First, and I've been struggling with this one for some time now, I understand thet (And please, correct me if I'm wrong) you can identify, on a very general scale, three main Third Person Perspective narrators. The "camera-like" narrator, the omnipresent narrator and the "limited" narrator (Which is similar to the omnipresent but his "knowledge" is limited to just one character in the story.) I want to practice narration on the third person but I can't figure out which of those three to use. I'm sure you can somehow change between them on the course of the story, and even change to first person perspective also, but I don't believe I'm skilled enough to actually manage to do that, so I'd rather stick with one perspective from start to finish. Which of those three would you choose between the others? And why? Second, I've been often told that, at least on something similar to fiction novel writing, it's better to "show" rather than "tell", in a way that you wouldn't much describe a character's emotions, but you would point out certain actions that would suggest, to the reader, certain emotion. At which point do you believe this is true? Does that mean that you wouldn't point out a character's emotion directly at all? And, finally, I've read that you should start your story where it actually happens and not before. This, in a way that if in your story your plot starts, let's say, on a certain day of 2000, you shouldn't start by telling something that happened before that. Instead, if that thing you want to tell to your readers is, in fact, something meaningfull to the story itself, you should show it later using other techniques, such as dialog between characters, for example. At what point do you think that doing so is, in fact, true? Please, forgive me if any of this questions have been answered before. I looked for them on the forums but I couldn't find something similar.