posted
I've read quite a bit about the horrors of "head hopping" in the common 3rd person limited POV, but I've been running into an interesting situation in my WIP that I was wondering if people might be interested in discussing.
I've been writing in what I think of as a variant on 3rd person limited, in that while we're limited to only one character's head (you hear his thoughts), I prefer to have the "camera" be perfectly capable of viewing anything, including things that the POV character is ignorant of. I feel that it works better, but doesn't hurt the feeling of POV. It feels quite natural, I think, but I was hoping for an opinion of fellow hatrackers.
How strictly do you stick to the "limits" of a POV.
One excellent example of this in my own story (summary only, not actual text from my WIP):
A young boy (POV character) is taking an oral mathematics exam. The proctor poses a multiplication question to the boy that he answers so quickly the proctor hasn't had time to multiply out the answer himself.
From the boy's absolutely strict POV, the proctor simply tells him that he needs to make a note of how quickly he answered. The proctor then pulls another sheet from his dossier and asks him a more difficult multiplication problem.
From a looser definition of the POV: The proctor excuses himself to make a note of how quickly the boy answered. He writes out the answer himself to verify that it is correct on a sheet. He pulls an examination sheet out from an older student that has 113 * 327 worked out on it, and asks the boy to do that problem.
To me, the second version is more interesting than the first. You can't see into the proctor's head, but you get the sense of his amazement and how he is scrambling to keep up with the child. In the first, you might make the same deduction, but it is weaker and less fun. I don't think it is breaking POV to say that he has to take a second to figure out the problem for himself, and lies to the boy to cover up the fact that the child came up with the answer faster than he could. Nonetheless, the child is completely ignorant of what the proctor is doing -- he thinks everyone can to arithmetic like he can.
posted
There's a noticeable distinction between access to a character's thoughts and a narrative point of view or a point of view character.
A narrative point of view includes grammatical person and number, a narrator's and/or characters' attitudes (objective or subjective), and psychic access to thoughts. Add in tense, and that's a generally recognized comprehensive synthesis of narrative voice.
An objective narrator is an impersonal one, usually invisible or in an anonymous relationship to a story. A subjective narrator's attitude toward a theme, topic, or subject involves a narrator in a story.
An example of a narrative voice, first person singular, subjective, omniscient psychic access, present tense, as in Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions. Though it incorporates, of course, auxiliary voices.
A significant fraction of modern fiction is in third person, objective, psychic access limited to one point of view character, past-present tense, generally considered the most plausibly authentic narrative voice.
The main features I've found for choosing a narrative voice are that a narrator not crowd a story's picture frame--I want to see the picture, not have a narrator blocking the picture by facing a reader and telling the picture rather than showing the picture--and I want to find the narrator as trustworthy and as reliably and authentically presenting a story. Even an unreliable narrator can show a reliable story, just that kind of narrator's assumptions are openly subject to interpretation.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited April 22, 2009).]
posted
Even in your strictly limited scenario, I would think the boy could see the proctor writing out the problem, and could conclude that the proctor is double-checking him. Unless the proctor is leaving the room?
I'd actually be curious to know what the boy thought the proctor was doing when he pulled out that second sheet. The boy's speculations might illuminate his character, which to me is more interesting than knowing what the proctor actually does.
posted
I think the biggest issue with pov switching is simply integrity of the narrative; as a reader who has been allowed inside the head of a character - and who is now trying to identify with them - the narrator disengages me from that character's story in order to show me the other character's pov. Disengaging readers is one way to get them to pick up a different story.
If your objective is to have the reader identify strongly with this character, then perhaps keeping the narrative limited will yield better results.
Don't feel that what you have is worthless though. You've established to yourself exactly what the proctor is doing, and why: This allows the interaction of the characters in the scene to be far more authentic.
I'd also recommend checking out some of the earlier discussions on pov (i searched hatrack for just '3rd person pov' and came up with quite a few discussions, ie 1, 2, 3, 4).
[This message has been edited by BenM (edited April 22, 2009).]
posted
Well, when I work in third person (my current thing currently is, but my last two finished things were first person), I still try to stay within the head of the viewpoint character---I try to present what's sensed (in all five senses if I can manage it) and what that character learns---jumping outside that seems to me to be cheating the reader by giving him more information than the character has, even if other characters (and me, the writer) know more than is being said at that moment in the story.
Which doesn't mean you can't jump from one head to another when you jump from scene to scene...I certainly enjoy multiple viewpoints and separate story lines featuring different characters...
(And it doesn't mean you can't get away with doing it...it's just not recommended practice.)
posted
Is it possible you've chosen the wrong POV character for this scene? It sounds like the story you want to tell is from the proctor's POV. Maybe you should just break down and tell it that way. It may be a possibility, anyway.
posted
It seems to me the scene intends to show the exam taker's unusual mathematical abilities and the proctor's frustrations with that ability. Neither mandates access to the thoughts of either character, although the proctor's heightened emotional state is potentially more sympathy-worthy than the neutral exam taker's.
The proctor's emotional state might be shown externally through action, description, and/or sensation exposition in third-person objective (visually or perhaps through aural senses or even other senses). In a subjective attitude, for sympathy and resonance's sake, I'd want to see the proctor's frustration as pitiable in and of itself or as condeming of the exam taker's ability. Both of which are plausible simultaneously and reflect my experiences.
posted
On the downside of multiple viewpoints within single scenes...I'm reminded of Dune and its sequels (at least the ones I read), where this technique was used. Dune is considered a classic and one of the mainstays of twentieth-century SF...but, because Frank Herbert used this technique, I've always felt a certain distance and alienation from it. (I picked up on this when I first read it, way before (but not too way) I ever thought of trying to write on a professional level.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always understood third person as being a third person, not the first (MC) or the second (the reader). It would be as if the narrator were standing in the room as an invisible observer - Rod Serling style. There seems to be a drive to make third person limited an inside the skull viewpoint, as if the narrator can only see through the MC's eyes - a very strict limited viewpoint. If this is the case, I really don't see a difference between first and third except for a few pronouns. I've never interpreted it this way, but instead more like a camera that follows the MC around. It allows us a 360 degree viewpoint of the MC's immediate surroundings and not necessarily "limited" to everything the MC sees. I find this to be a more traditional and realistic goal. Otherwise, if strict limited is the rule, every writer I've ever read is consistently breaking his/her own rule.
posted
I think the confusion arises when third limited focuses on thoughts. Many assume that it has to all be happening inside the MC's head. I see it more as having a "mindreader" who is focusing on one individual. I don't believe the narrator necessarily has to agree with the thoughts of the MC. I suppose I read a story much like a play, and see the narrator a either a free standing individual or an unseen voice. Even in first person, I usually feel like the narrator is temporally displaced in relation to the story, due to the use of past tense.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without reading your actual text it's hard to judge how I would react to reading this section you describe. But I get the impression that you don't trust the reader to form correct conclusions.
You can show the proctor's frown and show him writing out something on the paper, then show his surprise at the correct answer and his subsequent experiment to verify the first result.
Your student can wonder what's going on or not, but I'll (probably) assume correctly that the proctor realizes he has some kind of prodigy in front of him and judge his character based on his response.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
