Generally when you are making big changes like tat in a graphic novel, a stylistic distinction is involved. Changing fonts, colours or styles is not a cheap trick, its basically industry standard. If you want to see a dfferent approach, have a look at Arkham Asylum by Grant Morrison and (the insurpassable) Dave McKean...the way he handles the shift between Arkham in the past and present is quite novel, although hardly typical.
I have difficulty grasping certain aspects of POV. For example, I have read the following two ideas: (they are verbatim quotes from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_mode ) 1. The person whose point of view is used to relate the story is regarded as the "narrator.” 2. “Narrative point-of-view” determines the person whose perspective the story is viewed through. In simple terms, can someone please explain to this dummy the difference between these two concepts. And while I have your attention: What’s the difference between “third person omniscient” and “an omniscient narrator”? Thank you.
I don't think there is a difference between “third person omniscient” and “an omniscient narrator”. It sounds like two different terms for the exact same thing. However, I suppose an omnicient narrator could be a first-person narration, but that person happens to know everything that is going on. It's not something I would do. As for your definitions for what point of view is, they seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, but in different words. Point if view is simply who is telling the story.
Narrator = person telling the story Narrative POV = that person's POV If you are writing in first person, the narrator is the 'I' voice, and the narrative point of view is just the point of view of that 'I'. 3rdperson omniscient: a mode where the narrator is a "third person", detached from the characters and (while I hate hate hate hate the term 'omniscient') apparently all-knowing/all-seeing. Therefore the omniscient narrator is the person narrating in that above mode. Often, the narrator in 3rd person omniscient isn't a person (actually always, unless the narrator is God, otherwise omniscience is an approxmation or a lie), so you use the generic term "narrator" to mean the voice of the narrative (which MUST be kept separate to the voice of the author). So yeah, just remember the different voices: there's the voice of the author, which is usually implicit in a text, the voice of the narrator, which is always explicit in a text, and the voices of characters. You may also want to note that in 1st person, the voice of the author, narrator and main character, while all existing in the same physical body, are still all separate.
No, the person telling the story is the narrator. The point of view character, that's the person through whose perspective the story is told. They can be the same but often aren't. Cheers, Rob
You could even try something as simple as a different font., or simply start a completely new paragraph, both of which are seen in lindsays dexter in the dark, (the only dexter novel to break away from the entire first person POV concept) to indictae duifferent POV that are being offered (Strangely enough they are all in first person but not from dexters POV)
Hi, I'm working on some scenes where I now noticed that I might be cheating, regarding POV. It's kinda similar to a cheat used in the movie 'The Name Of The Rose', based on Umberto Eco's famous novel (Whether this cheat is also used in his novel, I don't know. Anyone who have read it are welcome to shed some light on it). The story begins by having the MC look back on his life, as an old man. In the film, once we drift into the story, the POV will sometimes follow other characters, while doing things they could not possibly have told the MC about later. But the whole story is, in essence, the memoires of the old man, whos voice will narrate several passages, including the beginning and end (ending shifts to present tense, for the conclusion). These little jumps into different characters' POVs, during a story narrated by the MC later, should be considered cheating...right?
Why would it be a cheat? It's a choice. And like all choices, there are consequences that go with it. If your character gets to look back on the story, it implies to the reader that the character survived. There may be other conclusions the character can draw from the future excursioins as well. You just have to ask yourself if the benefit of the retrospective view outweigs the erosion of suspense. In a sense, they are two different charas=cters, although they do ave an obvious connection.
It would make sense to have your character narrate scenes in which he or she are directly involved in. If they are not, then you shouldn't narrate because it's just a hole in the story. I don't quite understand what you mean by cheating...
Its a stylistic choice, and hardly uncommon. And no, it certainly isn't cheating. It is Realistic? No, but that doesn't mean its 'wrong'. Writing is not real life and need not resemble it. If its in the story's best interests to have the narrator reveal things beyond their expected range of knowledge, then do it.
I agree with Cogito and arron89 in saying that you can completely do that, it's your story, and may be in the best interests to be narrated as such. However, what you might consider doing (only if this makes sense in the construct of your story) is to lampshade it at one point, by saying something along the lines of 'well i wasn't there at this point but so and so swore it happened like this', maybe following an unbelievable feat. this may feel completely out of context in the story, but can be very effective.
Well I'm glad it's not necessarily frowned upon. In my own story I'm changing POV quite a bit, and with several characters being in 1st person, while both the beginning and end are narrated by the MC. My "excuse" is that the sequences outside his POV remain unknown to him even at the end (he doesn't need to know), and are thus not part of his recollections, but instead they're just other characters telling their tales, fitting into the chronology of the MC's tale. Thanks for the input.
I'm working on a graphic novel (also known as a comic book). I don't know if what you say applies here too, but I'd like to know why you think so? To me it feels more personal for the characters to express their own thoughts and feelings from an internal viewpoint. I'm currently reading the novel 'Once Were Warriors' which is entirely written from 1st person views of multiple characters and it really feels like getting under their skins when you hear their inner struggles in their own voices.
The rules don't apply that way for graphic novels because the medium is so very different. A first-person narration isn't necessarily reflected in the illustrations, for instance; the text and images don't have to be in the same tense or from the same point of view.
Yeah, I had a hunch that the media differ in that sense. My all-time favourite 'The Sandman' uses countless narratives in different tenses, to the point where it almost becomes a blur.
I read Cogito's What's your Point of View blog entry, and he mentioned the Popcorn POV, along with the "whenever possible, avoid it." Now, to be fair with you, I am using the popcorn POV quite often as I think it gives a cinematic view and managed to draw the reader inside the story. How wrong is it to use this type of POV for one's story?
Just so people knjow what he is referring to, this is the link to the blog entry: What's Your Point (of View)? Popcorn POV is a term I coined. I won't comment further at this point, because I've already made my initial point in the article.
Personally I wouldn't say it's wrong. But with a really minor change, you can suck the reader much more into the scene. Immersion is essential and every little bit helps.
everything depends on how well you can write... the worst techniques can be successful in the hands of a rare few master wordsmiths and the best methods can flop when tried by those with little talent and/or poor skills...
I think it is usually best to remove filter words: heard, saw, felt, etc whenever possible. It's usually a minor tweek and easy to do. The context is that they lifted the bottom of their shirts to form a make-shift pouch, which they have to hold with one hand. becomes
