posted
3rd person objective-a pov where the narrator of the tale is outside the story and only describes the action/settings/or dialogue. No inner thoughts are given (or at least are rarely given).
I've been exploring this lately. To me, it is more realistic and invites the reader to become involved. In real life we have to take cues from our surroundings to make meaning. We don't get to read the minds of people. So, a narrative that mimics that is more realistic.
The involvement comes from not being supplied all the info. It is the ultimate test of showing and not telling. The reader must infer from the actions described what is happening. Motives are mysteries.
posted
I agree wholeheartedly, however I suspect it also reflects personal taste and/or reading preferences. I am a big fan of the notion that we write rhetoric - convincing our audience of a point of view (story theme) via argument (showing, not telling). While well written first person stories can do this, I suspect it is too easy for novice writers to fall into the trap of 'telling' with first person and thereby divorce their reader from becoming invested in the story.
I suspect third person omniscient risks clunky headhopping mechanics for many novice writers. I've also critiqued more than a few third person limited stories where the author has relied on interior monologue as a crutch instead of 'showing' events. Ultimately then I think it just comes down to experience - whichever narrative mode we use, if we use it well, it's going to work. But some things are more difficult than others...
posted
I think you need the right POV for the right story, and is an important part of story telling.
I can see 3rd person objective working well when you want the reader to be more of an observer than a participant or if you want to keep the motives of the characters ambiguous and let the readers draw their own conclusions.
But if your main conflict is an inner conflict (like most romances) you need the inner dialog you get from first person or close 3rd.
posted
I'm trying to understand this because the story I'm writing now is based on a POV character that's not directly involved with the conflict... an "observer". The reason is like MAP pointed out; That both my main characters are in on the plot. To tell my story through either main character would reveal the plot to the reader way too soon. So I invented a 3rd person "observer" to tell the story through.
I hope I'm understanding this POV correctly. Because the POV character is distanced from the action, does this mean we cannot get close to him... reveal his inner thoughts and reactions to what's taking place in front of him? I would think this would bring more to the story. Otherwise, wouldn't the story itself read rather flat?
posted
This reminds me of a thread I saw on another forum, that discussed about writing a story as if it is a movie. That is basically what the third person objective POV is, in many cases.
I think one of the greatest strengths of books and the written word over movies is that it allows us to get deeper into a character's inner world than a movie does.
So I think if you are going to write in third person objective, it has to be the right kind of story. I've only been writing short stories for about six months, but I have a tendency to lapse into this objective point of view, showing the action and details of the scene and forgetting the internals until later drafts.
In my WoTF submission, the MC is alone for much of the story. I actually wrote the first draft in my default mode, which ended up making the reader feel detached from the story. In this sense it actually had the opposite effect, the readers felt uninvited to become involved.
An excellent critiquer helped me realize that I really needed to be inside the character in this story because he is the only character for much of the story. I believe the subsequent drafts improved greatly because of this.
I do agree with your observation that we have to take cues from our surroundings to make meaning. But isn't your main character doing this regardless of POV? When the reader is in the MCs POV, we do get to read the mind of the MC, and that goes hand in hand with taking cues from our surroundings. As the aforementioned critiquer taught me, it is about seeing the cues (or evidence, or stimulus) and then reacting to it. It isn't a mutually exclusive thing, where cues are observed but the internal reaction is not.
So in short, I sure there are situations where this POV would work. To my mind, describing a huge space battle with lots of action would be appropriate, perhaps. Perhaps its a matter of the scale of the scene. Personally, I wouldn't use this POV in a scene where dialogue is front and center.
posted
I love inner monologues, pages and pages of a person's feelings on a matter. However, I have been taught that even something as delicious as reading a characters thoughts can get stale.
The best part of writing third person is that you can change the depth of the pov for any circumstance. I do agree wholeheartedly that you should consider your story as if someone made it into a movie. You might find more humor, more action, improvements in your description. But I think that is something you should do on a second draft, once you know the story well enough to make it even better.
Again, I think we are all different kind of writers, and different styles will work for different people.
I do want to write a story now without any inner dialog. I don't even know if I could do it, but I think it could help. ~Sheena
posted
What Osiris said about this being like a movie--it's also called "limited-camera-eye POV" because of that.
OSC has said that being able to provide your readers with character motivations by being able to enter their points of views is a major advantage to writing a book over filming a movie. (In other words, if you want to do it like a movie, write a screenplay. If you want to write a book, get into someone's point of view.)
The thing is, if you need an observer for the reader to identify with, one who is trying to figure things out along with the reader, you can still sit inside someone's head.
This is the approach Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used in the Sherlock Holmes stories, with Watson as the observer.
Another example of using the observer point of view is F. Scott Fitzgerald's THE GREAT GATSBY (which I have to confess I enjoyed more as a movie than I did as a book--but it had Sam Waterston in it, and he's a favorite of mine--he played the observer, by the way).
posted
This isn't to say that you can't pull it off, or that it isn't the perfect way to do your story, but I really hate cinematic. I whole-heartedly agree with OSC that the domain of prose is thought.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people make too big a deal out of POV and in the long run its mostly a matter of taste. I never even really noticed the concept as a reader till I came here and encountered people going into more detail about it.
I don't think its even necessary to stick to one POV. Just cause your in 3rd omni most of the time doesn't mean you can't dip into someones head if the story calls for it. A lot of it is in execution and depends on story type and the goals you have with a story. Extrinsic called it a sliding scale once and I think that's a good way to think of it.
That being said, right now it seems most people are in fact obsessed with internal thought and deep penetration and omni is especially in the "mainstream" looked down upon. But there are of course exceptions.
As always I say do whatever works for any given story.
quote:I think people make too big a deal out of POV and in the long run its mostly a matter of taste.
I wonder if it is less conscious than that. To a large extent, we are taught to read by the works that we read. Samuel L Delany showed that certain subgroups (e.g. sf readers) read differently to other groups (e.g. literature readers) by, for example, how much they trust the author to explain things later. So I wonder how much the expectation of POV has been built up based on the range of POVs of stories that we have read. If we read a lot of omni, we are less confused when it dips from one person's thoughts to another. If we read a lot of third person POV, we can feel something is wrong when it jumps to another persons thoughts. Sometimes, having realised the different categories gives a reader the ability to transend past their exposure expectations and read a story with fresh eyes.
posted
I agree with you, Merlion-Emrys. I never really paid much attention to POV violations prior to coming here. However, I have read a lot of classics and literary pieces that seem to lean more to 3rd omniscient or varying use. I continue to disregard POV violations when reading, even though I am now more aware of them when they occur.
It seems to me that writers and editors make more of a deal about this, than do readers.
posted
I'm sure most of you don't notice when a book is poorly typeset. Because you have never done any typesetting, you don't know how it's supposed to look. But it does make a difference. Do you ever find yourself accidently reading the same line again, or skipping lines? Those are typesetting issues. I once had my car make a funny noise, I meant nothing to me, but to a mechanic the weird noise was the sound of a loose alternator. Had I known I could have taken care of it before the thing fell off. In any field you are going to have things that are only noticeable to those working in it. That doesn't mean it's unimportant. POV is an important part of the work of writing, that's why we notice it now that we are studying writing.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree that POV is something valuable for us as writers to learn about...a useful tool...I don't think your typsetting and car repair analogies are very apt. Those things you mention are all problems, errors, things to be fixed. POV, again, is a tool. 3rd omni, for instance, is disliked by some, but not all. However you do it, it isn't an error to be fixed or a wrong to be righted. It's essentially a stylistic/artistic choice, which is why I chuckle about threads I see here and elsewhere about "Can I do XXX?"
We're storytellers. We can do whatever we want. And contrary to what I know some believe, theres a market for most of it, somewhere.
posted
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Third Omni or Third Objective (which the thread was originally about) are errors. I like Third Omni done well, and I don't like Third Objective no matter how it's done. (But your right, it's just a taste thing.) I was just responding to the idea that normal readers don't think about POV much, and saying why we should care about it anyway. If we screw up the POV, the reader may not know specifically what we did wrong, but they will know something is wrong.
Anyways back to Babooher's comment which I don't think we discussed fully.
quote:We don't get to read the minds of people. So, a narrative that mimics that is more realistic.
Yes, we don't get to read the minds of people, but we get to read our own mind. And when we record something we do it with our own thoughts. Reading a story is usually the record someone else put down (or the illusion of it.) For your idea to work this way you would have to put the reader in the scene, which would mean second person. (I've always wanted to experiment with 2nd person omniscient, but I still am trying to wrap my head around it.)
posted
I agree we should care about (as in learn about) it. I just don't think we should worry about it and should use it in whatever way feels best to us.
I don't even have any idea what the difference between Omni and Objective would be.
I actually agree that in many ways a POV that doesn't give us peoples thoughts is, in a way, more "realistic" (although as I said I don't think writing primarily in a distant 3rd person POV means you cant even dip into heads.) The passion for character immersion does seem to be a rather modern possibly even pretty recent thing. It's related I suppose to what so many people tell me about how they need to experience a story through a character. It's not something I understand or relate to...close or distant, 3rd or 1st, narrated by narrator or by character, thoughts or no thoughts...none of those things are either here or there for me.
quote:The involvement comes from not being supplied all the info. It is the ultimate test of showing and not telling. The reader must infer from the actions described what is happening. Motives are mysteries.
The downside though is actions can be much more ambigious than statements. A lot can be infered from context, but emotions especially and intentions can be hard to glean from external action alone, since different people react very differently to things, sometimes. This is still truer in speculative fiction where you are more likely to have atypical characters (non-humans, immortals, characters with heightened or reduced perceptions etc.) For many readers of the type I mention above...those for whom character is the main vehicle and often the main point of the story, having to try and interpret the character's thoughts and emotions will be frustrating and unsatisfying.
But that isn't everyone. Basically, any technique or element you use is going to attract some and alienate others.
quote:If we screw up the POV, the reader may not know specifically what we did wrong, but they will know something is wrong.
Perhaps more importantly, the editor and slush readers will usually know when POV gets screwed up and why. Of course, some also know when it doesn't matter (at least for them).
posted
Ahh...interesting. Although I'm pretty sure some people use "3rd omniscient" to mean or encompass the "objective" version. A lot of this stuff seems to depend very much on who you ask.
Till I came here all I knew was 1st and 3rd person.
quote:If we screw up the POV, the reader may not know specifically what we did wrong, but they will know something is wrong.
This.
quote: Perhaps more importantly, the editor and slush readers will usually know when POV gets screwed up and why.
...and this. Really.
Since it was said earlier that all (or most) PoVs have a use, you just have to--if you want to sell--know which markets except what. I also agree that each story calls for it's own tense, PoV and voice. Editor are readers. Important readers. If you can't sustain an editor's attention, you will never reach the audience he or she is buying for.
For instance, 3rd Person Omniscent and 3rd Person Objective are very popular in Historical Fiction, even today. It enables the writer to employ historical facts and the way they worked without having footnotes. 1st Person is also popular, but it limits the plot scope.
David Farland and Brandon Sanderson use "Third Person Multiple Personality Limited: Halfway between the 3rd Person Limited and 3rd Person Omniscient narrators, this POV narrator skips around among several characters, but only knows what its current character/host knows. The narrator might skip only at chapter breaks or might switch in the middle of a scene."
While Amazon.com makes it available to upload your stories (once formatted properly) and sell them through the Kindle Store, there are a lot of writers who weren't able to sell their fiction through more discerning markets that are filling those ranks. No doubt, you'll get mixed in with writers and prose that reflects that. And, while it is a way to get published--and some writers are taking advantage of it--I prefer to hone my skills enough to be accepted by an actual publisher before taking the e-book route.
posted
I had not heard of the objective viewpoint until recently. I grew up being taught 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and then 3rd limited or omni. It was coincidence that I discovered the term, but when I saw it I thought, aha! that's what I've been trying to do.
I've used 3rd limited or 1st for everything I've sold, but I have been playing with a western feel and for some reason it seems like the objective viewpoint is what the story calls for (at least to me). I wouldn't want to imply that objective is THE pov.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
