IDK. Gives more for scenery description? The reader is a fly on the wall? I know it works great in video games because you can see what is sneaking up behind you.
That's not third person limited. The "limited" means that the reader can't see anything that the viewpoint character can't see.
It's not freedom so much as less likelihood to have to explain why someone happens to know something. The over arching narrator can know what people think and why. He/she can know what's over the horizon. First person you'd have to explain the guy went there, and came back. With the objective, god mode narrator, there's no one wondering how.
I want to frame both of these posts. I didn't realise anybody held this assumption (that a first person narrator is literally narrating the story to the reader) until I joined writing forums. It's very odd.
I also didn't know anyone made those assumptions until it was mentioned here. Bizarre, especially since the empirical evidence is to the contrary.
Just please, by all that is unholy, do not try telling your story in second person. I forget who did this, maybe Charles Stross, <edit: Yup, him>, told a story in second person present tense. Like &%#@ I do! You're not the boss of me! Fine if you're writing a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book or a sequel to "Collosal Cave", but as a novel? Didn't finish more than five pages.
There is some good second person fiction for adults, it's just not easy to pull off. Stross isn't the only one who has done it.
There may be, but I don't think you'll manage to convice me of it, it's just not my thing. One point worth making, I think, is that Stross was pretty well established when he wrote that one. If you've already got a fan-base, experimenting is a bit safer than if you're just getting started. Of course, you might get lucky and pull of the "fresh new voice" thing, but I'm personally disinclined to go too far off grammatical and stylistic reservation (until I've got people pre-ordering my books )
Challenge accepted. You decide on a writing exercise and wonder why you have? Yes, you're going to convert a chapter of your work for (masochistic) fun to second person present with a smidge of future tense too. Ever mindful of the task ahead, you're going to need to limit your bandwidth by this endeavour yet still possess the range to get so close into your reader's mind—that they give up independent thought. All independent thought Iain, look into my eyes, your readers will need to lose all independent thought. You look to your pen, you look to your pad, empty is the latter yet full is your ink cartridge. You feel a draft waft and cool you uncomfortably in this creaky writer's shed. But don't let it distract you, it's a draft on the page you want. Your words, the words of you. Your forefinger and thumb twitch, those words, yes the 'the' of those words, they are a-coming. Scratch, scratch...you scratch away with your fountain pen. Fountains of ink cascade, taking your orders to take their order on what was once white.. and blank. And wide awake. Scratch that. I fess to writing a few chapters in that manner. Ended up like a badly ( I didn't need to type badly did I) put 80s roleplay game script mashed with the world's worst self-hypnosis book.
That applies to omniscient third, but not limited third. To me, limited third is essentially the same as first person, just with different pronouns. And, of course, none of this related to tense.
Yes. This is just a matter of some basic concepts, and getting the nuances between types of POV (not to be confused with tense). I agree that limited third is substantively essentially the same as first person. Also, it should be noted that you can also do a first-person omniscient (or god mode) narration, though it is tricky. I've seen bits of it from time to time, but can't recall an entire novel set up that way.
Lovely Bones was first person omniscient, I'd say - the narrator is a ghost who traces her circumstances leading up to her death. And I feel like Galapagos by Vonnegut may have been first omniscient as well - I remember the narrator there, again a ghost, playing a part in at least some of the events. In both cases, though, the stories often read in third person, as the first person narrator is chiefly an observer and only occasionally able to act in any way. Couple years since I read either, though, so I'm open to correction!
You wake up. You shuffle into the pee parlor. You drain the dragon, then shuffle into your kitchen. There, you automatically without looking, as you're still wondering why you were dreaming of skateboarding mailmen, load up your drip coffee machine, and hit the on button. Then, you navigate impossibly to the front door, open it, then the storm door, and gasping for air at the sudden rush of icy wind in your face, grimace with eyes shut as you feel around for your morning paper, which seems to almost always be there, leaning against the sill. Who says you're not a creature of habit, missing most of the best of life because of an endless loop you've landed yourself in? Not only is second person possible, it can be quite innovative and informative.
