Actually, you're wrong. Third Limited is more like the camera is perched on the POV character's shoulder, or sometimes even behind their eyes. Third omniscent is exactly what you describe, but it is not the only third person point of view that exists. Third person Limited according to the good people at About.com Third person limited point of view is a method of storytelling in which the narrator knows only the thoughts and feelings of a single character, while other characters are presented externally. Third person grants a writer more freedom than first person, but less than third person omniscient. Third person omniscent, as defined by the same source. A method of storytelling in which the narrator knows the thoughts and feelings of all of the characters in the story, as opposed to third person limited, which adheres closely to one character's perspective.
I've stayed out of this argument until now, but really, Charlie and team, you're taking a very limiting approach to 3rd person limited (man, im funny!). If you're character has mustard on his face, I can't think of any situation when he wouldn't be aware of what it is. Since, I'm assuming, he's familiar with mustard, he would have no problem describing the taste, texture, look, smell, even if he is not actually sensing this at the time. Drawing only on what the character is experiencing in the present ignores his entire life's experiences, which are, in reality, something he would draw upon infinitely. As far as "seeing" his face, I think it's reasonable to assume that he knows what his face looks like, and he knows what expression he is wearing, or else can feel in the present what is happening on his face. Therefore, is having him describe this really beyond the realm of belief? I know that when I'm tired my eyes are often red (if they are sore), so surely it would not be unreasonable for me to say that in a 3rd ltd narrative. The semantics of where the camera is fixed makes this argument far too simple - anyone will tell you that novels are more satisfying than film (if they agree with that statement) because they offer you more detail. So fix your camera wherever you like, but don't focus on it so heavily that you ignore other ways to explore the world, which with your mustard example you most definitely are.
I don't think they are saying the character doesn't know what he looks like. It's a matter of what a person actually thinks about. How many people think about their hair as "chestnut tresses flowing in the spring breeze", or their eyes as "the color of everyone's favorite pair of perfectly broken-in levis"? In a tight third limited, if I had a character with mustard on his face, he might notice people staring at him, feel the sensation, and wipe it away, but he would not know that people were staring because the mustard blob was the precise shape of two penguins in the third position of the electric slide.
Folks, do you really want me to show you evidence contary to what you're saying? From Poe, to King, to Jack London to Roald Dahl, do you really? For instance, what if I wrote: his eyes bulged out of his socket as he watched his girlfriend naked with another man? Or how about, his forehead wrinkled in deep groovesa as he squinted in the dark. By your approach, I cannot write this because they can't really see their own face. What are you saying folks. There is no need to describe your character's face with a mirror. You can describe it without one, because even the face have senses. The only time it's mandatory is when your character is cutting his/her hiar or applying make-up. Don't limit yourself.
Eyez, you are missing the point. It isn't what the character CAN see or feel. it is what he or she WILL see or feel. When you walk up to someone you've seen every day for the last mont, you don't think "curly blonde hair, blue eyes, nose that crinkles when she smiles", you think Susan. If she has a bruise on her forehead that wasn;t there yesterday, you think "Susan with a bruise on her forehead." Description has to take into account what the POV observer would take notice of, not a photographic rescan.
Eyes bulging and foreheads creasing are as much a matter of feeling it, rather than seeing it. Squinting is an action the character takes, so of course he knows he takes it, he doesn't have to see his face to know it. But I respect your right to believe what you wish to believe. Have a good day.
I've already made that point. You're preaching to the choir. The viewpoint character can smell it, taste it, feel it, he might even hear it... that mustard might dominate his every thought. He can't describe it from another person's eyes though. Only from his own. This point has come up, roughly around 5 times, and roughly around 5 times, I've said, yes, I know that, and that wasn't the point. This is like some comical merry-go-round. Like Abbott and Costello's "Who's On First" routine. All that's left is for me to say, "Third base."
Ok guys... all I wanted to know is what the heck to call my POV. All of the options discussed here are valid points of view; we're just arguing about what to call it them. All this time I've been pretty sure that I write in third person limited. After reading through this thread I figured maybe I ought to look it up again. The first page that came up (wikipedia) confirms my thoughts 100%. Hopefully this quote will settle the dispute. I'll bold the important parts. Third Person Limited: So I've been right all along. Thanks, guys, for confusing the hell out of me! As Agreen (and wikipedia) has already said, TPL is just first person with a different vocabulary. Instead of just constantly saying "I" you get a few more options like "he" or "Bob" etc. That's pretty much it. The only difference is that it provides a smoother (in my opinion), more varied, and less self-centered narrative than first person. That's all! The all-knowing third person is fine too, but that's called omniscient. As I understand it there may be different levels of omniscience, but TPL is TPL -- first person in different words.
Yes. Be sure to include enough context that we can determine that this is limited third person, and that the description is of the viewpoint character. In the meantime, From Meg Chittenden's Writing Tips: Third Person http://www.megchittenden.com/writingtips/?pid=8 From Lionhearted Publishing writing tips: http://lionhearted.com/tips.htm One more: This one from "The Elements of Mystery Writing," page 59, which can be viewed at google books. http://books.google.com/books?id=FZ-asa8DRiYC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=third+person+limited+%22own+face%22&source=bl&ots=BDUWeETI9M&sig=LpviSwfWqWzpOTemqgfnAGFmKCc&hl=en&ei=GtYtSri8NsrBtwfU5b2GDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9
Why am I doing this? Well, here, goes: Now, the last sentence is a kicker. The main character is dressed from the head down, yet how does he know he skin color is pale as if its lost all its blood? How can he see his own face, that his nose and cheeks are freezing and have turned ashen? If Jack London can write in this manner, so can I. And none of you can or will stop me. So this idea that you need a mirror to protray a person's a face is hogwash. You can use any element, under the right circumstance, to break away from the norm. This "censored" face image commandment is not set in stone.
EyezForYou. . . Nobody ever said you couldn't write that way. How on earth did you get that impression? This discussion is about what to call it. Your quote reads as omniscient. Maybe it's a limited form of omniscient, focused on that character alone - I don't really care - but it's omniscient, and not TPL. That's all anyone is saying here. There's nothing wrong with either POV or style. The point is that TPL does tend to focus more on emotions and sensations, and thus it is more conducive to showing instead of telling. That's not to say that omniscient is wrong, or that you can't "show" in omniscient. No one ever said that and I can't imagine why anyone ever would. Damn. . . Communication train wreck? I think so.
Kas, The majority of London's work, included the earlier quote, in in omniscent. Nothing wrong with it; it's just not 3L.
Eyes, That was omniscient third person. Here's a lesson in omniscient third person, which is also a discussion of Jack London's "To Build A Fire" : http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=648 Now, nobody here is trying to put you in a box when it comes to your writing. We're all here to help, no one is here to hurt. If you want to write in omniscient third person, great! In fact, the lesson I linked you to may help you write using that POV! Limited third person is a different thing, however, one in which you'll want to avoid the pitfall described by the many authors I quoted. Charlie
Cog, I stumbled across this post and couldn't continue reading the thread because I was so amused. I think you were having a bad typing day. Just reread it... you'll see what I mean ~Lynn
Yes, typing is not my forte, especially when I'm too rushed to go back and make corrections. :redface:
Imagine a story that was all telling instead of showing. You'd put that book down before you reached page 3. It was hot. Jane went inside and turned on the air conditioner. She thought she might have spent too much time outside because she was starting to get a headache. She went to the cabinet to get an aspirin and then went to lay down. As opposed to: Sweat was dripping from Jane's brow as she dropped her purse and turned on her air conditioner. She pressed a hand to her forehead, wishing she'd spent less time in the heat. The flushed cheeks her reflection wore were further proof of her folly. She swallowed an aspirin without bothering to get a glass of water and collapsed onto her bed.
I agree with that, it gets really tideous. Many times I read for great novelists and they put me off because of ages of telling.
