'Relatively' new. The sources mostly cite its popularity increasing over the last 20-40 years. I'm no longer confused, though I was earlier. But I also don't completely agree that everything claimed to be deep 3rd POV hasn't crossed the line into 1st. It's a mighty fine line.
What are you talking about? It's not at ALL what I think of as first person narration, because there's no person involved. So I guess I could add that qualifier, but it's also not quite in what I think of as 2nd person, or 3rd person, or a dragon, or legal advice, or... anything else that's completely not part of the phrasing. Have you noticed how no one else on the thread has been able to understand what you're talking about? That's generally a good sign that what you're saying makes no sense.
Jane Austen used deep third sometimes, so... unless you're really stretching terms, there's very little new about it.
Is this the link you meant? Other than pleading guilty to being inexperienced and/or insecure and therefore persisting in using italics in my writing for direct, first person thoughts, I'd say I'm on board with what Emma Darwin says.
That's the one. I should have posted a link, but I didn't have the address readily available. Nothing wrong with italics so long as it's not pages of it--bit hard on the eyes, then.
It isn't. There's no grey area or shading; it's an absolute. To cross the "line" into first, it'd have to start using I/me pronouns, because that is literally the only distinction between first and third. It's the difference between dead and alive--you must be one or the other (Schrodinger's widely misunderstood experiment aside)--and ill, where you can be a bit ill or very ill. The 'person' is an absolute: dead or alive / first, second or third. The depth or narrative distance is a sliding scale: illness / distant to deep and a million shades in between. Edit: Should've just read the link above, which explains it all very nicely: The person doesn't jump. The narrative voice slides. Nicely put!
I just went to read that link and now I feel like a plagiarist - jumping vs. sliding, mentioning Austen... yikes. I'm not sure if I'd read that link at some previous point and internalized it or if those are reasonably common ways to look at this issue or... huh. But I didn't just go to some other link and come back here and present those ideas as my own! I promise!
I'm talking about you have an opinion and I have one. Why does this have to be an argument? I'm quite happy not to base my opinions on majority rule, thank you. I'm not disagreeing with you, other than your opinion about what does or doesn't read like 1st person. I'm trying to discuss an issue, not assert some authority.
I'm a bit baffled as to why this has to be an argument, too. It feels really uncomfortable, and like there's unfinished business between some of you. Like you're dragging shit from thread to thread. It also reminds me of why I stopped posting here.
I ask myself that almost every time I interact with you, to be honest. And I think I was pretty clear in an earlier post that it's absolutely your opinion about whether you like deep third or not. Not something I'd try to persuade you out of at all. But when it comes down to the meaning of literary terms, there isn't really that much room for opinion, is there? Or at the very least, there's not much room for equally valid opinions. For example, I'm of the opinion that deep third is a form of third person, and you apparently... ? Honestly, I'm not even sure what your opinion is at this point. I always end up kicking myself when I get into these things with you, because I know there's absolutely no chance you're going to change your mind about anything, but I keep doing it because you're making public posts, and other people come here and read what you've written and I think it's important that those people understand that your ideas are not reflective of--well, I want to say they're not reflective of reality, but I'll soften that to say that your ideas are not reflective of a general consensus. At all. So, no argument. But disagreement? Hell, yeah.
Well, to be fair, this thread was spawned from another thread, so... there's a definite connection there. But you're right, as I acknowledged above, that there's probably more to it than that. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but... I don't know. Would it be better to just leave posts unchallenged? Maybe, but then, to be honest, I think I'd be uncomfortable posting here. I'm not sure what the solution is...
There's challenging opinions, and then there's being super ugly about it. It reflects really badly on a person, for starters. Anyway, I'm not looking for other people to suggest solutions. I have my solution and that's to stop posting if I so choose. I just don't see the point in dragging shit, you know, *shit*, from one thread to another. I don't want to derail any further.
@Lost72 : Heck, stay around. A forum is more than one person. Sorry for butting in. *waves the white flag*
Although if anything in this thread qualifies as "super ugly", I think there are likely more issues to come...
Oh, I dunno. When you say something does or does not read like first person, that tells me you (and the rest of us) have an objective idea of what first person POV is. First person POV is where both the narration and the character point of view is carried by a single first person actor, who describes his or her actions using the pronouns I and me and my and mine. The knowledge and experience of that first person narrator/character is restricted to what he or she can personally know, find out, or surmise. She can't fly up and get a birdseye view of her world (assuming we're not writing fantasy, that is) or start walking around in other people's heads and tell us authoritatively what they're thinking. It is a very intimate point of view, giving the reader nearly direct knowledge of the narrator's thoughts, passions, and perceptions. As in, I composed my response, and hoped that Ginger would find it helpful. "I wonder," I said to my cat, who was dozing on the sofa, "if she observes how some authors write characters' intimate thoughts in close 3rd person, and believes that can only happen in 1st." My cat opened one yellow eye, groomed her furry chest a few licks, and went back to sleep. "No, really," I said, sitting down beside my recumbent feline. "There's more to 1st person than close intimate knowledge. You can get that in 3rd person, when you really focus in. And it stays 3rd person. "To be 1st person," I went on, "someone calling themselves 'I' and 'me' has got to be the narrator. And be up front about it." "In that case," retorted my cat. "I'm hungry. Feed me." The point is, mere closeness of POV doesn't make for 1st person, or even identifying the narrator with the POV character. The use of the 1st person pronouns does.
That's right and, okay, I'm rusty on these things since I stopped paying attention to mechanics a while ago. So we have tense--past, present; person--first, second, third; and then we have PoV--omni, limited. All separate. All individual. When we're discussing PoV and the psychic distance within that, neither tense or person need enter in to it. Remembering that makes understanding PoV much easier.
Well, person is usually included under the POV umbrella. There are generally two basic parts to POV - person and narrative distance (omni, limited, close, etc.). Person wouldn't normally change within a given work, but distance certainly might.
See, this is where we all realise we have different names for the same thing. I consider close/deep PoV as part of psychic distance. That's maybe what you call narrative distance, I don't know. But I consider limited to mean, well, to mean the opposite of omni. That is to keep within one or several characters (PoV's changing at scene or chapter breaks), and not filtering their perceptions through one all-seeing entity. I'm not sure I agree with your PoV umbrella. I'll have to think about that.
Yeah, psychic distance, narrative distance - I think they're different words for the same idea. I'm not sure what you mean by the next part - your definition of limited matches my definition... so it seems like we're agreeing, but you've got that "but" there suggesting we aren't, so... I don't know. Oh, unless you're disagreeing with the "might change within a given work" part? I think it's pretty common for writers in third person to slide in closer or out further - not always all the way to omniscient, but sometimes... I think Harry Potter is often used as an example of this, where Rowling tends to start chapters in omniscient to set the scene and then zooms in on the main characters and stays in limited for the rest of the chapter? But I'm not exactly a Rowling expert. I certainly slide from limited to deep and back again in my own work, and I see this pretty often in other books I read. Staying in deep the whole time would end up reading like a sort of stream-of-consciousness thing, I'd say... I use it for spice, but not for the whole meal.
Agreed. It sounds like I misunderstood some of your post. Having said that, this bit: 'I certainly slide from limited to deep and back again in my own work', this is where you confuse me again. To me, what appears to be your definition of limited in this context, I would call 'shallow'. So, a sliding scale of shallow through deep. Generally, though, I think we're probably talking about the same thing, as you say. I haven't read any Harry Potter, but I have dipped in to a sample and know that it started with quite a wide angle. For some reason, I have it in my head that Harry Potter is omni. Somewhere in my brain, I have her PoV characters changing mid-scene. I don't know where that idea comes from since I haven't read any of them. So, the only thing we disagree on is the PoV umbrella. I can live with that
I think being consistent in POV is a challenge for most of us. In third person POV, we unfortunately sometimes sway from omniscient to limited. In first person, somehow a God's eye fell from the sky and we become all-knowing. That's why head-hopping is usually discouraged - to not confuse the readers. And, switching from first person to third person POV - I don't think that'll be a good idea!
I think being consistent in POV is a challenge for most of us. In third person POV, we unfortunately sometimes sway from omniscient to limited. In first person, somehow a God's eye fell from the sky and we become all-knowing. That's why head-hopping is usually discouraged - to not confuse the readers. And, switching from first person to third person POV - I don't think that'll be a good idea!
Well, no. In 1st person we aren't all-knowing. That's the point. The 1st person narrator only knows what he would know as an ordinary, limited, finite human being (or dwarf or demi-god or talking squirrel or . . . ), no seeing around corners allowed.
