posted
I’ve only had time to scan here and there of late so I’ve not followed too much too closely, and this is probably a ‘duh’ question, but what is FO? Faulty Omniscient?
Christine had it right from the beginning: “First of all, there are no rules.” There is a lot of confusion as to definitions of POV because of the gradations within it. The best list (meaning the one I subscribe to ) is from Fiction Writer’s Workshop by Josip Novakovich, with an addition to the limited omniscient category from Jesse Lee Kercheval in Building Fiction, which addresses the confusion factor:
Under the heading THIRD PERSON are: THIRD OMNISCIENT – author jumps from head to head with authorial intrusion (essayistic explanations of the world) THIRD LIMITED, which comes in three varieties: Third Subjective – access to one character’s thoughts and feelings with no authorial intrusion Third Objective – observe one character without accessing thoughts and feelings with no authorial intrusion Third Limited Omniscient (or Third Flexible, since LO is a contradiction in terms) – combines the subjective and the objective, ie., we can both see the character from the outside and have access to his thoughts and feelings with authorial intrusion Kercheval’s caveat: “Technically…refers to any viewpoint in which the author is using a less-than-complete range of omniscient powers, but…doesn’t specify exactly which powers the author gives up….usually means the author has kept a restricted authorial voice to be used for description or simple narration, along with the ability to go deeply into one or more of his characters’ minds.” THIRD MULTIPLE – author jumps from head to head but without authorial intrusions; basically an alternation of two or more third person subjective POVs OBJECTIVE (THEATRICAL) – favors no particular character, no thought access of any character, no authorial intrusions
Note that the difference between omniscient and multiple is the presence or absence of authorial intrusion, and that the limited varieties of third take us inside a character’s head, wholly outside a character’s head, or a combination of the two but buttressed with some authorial leeway.
Also note that within Kercheval's caveat is a third person multiple, but with authorial intrusion of a sort, as opposed to a true third person multiple which has no authorial intrusion. This, to me, is the most flexible and comfortable category.
A POV shift is not necessarily evil, depending on what POV the writer is using. As Christine also pointed out, we too often assume a third person limited (usually subjective) POV and critique from that mistaken angle. But, it’s a natural assumption since it’s the most popularly used – if you don’t count Kercheval’s caveat.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited July 22, 2004).]
posted
Lullaby Lady, do I remember correctly, that you're a singer or otherwise musically talented? I'm wondering if that's why you've assigned 'voices' to posters here; because it seems more natural to assign a mental picture rather than a voice.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
Naughty? I'm never naughty! *whimpers* How could you ever say that! And I would never use any sort of cruel, emotional blackmail--not even now .
Posts: 697 | Registered: Mar 2003
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
) is from Fiction Writer’s Workshop by Josip Novakovich, with an addition to the limited omniscient category from Jesse Lee Kercheval in Building Fiction, which addresses the confusion factor: 
What have I started?!
(See my description of Survivor.)
