I did a quick google search and found a good looking guide with regards to point of view in literature... https://thewritepractice.com/point-of-view-guide/ Personally I usually write in Third Person Omniscient.
I have written very few stories, but I usually think about them as something that is told by someone. There is always a storyteller, and in my stories this teller is some flavour of me. If I wrote in first person there aren't many stories to tell, and they wouldn't be very interesting. But in third person I can have as many interesting characters as I like. I wrote a story once about a storyteller traveling between bazaars, sitting down on his rug and telling stories, hoping that his listeners would throw him some coins. He knew more than a thousand stories, (he exaggerated a little) and the stories were for young and for old, about love and hate, for housewives and merchants. How could he ever tell these in first person? So for me third person is what I write.
I never struggle with having a lot of characters in first person. Each has a voice in dialog, and each is identifiable in narrative. In fact the wife asked how do you keep track of all the characters...My answer, post-its.
Doesn't really answer the question about pros and cons, but thanks for posting that link. I write in a style that comes naturally, and, for me, that's usually third person limited (not that I knew that until reading your link). For the last 3 or 4 chapters of my WIP, I've been working on the subplot, which follows the protagonist's dad and his search for answers (a bit of a cliche, when written like that - but that's why it's a subplot ), so readers are getting to see his POV, and, except when he interacts with others, that's the only POV they get. As I'm writing, I'm handing over previous chapters to family to read - why? Because my characters have thrown so many curve balls in this novel, that even I can't say what's going to happen next which means I can't give them spoilers and I've had 2 out of 3 of them tell me they really feel for "Dad" (I'll get to know what the third person thinks this afternoon) which is great, because that's exactly what I was aiming for. It doesn't matter what his two companions think and feel - this part of the story isn't about them. Just my opinion, though.
I don't think I have a preference anymore. I used to write in only third person, but now the book I'm writing is first person. A few people tell me I'm better at the latter, and maybe they're right. It feels more personal I guess. But truthfully, I'd be just as happy to write in third person again, so long as the story is right. The same goes for reading. I am happy to switch between both and find that it all depends on the author or the book. I can't imagine something like Game of Thrones being anything but third person, but I could never see Life of Pi as anything but first. I think more books tend to be third person but that could be just the ones I pick. It's not very often I read a book and think they've chosen the wrong person. It's usually because of something else instead.
I prefer third person for reading and writing. There is something about first person that I have never enjoyed and it may be the fact that I feel limited by it. I can only share what the protagonist is aware of. Also, first person seems more personal while third person feels more disconnected, which I enjoy.
I am practising writing by doing shorts. I almost always write them in third person but only one POV. But I wanted to try two POVs. It's a boy meets girl thing. About ten short scenes . They meet in the first but the others they are separated. It ends just before they are to meet again. Interaction between them during these scenes are some SMS messages. I really liked the scenes they are separated and interacting with their separate worlds. I have some friends that read what I write. Sometimes they ask what happens next in the story. Usually I have nothing more to tell. I wanted to say one thing and I have done that. In this story I can see a continuation. But… I had problems already in the first scene. How do you mix two POV’s when you have interacting characters? I don't think I handled well. It doesn't flow. Looking at it again I see that I cheat, sortof. The scene is mostly dialogue and some very distant narration. She takes a small nap, and he runs a small errand. (of course those things doesn’t happen simultaneous) I don’t think I have read much like this. Any ideas, pointers, recommended reading?
It might be easier to write it from third-person omniscient; rather than having the two characters' POVs themselves, an all-knowing narrator could correct the flow, though that might require additional exposition to provide more context to the dialogue and the reasoning behind each character's actions, due to the reader not being able to directly see their thoughts. The narrator could even become a character themselves through their commentaries and observations of the boy and girl, though that might be more of a meta route. Another suggestion would be to write in third-person limited, but separate their POVs in either scenes or entire chapters, depending on the exact length of the story as a whole. In that route, there could be more ambiguity between each character; for example, when one believes themselves to have made a mistake in their messages, suspense could be added through deliberately not showing to the audience how the other character might feel until a later point in time. That could emphasize the difficulties in maintaining long-distance friendships/relationships, as, in texting, people can no longer use body or facial language to communicate with each other--and it's easier to hide certain things or to lie. Just be forewarned of head-hopping, as that might be the culprit behind the damaged flow; it's debatable what qualifies as head-hopping, but how I define it is when the perspective changes between characters so often and is so ill-defined that I no longer know whose thoughts I'm even seeing anymore. It's not at all similar in its premise, but a novel that often changes perspectives between an entire class of middle-school students is Battle Royale; it's told in third-person limited. Despite it falling into a different genre (horror and action, to be specific), it would serve as a fine example of writing in multiple POVs without breaking immersion or confusing the reader.
Like the previous post said omni is the obvious way to go. If you’re trying something less conventional (experimental stuff) then doing first person could be very interesting especially for comic effect in how words can be misinterpreted.
In my point of view the colloquy should by directed towards one idea, although POV's of characters are different. The writer should be able to lead the reader to a clear point of view; to the reason why he led the characters in his story behave in a certain way and talk in such manner. And I wish all good writers all the best.
My current WIP follows 3 main characters, as do most of my books, and up til now I've only written in 1st person and some 3rd limited. Has anyone seen anything written in omniscient but with a focus on 3 characters who lead the action in the novel? I'm reading Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell right now and enjoying it but I don't like how the focus changes so frequently from character to character, making it hard to settle into one of them and enjoy the story. If you read something written in omniscient but it only focused on the actions and thoughts of 3 characters, would that way of telling a story seem stunted, confusing- how would it affect you personally? Also, if anyone wants to share their general opinion of omniscient I am begging to hear it. It's looking like it might be a good fit for me and this novel, but I've read it has a lot of pitfalls, may be considered outdated, and still not sure how agents and editors will look at it. I know the story itself is what matters but the POV seems integral as well. Thanks for your time!
I don't know about stunted, but it certainly possesses the possibility of being confusing. There's no certainty that it will be, but it opens the door to the possibility. Frank Herbert's Destination: Void is like that. Love you, Frank, but jinkies, you may know who this thought belongs to, but you need to write it in a way that we know who this thought belongs to. Not his best work, though the later novels in the series clean that problem up.
My general feeling about Omniscient is that it creates a lot of distance between the reader and the characters. This might be exactly what you want. If, for example, you are examining a silly group of characters and you want the readers to get the silliness right away, Omniscient would be a good choice. Or—maybe all three of your characters are selfish in their own way, and you want the reader to stand back and recognise how selfish they are, even though they are all different. You don't want the reader to identify with them. It boils down to identification. Third Person Limited brings a character closer to the reader, making the reader more likely to identify with that character. Your reader will be seeing their part of the story as that POV character would see it—not as an observer would see it.
There's definitely scope in this style to write something very unique. Although, I've read very few books with this kind of narration... Maybe it could be a good way to tell a story that has the purpose of being a warning against something? It might also be interesting to see a collection of short stories done in this POV, to give the reader chance to have a break in between if they find the storytelling more taxing than one done in say, third person. That's just me wondering what people could do with it haha Clarity would surely be something you'd have to be careful of with this though, and as someone who has to take care with this in her own work where I write mostly in the third person, it would take me so many drafts to get it right. It reminds me (a little) of the way Deadpool is done, breaking the fourth wall and such. I would definitely play around with it to see what could be done, but as far as a full book written in this POV, I wouldn't know. I can't imagine there wouldn't be an audience interested in a book written in Omniscient. I think my interest in this POV is because I enjoy having some distance between myself and the character? I often feel too close when I read something in the first person. (On a side note, it might be interesting to have a contest done with this POV to see what others can do with it.)
Unless you really really need to have multiple characters' thoughts in a single scene, I think that third person limited with a shifting POV character is a lot less risky and a lot less difficult. I can like omniscient when it's very well done, but doing it very well is hard. Edited to add: Robert Barnard's Death of a Mystery Writer is arguably omniscient, or it's a third person limited tightrope act; it's hard to decide. He smoothy and gracefully moves from POV to POV within a single scene, and I not only don't mind, I don't notice. No, I've just decided it's omniscient, because sometimes his POV is more than one person: "The family exchanged glances, then, conscious of Merdith's eyes on them, wished they had kept them to themselves." It works. And I can't begin to imagine making it work myself, not until I've written a couple million more words of fiction.
As usual, Chicken Freak, you have come up with a precise example to illustrate a complicated point—a one-sentence demonstration of how Omniscient can work. "The family exchanged glances, then, conscious of Merdith's eyes on them, wished they had kept them to themselves." It's not only a multiple POV (giving inner thoughts of each character in the scene), but it's a GROUP multiple POV. I'm impressed. If I was Barnard I might substitute 'those glances' for the second 'them' to ensure clarity, but otherwise this is a perfect example.
I'm one of the few people who uses omniscient. I just love narrative. I love having a narrative that has its own slang and curses. I have multiple MC's too but it is written in a way that is almost like third person limted. The only difference is that the narration can observe others and readers can see what is going on in everyone's head. There are simple ways to make sure it doesn't get confusing without spoonfeeding the reader.
Philip Pullman's, His Dark Materials series (The Golden Compass/The Subtle Knife/The Amber Spyglass) are Third Person Omniscient. Might be a good idea to pick one of those three books and give it a read and see if it appeals to you. I prefer Limited, myself. The problem I had with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell wasn't the shifting POV (though it is confusing at times), it was the all too predictable, and convenient magic.
Since you use this a lot, what advice would you be able to offer when it comes to writing in this POV? It is something I haven't come across very often!
Narrative makes a story even better than one without sometimes. I'd also like to know the simple ways if you feel like sharing
I am currently outlining and creating a "rule or God book" for my saga, which is my dream project and I expect will take a long time to write, and I have hit a point where I cannot decide on how to fix this impasse by myself. Perhaps some of you can help; I will describe the foundations of the plot I have already decided on so you can vote: The universe itself is a unique version of the Edwardian age I created with some Dieselpunk and Fantasy elements. All the continents and countries in this world will be entirely fictional. The God of this universe will be a proactive entity that acts through some rare chosen humans born with special eyes that allows them to see things normal humans can't at specific locations that belonged to a dead civilization, superior intellect and lack of aging (do not get old but aren't immortal). These special beings, placeholder name "overseers" serve as advisors to absolute monarchs that govern the nations of this world, and gather to vote on divine decrees that sometimes obligate these monarchs to act on their behalf on a special council that takes place in a neutral country. The main character will be a soldier for one of these nations during a war with a neighbor for territory, the war is indecisive and during the peace negotiations the other, winning nation demands his surrender as a condition for a peace deal, after the MC is betrayed by his nation and spends a few years in prison, he stages an uprising along other prisoners, and escapes. These prisoners mount a revolutionary movement to take power in the nation the MC comes from, and he, reluctantly joins to take revenge on all the important figures that betrayed him. I figured would be the first book. By the second book, halfway through his revenge, the country is torn into a bloody civil war and the MC becomes torn when the child his wife is expecting turns out to be born an overseer. Since the revolutionaries' ideals compel them to eliminate the overseers as well as the ruling class to install a new order in the country, even his allies turn on him and he must flee the country. This would be the second book. The third one would take place after a significant time skip. I haven't outlined it yet. I realize this was quite a wall of text, so those of you who were able to bear with me and my poor english(not a native speaker) for so long, please help me choose a POV and give me some tips as well. Thank you.
Great plot. First person for your MC for a large part of the start-mid of the book, then in the remainder it is split between MC and a special rare human first point of view so we see both sides.
I never did anything like that before. How would I pull of the frequent transitions without destroying momentum or confusing the reader?
