most things we read appear to be 3rd limited, but occasionally the narrator slips things in outside the focus-character's POV, making the POV 3rd omniscient, even if it isn't obviously so. Or I could be wrong, haha.

[This message has been edited by Kazander42 (edited April 22, 2005).]

In a narrative, the reader is looking for a person. Yes, they might read about ideas or milieu, but those are the ideas of Asimov or Niven's world. As a writer, you need to identify the person that you wish to present to the reader, then choose the POV to let that reader meet that person.

This person isn't always a person as we would ordinarily understand the term, though sometimes it is. Tolkien wants the reader to meet a slightly eccentric historian of a mythical past. You meet him on the first page and pretty much every page thereafter. He's a wonderfully genial fellow, and quite a fine aquaintance. Clancy wants you to meet a composite person, a think-tank of sorts. His omniscient is the omniscience of what certain kinds of experts think happens, a pattern of thinking. Card likes to present the characters in the story to the reader, which is the most common meaning of characterization.

In all good writing, the person that is the real POV of the story becomes apparent very soon. Sometimes it is a seemingly detached observer of externals, like in many Hemmingway novels. Sometimes it is clearly one of the characters. It can be the "omniscient" journalist, or the pondering historian, or whatever kind of narrator character you wish to invent. Good writing establishes the rapport between the reader and the storyteller, whether or not the reader is consciously aware that there is such a person.

Bad writing does the opposite. It pushes the reader to reject the story, to disengage imagination and trust.

There is a reason that we speak of "hooks" and such. One powerful hook for the experienced reader (which includes most editors worthy of the name) is the presence of a clear, evocative writer behind the text. In days gone by, that was judged by narrower standards, the writers of today are heirs to a powerful liberation in that they are allowed to use the third person limited omniscient at all.

Can you use those other POVs? Yes, of course you can. But they aren't a pass to do whatever you like. Those POVs are difficult and very constraining if you want to do them right. Do I reject them out of hand? Of course not, I admire well written stories in any POV, particularly a difficult POV.

One powerful hook for the experienced reader (which includes most editors worthy of the name) is the presence of a clear, evocative writer behind the text.

I always find it easy to side with the creative viewpoint, as my first introduction to thinking critically about art--unfortunately, I think--was Dada, and the anarchy of creative freedom. So, in defense of Kazander, I think it's disingenuos NOT to write in whatever way speaks to us or moves us to speak...at least in the early draft stages, anyway.

The opposite side of the coin, though, is the practical matter of THE AUDIENCE. It would be nice to think that our audience would approach our work without predjudice. But this will never be so. Even here on the forum, reviewers in general are an audience with a fairly common set of preconceived notions. Those posting and those lending crits are doing so for the purpose of refining their craft. Most work here is in a fairly common genre(s), with a fairly common goal of getting published or writing something that's very readable. As such, there is a tendency to use broadly accepted common denominators/rules. Since POV is so basic to the read, it's going to come up whenever you use anything outside the norm. This is also an indicator of the reaction you may receive if you are trying to publish. Use these indicators for whatever they're worth to you.

I also happen to enjoy reading great literature, but I always approach it from a different perspective. I expect great writers to break the rules with flair. But I would never slam a submission here because it did not.

In the end, it's all about creating a record of our attempts at problem-solving while in the creative act. All solutions have costs. If you feel the value of the solution outweighs the cost, you go with it. That's artistic integrity. If the cost obscures the solution, you have to decide what audience you have a loyalty to. That's artistic integrity, too, I think--but that's another topic entirely.

If your writing is good, I have no doubt you'll pick up readers here that accept these kinds of things as your style. I personally haven't seen any of your work, but I promise to do so. I also promise to look at other things besides your POV usage.

As an aside in this vein, I wonder if anyone has compared any of King's early stuff with his later style. Did he start out with a much more commonly accepted style and then evolve into his currently blatant use of omniscient? Well, I'm sure he did, but does anyone recall how tight his POV usage was in the early stuff? I happen to love some of his work, but sometimes I find myself asking, "How the hell does he get away with that?" ... and then I keep on reading.

quote:

---

As a reader of literature, I do not stop and say: "Hey, the main character doesn't know this, he can't see the penguin behind his back, the little boy doesn't call himself 'and young'n' "

---

I do. *wry grin* I stopped reading Piers Anthony at twelve because he was driving me crazy with this kind of thing, than and his thrice-damned exclaimation points. And I was already struggling with Zelazny's "formal language/ colloquial language" swaps then. However, I'm pretty much a geek.

quote:

---

I see writing as like a film, if the filmmaker decides to get inside one character's head, and there are inner thoughts expressed through narration, the narration is limited to that character. But within that limited viewpoint, the camera can be wherever the director wants it to be, revealing things that the main character may not know about.

---

The problem is that writing is not a film. It's writing, a completely different art form. You can get away with stuff in film that you can't in writing, because with film you get to hook into that visual mode. A picture really *is* worth a thousand words; it's a much easier and more natural way of explaining things. And you can get away with things in writing you can't in film, namely, presenting the character's inner thoughts (some films use voiceovers, but this is risky and often leads to audience rejection: see Bladerunner).

You can't treat a book like a film, or vice versa, without badly mangling things.

Form and genre and such are helpful distinctions, but getting outside of those things can be amazing (or terrible, if not doen right)

There are always two sides to every coin.

It's been my experience that people on the boards don't (generally) comment on aspects of posted fragments which do not catch their eyes for some reason or another.

It seems this whole argument is presupposing that the "creative" POV treatment didn't jar anyone out of the writing. It seems this is wrong. It's not that the POV was nontraditional; it's more likely that it was inconsistent (or whatever) enough to create confusion and/or warrant comment.

The discussion on the intricacies of creative POV-ing is a valuable one, but I think this discussion's premise is based on a relatively invalid assumption.

I am a fairly recent newbie myself, so I can empathize. And I have also seen a few times where everyone leaps on something that was written, like a pack of ravening wolves.

I try to keep in mind something that was said in response to a comment I made about literary devices on a different thread - and that is, as writers, we should all be constantly trying to improve our skills.

We have an extraordinary opportunity on this board, to have our work and our style read and examined by other writers who then offer freely of their time to offer opinions and suggestions for improvement.

Anytime a writer has twenty people read a piece, and 3/4 of them come back with a critique identifying a common issue as a problem, I should hope the writer would take their comments under thoughtful consideration. After all, the people on this board aren't trying to insult you or discredit you, they are trying to help.

I think everyone should experiment from time to time with alternative POV, style, cadence, tone. But realize, when you use a different form, that it may require a little more dilligence to write successfully.

The opinions expressed on this board (including the one you are now reading ) are just that - opinions. You can accept them or not. But please don't get upset because they've been expressed! After all, if you don't want our opinions, it's a bit counterproductive to ask for them, ain't it?

I don't care at all why someone made particular choices in telling their story. I care about the result. If the result is a failure, there is an extraordinarily high chance that application of basic techniques will fix the problem.

When I hear hoofbeats, as the saying goes, I don't assume it's a zebra. And you may not be acting in your own best interest as a writer by focusing so much on zebras.

quote:

---

Basically, I'm saying that to really help a person write a story better, it helps to know exactly what the author is trying to do.

---

In considering the philosophical aspect of critiquing, I can merely state how I approach it. When I critique a work, I approach it as a reader approaches any written story.

In general, AS A READER, I don't know the author's intention, nor do I care. I read the story one time through and don't go back through it and microanalyze it in an effort to ferret out the author's meaning.

You get one shot with the reader. If you lose them, you won't get them back. So my comments when I critique are really just the disgorging of my thoughts that pop up in my head while I'm making that first (and possibly only) read through the material.

Now, that is an entirely different approach than if a writer solicits advice on technical skill.

I suppose POV is a technical issue that gets hammered a lot simply because it's such a critical one. I would hammer on spelling if I felt someone wasn't making at least a rudimentary effort to spell check. There are certain glaring technical defects that completely derail the reader.

Something like this:
"Hey, this wasn't working for me as a reader."
"Oh really, well I was trying to do this because . . ."
"Oh, ok. Maybe you should try doing this way to achieve that effect"

That's all I'm asking, and that is all I mean when I say that sometimes the writer letting the reviewer know the intent of the story (after the initial critique) can be helpful. If you do not want to review that way, that's cool, but for me personally, it would be tremendously helpful for my writing, and that sort of feedback would help me better guide someone else's writing as I am reviewing it.

I do this because I've found most writers at our stage don't have a good handle on POV. Sometimes they change POV without realizing it, just because it seemed like the thing to do at the time.

To a writer, every single word is critical. We fiction writers must be especially careful about every word. Even in our syllables we must consider grammar, characterization, cadence, viewpoint . . . everything.

-Look out, Clarissa! The evil robot monkeys are attacking!
-I see them, Derek, I'm not an idiot.

I might suggest that using dashes instead of quotation marks is a problem in the dialog.

I think you're suggesting that instead of me saying "use conventional punctuation because your unconventional punctuation is distracting" we have this conversation:

A: Your use of unconventional punctuation for dialog didn't work didn't work for me. What were you trying to do here?
B: Tell an interesting story that engages the reader.
A: Oh. Then try using a conventional punctuation that doesn't disrupt the story, so that the reader can stay engaged.

I can't figure out why B's line would be anything different than what I've written above. If B is says anything else ("Cormac McCarthy uses unconventional punctuation and it looks cool so I want to try it!" or whatever) then B is more focused on implementing some technique than on telling the story, and is completely missing the point.

There is no more substantial literary concern than POV.

POV has been called various things, but the concept is fundamental to all literature. In times before the modern conventions of fiction as a legitimate catagory of literature came to exist, the concept of narrator was very important. I think that my own favorite term is "means of perception".

The essential purpose of all literature is to relate the story to the audience. POV is the means by which we establish where a reader will stand in relationship to the story. It is the basic distinction between a list of events and a narrative.

He thinks it boils down to this - and I agree with him or I wouldn't be posting it here - a POV violation is anything which jerks the reader out of the flow of the story, anything which makes them go "hang on a sec". If you can handle moving between the thoughts of characters and idiom without disrupting the reader then great, go for it. If not, you have a problem and need to start hitting it with a red pen. That may sound pretty open, but its far from it. Good POV means very, very careful writing, no matter what form you choose.

If POV is something that comes up all the time, then you should examine what might be wrong with it first. No matter how creative it is, any story that is to cumbersome or confusing for the reader won't get read. I like reading stories that don't require me to try and figure out what the author is saying. If I spend too much time figuring out what is going on I'll go find something else to read.

The mark of a great writer is that you don't notice the great writing- rather you are engrossed by the story.

If you begin jumping around POV mind hopping, narrator commenting etc it might seem cute to you the writer but to the reader it completely destroys the immersion in the story.

Within was a definition of 3rd person limited omniscient: (my **s)

quote:

---

By definition, **this narrator potentially knows all things pertinent to the story**, even a character's very thoughts. Limited omniscience, however, chooses the mind of only one character--in this case, Farquhar's--and enters it extensively. At anytime, this narrator can move into the chosen character's mind and thoughts, or tell us about the outward world of the story.

---

I would assume that this type of POV also could include a narrator who does not go inside the head of any characters, it is just more even more limited than the standard.

What started this rant off originally was the misconception that some people had that limited meant that the narrator knows only what the character knows, and must speak in or close to the character's voice. This would be essentially be first person (mis)using third person pronouns. The limited part only limits the narrator's abilities to get into the minds of characters other than the single focus-character, not the narrator's ability to tell parts of the story that are outside of the focus-character's knowledge. Ppeople sometimes get the concepts of omniscience and limited character focus within POV mixed up, as well as mixing the entire concept of POV up with narrative voice (ex. the language that the narrator uses).

I would assume that 3rd. Limited Omniscient is the standard of most fiction, and I have nothing against it, and in fact can't see myself straying from it very much at all (if ever). It is the basic mode of storytelling, and extremely important. Hope this clears up my initial frustration, I was not advocating misusing POV, rather I was attempting (though not very eloquently to be sure) to combat misconceptions of POV.

Don't mistake the fact that there is a definition for it as proof that it is a good narrative style for you. Current reader culture prefers third person limited or first person. Anything else is a risk, and only a skillfull writer can use them without bearing the wrath of critiquers and rejection from editors.

Repeat: frequent POV shifts will always get complaints from your critiquers.

Always.

This doesn't make them bad.

quote:

---

Repeat: frequent POV shifts will always get complaints from your critiquers.

---

What I just said previously agrees with that sentiment. I don't know where the hold up is. The POV is focused on one (and only one character) which is what makes it 3rd person LIMITED omniscient. So yes, if there were frequent changes of POV in that setting, then there would be a problem. I am not advocating changes in POV.

To Beth: The definition of that POV is about as modern as it gets; 3rd person limted omniscient hasn't changed or gone out of style, it has pretty much been the standard of all the professional writings I have read. The POV used in that story is standard narrative practice. You use it. I use it. It is the basic method of narration; when you tell a story verbally, chances are, you are speaking in it. POV doesn't change over the course of history. And the fact that we remember the story nearly a century after the author's death should tell you something.

Oh, never mind. What I said probably sounded snarky.

In the majority of my stories I am quite diligent about using 3rd person with deep penetration. Which of my stories have you read that used limited omniscient?

Let me ask this to clarify:
If I was writing in standard POV (whatever we consider that to be, not exactly sure what we call it) and said:
. . . [ main character] didn't notice [detail]
OR
. . . [action] happened behind [main character]

would you consider that a break in the POV, even if the narrator didn't go into the inner thoughts of another character? Or is the action presented limited only to what that character perceives? This is where the hang up is for me. I personally don't think so, but then, I did a quick flip through of some books and couldn't find any of these constructions, so maybe I have not noticed their absence until now.

quote:

---

In the majority of my stories I am quite diligent about using 3rd person with deep penetration. Which of my stories have you read that used limited omniscient?

---

that's what 3rd person means - you're limited to what the character percieves - it is very similar to the limitations of 1st person. Unlike 1st person though you can vary the depth of penetration in 3rd person. (Well, I guess you could do 1st with light penetration but you'd probably sound like a sociopath and you'd be giving up the whole reason to try 1st.)

the two examples you give would be POV lapses in 3rd, yes. they'd be dandy in omniscient.

But the thing is, a lot of less experienced writers write in a nice tight 3rd, and then they get to a point where they need to describe something that's oh behind the character's back, so they just describe it, and then claim that what they're doing is omniscient rather than 3rd with lapses. In order for omniscient to work, you have to establish it early and thoroughly and not get stuck in one character's head. It is very difficult, and most often done very badly.

Person (1,2,3) - Dictates the personal pronouns used. (I/we, you, he/she/it/they)

Character focus (inner thoughts and the like): Single character, all characters, no characters

Narrative Scope (what exactly the narrator 'sees'): All action, limited action (specific character focus/perception).

Make sense?

POV is about where you put your reader in relation to the events and characters of the story. That's why we use the term "point of view".

There are issues of what is "conventional" and whatnot, and you can spot technical POV violations pretty easily using a system of rules. But in a recent critique I pointed out to a writer that even though the story was grammatically in first, the narrator of the story didn't seem to be the person to whom the story happened, the "I" in the text. That's not something you spot using rules, at least, not simple rules.

In 3rd you are restricted to what the character perceives. There are various levels of penetration - how deep in the character's head are you? Light penetration, you only get actions - deep penetration, you get the character's emotions and thoughts and so on.

In omniscient you are not limited to the POV character's perceptions and can thus tell us what's behind the character's back. It can be fairly tightly focused so you're mostly watching one character and his back, or broader and skipping all over the place.

Another reason so many people are picky about it is because new writers will choose omnipotent thinking they are doing it correctly when they aren't. Also, it is annoying to have to read a story that is so confusing in POV that the story itself is diminished, if not destoyed, by the annoyance of not being clear.

My point is that if reading is complicated and annoying, I won't do it. I read all the time, 3rd limited, 3rd omnipotent, 1st person, I don't see 2nd hardly ever, but I enjoy them quite often. Why? Because the POV is not confusing or annoying. Most of the time I don't even notice, and would have to go back and look to see what it was written in. That is what is required to have a good story. The content is irrelevant if no one can read it.

Maybe if we use a different example. Lets say someone who doesn't speak english well is utterly brilliant. Now this person decided to write a paper which is the most remarkable concept ever created. Only the english is so mangled that no one can get past the first page to even realize there is actual usefull content behind it. No one will read or accept it since it sounds like giberish. It doesn't make the concept any less valuable, but it does make it unusable by people who can't get past the way it was written.

To communicate with someone else, there has to be a common way of doing so. In english we have rules that help you understand me, and for me to understand you. How well we put those words together is how well you, or anyone else, will understand what I wish to say. If I do it poorly, I loose not only the possibility of you understanding...I risk you not bothering to listen at all.

So if we want to write for other people, we have to do it in a way they will accept and be comfortable with. POV is the a basic concept that MUST be right before people can become a part of the story. The story still needs other things to make it good, but bad POV will stand out and diminish anything else that might be good.

I have had my POV issues, as most people have when they first start. One of the things that indicates a beginning writer is POV problems. Another sign is the explination, "I'm doing Omnipotient". Which often times (not always) means, "I haven't figured out how to write in a POV". This is something that happens all the time, and the same excuses are used over and over. So as time goes on, the patience for dealing with it gets thinner. If I were to tell someone that the POV is jarring and doesn't work, I could care less that the story is a masterpiece of fiction in the eyes of the writer. I have several 10k word pieces of crap I've felt were masterpieces as well. I was wrong. It all comes back to learning.

I still get irritated when people just don't like my style of story. It isn't thier fault, but it is hard to take. If we didn't love to write, and weren't in some way proud of what we are doing...why would we do it? It just takes some time to realize that because we can string a few paragraphs together doesn't make us a master. It takes work. After two years of hacking at it, I think I've moved up to somewhere in the intermediat category. I still make mistakes, and some of my stories just suck. I do have my POV down pretty well and have very few issues most of the time. So even my sucky stories can be read for what's in them...even if it isn't always worth the time.