Nugget #90 -- Gotta Know That POV First

Know-It-Alls Telling Stories: Writers on Omniscient Narrators

For this week's writers roundtable, let's look at the Omniscient Narrator. For years, it was the standard, but now it's fallen out of vogue for Third Person Limited. But why? And should we writerly types be ready to re-embrace this ol' standard?

Do you still write in omniscient POV? If not, when was the last time you did? Why do you keep using it or why did you stop?

Rebekah McAuliffe: While with omniscent POV you can get inside the minds of all of your characters, it can be difficult to keep up with because, again, there are so many characters. At least for me, I feel like first person is where it is much easier to "show, don't tell."

Robert Kennedy: I can't think of an instance where I've used omniscient narration. In my own writing I tend to tell the story in the First Person. I generally do the Voice that way. That often leads to "I didn't know that this was happening until later…" interjections to the readers. (The only time the Voice has appeared in the third person is in "Voice to a New Generation" that appeared in the first anthology of The Pulptress.)

Jeff Deischer: I always use omniscient. I want to jump around and make each character personal for the reader.

Ron Fortier: Never used it. Always preferred 3rd person…even the few times I wrote 1st person, I purposely avoided the omniscient factor.

Lance Stahlberg: I'm not sure if I've ever written in true third person omniscient. At least, in my mind, I'm always seeing the story through a particular set of eyes, even if that set of eyes changes.

When a friend read my GI JOE Kindle Worlds story, they commented that they normally hated third person omniscient, but I made it work. I think it's because it was actually third person limited, just with multiple third persons.

When you have an ensemble cast, it's hard to stay focused entirely on one character. Most of the breaks would be obvious (separated by ***) but in some scenes, I might have to shift from one set of paragraphs to the next because a hard break would be too jarring to the flow of the action. I'd never bounce back and forth too much, though. If I was focused on a particular character, and wanted to get the thoughts of another, I'd go with visual cues and expressions, not their actual internal dialogue.

Break Mwango: I write in whatever POV I feel suits the style of the story I'm writing, and which suits the characters too. Like, do I want to be able to expose ALL the characters' thoughts and emotions? Or do I want to limit it to just one character in order to possibly deceive the reader into thinking one thing when it's the other thing?

C.E. Martin: For me, I like to tell the story the same as if I'm doing a screenplay. I follow one person around, but don't limit the description for the reader to just what the character I'm following is aware of. Then, at a chapter break or a time break, I like to switch to another perspective, creating a mini cliffhanger with the first part. I think it works well for building suspense and mystery--just like it did in the film Pulp Fiction.

Robert Krog: This is, again, one of those questions I rarely ponder but intuitively answer regularly.  When I first read it, I had to stop and ask myself what point of view I use anyway.  It’s usually third person, sometimes first, and only once second.  I wrote in second, because I was asked to do so.  I normally gravitate to third but occasionally fall into first without really thinking about it.  Which third person do I use though?  It’s a question I don’t usually ask myself.  Looking over my work, it appears that I write in third limited with rare occasions of omniscient.  Most of my work is short fiction from novelette to short story and follow the actions of just one character.  There is sometimes head hopping (a sort of level in between omniscient and limited).  There is often insight into what the characters think and feel on top of what they say and do.  Sometimes, however, there is no precise insight into any one character’s head or heart.  The reader is witness to a scene and the narrator, if he is there, reveals nothing beyond what is witnessed.  The narrator comes across as a very ignorant tour guide, knowing locations, names, and basic relationships.  After that information, the reader and he are in the same boat, witnessing an event as it happens.  

I’m working on a novel that is written in periodic episodes of third omniscient, but in which the all-seeing narrator is primarily interested in relating the story of one, particular character, and the story comes across often as third limited.  The reader, after all, doesn’t have the time and the patience that an omniscient narrator has.  The narrator could go on forever, revealing all, but frankly the reader would never bear it.  The narrator stays chiefly in the head of the main character, but does visit the experiences of others as the story demands.  Who could read a book that delivered all the available information in a story at once?  Who could read a book that revealed every character’s, individual experience separately?

I keep to a fairly tight and near perspective, the then and there, only straying from that from time to time, leaving foreshadowing out or keeping it very subtle.  The omniscient narrator may know a great deal about the world through which he guides the reader, it’s history and geography, but he does not know its future. The ending seems to be mystery to him as well as to the reader.  He can’t give it away.  Anyway, he isn’t telling his story, but someone else’s.  He stays as true as he is able to the story he has taken upon himself to tell.

I think I write this way in order to keep the suspense in the story and to enable to the reader to identify with the characters as much as possible to walk in their shoes.  At times, when I think the story on which I’m working requires greater objectivity, I pull back and write from higher up, so that the reader will be able to witness the events from outside rather than as one inside, holding the main character’s hand or riding around in his head.  I use the methods that seem appropriate to the story.  I don’t consider either one more modern or more old-fashioned or outmoded.

Ellie Raine: I’ve tried writing in omniscient, but every time, I unintentionally slipped into 3rd limited. What can I say? I like not knowing anything outside of what the character sees.

Bev Allen: Interesting and I imagine extraordinarily hard to write if you are going to maintain the reader's interest and not burden them with detail.

Lee Houston Jr.: I'm not sure I have ever intentionally written in the omniscient pov. There have been times proofreading when I've discovered that I either foreshadowed too much or revealed too much too soon in the narrative, but those instances were quickly rewritten long before the final manuscript was submitted for publication.

Bobby Nash: Sure. I guess. Is it sad that I don't really think about it before I start writing? I use the narration to set the scene, tell us what is going on, what people look like, how they are dressed. I do try to stick to the POV of one character at a time per chapter or per section of the chapter. I have been known to head hop a few times here and there though. Whatever works best to tell the story or whatever the publisher/editor will allow.

What do you feel are the strengths of the omniscient POV? What are it's weaknesses?


Ron Fortier: It has no strengths. It’s weakness is the temptation to foreshadow an event, which is a cheap trick to play on the writer. Example: "Sam left Irene’s little realizing he would never see her again." Stephen King is notorious for this playing God. I hate it.

Bobby Nash: Strengths -- you can get into the heads of multiple characters and see everything from a big picture standpoint.

Weaknesses -- sometimes I have to rephrase things a certain way that would work better if one of the characters was the narrator.

Lee Houston Jr.: If done right, the Omniscient Narrator can serve as an extra character, so to speak, to tell the story from a viewpoint that none of the other characters in your tale/novel have. Done incorrectly, this "extra character" overshadows the main cast so the reader wonders who the book is actually about.

Bev Allen: I see the possibility of creating a rich texture to the descriptive narrative, and the possibility of including subtle layers of visual experience, but do I, as a reader, really need or want that?

Robert Krog: I suppose the strengths and weaknesses of the differing third person points of view depend on the way in which they are implemented and on other factors as well.  One doesn’t want to reveal the end of a mystery at the beginning, generally, and one doesn’t want the reader to think that the narrator knows but isn’t telling, just because he likes to keep the reader in suspense.  Mind you, many readers do like to be kept in suspense, so there is that to consider.  In fact, the main problems with omniscient may be nothing more than reader expectation and writer execution.  Terry Pratchett wrote primarily in omniscient and is a beloved author still read by many, so I’m not ever sure why some today suggest that the omniscient point of view is out of date.  Readers loved the voice of the narrator and didn’t mind that he knew everything and only revealed what he wanted to in the order that he liked.  They liked the manner and order of his revelations and delighted in them.  Is Pratchett’s work already that out of date?  Perhaps what is passing for conventional wisdom on the subject is what is sadly out of touch.

Another more recent best seller using omniscient is the novel Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke.  Again, I suggest that omniscient not really all that out of vogue anyway.  I think the question with the strength and weaknesses of the omniscient point of view is whether or not the narrator of the story is in and of herself an engaging storyteller telling an engaging story.  This is the question with every other point of view as well.  Are the characters and the story ones that the readers will find engaging?  If the narrator is dull, the story however exciting it should be, will come across as dull as well.  This is why so many people do not read History.  It is not that History is boring, it is that it is told by Historians, and they are, as a lot, not very good storytellers.  Individual Historians do shine through, from time to time.  Thomas Costain comes to mind.  On the other hand, a really good story teller may get away for some time by finding some amusing way of presenting what is essentially a dull event.

Given all that, readers who enjoy the plot most will probably like omniscient better than limited, but no always, whereas readers who enjoy characters more than plot will generally like limited better, since it usually is a more intimate way of telling a story.  These are only strengths and weaknesses depending on reader expectations, and they are not hard and fast rules.  A good, omniscient narrator, who feels for the character whose story is being told will supply the necessary intimacy, I think.  The reader will sympathize with the narrator and therefore with the character in question.

Lance Stahlberg: I am sure there are times when you would want to get in everyone's head at once. This makes me think about a common trope in older comics when you have two characters in the same panel looking at the same thing with opposing thought bubbles over their heads. But this isn't done so much anymore for a reason. It breaks the cardinal rule "show, don't tell".

In the story I'm working on now, I get to cheat because the main character is a telepath. Though not knowing exactly what everyone in a scene is thinking is more interesting to read and a fun challenge to write.

Ellie Raine: The strengths are definitely knowing what everyone and everything is doing/seeing/thinking/feeling. But that in itself feels like a weakness to me; there’s no focus.

Jeff Deischer: I don't think it has a weakness, per se. It's a matter of taste. Some stories -- mysteries particularly -- work very well told first person.

Rebekah McAuliffe: I don't think I've ever written in omniscent POV. First person is just easier for me.

Robert Kennedy: Often the viewpoint is generated by the publisher/producer of the end product. Take the TV show Adam-12, for instance. A number of writers, who have more recently been TV producers, apparently did not like Jack Webb's command that they could show "Only What the Cops See!"

When writing in the third person I tend to mostly stick to the protagonist's POV. Or, to the hero and his team's viewpoint. Sometimes, usually near the end of a story, I jump around like crazy when the "Plan is Coming Together."

As a reader (not as a writer this time) do you enjoy reading the omniscient POV? Why or why not?

Rebekah McAuliffe: As long as it is a good story, and is written well, I don't really care whether it is in omniscent or first person or whatever.

Lee Houston Jr.: No. While you need set ups, introductions, etc. that require a narrator; I want to read what happens next, not be told by "someone" not even involved in the tale what happens.

Bobby Nash: I don't mind as long as I'm enjoying the story

Jeff Deischer: I still like reading it, yeah. That was about all there was when I was growing up (I mean readily given to teens). I don't know when I read my first first-person story but it was probably in my twenties. First person is hard to write well for most people.

Ellie Raine: When I read, I like to feel like I’m experiencing the story, not hearing about it. I feel like omniscient POV (at least for me) solidifies that line between fiction and reality to the point where I don’t believe anything that’s happening in omniscient. But that’s me.

Robert Krog: I enjoy a story that is well told, whatever the point of view.  That inevitably includes the omniscient one.  Having read the works of Terry Pratchett and Susanna Clarke, I can point you to current examples I enjoyed.  I suggest you give them a read and see what you think.

Lance Stahlberg: The reader wants someone or something to follow. If the perspective bounced around too much, it could get confusing quickly. A big part of this could be thanks to movies and TV. People are more visual than ever. We've become conditioned to "see" a story play out from a certain perspective.

Robert Kennedy: If somebody writes well in the Omniscient Narrator style, I have no problem with that.

(For publishers only) Does your company solicit or seek stories in the omniscient pov? Why or why not?

Ron Fortier: Nope, save for rare occasions that demand first person such as our Sherlock Holmes or Quatermain tales, we only want third person. A writer should bring his readers along with him or her in the story’s journey and allow for genuine, organic surprises to them both.

Debra Dixon: I don't actively solicit any particular POV. However, deep limited third (multiple deep limited, too) or first person generally deliver the most immediate, emotional reads. Including the feel of the action in a plot dependent upon battles, fights and fisticuffs.

Tommy Hancock: I don't discriminate.

Joe Gentile: We do not ask for specific POVs, however, that being said, sometimes when working with licenses, they will prefer a POV type.

The Writer Will Take Your Questions Now #341 -- More on POV

How do you choose the POV for a story? Does it happen organically, or is it something you put a lot of thought into before you begin? Or perhaps it's something assigned by your publisher?

For me, POV is something that has to be settled before I begin the act of writing. I can pre-write for days and months without it, but I can't put fingers to keyboard without knowing who is telling the story and how. For me, that's as intrinsic as a story to the plot, theme, and tone. In fact, that single decision can affect plot, theme, and tone drastically, I believe.

Sometimes, that decision is out of my hands, actually. There are a few publishers who have a preference, and request that writers write only in a certain POV, and as a writer who likes to earn a paycheck for my work, I have to abide by their call on that.

The Writer Will Take Your Questions Now #321 -- Struggling with POV

Any advice for new or beginning writers who are struggling with POV?

Just the same advice I use for anyone doing anything complicated -- KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid or Keep It Short and Simple, if you're less annoying than I can be.)

The simplest, most basic point of view from which to write is the third person. The simplest form of that is third person omniscient because you don't have to worry about what you characters know and don't know since the narrator knows all.

The drawback to third person omniscient is that many readers today find it tedious and prefer to be in the characters' heads. And no, that apostrophe isn't in the wrong place. Characters. As in multiple characters. For that, you'll need to bounce around and use what's called the third person limited POV. That means you write from the third person (he, she, it said or did) but only about what the character whose head your currently knows. Unless your character can read minds, then he or she shouldn't know about something he or she hasn't seen, heard, read, or inferred.

That can be tricky. Especially when you jump from head to head.

To keep that simple and easier (note that I didn't say "easy"), I suggest the following:

1. Only uses one character for POV per scene.
2. Limit your POV to core/main characters the readers really want to know.
3. Re-read what you've written often to make sure you're not revealing stuff your characters shouldn't know. Make a list of what they know if it helps.

Happy writing!

The Writer Will Take Your Questions Now #313 -- Preferred POV

In which, if any, point of view do you prefer to write? Why?

It's no secret that I write most of my stories in either first-person or third-person limited. Of those, I tend to write third-person limited most frequently. However, a lot of that comes from the preferences of my publishers.

If it were up to me, I'd write more from the first person, because I always found that to be the most fun. Why? Well, I think it stems from reading a lot of first-person stuff as I was forming my core reading habits as a young reader. I still feel like first person writing puts me inside the story more effectively.

The danger of first-person though, is that I have to choose the right character in which to "reside." And that's not always the main character. Sherlock Holmes stories would be far less enjoyable and poignant told from Holmes' head. In that case, the reader needs to see how Holmes works from the outside. In pulp detective tales, the reader needs to be in the head of the detective, who is often not anywhere near a Holmes-type deducer. The reader needs to feel the failure and confusing red herrings as the private dick experiences them.

Yes, I know writers can do all this from the third-person limited too, but even that small bit of distant between the two can be just enough (sometimes) to over-limit the reader's identification with the protagonist.

At least those are my thoughts on the matter. Your brain may take you in other directions.

A POV Workshop with Stephanie Osborn

Last week I asked several authors their thoughts about POV. Well, the talented (and brilliant -- after all, she's really a rocket scientist, no kidding) Stephanie Osborn had so much to say about the topic that I decided to pull her comments out of the regular roundtable article and make it a stand-alone workshop on the subject. Enjoy!

===================================

by Stephanie Osborn

I prefer to write in 3rd person omniscient to semi-omniscient — preferably semi-omniscient. I find it easier and think it flows better. However, there is an aspect, even to this, that involves “being in a character's head.” That is to say, in any given scene, even if you are writing in 3rd person semi-omniscient, there is one character in whose perspective you are recording.

If, for example, I am writing a dialogue between Sherlock Holmes, Skye Chadwick, and FBI Agent Adrian Smith, it might run like this:

“So, Agent Smith, do sit down and tell us the details,” a curious Holmes invited, moving to his chair and sitting. He waved Skye toward her own armchair, and Smith took the sofa. Holmes promptly slouched, stretching his feet toward the fireplace, steepling his fingers and closing his eyes, comfortable; he prepared to absorb and analyse the information presented.

“Well, Holmes, the whole affair started when the Vice-President came through on that campaign junket last week.”

“You’re kidding,” Skye said, grinning. “So it really IS politics.”

“It sure is,” Smith admitted, a wry twist to his features. “Just like you said on the phone. I told you, you’re Holmes’ parallel. You’re him, in all the ways that count. Stands to reason you’d pick up on stuff just as fast.”

Sky blushed, and shot a quick glance at Holmes, who bit his lip to hide an amused smile.

Now, this entire scene, even though it’s 3rd person, is written from HOLMES’ perspective. How can I tell? Because we are told what Holmes DID, how he FELT, but not how he looked; yet we are told how Smith and Skye LOOKED, but not what they were feeling. This is called “being in the character’s head,” and it is important to be able to tell, because a skilled writer inserts scene breaks whenever:

1. there is a major shift in location without transition;
2. there is a major shift in time, often also without much transition;
3. there is a change in character perspective.

Let’s try the same scene again, but from a different perspective, still using 3rd person POV storytelling.

“So, Agent Smith, do sit down and tell us the details,” Holmes invited, moving to his chair and sitting. He waved Skye toward her own armchair, and Smith took the sofa. Holmes promptly slouched, stretching his feet toward the fireplace, steepling his fingers and closing his eyes. A dreamy expression appeared on his face, denoting the fact he was now prepared to absorb and analyze the information presented. 

“Well, Holmes, the whole affair started when the Vice-President came through on that campaign junket last week.”

“You’re kidding,” Skye said, grinning, cutting a swift glance at Holmes. “So it really IS politics.”

“It sure is,” Smith admitted, a wry twist to his features. “Just like you said on the phone. I told you, you’re Holmes’ parallel. You’re him, in all the ways that count. Stands to reason you’d pick up on stuff just as fast.”

An uncomfortable Sky felt her cheeks grow warm, and she shot another quick look at Holmes.

This time we are looking at the exact same events...from Skye’s perspective. We see what she feels, what she does, but we see what the other characters look like — we are seeing them through her eyes. Note also that the spelling of “analyze” changes; when I was writing the scene from Holmes’ perspective, I used “analyse,” the British spelling. But when I changed to Skye’s perspective, I reverted to American spelling. This latter is a particular style of mine; more about it later.
We could redo this exact scene yet again and depict it through Agent Smith’s eyes, as well. I have actually done this sort of thing in a book, depicting the same key events in triplicate in order to provide all of the clues needed for the reader. But each MUST be a separate scene. Why? Well, I find that when an author “head-jumps” too much in a scene, it can be jarring at the least, and massively confusing at worst.

I was taught this little technique by my writing mentor, who is a NYT best-seller, and who was in turn taught it by his mentor, et cetera; it is a subtle technique, but often the mark of a more nuanced, more experienced writer.

How do you know which perspective to use? I generally pick the character whose thoughts and/or emotions will evoke the most thought or feeling from the reader. However, sometimes there are advantages to using a different character, in order to allow the reader to SEE, e.g. the anguish your protagonist is in. Helplessly watching while the hero breaks down over the death of his love can twist knots in the reader’s gut in a way that trying to express the grief directly from his own head and heart may not.

Be Careful

If I avoid any POV, it is second-person, without doubt. It’s just too blasted awkward. I’ve never even attempted to write anything in 2nd person, at least not anything fictional. It works reasonably enough for how-to books, or other forms of nonfiction instructional books. “Insert tab A in slot B...” A lot of text interviews also tend to come out as second-person, at least in places. But while some authors have done so, I can’t even imagine how I’d write a fiction book in 2nd.

I’m not keen on writing in first person, though I can and have done it on several occasions; one of those was when my co-author had already started the book in 1st, and I had to kind of follow along with that. It depends on the character as to whether I will try it. Some characters are easier for me to “get into their heads.”

But in general I find the limitations of first person to be too annoying to mess with it. For instance, if Holmes and Watson decide to split up and one investigate one detail of a case, and the other another, if I’m writing 1st person Watson, I can’t — CAN’T — go after Holmes and find out what he’s doing, unless I want to do some serious tweaking to the way I’m telling the story. E.g. I could do so IF I chose to write the entire book alternating between Holmes’ and Watson’s POV. This can be done, but it can be confusing for the reader unless the writer is very careful and skilled. It can also make for the book being much larger than one had anticipated, as effectively one is telling a dual story.

Choosing POV

I do put a fair amount of thought into it. For instance, I deliberately chose to write my Displaced Detective series — and the upcoming, period Sherlock Holmes: Gentleman Aegis series — in 3rd, though Doyle told the original Sherlock Holmes stories in 1st, from Watson’s POV. But I wanted to make them my own, my own style. At the same time, I tend to use Victorian turns of phrase, and even have the British characters speak and think using British English. It’s subtle; very few people even notice it consciously, judging by the feedback I’ve gotten. But it has the effect of evoking Doyle’s style without actually BEING Doyle’s style.

On the other hand, I was recently asked to write a Holmes short story for an anthology, and I was going to write it in 3rd, but ended up deciding to use 1st because of the certain feel it evoked and some little games I could play with the reader’s head by doing it that way.

It IS possible to use more than one POV — 1st vs 3rd — in the course of a book. I have done this in one of the Displaced Detective books, where I had Holmes keeping a journal. So the journal entries were in 1st person, and the rest of the book was in 3rd. Letter correspondence can also serve this purpose. My co-author Dan Hollifield and I are currently writing book 4 of the Cresperian Saga, titled Heritage, and it will combine 1st and 3rd. The first two books of that series were written in 1st, but the third book was too broad in scope to do that way, and I wrote it in 3rd. But as this fourth book will complete the story arc, I wanted to return to the technique of the book’s main character telling the events. However, we threw in a twist in which another story is being told in parallel, and that story is told in 3rd person.

Advice for New or Struggling Writers

I would say first of all, decide what works best for you, and make that a part of your personal style. But also practice writing in other POVs, because one of these days you’re going to either co-author a book with someone who wants to tell it in a different POV, or encounter a story idea that insists on being written a certain way. And it will be really good if you already have some skill with it when it arrives.

Second, start paying attention to whose head you’re in when you’re writing, and make sure to change scenes when you change heads! It can also be helpful to read other authors in an analytical fashion, and figure out which character’s perspective is being used for any given scene. Did the author head-jump? Is there a joint perspective being used? (Yes, this is possible. Married couples, for instance, may use a joint perspective.) After reading some experienced authors with this in mind, pick up some newbie authors and read them in the same analytical fashion; you’ll quickly see how confusing it can be, and why many of the better editors will come back and tell a writer, “Stop that! You’re head-jumping!”

And then go back to your current WIP and apply what you’ve learned.

My View, Your View, Their View, and Our View -- Writers on POV

This week we're going to talk about point of view. I've heard from several writers and publishers that they have very adamant views of POV in stories, and well, now let's just see how adamant those are. This promises to be fun.

In which, if any, point of view do you prefer to write? Why?

Walter Bosley: Third person. My stories aren't about "me", meaning I prefer to be an 'observer' of the characters' behavior and actions, prefer to let them act out their story.

Richard Lee Byers: I like first person because it comes easily to me, and that makes the writing more pleasant. I also like it because the way the viewpoint character tells the story does a great deal to enhance his characterization.

I.A. Watson: As a regular writer of Sherlock Holmes stories that are told in the first person by John Watson I'm accustomed to crafting some narratives from a single perspective.It is a challenging discipline.

For that reason I also appreciate the opportunity to rove about in other stories, focussing the literary equivalent of the camera inside different heads as different scenes allow it. Unless there's a good reason, I like to have at least two point of view characters in a long story, so provide some variety of interpretation.

Sometimes, and especially with freewheeling action/adventure stories, I like to use a neutral observer-mode as a baseline and then dip down into different characters as the action turns on them. It's the literary equivalent of the hand-held camera getting inside the fight scene.

Ron Fortier: Very few writers are really good at writing in 1st Person.  It requires play acting and being that characters throughout the story.  Doyle did well as he was Watson and Mickey Spillane could imagine himself being Mike Hammer.

I’ve written in both 1st and 3rd and much prefer 3rd, in which I can be the objective storyteller, allowing me to narrate what his happening all the time.

Robert Krog: I choose third person most of the time, largely because most of the great works I love to read are written in third person. I find third person limited to be best for short stories, and I have written mostly short stories. I have no trouble with first person and one my fastest written, tightest stories was in first. In my longer works, as yet unpublished, I have used third person omniscient and found it quite enjoyable In short fiction, I prefer, generally, to keep to limited.

Lisa Matthews Collins: I like to write in first person POV when I am doing a first draft. It puts me, personally, into what my character is experience and it helps me get the five senses into the prose.

Lee Houston Jr.: It depends on what I am working on. Hugh Monn, Private Detective is first person, while my superhero work, the Alpha series is in third. I do feel that first person gives the reader a greater sense of being "closer" to the story, but not everything works in that voice.

Rebekah McAuliffe: Frankly, it depends on what I'm writing. I prefer to write in first person, but if I need to write in third person, I will. Some genres are just better from a certain point of view.

Ellie Raine: 1st person POV is always the most fun for me. Not that the other POVs aren't fun, 1st just has that in-depth, close up look on not just what the character is thinking, but also on how they feel based on their own, unique dialect or inner voice, as well as their particular outlook on life.

3rd person sort of gets into that, but not as much as 1st. The only disadvantage a lot of people have with 1st is its limitation to one character. But I personally like the few books that swap POVs throughout the story. With me, it's always about a new perspective, and 1st person gives me that the most.

R.J. Sullivan: I prefer to write in first person but not every story lends itself to it. I like it because it seems to remove al barriers between yourself and the protagonist and lets you get under their skin.

H. David Blalock: I almost exclusively write in third person because of the genres in which I write. Horror and fantasy are more easily digested by the reader if there is a disconnect between them and the events in the story. It also gives the reader the chance to say "I wouldn't have done that" or "why don't they just..." and therefore they become more involved in the story itself.

Jilly Paddock: I prefer to work in first person, sometimes using short sections in third to frame the central narrative. I mostly stick to one character, but my forthcoming space opera has six first person POVs.

Percival Constantine: I prefer third-person omniscient because I'm lazy and it lets me jump around to different characters.

In which, if any, point of views to you prefer to avoid writing? Why?

Walter Bosley: I like to avoid first person for the reasons above. However, a first person narrative relating that character's third person POV on a story is something I'll be doing some time this year. But I essentially prefer third person because I think anything else can be distracting if overdone or done poorly. The reading experience is supposed to be about the reader, not the narrator. The reader should be the fly on the wall or the third person. I prefer to be invisible as a writer, my words should be a bigger presence than me.

Richard Lee Byers: I don’t remember ever turning in a story in second person. The plots I come up don’t require it, and when I’ve tried to use it, the story came across as awkward and gimmicky.

I also don’t use third person omniscient. I think it can distance the reader from the characters in a way that doesn’t make my stuff better, and I also think there’s the potential to confuse the reader as the viewpoint skips rapidly from head to head.

If I want to plug into the inner life of more than one character, I prefer third person limited multiple, where through the course of a novel the reader gets inside the heads of various people, but he’s only privy to the thoughts of one for the duration of a scene.

I.A. Watson: I don't avoid any particular point of view, but I am careful sometimes.

For mystery writing, I need to be clear when I'm being an omniscient neutral voice describing with infallible detail and interpretations, and when I'm offering one of the cast's perceptions. It's very important for play-fair whodunnits.

Consider the difference between, "Mike tugged at his collar nervously as Jack spoke" and "Mike seemed nervous. He tugged at his collar as Jack spoke." and "Mike tugged at his collar. As Jack spoke, he thought Mike seemed nervous." There's no right or wrong of it, each each version offers a different flavour. The first version is me, the author, telling you that Mike WAS nervous. The second is me telling you what you might have thought if you'd been there. Maybe Mike was nervous. Conversely, Mike might have been poisoned, about to drop dead in two pages' time. The third is me telling you what Jack thought he saw, which might have been absolutely wrong. Maybe Jack thought Mike was the killer, and was terrified of him? Maybe Mike is a paranoid. Maybe Jack really fancied Mike.

Ron Fortier: Okay, so I’ve stated what I prefer.  1st person limits you, as you can only tell the reader what one person is seeing.  If action is taking place some place where your narrator is not present, then he or she cannot relate that in the tale …unless they do so second hand from another character.  I find this terribly bothersome and often times annoying to have to listen to Character A sit down and listen to Character B go on and on and on about something they did.  In 3rd person I could have easily shown what they experienced in a lot fewer words.  Good writing is show ... don’t tell.

Robert Krog: I'm probably not at all unusual in that I prefer to avoid second person. This isn't to say that I didn't enjoy "Choose Your Own Adventure" books and "Which Way" books when I was young, because I did. However, second person is cumbersome in certain ways and feels forced.

I have written one story in second person, on request of a publisher, and it did get published in a little volume titled, You Don't Say: Stories in the Second Person. I didn't find the experience unrewarding, but I still prefer third.

Lisa Matthews Collins: An example of POV that I have to work really hard at, and therefore avoid is the Close Third Person like the Harry Potter series. Readers are not inside Harry’s head and can only see or hear the action within Harry’s proximity. It is a POV that you have to be really tight with but as with JK’s success you can see it can enchant readers if done correctly.

Lee Houston Jr.: What I try to avoid is the "omnipresent" narrator who knows absolutely everything and never gives the reader a chance to enjoy the tale.

Rebekah McAuliffe: SECOND PERSON. Not now. Not ever. Just... no. It reminds me too much of fanfiction. Not that there's anything wrong with fanfiction; I love it, and it's where I got my start as a writer. But there are some habits that just need to be shed when moving from fanfiction to other forms of writing, and second person is one of them. Unless it's a Choose Your Own Adventure kind of book; in that case go for it. Again, some genres are just better when written from a certain point of view.

R.J. Sullivan: Second person, which is fine, because of its limited commercial appeal anyway.

H. David Blalock: I never write in the second person because I fail to see how that can involve the reader effectively in the genre. It removes the feeling of suspense - will the character survive, stay sane, healthy? Of course they will, because the character is you.

Mark Bousquet: I continually try to change up the POV. If I've written a few stories in third, I'll switch over to first. I actually enjoy writing in first person the most even though I use third person more, because I like narrators with personality and it's easier for me to play with personalities in first person. I'll say this, though - all of my ongoing series are in 3rd person, and I use first person more in short stories, especially if I have a character with a deteriorating mental condition. I really enjoy putting "mistakes" into print with first person narration that ends up being revealed as important later on.

Van Allen Plexico: First person POV has advantages and limitations. The chief advantage is forcing the reader to become complicit in whatever the protagonist is up to. The main disadvantage is you can no longer switch to scenes of other characters without the protagonist being there-- no "now let's see what the villains are up to" moments.

Beyond that, there's the question of "what KIND of third person POV?" Limited? Omniscient? Jump around? Jump around when -- chapters? Sections? And so on.

Jilly Paddock: Second person is difficult to do, but I have read two novels that use it so well that I was several pages into the first before I really noticed - Halting State and Rule 34 by Charles Stross.

Percival Constantine: Second person. I tried it with my second book as an experiment and I will never do it again. It was really difficult to keep straight.

How do you choose the POV for a story? Does it happen organically, or is it something you put a lot of thought into before you begin? Or perhaps it's something assigned by your publisher?

Walter Bosley: I simply write in third person, no choice to make.

Richard Lee Byers: I know I can’t use first person if I want multiple points of view. Some plots require more than one, so in those cases, my decision is made for me.

If the plot doesn’t require multiple points of view, I generally have an intuitive sense of whether I want to go first or third. If I analyzed things, I would probably come up with the underlying reason for my choice.

If I’m working with one of my series characters, like my fencing master Selden, I automatically continue as I began. His first adventure was told in the first person, and so were all the ones that came after.

There’s no doubt that certain editors have preferences as to point of view. I’ve heard it from some of them directly. Certain genres lean one way or another, too. Reflecting its connection to the private eye novel, urban fantasy often uses first person. Reflecting the legacy of Tolkien, epic fantasy often relies on third person multiple.

I.A. Watson: When one is writing in the style of some other author, as with Sherlock Holmes tales, or with revivals of pulp characters like airman detective Richard Knight, occultist Semi-Dual, or African adventurer Armless O'Neil, the one feels obliged to follow the choices that they made.

Otherwise, the story dictates the viewpoint. "Discovery" type tales that introduce new casts or situations work well with a newcomer character who acts as the reader's avatar. Spectacular fight scenes can be helpfully grounded by showing them through the perceptions of a bystander. Emotional confrontations sometimes require getting into the head of one of the protagonists. Sometimes it's even appropriate to leap between two perspectives.

That said, much of the "plan" doesn't survive the first draft. It's art not science.

Ron Fortier: Again, I’ve done very little writing in 1st person.  On one occasion it was an editorial requirement, on the other, it actually ended up being the best way to tell the story.  A rare occurrence for me.  But in the end, I hopefully managed to pull it off.

Robert Krog: Point of view happens very naturally for me. Unless a publisher asks for a particular point of view, it simply develops along with the characters and conflict from which flow the plot. I don't think I have ever begun work on a story consciously asking myself the question, "In which point of view shall this story best be told?"

Lisa Matthews Collins: Most of my stories are character driven. Everything else in the story is there to showcase the person or the event the main protagonist is dealing with, so I lean toward First Person POV. I do write Third Person but usually it is something a publisher says is required.

Lee Houston Jr.: It's the needs of the story more than anything else. If you're working on somebody else's material, you can't go against what has already been established. Mysteries could go either way, but the "classic" voice for private detectives like Hugh is definitely first person. You follow the investigator around and solve the case with them, although it is tough sometimes having them do all the descriptive narration, and you have to remember to always keep the narrator in character. Novels like the Alpha series just wouldn't work in first person though, because there are other things going on at any given moment that you don't want the lead character(s) to know about at the time.

Rebekah McAuliffe: I choose the point of view right before I start writing. I would say that yeah, it is kind of organic. When I wrote Gears, I always knew I'd write it in first person. I'll have this idea in my head about where I should go, and if it looks good, I stick to it. If it doesn't, I come up with something new. But again, it all depends on what kind of writing I'm doing.

R.J. Sullivan: I give the story arc a lot of thought to decide if 1st or deep third are what's needed. If I have a lot of cutaways to other characters, then I go with deep third. If it seems like I can tell the entire story in one perspective, I go with first.

H. David Blalock: Choice of POV for me is easy. I write what the story requires, and I know that going in. First person POV is something I use sparingly and then only when there is no reasonable way to do it otherwise.

Logan Masterson: I pick the POV pretty carefully. I consider the tone and theme (as I understand them so far), as well as the characters and plot.

A lot of horror works well in first person. I prefer third for most fantasy.

Van Allen Plexico: For me, first person stories essentially become travelogues, where you follow one character from beginning to end along his or her journey. So I reserve that approach for larger than life characters such as Lucian, Baranak and Karilyne (some of my protagonists who are gods).

Percival Constantine: It just happens organically. With the exception of my first and second books, everything I've written since has been third person. That just feels the most comfortable for me.

Tamara Lowery: Currently I write 3rd person omniscient, although my editor tries her damnedest to make me stick to ONE character's POV per chapter/scene. I struggle with that horribly, because I HEAR what they're thinking. Instead I have to WATCH what they're doing and let that relay their underlying thoughts. My main exception/argument to the restriction is when characters communicate telepathically.

Mark Bousquet: Tamara brings up a great point about knowing your editor. When I write for Pro Se, I've learned what Tommy likes and doesn't like, so I dump all experimentation and go straight forward, simple, lean, and focused. I spend more time on the action scenes and less time on the dialogue (and my preference is the opposite of that). I even do my best to gut parentheticals because I know he feels they unnecessarily hinder the narrative flow. I've really learned to like that back and forth with editors.

Any advice for new or beginning writers who are struggling with POV?

Walter Bosley: All this talk about how I prefer third person and yet I've written two first person novels! My second gothic adventure novel is in first person as is my time travel novel. I recommend any aspiring author give it a go. It's an excellent exercise in learning about your storytelling voice. It can make it easier for a new writer to get through a novel, actually.

Also, don't struggle with POV. Just start telling your story however it feels most natural. When you're actually writing something that is meant to be written down, something that works, there will be no struggle. Not with POV or anything else. Let the story dictate to you what POV you write in. Learn to let yourself gravitate to the story that is telling itself without any difficulty and the POV will come naturally.

Writing requires ego. You are doing something that is spectacularly bold: committing to words and pages your creation that you have deemed worth reading in spite of the odds that possibly no one -- especially other writers -- is going to pay any mind to, least of all read, possibly. In spite of that, you still do it. If you can embrace that, POV isn't an issue.

Richard Lee Byers: Except for omniscient passages where the author has stepped away from all his characters to expound on this or that (not always a great idea, in my opinion), point of view means that, even if you aren’t using first person, the narrative at any given moment is filtered through a certain character’s perspective. Relate what he perceives and don’t relate what he doesn’t. In first person, narrate in his voice. Even in third person, consider tweaking the language to reflect the kind of person that he is.

I.A. Watson: Consider the following:

• There is absolutely nothing wrong with an omniscient narrator. Sometimes that is just the best way to move things on.
• Character points of view are filters, so the story gets interpreted as it is told. We're watching the character watching the story. So sometimes a "straight" narrative can be drafted first and then a second overlay adds the perspective.
• Reading the work out loud is remarkably effective for identifying point of view issues. Don't be afraid to do the voices.
• If one point of view isn't working it might be because you know deep down that it's the wrong choice. Try something else.

Ron Fortier: As an editor, I do prefer 3rd person submission. But I have accepted good quality work done in 1st person.  What I will NEVER accept or condone, is any writer who actually goes from 1st and 3rd person in the same story. There is no way such a mash up ever works and ultimately it simply confuses your readers. Stick to one or the other.

Lisa Matthews Collins: I define POV this way: The view from where the reader experiences the story.

Use scene breaks whenever you move from one person to another, or change the time or place of the action. Breaks allow your reader to mentally shift, expecting a variation in the story.  Without a break the reader will stumble and they will lose the illusion of the story.

Always establish the main point of view (POV) as early in the first paragraph of a chapter as possible.  This is done by various external/internal dialogue or action.  Usually the reader will assume that the first person that speaks in a paragraph of a new chapter is the main POV.

All of the words in your story/novel need to go through the POV test. If your POV character cannot see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or feel the action check your POV, because something is off.

If you are having trouble with the concept of POV try writing from the 1st person perspective. Put yourself in the action.  What do you see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or feel?  At each point that you add action to the scene can you, personally, be involved in the action?  If not then who has the POV?  Rewrite the scene until you keep the POV all to yourself.  Once you get the 1st person POV down you will more clearly see how to keep the POV clean in your 3rd person work.

Lee Houston Jr.: Overall, first person is easier, because it is one of your characters narrating instead of a neutral third party. While you need to be able to create/use both, your early works can be in first to make it a little easier getting a feel for both characterization and narration.

Rebekah McAuliffe: Stay consistent! Even if you're writing a story where the point of view shifts from character to character, stay consistent!

R.J. Sullivan: POV no matter what "person" is a tricky thing for new writers, I think first person is the best for a new writer because the traps are less obvious but the traps are everywhere. Find trusted beta readers tuned in to POV and be open to their advice.

H. David Blalock: If you as a writer are having trouble with the POV then you aren't using the right one. Try another. And above all remember that the third person and omniscient POVs are not the same. Learn the difference. It can impact the success of your writing and the satisfaction of the reader.

Logan Masterson: The most important thing is consistency. If you're going to change POV, you have to do it with care. Make sure all the transitions are handled the same way, or using similar indicators, even in Third Person Omniscient. If there are only a few changes, be obvious and pointed, make the transition part of the drama. This is probably even more important if there's only one major POV shift.

Van Allen Plexico: One important note about 1st person: try to spend as much time as possible describing the surroundings and the other characters, so you're not constantly saying "I did this; I did that."

And read Zelazny's AMBER novels. He showed how to do it right.

Percival Constantine: Read other books. Especially if you're used to writing in one style and are experimenting with a new one, then study books in that new style.

The Writer Will Take Your Questions Now (#211) -- Person to Person

Is it harder to write a novel in 1st person as your narrator must now see all the action?
I ask because I recently read where the writer'cheated' by randomly switching to a 3rd person POV.
(Thanks to Drew Harris for today's question)

I wouldn't necessarily call that cheating, because I've seen it done effectively before, but that's always in the eye of the beholder.

But to address the question in particular, that is the drawback to writing in the first person. I work with  publishers actually who request (insist) that their writers only write in third person because when you begin in the first person, you've already destroyed the suspense of whether or not the key character will survive.

I don't necessarily agree with that -- The Lovely Bones being one wonderful example. But I will abide by the publisher's preference (as any working freelance should).

That said, I've written stories that include both first person and third person accounts that switch back and forth. Check out my story "Death With a Glint of Bronze" in Dreams of Steam II from Kerlak Publishing for one such example. The trick/art/skill/name your poison is to understand why you're doing it.

If you're only doing it to get yourself out of a corner you didn't plan for, then you deserve a smack on the hand with a ruler from your third-grade spelling teacher. If you're doing it as part of a conscience choice for the reader's benefit and to enhance the telling of the story, then go for it.

A caveat though... This kind of POV jumping doesn't always sit well with readers (can come off a little to avant garde) or publishers, so be sure what you're doing works out with your publisher's goals. If you don't have a publisher already lined up, then go for it and knock it out of the park. A well told tale that breaks the "rules" will still beat out a poorly told tale that follows them.

[Link] Point of view -- the five big questions writers need to answer

by Lynda Martin

What do we mean when we use the term point of view?

The first thing to do is set aside the common use of the phrase as synonymous with opinion. It is certain that your personal point of view on life will leach into your writing, but that is not the definition we’re after here.

When we use this term relative to writing, we are speaking of the most complex element of fiction. In basic form, we refer to the relationship among writer, characters and reader. What is the vantage point given to the reader to “see” what is happening? Who is standing where to watch the scene?

The chart below shows us the five major questions that must be answered to determine the point of view of our story. Each of these issues are carefully answered by the author (sometimes unconsciously) to convince us to share the same perspective. We’re going to look at them one at a time.

Continue reading: http://lmmartin.hubpages.com/hub/Good-Writing-Is-8-Point-of-view-the-five-big-questions-writers-need-to-answer

The Writer Will Take Your Questions Now (#17) -- Opposing POVs

How do you feel about using two opposing points of view in one story? -- Anonymous 

Short answer: It can be done, but it's tricky to get right, and really easy to screw up. 

Full answer: I wouldn't recommend it for short fiction for two key reasons. 

1. It can be seen as a "stunt" and can turn off publishers. 

2. Unless you are a master of giving your characters distinct but natural voices, you run the risk of confusing your readers. 

If you're still determined to use it (and I'm guilty of using it myself), I'd recommend using the 3rd person limited POV for it and not two opposing 1st person accounts (I've done this before, but only for a story that is more "literary" than genre, and even then, it was a difficult thing to capture the right feel).

Nowadays, using various 3rd person limited narrators is actually pretty common in novels and novellas, particularly in popular fiction, where scene jumps are as common as they are in blockbuster films. What I don't recommend (although, once again, I'm guilty of this, but learn from my pain) is to combine a 3rd person limited narrative with a 1st person narrative for any story -- long or short -- unless you welcome having to defend your choices and have the backbone to face the criticism about it (and the writing chops to make such a nearly impossible to write pairing work).

In my story "Death with a Glint of Bronze" in Dreams of Steam II: Brass and Bolts, I did just that, using the 1st person sections to convey an almost Poe-esque insane sense of reason from the killer's perspective, then shifted to a tradition 3rd person limited for the actually mystery investigation narratives. Did it work? I hope so. Was is a bit of a "stunt" to show off my cleverness for the camera with a wink and a nod, so to speak? Yes, I freely admit it, but it could very easily have come back to hit me in the face (or bite me in on the quite opposite end), as the saying goes.

One caution though... be sure you choose the best characters whose POVs will play off each other well. Don't just choose any character because he or she happens to be in a scene.