Character thoughts in 3RDPOV

Discussion in 'Character Development' started by lonelystar, Jan 14, 2018.

  1. deadrats

    deadrats Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,088
    Likes Received:
    7,421
    Are you guys just making up POVs now? ;)
     
    BayView and Homer Potvin like this.
  2. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    @Kenosha Kid , above you say "and the world", but that's ambiguous. The world that that character perceives, or any/all of it?

    If the narrator chooses one character at a time and presents us with only the things that that character is aware of--thoughts, feelings, memories, sensory input from the world, and awareness of their own actions and the intent behind those actions--that's not omniscient. If you define it as omniscient, then I see no reason why first person shouldn't also be regarded as omniscient.

    Your definition of "omniscient" seems to be tied in with some sort of physical definition of the narrator--as if a non-omniscient narrator is an assemblage with a camera and a microphone and maybe some other senses or maybe not (if the story mentions smells, do you call that omniscient?) and anything that can't be detected by that equipment is off limits.

    But that's an arbitrary definition. Many people define a 3rd limited narrator, if they think about it at all, as a witness riding around inside a character--one character's--head, with access to everything that's going on in that head, but no more. It's essentially first person with the grammar transformed and a little more flexibility with regard to emotional distance.
     
    BayView likes this.
  3. DeeDee

    DeeDee Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    418
    Kudos for the effort :superagree:B5 made me laugh, I like that. If this all works for you, then great. It doesn't matter what you call those categories for yourself, do explore! Language is a wonderful thing and can be lots of fun.
    Only your system doesn't work because you are inventing new categories and filling them with your own meaning while using other people's terminology, which already means something else. That would be like starting to use the word "television" instead of the word "gravity" and then explaining the laws of physics: "Televisioin is what makes apples fall to the ground." It just doesn't work because people think "television" means something else.

    Of course you can invent. Anybody can invent. Especially when it comes to writing, which is a creative thing. But then comes the issue of communication. When we communicate we need common language. Remember when Lewis Carrol invented new words for "Alice in Wonderland"? "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe". Do you know what brillig means? Can you describe how a tove looks like? Or what does it mean to gimble? I bet you cannot imagine the picture described in that poem because the meaning of those words was only known to Mr. Carrol. Had Mr. Carrol said: "Twas daytime, and the little mosquitoes did sit and sing in the mist." it would have been a clear image, right? Because we can understand the words straightaway. And that's why we use common terminology. We understand each other better that way, and it's much easier to convey knowledge with common terminology, rather than if everybody invented new words for things.

    People post all sorts on the internet, now that everybody is connected and has an opinion. Who's right, who's wrong is up to you to decide. But don't just believe that something is an established fact just because it was "on a site". Best way to check an established fact is to check an established source. Consensus on literary terminology does exist, as with any other formal area of knowledge. If, for example you go to study literature in school/university etc, there is an established terminology there and that's the prevalent one most people will be familiar with. So it's easiest in discussions to use those terms and their meaning. Otherwise we'll be just arguing about the meaning of certain terms and learn nothing about the actual subject of the discussion. (which currently was how to express thoughts in certain POV )
     
  4. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    I mean the objective world, as opposed to how it is perceived phenomenologically.

    I mean just ad-hoc access to the characters' subjectivities.

    I think you're extending my film analogy further than I can vouchsafe :p

    I'm not sure I feel ready for "non-omniscient"... that seems broad to the point of not being very useful.

    That sounds like B4. Are you saying A4 is not limited? If a story only reveals the thoughts and emotions of the MC, but also describes objective things e.g. gives historical context above and beyond what the MC knows, you wouldn't call it limited?
     
  5. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    You seem uncertain as to whether I'm inventing these terms or basing my usage of them on one source. I can assure you neither accusation has foundation. Since I was using these terms yesterday, it is unlikely they were influenced by my googling today, and if you take a look yourself, you'll find all of them in use elsewhere.
     
  6. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    That sounds omniscient.

    Correct. If a story tells the reader anything that the current viewpoint character does not know, then it's not limited.
     
  7. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    But your definition of these terms does not match the consensus definition. So whether you call it inventing or redefining, you're doing something.
     
    BayView likes this.
  8. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    Ah interesting. I've never heard it used for anything other than one subjectivity before. A lot of books I see cited as first person limited, like Harry Potter, Crime & Punishment, would not be so under your schema.

    Question: do you consider third person objective to be omniscient?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  9. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    We clearly agree on some. One of yours I don't recognise from anywhere. I'm not sure you're all using the same terms in the same way either. Show me the consensus definition. Today is a learning day.
     
  10. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    A quick Google tells me that Crime and Punishment is generally regarded as omniscient.

    The vast majority of scenes in Harry Potter, as best I can recall, are compliant with the requirements of third person limited. But there are some bits that are omniscient. I struggle to choose an overall POV label for the entire series.

    If third person objective shows things that the character currently being focused on doesn't perceive, or it doesn't focus on any one character, then, yes, I'd call it omniscient.

    Which one?

    "Consensus" pretty much by definition doesn't have a single authority. A fair number of people have high regard for LeGuin's Steering the Craft; she's quoted as offering this definition for third person limited:

    "Only what the viewpoint character knows, feels, perceives, thinks, guesses, hopes, remembers, etc., can be told. The reader can infer what other people feel and think only from what the viewpoint character observes of their behaviour."

    Edited to add: Nobody elected Reedsy god, but this is a fairly tidy and well-written discussion of both third person omniscient and third person limited:

    https://blog.reedsy.com/third-person-omniscient-vs-limited/
     
  11. DeeDee

    DeeDee Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    418
    You can start by looking at the meaning of the terms themselves: "limited" and "omniscient" refers to the range of knowledge possessed by the narrator (one is limited and one is knowledge of everything). "Subjective" and "objective" refer not to a range, but to bias. We have subjective POV when the narrator sees the world via the character's understanding: "Jenny kicked the frog. Yewww, she thought, what an ugly thing!". Objective POV can be used in a narrative that is neutral, or at least different from the way this one character sees the world. In our example, the narrator doesn't agree with Jenny that frogs are ugly. On the contrary, the narrator tells the story from a more compassionate and animal-loving viewpoint: "Jenny kicked the little green thing, with no remorse in her cruel heart. As she performed the cruel act, angry words seeped through her lips:' Yeww, what an ugly thing!' "
     
  12. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    Indeed. I use the terms "subjective" to mean from a strictly subjective point of view, "objective" to mean a strictly objective point of view, and "omniscient" to mean an unrestricted point of view. Like pretty much everyone else in the world.

    I don't bother with "limited", "close", "alternating", "universal" etc. myself because they're redundancies imo, as per my post to Bayview. But I'm aware that the terms are used and I haven't lost sleep over it yet.
     
  13. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    A narrator with no power to access his character's thoughts is omniscient? That really is misusing the word imo. It's rather contrary to what the word means. Filming an empty room would manifest omniscience by that logic.
     
  14. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    If you agree that "Omniscient" is unrestricted, then why do you use omniscient for a POV that only knows what a single character knows? (That is, third person limited.) That doesn't seem very unrestricted to me.

    A narrator with access to only one character's thoughts is omniscient? That really is misusing the word IMO.
     
  15. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    I don't use "omniscient" if the narrative is consistently from a single person's perspective; I'd use "subjective". If the perspective is changing, either between objective and subjective or between subjective perspectives ad hoc, I'd use "omniscient". If there's no subjective perspective at all, "objective".

    I think using "omniscient" to describe a narrator limited to objective facts is just confusing, and I very much doubt there's a consensus for it.
     
  16. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    OK, I'm going to narrow this, because there seems to be a change. You appeared, earlier, to be arguing that what I defined as third person limited (a narrative point of view that possesses the knowledge, senses, thoughts, feelings, memories etc., of ONE character) was omniscient because it had access to thoughts. You are no longer arguing that?
     
    BayView likes this.
  17. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    Yup, this is the standard set of definitions, and it sounds like Kenosha is now agreeing with it, so... you win!

    I would disagree slightly, though, with the "pick one and stick with it" rule... I think one of the strengths of third person is how easy it is to slide in and out re. narrative distance. JK Rowling does it very smoothly (and obviously successfully!) but other authors are good at it, too. They'll start a chapter or a book or a section in omniscient and then zoom in on the viewpoint character and stay in limited for the rest of the passage. It's a useful way to give some setting or background information that the viewpoint character might not have, and then move in to take advantage of the strengths of limited third. I think JK may zoom out at some points, too, but I only think that based on other people's commentary - I haven't actually read beyond the first book myself.

    ETA: I spoke too soon. Sounds like Kenosha is NOT really agreeing with it... maybe...?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  18. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    I doubt it. The earliest comparable thing I think I said to you was:

    "Yeah I agree, I'd use "third person subjective" to describe a one-character PoV, even if the PoV changed every chapter say, so long as for a given unit of the story (a chapter, or part, or book say) it stuck with one character"

    As far as I've seen, our terminology hasn't differed that much. I made an effort above to try and pin down the actual differences. So far as I gather, they are: a) I take "limited" to mean a single subjective perspective, irrespective of whether that appears in an omniscient narrative (like Harry Potter) or a subjective one (like 1984), but as I said, I don't see the point in the term myself; b) you use "omniscient" to describe a narrator who has no access to characters' thoughts, emotions, etc. which is just flat out wrong imo.

    Is this a reference to my subjective/omniscient mix-up I already alerted you to? Maybe quote the post?
     
  19. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    Hahaha no I don't.
     
  20. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    I don't think anyone's saying omniscient narrators don't have access to characters' thoughts and emotions.
     
  21. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    OK, let's try this again:

    Is a narrator that has access to one and only one character's thoughts, feelings, memories, sensory input, etc., etc., an omniscient narrator to you or not?

    Near the beginning of the thread you said:

    This sounds like you believe(d) that inner monologue means an omniscient narrator. Did you mean that? If you did, do you still believe that? If you didn't, what did the above quote mean?
     
  22. lonelystar

    lonelystar Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2018
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    62
    As a newbie to the group I'd like to say thank you for the technical explanations of POV but would like to be the really boring person and point out that my original question seams to have been forgotten.
    Question time, do we
    A) bring this thread back on topic
    OR
    B) kill off this thread because it's served its purpose
    .......
     
    DueNorth likes this.
  23. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Oh, threads drift off purpose all the time. :) Do you feel that your question hasn't been answered? If so, can you rephrase the question?
     
    BayView likes this.
  24. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Returning to that first post:

    OK, I missed the last question: If you speak in third person, as in your example, it would be was, because you're in the narrator's voice. You would not italicize the thoughts. Whether to sit her down and tell us she's wondering is up to you; it's neither wrong or mandatory. Your example is fine.

    If you switch to first person, then it would probably be present tense (Am I doing the right thing? Will he hurt me like Joe did?) and if you are an advocate of italics for thought, which I'm not, you'd put it in italics.

    Either choice is fine. (Well, I don't think that the italic thoughts are fine, but plenty of other people do.)
     
  25. Kenosha Kid

    Kenosha Kid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    83
    If the perspective changes to that of the perspective character, either from objective or from another perspective ad hoc, that is omniscient.

    As Bayview pointed out, it could be that the OP is staying with the same perspective, in which case it would be subjective. I assumed from the consideration of italics, which would be superfluous in a subjective viewpoint, from the fact that the question is being raised at all, and from the fact that omniscient is pretty much the default, that this was a change in perspective.

    Aye sorry about that. It does semi-pertain to your question, but your question certainly didn't warrant three pages of it! I think it's run its course. Welcome to the forum!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice