Um... "the main character as me" and "myself as the main character" are identical in meaning. And fiction written in third person limited is certainly an escape from reality, if you are seeing through the eyes of a private detective trying to solve a murder, or a child trying to find his or her lost mother, or a mountain climber trying to find a lost magic gem, or a lover seeking her lost love, or what have you. In third person limited, you'll be seeing through the eyes of each of these main characters. Sounds to me, perhaps, like you don't like thriller novels, or war novels, or perhaps you just don't like the specific authors your brother reads. I don't think your brother's tastes are representative of all males. Certainly, the viewpoint isn't your issue with his novels. Romance novels can be written in third person limited. So can fantasy novels, historical fiction, mainstream fiction etc. What do you like to read? I'm sure there are books written in your favorite genre with third person limited narration. That's third person omniscient, which is completely different. With third person omniscient, the narrator can see into the minds of various different characters, including the main character. It's a completely different thing. And physical description of the main character can be done in third person omniscient. There are advantages and disadvantages to writing in each of these points of view. Third person omniscient allows the narrator to quickly see in to the minds of various characters and even to know the future, and to say things like, "Little did he know this would be his last day on Earth," something a third person limited cannot say, however, third person omniscient narrators cannot get as close, in depth and personal with the main character, so as truly feeling alone with the character, as third person limited can. You may want to read a writing book about viewpoint, or at least google some articles on the subject, to help you understand. A good book on the subject is Characters and Viewpoint by Orson Scott. You can find a used copy for under $5 on virtually any site that sells used books. One example often given is Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, but really, a limited third-person is one of the most common viewpoints used today. A large percentage of today's bestseller list is probably third person limited. Once you understand what it is, you'll be able to identify it in the books that you read. Charlie
No, not quite. Let me see if I can clarify what I meant: "The main character as me:" the author has provided a very clear, unique picture of the character. While reading, I can step into the shoes of an entirely different person, with a distinct personality, different appearance, etc. I can truly become someone else, much like an actress. "Myself as the main character:" the author hasn't provided anything to make the character unique. There are few to no details to set him or her apart from others. In these cases, I have to fill in the blanks for the author, or "make up" the character. It's usually easiest to simply imagine that the character is me, with a similar appearance, attitude, likes, and dislikes. In this case, I don't step into someone else's shoes while reading; I remain me, except in a faraway location, doing something I've never done before. It's not necessarily fun to do this; when reading a novel, I want to become someone else completely. Yes, this is an extreme example, but some books actually do have main characters like this.
Your reply suggests you still don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm talking about is limited entirely to physical description, as it applies to the third person limited viewpoint. This in no way suggests the character should be shallow, devoid of description of likes and dislikes and personality and things that make the character unique. The main character of a third-person limited viewpoint should absolutely be a well developed character. His likes, dislikes, and general thoughts should be vividly laid out. Her motivations, her inner passions, the driving force behind her/his actions in the novel. The point is about physical description, the description of their physical characteristics. Hair color, eye color... things like that. Because it's from the point of view of that character, the physical description is going to be sparsely described because we, as people, don't think like that. We know what we look like, therefore, we don't think, "Wow, just look at my brown hair today." Now, because of the limited physical descriptions, and because we're seeing through the eyes of that character, a blond reader is likely to imagine the character as blond and a brunette reader is likely to imagine the character is brunette. That's okay, and it may actually help the reader to identify with the character, which is the goal. It's unlikely that a detail like the hair color is important in the story, with possible exceptions. (She's the only redhead in a fantasy novel where she travels to a distant land and the people there think redheads are gods, say.) In a limited third-person viewpoint novel, because we're seeing through the characters eyes, unless it's very significant to the story, one must use such techniques as the "mirror" technique to get such a detail out, but when it's not necessary, it's not necessary. But I am in no way suggesting the character should be shallow or a cardboard cutout. The character should be deep and well developed, with a past, with memories, with friends and enemies and acquaintances and likes and dislikes. A character who is poorly developed is just poorly developed. I know of no literary device to purposely poorly develop a major character. That's just bad writing, as far as I can tell. A character can be well described and complex without describing the character's physical attributes, which is specifically what I was talking about. Charlie
